I thought the advice given to the woman who was two years post-divorce was ill given. She reported that she was dating a man who was divorcing in order to be with her and that he was obsessed with her sexual history. Instead of painting a portrait of this man as a possible future sexual batterer or abuser, perhaps other options should have been explored. Perhaps he is expressing unhealthy concerns about her sexual history because he thinks of her still as the "other woman" and feels guilty for the betrayal to his own wife and children. Instead of accepting responsibility for his actions, he chooses to project his feelings onto his girlfriend and deal with it that way. Perhaps he should spend some time reflecting on how he really feels about his choices and the future consequences of his actions both on himself and his family. Being in a blended family is probably not going to be the escapist honeymoon that they both are imagining.

Sincerely,

Dr. Emily Perrine

It would be nice to think so, wouldn't it?

But no, I think you're wrong. From her description of his behavior, I'd have to say that he's showing most of the usual signs that he will become an abuser. If he's a real person (and we don't know that for a fact), then it's virtually guaranteed that his behavior will escalate as he feels his control over her become more solid.

It's absolutely classic - too classic, in fact. If I didn't know for a fact that men who have these tendencies act in an almost stereotypical manner, I'd say that Prudie's interns did a little basic research and made him up. His behavior sounds like the checklist that we used to hand out, outlining the main signs of a man who will abuse women.

If you've ever dealt with one of these men, you'll know that they have no guilt and no remorse for what they do. They may ACT remorseful, but it is most assuredly an act. It's one of the classic ways to maintain control of their victim - basic conditioning. She never knows if she'll see the monster or the charmer, so she sticks around on the off chance that she'll hit it lucky this time. He'll put on the nice act just enough to convince her that his "monster" is her own fault.

In therapeutic terms, these men are a waste of time. They don't change because they don't want to. In their minds, they're behaving the way they're supposed to. Generally they're extremely hostile to any therapist, but will try and manipulate them in the same way they manipulate everyone else in their circle. When someone calls their bluff, they'll quit or hunt for another therapist that will reinforce their behavior.

By deflecting blame and voicing their so-called "pain" at having to deal with someone who is obviously mentally ill, they frequently convince even experienced therapists that there's nothing wrong with them. Charm is, after all, one of their stocks-in-trade, and therapists are people too.

Did Slate go down to "Retards-R-Us" and ask these people to come along?

"Doctor" Perrine, I wouldn't want to sully your credentials, but how far up your ass is that sheepskin you bought? Let's take a gander:

"...Perhaps he is expressing unhealthy concerns about her sexual history..."

This is not an unhealthy "expression of concern," dingledick: it is the unhealthy manifestation of GODDAMN PHYSICAL OPPRESSION AND DEMAND that are the issue. Where do concerns enter the picture? Let's see: about ten seconds AFTER this woman should hit this fucker square in the forehead with a baseball bat.

Step two, numbskull:

"...Instead of accepting responsibility for his actions, he chooses to project his feelings onto his girlfriend and deal with it that way..."

Projecting his feelings? Is that all? He stops there? You didn't notice anything hinky about the LW's mention of physical restraint?

No, "Doctor," in this forum there is nothing left to "explore." If you need to finish up your fist semester's study to move on to quackery, do it elsewhere. I cannot imagine the rout of humiliating, vicious, and completely avoidable damage that could be done by a "doctor" like you, were you real.

You are not a doctor, at least, not a doctor of any form of psychology-related science for field of study. Are you an engineer? You get a B.S. in Astrophysics?

B.S. is right. Thank you, "Doctor" Perrine, for poisoning this space with you utterly witless and asinine, delusional load of fecal-oral output on this case study. Now shut up and go away.

schuylercat:

You didn't notice anything hinky about the LW's mention of physical restraint?

actually, the LW didn't explicitly mention physical restraint. "not letting someone leave" could be interpreted in any number of ways.... I've been in arguments that the other person wouldn't "let" end, and no physical contact was ever involved. then again, I may be biased because I'd never put up with that crap.

Ya know Doc, it's NEVER a good idea to use your real name in theese type boards. And affixing a moniker like "Dr." could be construed as this is your professional opinion by those who know you. Again, a very, very bad idea.

Whether he's projecting or compulsive or whatever is not really that important. If someone I am interacting with behaves emotionally ill, I don't really care whether it's genetic or drug induced or whatever. I just know I need to end the interaction as soon as possible, in most cases. Particularly in a love-relationship.

His unhealthiness likely is only going to get worse. She needs to leave. If he gets the help he needs, perhaps someday they can reconnect. I just wouldn't count on it happening. It's bad enough she wants to keep herself in this relationship. If she should bring children into it, she's at least morally liable for any harm - physical or emotional - that comes to them.