That said, Jesse Helms is full of crap

March 31, 2006 9:44 AM

That said, Jesse Helms is full of crap.
posted by The Jesse Helms to Etiquette/Policy at 9:44 AM (141 comments total)

Most guys would get threats of ass-kicking from their buddies for being so inconsiderate

These answers are unhelpful, unrealistic, naive, show inexperience, and don't even address your problem. Ignore them.

No. No no no no.

Worst. Answer. Ever.

What a fucking load of crap.

I've read a lot of stupid shit on AskMe over the years, but that list may now have a new #1.

I appreciate rebuttals, and listen intently to criticism. Yet, there is something to be said for letting the poster make up his or her own mind. My experience has led me to certain defining positions. It is almost certain to be different than yours. Differences may include geography, income, experience, travel, whatever. My point, then, is to ask for calmness in answering hot button topics. Respect others. We are together not in experience but in intent. Although it is possible I am taking the Internet too seriously.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:44 AM on March 31, 2006

I think all of those criticisms are dead on... and couldn't really be said any differently.
posted by Witty at 9:49 AM on March 31, 2006

This one time, I stood around poking a family of lions with a tree branch. Now I think I'm going to sue the zoo.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 9:50 AM on March 31, 2006

"Most men take a mistress" -- Really? I doubt it.
posted by Roger Dodger at 9:50 AM on March 31, 2006

It is also possible you are being disingenuous right now. Your answer to that one is not the only piece of...odd...advice you have given recently on AskMe.
posted by dersins at 9:51 AM on March 31, 2006

You were wrong. And leading off an AskMe thread with three posts in a row comes closer to soapboxing than it appropriate on AskMe.

On preview: Ditto Saucy Intruder.
posted by cribcage at 9:52 AM on March 31, 2006

look, you're a very opinionated man (and I often agree with your ideas) but whenever you state your opinions in a pretty forceful manner you should expect some heated reactions, especially on hot button topics and all.

I could forward you some interesting e-mail that I receive from my MeFi brethren -- being vitriolic can generate heated answers
posted by matteo at 9:52 AM on March 31, 2006

There are a lot of examples of AskMe threads where someone has posted an answer they believe, and the rest of the community has said "no". Deal with it.
posted by graventy at 9:53 AM on March 31, 2006

I hope it is clear that you (TJH) do not deserve an ass-kicking for suggesting such a thing, but rather that most men I know would not approve of one of their friends taking a mistress.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:56 AM on March 31, 2006

The Jesse Helms - if being told that you are full of crap on this here internets is the worst thing that happens to you today then rejoice.
posted by longbaugh at 9:57 AM on March 31, 2006

Yet, there is something to be said for letting the poster make up his or her own mind.

If the poster wasn't anonymous, I assume they would have told you were dead wrong too. That said, your poor answers should have been flagged and not directly rebutted in the hread.
posted by terrapin at 9:58 AM on March 31, 2006

It's true, though. You are full of crap. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Some of my best friends are full of crap.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:58 AM on March 31, 2006

Yet, there is something to be said for letting the poster make up his or her own mind.

Well now that's just silly. He asked a question. You gave an answer. Several other people found your answer to be horrifyingly wrong, and said so. That's how these things work.
posted by Shutter at 10:01 AM on March 31, 2006

Yet, there is something to be said for letting the poster make up his or her own mind.

When you say something early in a thread that is faux-authoritative ("most men take a mistress" vs. "you could cheat on your girlfriend -- that's just what I would do, mind you"), controversial, and probably incorrect, you should expect to have people jump down your throat.
posted by MarkAnd at 10:01 AM on March 31, 2006

That said, your poor answers should have been flagged and not directly rebutted in the [t]hread.

I disagree with that. Strongly. When we see a piece of irresponsible advice given in an AskMe thread, I think we have a responsibility to rebut it-- although preferably in the course of providing our own advice.
posted by dersins at 10:01 AM on March 31, 2006

Is this for real?

As antifuse says, "The Jesse Helms seems to be giving some odd advice today."
posted by grouse at 10:03 AM on March 31, 2006

Suck it up, TJH. You gave a very, very bad answer to a question (and in multiple posts, too). This has been pointed out to you. No need to get all huffy about it.
posted by jokeefe at 10:03 AM on March 31, 2006

Every time a guy tells me that Most Guys Cheat, I just shake my fucking head.

That said, yeah, it'd be nice if people could be more respectful in disagreeing with your attitude on the subject.

That said, I think you're full of crap on the subject, too. Not so much in the sense that your position does not reflect some demonstrable slice reality, as the sense that it's a crappy, crappy slice to be demonstrating.
posted by cortex at 10:04 AM on March 31, 2006

...and then you called yourself out in MeTa. Were you having too good a day up to this point?
posted by MarkAnd at 10:04 AM on March 31, 2006

grouse, don't you even read the comments before posting yours?
posted by dersins at 10:05 AM on March 31, 2006

I think some people should have added more to the conversation besides just saying you're full of crap, and most of them did. That said it's totally appropriate for them to say that they think your point of view and assertions aren't correct. Not having any contact information in your profile means that people will reply in-thread instead of taking to email or your website. I got IMed from someone asking if they should start a MeTa thread about your borderline-obnoxious comments and I went to see if they did and it seems like you did it yourself.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:05 AM on March 31, 2006

I regret not noticing the metatalk thread before I responded to you in-thread. (jessamyn/mathowie, if you feel it's too much of a derail there, please move that comment here or just delete it entirely.) Otherwise, I stand by every word. (Including "No. No no no no," which wasn't even directed at you.)
posted by ook at 10:07 AM on March 31, 2006

yes, that was pretty bad advice, jesse ...

*cues johnny taylor*

"who's making love to your old lady, while you were out making love?*
posted by pyramid termite at 10:13 AM on March 31, 2006

You down wit' OPP?
posted by jonmc at 10:17 AM on March 31, 2006

Do you have enough attention yet, Mr. Helms?

Every comment on your ridiculous answers was dead on. Stop talking out of your ass and people might be a little more respectful.
posted by cedar at 10:17 AM on March 31, 2006

MetaFilter: It's like Twin Peaks, only crazy!
posted by blue_beetle at 10:25 AM on March 31, 2006

Well, ok. I'll take a break.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:27 AM on March 31, 2006

Although it is possible I am taking the Internet too seriously.

Or it could be karma, or you know, you reep what you sow. You complaining about what others say about you rings hollow. Hate, and receive hate, mr. helms.

But don't bitch about it. It's not pretty.
posted by justgary at 10:29 AM on March 31, 2006

The Jesse Helms' response seems to be in line with another statement he's made about the role of money and security in a relationship, so I believe this response was made in earnest, not out of disingenuousness, as suggested by dershins. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:32 AM on March 31, 2006

Way to shoot the messenger.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 10:33 AM on March 31, 2006

Or it could be karma, or you know, you reep what you sow.

*Reeps bitter teers*
posted by interrobang at 10:35 AM on March 31, 2006

What, are you the Fox News of AskMe now? Not every question needs to have every dissenting view given Fair & Balanced consideration.

