Another relationship-wrecking-ball from Prude. Remeber when she "advised" the poor sap whose wife was clearly cheating on him that her excuse (the wind blew in a condom wrapper) was so clever that it deserved a dispensation? They even drew a limp-wristed cartoon character to represent 'ol cucky and gave him a femme voice,

Now she wants her reader to start hatin' on her man because he presses her about her past lovers. Sure, she loves him for every other reason, but that's the dealbreaker? Pulease. Slate needs more man-vice. Here's what the reader needs to hear:

Every man cares about his lover's past lovers. Some don't have Nazis for wives, so they bother to talk about it. Not just a few even get themselves worked up, It's called testosterone. The real motive is that he wonders if he stacks up to her previous flames. The reader can nip it in the bud with one well-practiced line:

"Honey, I can't remember every detail about who I've kissed and when, but I do know that I've never felt this way about a man before. In fact, you're more of a man than anyone I have ever dated and you satisfy me more than I ever thought possible. If you only knew, baby, those guys just didn't compare"

Duh.

<link>

The situation described by that letter writer went far beyond "pressing" for information, and the letter writer's descriptioin is all we ever get. Once in a while someone will post some additional information and claim to be the letter writer, and maybe they are. That particular relationship had several ugly parts, and the two-hour interrogatioin about her sexual history was just the most obvious part.

I'd have to agree with you on Prudie's lack of understanding of males in general, and men in relatioonships in particular. For the most part, the men are either cardboard cutouts who don't quite fit the spot in the letter writer's movie script, or they are like the villians of melodrama, tying beautiful young heroines to railroad tracks until they marry the villain or sign over the deed to the villain.

No matter how shallow Prudie's treatment of that first letter was, that woman needs to escape that looney man. It's not caring when someone interrogates someone else over something that is not his business.

Most men are curious of our pasts. But, what the problem with this fellow isnt WHAT he is asking, its the WAY he is asking it. Interrogating her for 2 hours and driving her to begging and tears is going beyond being curious of past lovers and seeking validation. His tactics are unhealthy and not productive. And what he is doing is a form of emotional abuse.

The LW has not mentioned this, but perhaps she has tried the well-rehearsed line that you provided and it did nothing to ease his unhealthy obsession with her sexual history. I dont know if straight up leaving him is the answer, but she should re-evaluate how she views his character.

Abuse is very much like the science story with the frog in the boiling water - you dont notice the signs until its too late.

I suspect that if that relationship continues, LW1 will be "interrogated" again and again about everything she did when she was out of the house that day.

Where did she go? What route did she take? Did she take that street so that she would drive past so-and-so's house? Who did she talk to when she was there? Him? Was he with his wife or by himself? What did he say? What expression did he have when he said that? How close was he standing? Why did she say "see you later" to him instead of "goodbye"? Is she planning on seeing him again?

Every man cares about his lover's past lovers.

But the ceaseless interrogation is a deal breaker, and it has to be. there is a difference between being curios and being abusive, and, as every woman who has ever truly been interrogated about past lovers knows, the next step on his agenda is to start telling her that she's a whore or that there's something depraved about her ever having been with another man.

Well, suprise! again--Prudie isn't a man. You know how men complain about not knowing what women want? A lot of the time women don't really know what men want. I'm a woman. I've tried to "understand" men--and I've done it at least well enough to marry one--but in the end I'll probably never "get" them completely.

Maybe if a dude was writing this column, you'd get the responses you want. How about lightening up a bit?

That being said, if anyone that I was dating grilled me that much about my personal life, that would be the end of it.

Yoffe does not give us the full letters--they are "edited"--and doubtless she is altering details to make her own points. This is compounded by the fact that the LW's do not necessarily tell us the truth.

It is just as likely that the fellow who is "interrogating" the woman about her former lovers is a cockold fetishist. He wants to know every last detail because it gets him off.

Or, yes, he just needs to hear her say that he is the best she's ever had--repeatedly.

That Prudie is an idiot is obvious. That she prints letters mostly because they speak to her own background is also obvious. Remember, her parents were abusive to one another--want to bet that this was their issue? Want to bet she got dumped by a boyfriend?

She's using this column as a form of therapy and self-reification, and it is just old, old, old.

Yoffe, if you don't have a shred of ability to relate to others (which you've admitted) or ability to think critically (which you've admitted), please give the column to someone else.

First, how do you know the letters are edited?

Second, why would someone earnestly seeking help lie about their situation? It's people who don't think they need help who do that. LW1 did spend a good part of her letter sugarcoating her situation, but she still voiced her concern, which is a more than valid one. I think Prudie did a good job spotting the tell-tale signs in the letter, which you don't have to be a professional to recognize.

Bleh- whatever, It was a title. The actual point, in case you missed it, is that Prudence prescribes a double standard. It's ok for a husband to play the fool for a woman who is sleeping around, but it's not ok for a man to push for details about her past. Worse, I suspect that the account of his neurosis was exaggerated, He sounds obsessed, not insane. Maybe he is obsessed because the last woman who wouldn't tell him enough about her past wound up with a condom wrapper that blew in from the wind. It doesn't take a "dude" to figure out that you have to fix otherwise perfect relationships when one party gets hung up on some neurotic issue.

And by the way, all the women posting here are full of it. You say that if your man got obsessed, that would be the end of your relationship. no doubt, you advise your friends to do the same. Yet, in the end, you couldn't possibly blow men off for going nuts on testosterone from time to time or you'd all be lonely like those friends you casually dispense advise to or married to wimps like condomn-wrapper-guy.