I think that your clearly-provocative statement in that thread, along with the hasty "my feelings are hurt" callout of it, topped off with your recent AskMe questions, says a lot about someone, and it's not Mr. Anonymous.
posted by mkultra at 10:37 AM on March 31, 2006

Enough already. He said he'll take a break.
posted by brain_drain at 10:38 AM on March 31, 2006

Most men take a mistress.

>My experience has led me to certain defining positions. It is almost certain to be different than yours.

Urm, you can't make an absolute statement and then say "Hey, it's subjective! No harm, no foul, YMMV!", you jackass.

And seriously, "Take a mistress"?
You sound like Will Ferrell's Professor Klarvin character on SNL.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:42 AM on March 31, 2006

Well, ok. I'll take a break.

I wish you wouldn't. I enjoy your posts (well, the majority of them) and while this was a somewhat ugly string of them, oh well. Shit happens.

My (unsolicited) advice would be to ignore this thread and move on. The only thing more abundant than snark around here is short term memory loss -- if you forget it, everyone else will too.
posted by cedar at 10:46 AM on March 31, 2006

brand
new
day.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:47 AM on March 31, 2006

I think all of those criticisms are dead on... and couldn't really be said any differently.

Witty, let's mark this day in our calendars, for I agree with you 100 percent.
posted by scody at 10:50 AM on March 31, 2006

That said, your poor answers should have been flagged and not directly rebutted in the thread.

Flagged? No they shouldn't. Poor or wrong answers should be noted in the thread... you know, so the asker knows that they might be poor or wrong.
posted by Witty at 10:53 AM on March 31, 2006

Witty, let's mark this day in our calendars, for I agree with you 100 percent.

Ha! Yea, really. Doesn't happen often, but I'll take it.
posted by Witty at 10:54 AM on March 31, 2006

if you forget it, everyone else will too.

forget what?


AHAHAHAHAH!! I'm hilarious!
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:55 AM on March 31, 2006

My (unsolicited) advice would be to ignore this thread and move on.

He created the damn thread. Shit, now I'm paying attention to him too. And it's such a nice day out.
posted by sohcahtoa at 10:56 AM on March 31, 2006

Poor or wrong answers should be noted in the thread... you know, so the asker knows that they might be poor or wrong.

indeed ... i recall one thread in which someone suggested that the asker get rid of their poison ivy problem by burning it

many people rapidly replied that this could cause anyone who breathed the smoke to have serious, possibly fatal, lung problems

wrong answers need to be corrected, in the thread ... preferably without getting into personality conflicts
posted by pyramid termite at 11:28 AM on March 31, 2006

Just wrong advice needs to be countered in thread, the flagging system isn't granular enough to refute bad answers. Especially if the topic is something out of the mods area of expertise.
posted by Mitheral at 11:44 AM on March 31, 2006

DO most men "take mistresses?" Does a significant minority? Is there any reliable (or entertaining) data available?
posted by Faze at 11:46 AM on March 31, 2006

take my mistress, please.
posted by jonmc at 11:50 AM on March 31, 2006

Would you admit to a total stranger that you were cheating on your spouse?
posted by Gamblor at 11:50 AM on March 31, 2006

"Most men take a mistress" -- Really? I doubt it.

Since scientific data on this can not exist, the best determiners are surveys that ask people to anonymously self-identify as cheaters. Many such surveys exist. The results vary significantly depending on the question and how random the sample is, but they seem to indicate that, over an entire lifetime, a majority of people cheat at some point on someone.

The statement "most men take a mistress" is then both true, over the course of the life of a man, and false over the course of a single relationship.

At the ripe age of 23, I'd wager that many men do take a mistress. Then again, all the 23 year olds I know fall into the following categories: people in school with me, people on television, and my fiancee. My experience is likely biased further by the fact that the only time I cheated on a woman was when I was 23.

All that said, I don't think The Jesse Helms advice was so wrong it demanded a thread derail to counter his answer. It's probably bad advice, but it's unlikely that it is wrong. I can imagine some people finding the advice reassuring, though I can't imagine giving such advice myself.

Lastly, what did you expect? Poking lions with a stick, for sure.
posted by sequential at 11:53 AM on March 31, 2006

At the ripe age of 23, I'd wager that many men do take a mistress...

At the ripe old age of... well, I'm not telling you. I'm old enough that I won't tell you how old I am... providing I could even remember. After 123 it's all gravy.

I have news for you, grasshopper. Many men do, in fact, cheat on their lovers/so's/whathaveyou. Oddly enough, many women do the same. What we do not do is take mistresses' or misters' and dress it up like it's some sort of inevitable Darwinist plan. This is like planning your marriage on divorce stats -- the numbers ain't pretty, but we all hope for a different outcome when standing at the altar.

We screw around because there is something wrong with our primary relationship or our fuck buddies ain't being so nice. The Honorable Mr. Helms is not wrong on this. He just put it really really badly.
posted by cedar at 12:27 PM on March 31, 2006

Among the stock answers you are bound to see frequently on AxMe:
1) Go to a doctor, now;
2) You the opinion of a real lawyer;
3) Most men take a mistress.
posted by found missing at 12:30 PM on March 31, 2006

I'm not even going to correct #2, because you know what I meant.
posted by found missing at 12:31 PM on March 31, 2006

I am not.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:33 PM on March 31, 2006

Listen, bub, you the opinion of a real lawyer!
posted by Mid at 12:51 PM on March 31, 2006

Most doctors take a lawyer mistress. It's true!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:55 PM on March 31, 2006

I have news for you, grasshopper. Many men do, in fact, cheat on their lovers/so's/whathaveyou.

Do you mean that "many men do in fact cheat in every relationship", "many men do in fact cheat at least once in their lives", or "many men cheat in the relationship they are currently in"? I think we can agree they mean different things.

It's pretty clear that a stastically significant number of human beings, a clear majority, self identify as having cheated in a relationship at least once in the course of their life. Saying anything more definitive would be arguably false.

And I'm not sure you could say anything less definitive, with the possible exception of "You the opinion of a real lawyer."

Oddly enough, many women do the same.

Which is why I said "over an entire lifetime, a majority of people cheat at some point on someone." Furthermore, some survey data suggests that women cheat even more frequently.

By the way, we're arguing the same point, for the most part.
posted by sequential at 12:57 PM on March 31, 2006

There's also #4) "You need to break up with him/her. Now."
posted by brownpau at 1:03 PM on March 31, 2006

And #5) Declawing your cat is just plain abusive.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:07 PM on March 31, 2006

#6) Eat less, exercise more.
posted by scody at 1:11 PM on March 31, 2006

And #6) Who says hard liquor isn't a breakfast food?
posted by cedar at 1:12 PM on March 31, 2006

Hey, that's my #6.

You take seven.
posted by cedar at 1:13 PM on March 31, 2006

#7) First, be smart from the very beginning. Pulverize all teeth, burn off fingerprints, and disfigure the face. Forcing a DNA test to establish identity (if it ever comes to that) might introduce the legal/forensic hurdle that saves your ass down the line. An unidentifiable body can, in a pinch, be dressed in thrift store clothes and dropped in a bad part of town where the police are less likely to question it. I don't reommend that disposal method, I'm just saying an easily identifiable body is an even bigger threat than the opposite.

Assuming you have it inside a house where you can work on it a bit, the first thing you want to do is drain it of fluids. This will make it easier to cut up, and slow decomposition a little bit. The best way to do this quick and dirty is to perforate the body with a pointed knife, and then perform CPR on it. Cut the fronts of the thighs deep, diagonally, to slit the femoral arteries. Then pump the chest. The valves in the heart will still work when dead, and the springback of the ribcage can put apply a fair amount of suction to the artria. Do this in a tub. Plug the drain, and mingle lots of bleach with the bodily fluids before unplugging the drain to empty the tub. This should help control the stench of death, which would otherwise reek from your gutter gratings. Do everything you can to control odors. Plug in an ionizer, burn candles, leave bowls of baking soda everywhere. Ventilate the room in the middle of the night, but otherwise keep it closed. Keep the body under a plastic sheet while it's in the tub.

If you want to bury, I recommend seperating the body into several parts, and burying them seperately. For one thing, it's easier to dig a deep enough hole for a head than for an entire body. this reduces your chances of being discovered while you are actually outside and digging the grave.
That is the one thing you can't do inside the doors of your house, and represents a vulnerable moment you want to keep brief, under 2 hours. Do it between 3 and 5 am. It's also less likely for someone to call the police if their dog digs up some chunk of meat, than if they dig up an enitre body. They may assume it's an animal carcass disfigured by decomposition, and leave it alone or dispose of it. It's also more likely that the dog will consume all of it before anyone knows the difference. A whole skeleton is another story. You can cut a body into 6 pieces faster than you think. It's not much different than boning a chicken, but it takes more work, a big knife, and time. A hammer will be useful for pulverizing joints or driving the knife deep where it doesn't want to go. Anyway it's wise to crush as much of the skeleton as you can along the way. It will aid in making the body less identifiable for what it is as it decomposes.

Don't return to the same site 6 times for 6 burials.You'll attract suspicion from anyone nearby, and you'll wind up placing the body parts close enough together to be found by any serious investigation. Put them in plastic bags with lots of bleach, and store in a freezer until you have enough time to bury them all.

Depending on what tools you have available, you may find that you're get really good at deconstructing the body. You might prefer to slowly sprinkle it down a drain without leaving your house. This avoids the long-term risk of discovery associated with burial, and the overwhelming supply of bacteria in a sewer accellerates deconomposition, whil e providing a convenient cover smell.

Truly grinding down a body takes a lot more work, and you run the risk of fouling your plumbing and calling in a plumber. So don't try it unless you know how to clear bones and meat out of a drainpipe. A good food processor can be useful. But don't over-use it, or power drills or saws. They're noisy and they attract attention. And forget the kitchen sink. It's better if you actually remove one of the toilets in your house from its base, which will give you direct access to one of the largest sewer pipes that enters your house. Follow any disposals with lots of bleach and then run the water for 5 or 10 minutes on top of that. And plug that pipe when you're not using it, to prevent any sewer gasses from backing up into your house. Usually, a U-trap inside the toilet does that for you.
posted by scarabic at 6:27 PM PST on June 13 [!]
posted by dersins at 1:14 PM on March 31, 2006

a majority of people cheat at some point on someone.

Cheating on someone is not at all the same thing as "taking a mistress."
posted by languagehat at 1:14 PM on March 31, 2006

Sorry, seven's taken.
posted by dersins at 1:15 PM on March 31, 2006

Dershins, I wish I had said that.

Hell, I'd cut off my hand to have said that.

Dare me? Huh? Just dare me! You'll all be sorry.
posted by cedar at 1:20 PM on March 31, 2006

languagehat - exactly.
posted by agregoli at 1:23 PM on March 31, 2006

So wait, coming in late, half the stuff you're talking about has been deleted. What was the "odd advice" in the complimentary email forwarding thread?
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:27 PM on March 31, 2006

I would never cheat on my whathaveyou.
posted by jonmc at 1:32 PM on March 31, 2006

I would just like to point out that, according to a recent issue of SI, Barry Bonds cheated on his mistress by taking a wife.
posted by found missing at 1:36 PM on March 31, 2006

You gave a very, very bad answer to a question (and in multiple posts, too).

Seriously, I don't think TJH's answer was that bad. The only reason he got piled upon was because he offended the green's chaste sensibilities. This isn't his fault. But people should feel free to weigh in on other person's answers so long as the question is still being worked out.

Cheating on someone is not at all the same thing as "taking a mistress."

Eh, you say tomatoes...
posted by nixerman at 1:36 PM on March 31, 2006

Cheating on someone is not at all the same thing as "taking a mistress."

That's probably true, but taking a mistress is definitely cheating:

A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with a usually married man who is not her husband and from whom she generally receives material support. ¹

I don't know of any survey data that differentiates between the two. To tell you the truth, I had no idea that taking a mistress involved material support. I don't think that's what The Jesse Helms was implying.

Anecdotally speaking, I don't believe the colloquial use of the phrase "taking a mistress" is as clearly defined as you're inferring. Pedantry* aside, I've heard numerous people refer to their uncompensated extra curricular partner as a mistress.

* Yes, I believe the differentiation of the two is pedantic. I don't, of course, mean it's entirely useless, but it is trivial. Do you really believe The Jesse Helms was saying, "At 23, you should find and compensate a lover?" Please correct me if I'm way of base here.
posted by sequential at 1:39 PM on March 31, 2006

Dude, The Jesse Helms, if you want to swagger around the way you do, don't get all hissy about some back-spray.
posted by scarabic at 1:46 PM on March 31, 2006

Great, now I've got that song from Homestar Runner on a constant loop in my brain.

"Who's the guy from 21 Jump Street?/Not The Cheat/Not The Cheat... The Cheat/The Cheat"

Make it go away! Mommy!
posted by soundofsuburbia at 2:02 PM on March 31, 2006

You know who else cheated?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:14 PM on March 31, 2006

sequential: For some reason, you're focusing on the generally received material support when the real distinguishing factor of mistress-having or -being is that it's a continuing sexual relationship. Cheating, on the other hand, covers a one-night stand, many one-night stands, one or more brief flings, taking a mistress, taking a bigamous spouse, and any variations on or combinations of the foregoing.

It's a trivial difference only if you're sloppy about usage and tone-deaf to connotation.
posted by vetiver at 2:16 PM on March 31, 2006

As controversial and socially unacceptable as The Jesse Helms statement may be - a google search for the following comes damn close to making him look right: Google: percentage men cheat

The first article that comes up quotes:

* Percentage of men who admit to cheating on their spouse in New York Times poll (2000): 45

* Percentage of women who admit to cheating on their spouse in New York Times poll (2000): 35


Fine. 45% is not "most", but I think it's safe to say that very few men (and women) answered this survey and lied that they cheated, and that some if not many men (and women) said "no" even though they have, so as to not make their gender look bad in the survey results.


I've been brought up to be disgusted by the concept of cheating on someone, and to feel equally disgusted if not much moreso if I get cheated on. Despite that - part of growing up and living in reality is coming to terms with the fact that monogamy and being human just don't always mix that well no matter how much we want to get on our moral high horse.

Does that mean cheating is OK? Well, no. It's wrong because when you're in a relationship in our society, it's implied that there's this promise that you're not doing things with someone else. However - maybe that promise just doesn't jive with the way we're programmed to be.