Does this happen to you a lot, or are you making broad, general statements based on a sample of one?

Prudie's response to one letter in the past has absolutely no bearing on what this LW has actually written in. So let's stop pretending the condom wrapper letter changes something about this week's LW's reality.

First off, it's not just men who are curious about their lover's pasts. I've found myself feeling inadequate about a previous GF, wondering if she had done something better, possessed some quality that I didn't, etc. But beyond perhaps asking what I should do with my left hand while I... well, I don't "interrogate". You know why? Because you are supposed to respect other adults, especially the one you claim to love. I might be curious about something, but I'm not going to press an issue that obviously makes him uncomfortable, unless it has some direct bearing on me ("Did any of your past lovers have herpes?").

Claiming "I'm a MAN! With testosterone! GRRR!" doesn't make it alright to treat another person like this. This turns it into a power play, where his curiosity is more important than her happiness.

Yet, in the end, you couldn't possibly blow men off for going nuts on testosterone from time to time...

That depends on your definition of "going nuts" (which you admit is crazy in the first place). If getting all testosteroney means holding me by my throat against the wall because of those darned manly urges, then yes, I leave him. If it means blocking the door with his body frame and barring me from leaving until I answer his questions, and this happens several times, I'm also out of there. Although I generally refer to those guys who can't control their testosterone as "short-tempered assholes". And though we may forgive them for occasional outbursts, grown-ups are supposed think rationally instead of listening to their hormonal urges. Being a MAN, damnit, does not make this long-term obsession and insecurity OK, particularly when he's taking his problems out on her.

There are a few other little clues in there too.

...with every man and boy I was ever with.

...not remember everything in the detailed way he wants it told to him...

He wants to know from back when she was still dating boys? He isn't satisfied with the quality of her memory? What, should she make things up? Lying certainly isn't good for a relationship. Beyond that, he doesn't have some essential right to know all of these details in the first place. He was not a part of her life during those times. Just because you are in a relationship with someone at this point in their lives, you don't own their past.

...does not want me to do anything that might put me in danger...

Does that include not spending time with her friends because he thinks they are a bad influence? Not going to her mother's house because the drive is too far/at night? Not taking that yoga class because he doesn't like the neighborhood? Not leaving the house without him (to keep her safe, of course)?

Sure, she could be exaggerating. But she gives some telltale signs of an abusive relationship. If he doesn't respect her on this issue, why should he respect her in future disagreements? This insecurity of his will almost certainly not stop at her past lovers.

But hey, what red-blooded male wouldn't want to make his woman cry and beg him to leave her alone about details she couldn't remember?

I love Seeker. :-D Shadrach, please define "...going nuts on testosterone from time to time..." Do you mean jumping on the couch and yelling with his friends when their team scores a touchdown? Or do you mean breaking glass against the cabinet and yelling in his wife's face? Or do you mean harassing his girlfriend over the phone and refusing to stop calling until she tells him every detail of every date she's ever been on since kindergarten? 'Cause if it's the first one, you're right. If I had a problem with my boyfriend drinking and laughing loudly while playing video games with his friends, then yes I would be a very lonely girl. However, if it's the last two, then sorry, but I would rather live and die by myself than put up with that kind of treatment. Just because he has a penis and I don't doesn't mean I'm going to meekly turn the other cheek when he puts me in danger.

I think Prudie has a better grasp of the situation than you do, Shadrach. The fact that the LW needed to pad the beginning of the letter with so many of his "wonderful" qualities before getting to the part about not letting out of the house for two hours is a huge red flag. I agree that Prudie's advice tends to favor the women folk. But there's nothing flattering or loving about being held captive until you divulge the exact number of relations you previously had. At best it's sign of severe insecurity on the part of a weak-willed man.

Seeker, you're quite confused.

First, no one is "pretending" that the condom wrapper-thing has a bearing on this LW's issues. Again, it has a bearing on the range of advice Prudence gives. My point, since you missed it, is that Prudence prescribes a double standard. Betcha she wouldn't react so strongly if it was a man being interrogated by a woman. But enough speculation. Let's get to where you're really confused:

We're not talking about bare curiosity about a woman's past. We're talking about a deeply ingrained possibly-genetic predisposition to find out if the woman you just fell in love with is a slut. There are obvious biological reasons why men do this and it's especially telling that this behavior appears common (given the number of comments).

Don't get me wrong, if he has more issues than that, maybe he isn't worth it. But this letter writer insisted he is a gem except for this issue. Yoffe's advice (which I suspect won't be followed because it is dumb) is that the interrogation is enough to...not warrant, but *mandate* a departure from the relationship. My point is that she might be able to have her Mr. Perfect after all if she simply follows my advice. If that doesn't work, maybe she should give up. But giving up because of some silly ideal about the existence of a perfect man who never acts like an asshole...well, that's just stupid.

You're especially confused when you say that being a man with testosterone doesn't make it ok. What are you rebutting there? You repeated this over and over, yet I never said that, did I? What I did say, since you didn't understand this on your own, is that testosterone fits don't have to do irrepairable harm.

I don't know who you quoted in the rest of the text, but the fact that you aren't sure whether he actually, physically blocked her exit (I mean...come on) and yet jump to extreme conclusions is telling.

Incidently, I think you're using the word "telltale" a little casually. I think it's supposed to mean, "sure thing". It's more of a telltale sign that the guy is insecure, not that he's going to abuse her.