While The Jesse Helms words his paragraphs a little too firmly and authoritatively, the man has a point, and all of this "you're a fucking idiot" response to him is actually a little over the top in my opinion. The man has a legitimate view, no matter how unsavory it is to the rest of MeFi (myself included).
posted by twiggy at 2:25 PM on March 31, 2006

I can't respect that opinion when it's giving advice to someone else. How is, ""Cheat on your SO" good advice?
posted by agregoli at 2:30 PM on March 31, 2006

Non-cheater here.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 2:30 PM on March 31, 2006

Explains your nic.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:31 PM on March 31, 2006

Poor or wrong answers should be noted in the thread... you know, so the asker knows that they might be poor or wrong.

Yes!Yes!Yes!
posted by raedyn at 2:34 PM on March 31, 2006

Wins.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 2:44 PM on March 31, 2006

there is something to be said for letting the poster make up his or her own mind. - The Jesse Helms

Absolutely. No one in that thread (or any other) forces the poster to act upon any of the advice offered, or even to agree with any of it. AskMe by definition allows the poster to make up their own mind.

If you're going to authoritatively, forcefully, suggest a socially unacceptable solution as the only course of action you must expect that people will challenge your position, poke holes in it, and make alternate suggestions. You aren't stupid, TJH. You knew people would react this way when you said those things, and particularly the manner in which you said them. If you'd said:

If you can't make it work with her sexually, you could consider meeting your sexual needs outside of the relationship. Many people have non-monogamous relationships either with or without the knowledge of their signficant other. It's not for everyone, but it could be worth exploring. Read about other couples that are making it work here and here.

People still would have disagreed with you, but not with such venom. I doubt it would have made so much of thread a reaction to you. Was your delivery intentionally provocative, or did it not occur to you that you could put it in a more palatable form?

Something to consider for the future if you're not wanting to make such waves.
posted by raedyn at 2:45 PM on March 31, 2006

Another vote in favor of TJH's side here.

a) The callouts were needlessly abusive. Everyone TJH quoted in the original post was at fault. Try disagreeing respectfully with people who have taken the time to post their opinions.

b) TJH's point is extremely distasteful; it proposes the caddish behavior typical of a low scrub. However, if such behavior were truly unheard of, would the proposal have garnered such a vehement response? No. People actually behave this way. What's more, people who behave this way know it's shameful, and so are unlikely to post their contributions to a message board under the heading "How I solved this problem for myself." So, don't shoot the messenger.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:23 PM on March 31, 2006

Cheating on someone is not at all the same thing as "taking a mistress."

That's probably true, but taking a mistress is definitely cheating... To tell you the truth, I had no idea that taking a mistress involved material support. I don't think that's what The Jesse Helms was implying... Pedantry* aside, I've heard numerous people refer to their uncompensated extra curricular partner as a mistress.
* Yes, I believe the differentiation of the two is pedantic. I don't, of course, mean it's entirely useless, but it is trivial. Do you really believe The Jesse Helms was saying, "At 23, you should find and compensate a lover?" Please correct me if I'm way of base here.

Yes, you're way off base here. As vetiver said above, the point is that it's a continuing sexual relationship. Plenty of people cheat, which can involve a single blow job; quite a lot fewer maintain a continuing outside relationship, which is the bare minimum requirement for the use of "mistress." If you've heard "numerous people" use mistress so freely (which, frankly, I don't believe, since I hardly ever encounter the word in modern contexts—it's largely a relic of pre-feminist days), they do not understand the word. To quote vetiver once again: It's a trivial difference only if you're sloppy about usage and tone-deaf to connotation.

Percentage of men who admit to cheating on their spouse in New York Times poll (2000): 45

Once again, a little bit louder:

Cheating on someone is not at all the same thing as "taking a mistress."
posted by languagehat at 3:29 PM on March 31, 2006

While The Jesse Helms words his paragraphs a little too firmly and authoritatively, the man has a point, and all of this "you're a fucking idiot" response to him is actually a little over the top in my opinion. The man has a legitimate view, no matter how unsavory it is to the rest of MeFi (myself included).

Well, those who disagree seem to have a legitimate view, too. Perhaps they phrased it a little too firmly and authoritatively. Slurs against the man himself go too far, perhaps, but it appears that many perceived his comments as a slur against all men. Go figure.

In other words: reap what you sow.
posted by scarabic at 3:35 PM on March 31, 2006

I've been with my wife for 10 years. 5 years married. We're expecting our first child.
To keep it interesting we BOTH have invited a couple others to share. After talking it over first. I don't think that is getting a mistress, but something better.
We might have to cut back on crazy stuff like that now that we have a child. But all in all, I think you are wrong, MOST men don't get mistresses.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 4:04 PM on March 31, 2006

The callouts were needlessly abusive. Everyone TJH quoted in the original post was at fault. Try disagreeing respectfully with people who have taken the time to post their opinions.

This was my response:

These answers are unhelpful, unrealistic, naive, show inexperience, and don't even address your problem. Ignore them.

And I stand by it. I don't think it's abusive. It's strongly worded, yes, but I could make an argument to support each point. I wanted to state in the strongest possible terms that the Asker should look critically at some of the earlier responses which reflected rather extreme opinions and inadvisable courses of action.

To clarify: The Asker stated in his question:

I would hate to end this relationship due to sex....What can i do to rescue us?

So answers should have taken into account that he was not looking to end the relationship, and was looking for ways to 'rescue' it. Answers about ditching the relationship were not what he was looking for.

I also didn't call out TJH specifically, because by the time I commented I had repeatedly seen variants of the following bad advice given in the thread by several people:

-leave her (doesn't address the problem)
-take her out/give her a gift/romance her to get her in the mood (this is naive and shows inexperience)
-take a mistress (this is unhelpful, unrealistic and doesn't address the problem)
-consider the girl a 'tease' (this is naive and shows inexperience)
-tell her to try the pill (doesn't address the problem)

I'll admit I went off a little more loudly than I normally like to. But my frustration with RelationshipFilter questions has been building of late. 'ReFi' questions (if I may) can be very useful when handled in good faith and written with a sincere effort to help. But in recent months, they seem to attract responses written in authoritative tone but revealing little knowledge or experience, and responses that appear to be based on individual vitriol (the 'axe grinding' I referred to in my response). I feel there's been some appalling advice given lately, and not just in this thread, as people use the mask of an online identity to vent their personal relationship frustrations.
posted by Miko at 4:06 PM on March 31, 2006

You got called out for your constant retardation. I don't see the problem.
posted by cellphone at 4:07 PM on March 31, 2006

it proposes the caddish behavior typical of a low scrub.

I'm sorry, I don't have anything substantial to say on the topic, but I just wanted to point out without doing the tagline thing that this phrase is great and I'm gonna be saying it to myself all day now.
posted by furiousthought at 4:27 PM on March 31, 2006

You got called out for your constant retardation. I don't see the problem.

What the hell is wrong with you?

It was an ugly thread but no worse than a third of any random sample from the front page. The JH acknowledged that there was a problem and voluntarily timed himself out (unnecessarily, but that's just my opinion and you know what they say about the opinions).

Sometimes this self-policing nonsense actually works.

Still, it works better when people don't sit back and fan the flames because they are bored or regret not posting that really smart and funny thing they thought of way back when it all started.
posted by cedar at 4:41 PM on March 31, 2006

It was smart and funny, though. If only I'd posted it!!!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:46 PM on March 31, 2006

"How is, ""Cheat on your SO" good advice?"

Why is it bad advice?
posted by mischief at 4:53 PM on March 31, 2006

Because, without even bothering with the ethical considerations, avoiding the issue with the SO by seeking satisfaction outside the relationship is not a recipe for "rescuing" the relationship, which is what was solicited.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:59 PM on March 31, 2006

"Most men take a mistress"? Either this is masterful trolling by TJH, or TJH has a very eccentric worldview. My guess is that it's the latter---that TJH's comments were not intentionally obnoxious, but that he's just got an overactive imagination.

Really, it's kind of funny if you read it in the right way --- that stuff about the crisp suit and vintage jewelry is hilarious. I enjoy reading that kind of thing.
posted by jayder at 5:18 PM on March 31, 2006

Most men take a mistress.

My experience has led me to certain defining positions.

Look, this is bullshit. Don't make controversial objective statements, then try and hide behind subjectivity. I'm not big on political correctness, but I am big on the idea that people who feel they should be able treat to sensitive topics as a mosh pit, at least bring facts and maturity to the table. Your "fact" is bullshit, and it's dangerous bullshit. Don't be surprised when you spread harmful misinformation - like that Jews control the world - that people who are vulnerable to the possible harmful consequences of this misinformation get upset. You are at fault, so stop playing the victim.

Use facts, cite sources, be up front about your anecdotes, etc . . .
posted by dgaicun at 5:34 PM on March 31, 2006

What is a "defining position," anyway?
posted by jayder at 5:38 PM on March 31, 2006

JH, you have no location in your profile.

Are you in France?
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:44 PM on March 31, 2006

avoiding the issue with the SO by seeking satisfaction outside the relationship is not a recipe for "rescuing" the relationship

Says you!
posted by mischief at 6:04 PM on March 31, 2006

That said, Jesse Helms is full of crap.

I think we're all in agreement on that point.

Seriously. Fuck that guy.
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:57 PM on March 31, 2006

I'm pretty sure that trolling metatalk is the hot new troll sport.

Paris did it, now The Jesse Helms did it. I guess HTuttle will be next.
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:59 PM on March 31, 2006

I'm pretty sure that trolling metatalk is the hot new troll sport.

I just bought a new helmet!
posted by Balisong at 7:05 PM on March 31, 2006

Well, this sucks. I was reading the thread down to where TJH said he'd take a break -- that sucks. I enjoy his comments.

It seems kind of kneejerk for people in the AskMe thread to freak out like that. It was just a sentence. Men cheat. The pile-on was unnecessary. Everything else he said was completely applicable and useful.
posted by blacklite at 7:28 PM on March 31, 2006

You got called out for your constant retardation. I don't see the problem.

What the hell is wrong with you?

It was an ugly thread but no worse than a third of any random sample from the front page. The JH acknowledged that there was a problem and voluntarily timed himself out (unnecessarily, but that's just my opinion and you know what they say about the opinions).

Sometimes this self-policing nonsense actually works.

Still, it works better when people don't sit back and fan the flames because they are bored or regret not posting that really smart and funny thing they thought of way back when it all started.
posted by cedar at 6:41 PM CST on March 31 [!]

I just skimmed the post, and didn't read any of the comments. I also skimmed the comment I'm replying to right now. It's fun!
posted by cellphone at 8:03 PM on March 31, 2006

mischief: "Says you!"

Yeah, obviously.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:16 PM on March 31, 2006

heheh
posted by mischief at 8:41 PM on March 31, 2006

Yes, you're way off base here.

For starters, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that based on a strict reading of the phrase "taking a mistress", using citations from literature, dictionaries, and other academic resources, that I am wrong. I doubt, however, that in the context of this discussion I am way off base. Look, languagehat, you're one of my favorite posters. I respect you and your expertise immensely. That doesn't make you infallible, by any means, and that doesn't make you right.

As vetiver said above, the point is that it's a continuing sexual relationship.

It should be pretty clear to anyone reading the AskMe thread that people's objections did not hinge upon whether or not The Jesse Helms was advocating a continued sexual relationship outside of his existing relationship. In fact, I'm quite certain, given the responses, people were objecting solely to the advice to solve the problem by having sex with someone other than his girlfriend. Why you, and others, would insist, again, in the context of the original AskMe thread, that taking a mistress is significantly different than the suggestion to go out and have a one night stand is beyond me.

Furthermore, the distinction you have drawn is inconclusive and arbitrary. When is a sexual relationship continuing? Is it continuing if a person has a friendship with another person with whom they have sex with just twice over the period of a number of years? What if it happens for just a few months, but the sex is more frequent and regular? What happens if it happens once a year, almost unexpectedly and unintentionally at first, a la Ellen Burstyn and Alan Alda in Same Time, Next Year? Was Doris ever George's mistress? If so, when did she achieve the distinction of being his mistress? Mathematically speaking, it only takes two points to create a straight line. A straight line is composed of a continuous series of points. By the same logic, was Doris George's mistress after the second year they had sex?

(For the record, I'm not attempting to be dense. I'm either really this tone-deaf to connotation or you're just not being clear why this is an important, non-arbitrary distinction.)

It is not lost on me that language can be exceedingly precise or that the colloquial use of the language can be embarrassingly imprecise. We are discussing someone’s choice of words in a post on the Internet, not critiquing someone’s dissertation. We're also not arguing whether the active voice in Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening is Frosts' or whether the speaker is contemplating suicide. At best the use of language here is loose, but the intent is damned clear.

Plenty of people cheat, which can involve a single blow job; quite a lot fewer maintain a continuing outside relationship, which is the bare minimum requirement for the use of "mistress."

While I appreciate your attempts to educate me about the difference between blow jobs and a mistress, I unfortunately remember The Blow Job That Ruined America. If you read through the results, you can certainly find evidence, as I did, supporting the common usage of the word as you suggest it and as I merely claim to have heard.

If you've heard "numerous people" use mistress so freely (which, frankly, I don't believe, since I hardly ever encounter the word in modern contexts—it's largely a relic of pre-feminist days)

That's pretty dense for someone who is generally quite prolific in their analysis of language. First, go outside and engage the public more often. It might offend your sensibilities, but you'll hear the word mistress used. Hell, it’s in the press quite regularly meaning exactly what you propose it means. You're right, though, at least in your account of who I hear (not read) using the word. It's not my peer group, people born in the early 1970's. However, if you listen to people of my parent’s generation speak, born in the early 1950's or their parents, born between WWI and WWII, the word is used with increasing frequency.

Oh, and next time, your foot will taste better if you insert it into your mouth after you clean it. Your hat may be filled with language, but you're full of shit. Don't make such bold statements about experiences you could not possibly know a single thing about. Ass, You, Me, and whatever.

The word mistress is, contrary to your assertion, hardly a relic of pre-feminist days. A simple Google News search will return results from within the past 48 hours. Where exactly are you not encountering the word mistress in modern contexts: Math textbooks? Maps? Restaurant menus?

they do not understand the word

Try as you might, you do not control the language. Come down from your ivory tower. Put your latte down. Join the conversation. In fact, to hear you say this eats away at your integrity. Language is living and changing and primarily controlled by non-academics through usage. Hell, even the OED doesn't officially create words, it just takes a bibliographic approach to documenting when words are first used for each implied meaing. You're no Dr. W.C. Minor! (Mostly because you're alive and probably not nearly as crazy, but that's besides the point.)

To quote vetiver once again: It's a trivial difference only if you're sloppy about usage and tone-deaf to connotation.

I was willing to let this go the first time it was said, but now that I've bothered to respond at all, I might as well add that no one is that impressed with your MLA monogrammed codpiece.
posted by sequential at 9:24 PM on March 31, 2006

I'm just so unhappy about the news about Abe Frohman.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:15 PM on March 31, 2006

Mommy, dgaicun's copying me!!!
Heh, seriously, that's nutty... great minds and snarkers, I guess. Although I concede that yours was far more articulate than mine, I still win 'cuz I said jackass in mine and linked to a picture.

Anyhows, TJH's advice was the dumbest thing I've read in a while, and it's not because I'm chaste or closed-minded, or any of the other condescending terms that sexually 'liberated' people use to describe us dumb clods who prefer monogamy.

The questioner has been in a relationship for all of FOUR FRICKEN MONTHS and had been without sex for ONE WHOLE MONTH following a pregnancy scare.

To advise someone to get a whore so early in a relationship, and for such an innocuous reason - his girl is obviously still working through the issue - is as stupid and excessive as cutting off my hand and getting a hook fitted because I have a hangnail.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:17 PM on March 31, 2006

Heh, sorry AA. . . kind of just skimmed through before jumping in.

Look, languagehat, you're one of my favorite posters. . . That doesn't make you infallible, by any means, and that doesn't make you right.

Of course. What makes him right here is his superior arguments. Nothing in that dense wall of paragraphs, or any further sophistry on your part, can make "Most men take a mistress" a correct or moderate assertion. Please quit while you are behind - TJH was in the wrong. Period. Let's all move on now, no love lost.
posted by dgaicun at 11:18 PM on March 31, 2006

I'm kind of inclined to disagree with those who are making absolute assertions that TJH's advice was "bad" and that this justifies an in-thread rebuke. I, too, think it's "bad" advice, but that judgment arises mostly as a value judgment, not a judgment of utility. I strongly suspect that on a purely utilitarian basis, it is bad advice, but I don't know this and I doubt anyone else does, either.

I don't think I'm alone in that most of my disagreement with TJH's advice arises from my values. And if the territory is this sort of subjective ground, then TJH's advice itself is a valid subjective view. True, he made an absolute claim that implicitly denies that his assertion is merely subjective. But then, ironically the same is true of his critics. Their rebukes were absolute, and did not admit they were value-based, subjective judgments.

Well, some were not value-based but implicitly objective assertions about the utility of his advice. But see, if we move to that ground, then TJH is making an opposing claim that is playing by the same rules. If it's a disgreement of fact about utility, then if no one's offering to provide evidence to back their assertions, it seems to me everyone is at fault. Or if it's acceptable to make assertions of fact without substantiating them, then no one is at fault.

I really can't analyse this situation from any reasonable perspective that does not conclude that the backlash against TJH was primarily value-based but is hypocritical if the argument isn't just that he's wrong, but that he shouldn't have written what he wrote in the first place. If he shouldn't have written it, then neither should they.

But if they were just arguing against his point, not the appropriateness of him stating it, then they should not be called-out, either.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:18 AM on April 1, 2006

or any further sophistry on your part¹

What is misleading or fallacious about my argument?

What makes him right here is his superior arguments.¹

And what are these superior arguments? What is inferior about the conclusion that, in the context of this post, the issue is cheating, not the other implications of taking a mistress. You're not even trying to engage in discussion.

can make "Most men take a mistress" a correct or moderate assertion.¹

You use such big words for someone with such a limited level of reading comprehension. That is patently not my argument. I am arguing simply that most people cheat on one sexual partner, regardless of their marital status, at some point in their life. (See the note below.) Furthermore, that's what I believe TJH was inferring and what people are reacting to.

A Newsweek cover story titled "The New Infidelity" states:

More married women are cheating on their spouses than ever before and the infidelity gender gap is almost certainly closing, report Contributing Editor Lorraine Ali and Senior Editor Lisa Miller in the July 12 Newsweek cover story (on newsstands Monday, July 5). It's hard to say for sure just how many married women are having sex with people who are not their husbands, because people lie to pollsters when they talk about sex, and studies vary wildly. ... But couples therapists estimate that among their clientele, the number is close to 30 to 40 percent, compared with 50 percent of men.

An MSN Lifestyle article says about the same New York Times poll, which is titled "The Way We Live Now Poll" and is from the New York Times Magazine published on May 7, 2000:

A poll done by the New York Times in 2000 found that 44 percent of the male respondents admitted to having had an extramarital affair (and that percentage doesn't include those unfaithful guys who weren't willing to own up to their transgressions).²

Find a copy of Pestrak, Martin & Martin's article in the International Journal of Family Therapy or Scarfs article in Cosmopolitan where it is reported:

...that in the United States, 50% to 65% of husbands and 45% to 55% of wives have been engaged in an extramarital affair by the time they are 40. Owing to underreporting, this figure may actually underestimate the percentages of people engaging or previously engaged in affairs.

Don't limit yourself to searching Lexis, you can find this information on the web with great ease.

All of this refers to just married couples. My argument is that most people cheat at least once at some point, whether cheating is a hand job from a stripper or a 50 year romance with your best friends spouse, regardless of marital status.

NOTE: I have to admit a bias toward survey and polling data from and about the US. I did some research this morning that yielded epidemic infidelity in the UK, where a shock poll found "One in six men in a serious relationship have cheated on their partners and one in 10 of all women have strayed."

So let me revise my statement. No, most American men don't take a mistress. The best evidence indicates that most Americans do, in fact, cheat. Just because you can find a single data point that says otherwise doesn't mean you've done your homework. Infidelity is a socially constructed, so your culture may vary.
posted by sequential at 7:49 AM on April 1, 2006

I really can't analyse this situation from any reasonable perspective that does not conclude that the backlash against TJH was primarily value-based but is hypocritical if the argument isn't just that he's wrong, but that he shouldn't have written what he wrote in the first place. If he shouldn't have written it, then neither should they.

My argument was basically that the answer was bad because it didn't address the poster's question "What can I do to rescue us?" Yes, his statements were unsavory according to my value system, but the answer was off-topic and just not helpful, which is my main objection. TJH disregarded the actual inquiry.

Also, if TJH sincerely believes that there is nothing the Asker can do to rescue this relationship, and is better off just leaving, he certainly could have said that without implying that a woman who has lost interest in sex after a pregnancy scare is a 'tease,' or recommending sex on the side. If he had expressed his opinion in a less inflammatory way, I am sure we wouldn't be having this conversation. The tone of the thread was ruined right off the bat.
posted by Miko at 8:38 AM on April 1, 2006

sequential, you said:

No, most American men don't take a mistress. The best evidence indicates that most Americans do, in fact, cheat.

This is not at odds with languagehat's assertion that

Cheating on someone is not at all the same thing as "taking a mistress."

You are talking past each other, or you seem to be talking and languagehat is, wisely I think, resting his case, or possibly asleep. Whether you agree or disagree that the difference between cheating and having a mistress is pedantry, no one was really arguing the assertion that people cheat in large numbers, the point that you seem fixated on. People were arguing whether it's good advice in the AskMe thread in question and there's a big difference between saying "oh everyone does it" and saying "you should do it to solve your problem"
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:50 AM on April 1, 2006

Look, languagehat, you're one of my favorite posters. I respect you and your expertise immensely... Your hat may be filled with language, but you're full of shit. Don't make such bold statements about experiences you could not possibly know a single thing about. .. no one is that impressed with your MLA monogrammed codpiece

I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning!

Why you, and others, would insist, again, in the context of the original AskMe thread, that taking a mistress is significantly different than the suggestion to go out and have a one night stand is beyond me.

Because it is.

At best the use of language here is loose, but the intent is damned clear.

In your mind, but nowhere else. The problem here is that you jumped to the conclusion that TJH obviously meant "have any old sexual relationship" (presumably because he couldn't possibly be stupid/clueless/asinine enough to mean what he actually said, which shows you haven't been paying attention to him in the past). The rest of us assume that he meant what he said. It's as if TJH said "95% of American males get married" and you thought "That can't possibly be right, he must mean 'have sex at some point,' and hey, some people talk about their sexual relationships as marriages even if they're not legally married, so yeah, that's what he meant!" and then went around insulting anyone who offered statistics proving that a much smaller percentage of American men get married. You'd be both wrong and pointlessly provocative, just like now.

It's not my peer group, people born in the early 1970's. However, if you listen to people of my parent’s generation speak, born in the early 1950's or their parents, born between WWI and WWII, the word is used with increasing frequency.

Dude, I am of your parents' generation. I use the word too. But I use it to mean what it means, like everyone else I know who uses it, and not to mean 'one-night stand.'

Language is living and changing and primarily controlled by non-academics through usage. Hell, even the OED doesn't officially create words, it just takes a bibliographic approach to documenting when words are first used for each implied meaing.

You're preaching to the choir. I'm Mr. Descriptivist, and I know all about how dictionaries work. But just because words aren't pinned down forever by dictionaries or other authorities doesn't mean you can take the Humpty Dumpty approach ("When I use a word, my dear, that word means whatever I want it to mean").

I suggest you step away from the computer before your replies get even longer and more insulting. I'm glad you liked my presence before I disappointed you here, and I hope once you calm down you'll do so again. But I'm not going to gloss over the truth because it upsets you. And TJH really isn't worth this much investment on your part.
posted by languagehat at 8:58 AM on April 1, 2006

On non-preview: nah, I was asleep. (I'm on the West Coast at the moment.) Maybe I should have rested my case before, but I hereby officially do so.
posted by languagehat at 8:59 AM on April 1, 2006

Miko, x10.

Sometimes in AskMe people get answers to questions they haven't asked, and that's all fine, but sometimes people just want advice on the question they actually have asked. If that's the case here, tjh's answers won't do.

(Though if anonymous does decide to follow this line of thinking, I'll just add that sometime your butler can be your best friend when it comes to matters of the heart. Try to enlist his help to keep the ladywife from suspecting anything untoward... but if all else fails, just have her declared insane and committed to the asylum.)
posted by taz at 9:31 AM on April 1, 2006

languagehat, if you're out of town, would you mind if I borrowed your codpiece? Mine's at the dry-cleaner's and we're gathering at the dean's for sherry this evening. I'll have it back to you by tomorrow afternoon, spotless and fully Febrezed.

Many thanks.
posted by vetiver at 9:44 AM on April 1, 2006

I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning!¹

That's brilliant editing there, languagehat. For what it's worth, that comment wasn't directed at you. You didn't even write the quote to which I was replying. Read it again.

I suggest you step away from the computer¹

I believe jessamyn is right. We're just talking past each other here. To that end I, too, rest my case in this thread.

Thanks for the laugh, vetiver.
posted by sequential at 9:50 AM on April 1, 2006

They give out those codpieces at the annual meeting?

Miko, I see that he arguably wasn't answering the question. But the way in which he wasn't answering the question is pretty common in askme, isn't it? At any rate, I've invested more than enough time in quasi-defending his asinine comment.

"Taking a mistress" is not exactly the same thing as "cheating". It's that, and more. I don't know why anyone is arguing about this.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:57 AM on April 1, 2006

"Your hat may be filled with language but you're full of shit" is pretty fuckin' funny.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:58 AM on April 1, 2006

Thanks, mr_crash_davis. I'm glad my meager attempt at humor wasn't lost on everyone.

"Taking a mistress" is not exactly the same thing as "cheating". It's that, and more. I don't know why anyone is arguing about this.

Ethereal Bligh, I wasn't arguing that, but I guess I did a poor job of making that clear.
posted by sequential at 10:07 AM on April 1, 2006

I don't know why anyone is arguing about this.

*chuckle*

Slow news day on MeFi, I guess.

See y'all in the funny papers!
posted by Miko at 11:02 AM on April 1, 2006

Don't forget you can cheat on both your wife/husband and your longterm lover!
posted by funambulist at 12:10 PM on April 1, 2006

there's a big difference between saying "oh everyone does it" and saying "you should do it to solve your problem" ¹

I was trying to take an objective approach. My first comment starts with my belief that objectiviy in regards to whether or not most men take a mistress is complicated to the point of near impossibility. The closest thing, in the data I have seen, is data about cheating. (And that's where people began to think I was equating cheating with the word mistress.)

By sharing some research about infidelity in America, I was hoping to illustrate that, at the very least, some people do actually solve their relationship problems by cheating. In retrospect, it was puerile of me to believe that this would help.

(It probably didn't help that I didn't recognize the distinction implied by the use of the word mistress and then proceeded to get all up in languagehats business about my own narrowmindedness.)

I have looked further into the topic on EBSCOhost's Psychology and Behavioral Science Collection. It's been a slow few days at work so I've had my head in the databases for my class work. It turns out that this is a hot topic in the professional and academic fields. There's an abundance and a variety of research supporting how to effectively help treat the product of infidelity. There is also a significant number of citations that discuss the possitive effects of infidelity.

For example, from the October 2005 issue of Psychology Today, Lauren Anderson writes:

The couple came into the marital counselor's office exhibiting some of the problems that landed them there. They argued. He made jokes bordering on criticism. She didn't talk about her feelings until halfway through therapy, when she dropped a bomb: She was having an affair.

Her husband was devastated. But as they discussed her confession, the couple began to talk more openly than they had in years. In fact, the wife's revelation, say marital researchers, may have saved the marriage.

The same article says, "At least 25 percent of men and 15 percent of women have had an affair." Which should be considered as evidence in the difficulty in knowing how many people do have affairs.

I could find no citations that prescribe infidelity. Though I haven't done a thorough search, it's abundantly clear that infidelity is treated by professionals in the context of culture. In the US, infidelity widely viewed as wrong. (Polyamory be damned, I guess. There was only one article about it at all.)
posted by sequential at 12:20 PM on April 1, 2006

The Jesse Helms wrote...
Although it is possible I am taking the Internet too seriously.

Metafilter: Taking The Internet Too Seriously
posted by tkolar at 12:25 PM on April 1, 2006

In the US, infidelity widely viewed as wrong. (Polyamory be damned, I guess.

Depends on definitions. I know several "open relationship" couples, some married. It's not infidelity if one of them sleeps with a third party, because there's no contract not to do so.

In the presence of a contract not to sleep around, yeah, I'd say that "infidelity" is viewed as wrong for obvious reasons. The concept of an agreement with terms is a universal one, I think, and not dependent on culture.

As far as "take a mistress" goes, I have some associations with that terminology, and they are like this. A mistress is a female third party that a *married* man sleeps with regularly and perhaps provides with financial support. The relationship may be known and even sanctioned by the man's wife. The wife either accepts it reluctantly because living with it is preferable to divorce, or accepts it happily because it relieves her of unwanted sexual advances toward her by her husband. Perhaps it frees her to pursue her own affairs. But anyway, a "mistress" is an accessory to a "marriage" in any case. Most marriages have not been for love or passion throughout history, and as long as the main motivations for them remain satisfied (economics, family, children, security) then "having a mistress" *can* be acceptable to both parties, and thus *not* "cheating," although it is technically "infidelity" due to its conflict with the letter of the marriage contract (unless that marriage contract is explicitly understood to allow it).

Cheating involves lying. If there's no lying happening, it's not necessarily cheating.
posted by scarabic at 12:59 PM on April 1, 2006

*big, bright light bulb*

Oh! Thanks, scarabic.

Is this similar to what you, or others, thought TJH was suggesting? That's a little creepy. That's not at all what I took away from his comments.
posted by sequential at 1:12 PM on April 1, 2006

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I thought TJH was suggesting. Not just cheating, but a long-term semi-committed side relationship; in other words, getting a second girlfriend. Which, if you've only been dating the first girlfriend for four months, seems completely ridiculous.

Had he just said "Get your sexual needs met outside the relationship," people probably would have objected, but wouldn't have thought he sounded quite so clueless about how real relationships might work.
posted by occhiblu at 1:41 PM on April 1, 2006

Must shower. I feel dirty.
posted by sequential at 2:29 PM on April 1, 2006

When people call Dios a troll, they have no idea what they're talking about. You see this thread? This was a troll.
posted by klangklangston at 5:10 PM on April 1, 2006

for the record:

the only thing that jesse helms said that could be seen as even remotely problematic is the mistress sentence. the rest of that comment, and the two that followed, are good advice.

He stated a proportion that he believed to be true in order to illustrate one of the problems of long term relationships, and offered a solution. I don't like the solution, a lot of people don't like it, and there's nothing wrong with saying that you don't like it. But he's not full of crap. The majority of what he said was sound advice (take her out to dinner, the worst that happens is you did something really nice for someone. You're too young to be dealing with this kind of libido problem, go live life.) and I'm glad he said it.

I, too, think the asker should dump this chick and go find a fulfilling relationship to be in.
posted by shmegegge at 7:42 PM on April 1, 2006

I'm glad my meager attempt at humor wasn't lost on everyone.

For what it's worth, I thought it was pretty funny myself.

I'm glad we're finally all on the same page. Bartender, beers for the house!
posted by languagehat at 10:22 PM on April 1, 2006

From the "your opinion doesn't mean shit" section, here in the South, to use the word "mistress" strongly implies two things:

1. The man is married
2. It is a continuous relationship i.e. not a one-night-stand.

There is also no differentiation between if the mistress is married or single. She's a mistress all the same.

I do understand the confusion about when does a female sexual partner become a mistress? After 2 times? 3 times? 30 times?

However, most men who have mistresses absolutely keep it as a secret from their wife. And, generally only the "older generation" (50-60 year olds) provide financial support for their mistress. Many younger married men have women they are cheating with, but few call them a mistress, and most young women today are too savvy about their family's finances to allow a husband to support a mistress somewhere across town like they show in the old movies.

Also, it brings to mind use of the word "affair". I hear "affair" used quite often, both in person and in the media, for even one-night-stands, but I personally interpret "affair" as being an on-going relationship. So, in order for a man to have an "affair" he has to have a "mistress". At least in my mind.

In other words, I think using affair to describe a one-night-stand is just as accurate/inaccurate as using mistress to describe a one-time lover.

I think TJH meant the weakest version of mistress... in context I took it to just be a sexual partner of a continuing nature. And in context that makes perfect sense.

I think if TJH's statement is taken as less decorative and more practical, he is dead on about most men cheating. That's really the issue here, isn't it, and not the use of the word mistress.

That said, TJH is full of shit quite often, so I can see why many people's first response is to say so.
posted by Ynoxas at 11:48 PM on April 1, 2006

Let him who is without shit throw the first turd.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:26 AM on April 2, 2006

I've been with my wife for 10 years. 5 years married. We're expecting our first child.
To keep it interesting we BOTH have invited a couple others to share. After talking it over first. I don't think that is getting a mistress, but something better.

Braggart.

Yeah, yeah, I'm sick of polyamorical evangelism, what can I say.

But honestly, I don't see how your little anecdote has anything to do with this thread at all.
posted by beth at 8:18 AM on April 2, 2006

Fine, beth, I'm scratching your name off the list.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 10:16 AM on April 2, 2006

To advise someone to get a whore so early in a relationship, and for such an innocuous reason - Alvy Ampersand

Obviously a mistress must be a whore. If it was a man on the side would he be similarly demeaned?
posted by raedyn at 2:49 PM on April 2, 2006

Whore: One who provides attention, whether it be sexual or otherwise, in exchange for material gain.

So to answer your question, yes, a man on the side would be equally demeaned, with the same word.. The fact that you automatically label a specific gender to it isn't my problem.

Sorry for the brusque response, but my feet hurt, and I've seen how some folks here make hay out of shit like that.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:40 PM on April 2, 2006

cunninglinguist: So wait, coming in late, half the stuff you're talking about has been deleted. What was the "odd advice" in the complimentary email forwarding thread?

He said (and I paraphrase, as i don't have a direct quote):

"Forward it to [e-mail]. The corporate world is dog eat dog, so you have to stick it in the faces of your co-workers that you are that much better than them"

As I said in the thread... odd...
posted by antifuse at 5:36 AM on April 3, 2006

The word whore may not always refer to a female, but it has strong historical connotations of being applied to females. If you look through the following dictionary entries, you'll find that about half the entries specifically mention women.

Anyway, point being, a female extramarital sexual partner and a whore aren't the same thing.
posted by Miko at 5:37 AM on April 3, 2006

Fine, beth, I'm scratching your name off the list.

::raises hand:: How does one apply to the list?


I laughed out loud at dershin's rule. Wow. Morbid humor in the morning.
posted by spiderwire at 7:03 AM on April 3, 2006

Alvy - I know you can't tell in this medium, but that was more of a tired sigh or resigned musing than an accusation. More like "isn't it sad that in most people's mind (I'm as guilty as anyone else) whore = woman = bad". I wasn't meaning to call you out or even to direct that at you, ya know?
posted by raedyn at 8:28 AM on April 3, 2006

Oh, so now I'm not even worth callin' out!

Kidding, and sorry again for teh brusqueness.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:25 PM on April 3, 2006