New Book Says Nannies Turn Boys Into Future Adulterers

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,275
Location
Edge's beanie closet
I wonder what he says about fathers who "outsource" the care of their sons-or daughters. If anything. Another attempt to blame mothers-even for men who can't remain faithful? Mothers shouldn't work? How about men should keep it zipped.?



time.com
Parenting: Do Nannies Turn Boys into Future Adulterers?

By BELINDA LUSCOMBE Sat Mar 27, 1:15 pm ET

Mothers who outsource the care of their sons to other women may be inadvertently raising adulterers. Or so claims Dr. Dennis Friedman in a book that has kicked up a bit of a ruckus in Britain. A Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the doctor argues that men become womanizers because their mothers left them with nannies.

According to Friedman, having two women care for a baby boy may cause his little brain to internalize the idea that there are multiple females to meet his needs. "It introduces him to the concept of the other woman," he said in London's Daily Telegraph. He explicates the relationship in his book The Unsolicited Gift: Why We Do The Things We Do, which explores how a mother's love for her offspring can determine how those children behave as adults.

Girls are affected by nannies too. Not having her mother around creates in the infant female a "vacuum of need," says Friedman, which she might try to fill in later life with substance abuse or promiscuity - presumably with those married men in her social circle who were also raised by nannies.

But it is the thesis concerning boys that has been more controversial. Having two maternal objects, says Friedman, "creates a division in [the boy's] mind between the woman he knows to be his natural mother and the woman with whom he has a real hands-on relationship: the woman who bathes him and takes him to the park, and with whom he feels completely at one." This dual-woman life, one for family and one for catering to his every need, might become a set pattern in his mind, so that when he grows up and feels like his needs are not being met, he strays beyond the home.

Friedman suggests mothers should not work, or if they must, should not return to work until their children are at least 1 year old. Critics, and many, many working mothers, quickly pointed out that he offers no statistics for his theory (as in, exactly how many nannies Tiger Woods must have had), nor does his proposal seem particularly practical, since many women have little choice but either to return to work after having children or to not feed said children. Additionally, it rankled many women that Friedman lays the blame for men's fidelity issues on females. If it's not the inattentive wife who drives a man into another woman's arms - it's his inattentive mother.

It also doesn't make developmental sense, says Dr. Jean Mercer, professor emerita of Psychology at Richard Stockton College in New Jersey, who specializes in infant development. "Babies don't form attachments solely to their mothers - they become attached also to fathers, grandparents, nannies, child-care providers, older brothers and sisters, or anyone else who interacts with them socially and frequently participates in care routines like feeding and bathing." These relationships are healthy and part of normal development. And becoming attached to a nanny doesn't equal becoming detached from a mother, or that the two are interchangeable. "A nanny or other person is added to the existing relationships most babies have."

It's unclear how wide a cross section of society Friedman used to draw his conclusions, but it's possible they may have been a bit skewed. His previous three books were explorations of the psychology of a small but prominent group of people with powerful matriarchs and lots and lots of nannies: the British royal family.
 
Why do men cheat on their wives and girlfriends-or husbands and boyfriends. I'd like some real and honest thoughts on that from the males here. And of course from females on why women (and men if you wish) do, even though that's not the topic of this book.

If you're doing it because you're unhappy in the relationship, the relationship is broken, etc. then why not honestly confront that with the other person first? is cheating somehow easier than doing that? Of course there's the question of how many times that's the real issue vs other issues going on.
 
I think there are many reasons, but they all boil down to selfishness. It doesn't matter if you're man or woman, almost every case I know of has come down to that...
 
Yes-talking to my mother and friends about it, about the Woods situation and the Jesse James one and just the topic in general( it's just how those fit into the context of that that interests me)..I always conclude that it all comes down to selfishness. The issue for me is the kids and how men or women justify that-do you mentally compartmentalize that and rationalize that your kids somehow aren't involved until you're caught and then the explanations have to happen if they're old enough. And you have to confront what you're done to them. Selfishness just causes massive amounts of denial and rationalizations and mental gymnastics I guess.

The other person in the relationship is a tough enough situation-but when kids are involved I just can't grasp that at all. I don't care to delve into their personal situation but when you feel and state publicly that your husband always has your back and now you finally know how that feels, it must feel like the most painful betrayal.
 
Can't speak to nannies but French maids...

G__Smiffys_LARGE_IMAGE_30817.jpg
 
i think it's a fairly natural impulse for men -- and perhaps some women -- to want to have sex with lots and lots of people. i think it's somewhat hardwired into the male sex drive, and i think it's supported by very basic biology. i don't think there's a man alive who is only attracted to his wife.

where the selfishness comes in is when men allow their impulses to override their higher level reasoning and they choose to engage in activity which they well know they could destroy their relationships and harm their families and children. as much as we are all animals, we can think and reason and make rational choices.

monogamy is very much a choice, and it might even be an unnatural choice, but i think it is a very rational one. there are enormous upsides to monogamy and in my experience it seems to be a fairly critical component of any successful long term relationship. open relationships generally don't tend to work, at least in what i've seen. sure, it's possible, but the commitment to monogamy enables what is in my opinion a much more admirable relationship.

so why do men like Tiger and Jessie James cheat? because they have the means to do so. and because they have decided that their momentary pleasure -- and that's not to be underestimated, the sex drive is a powerful thing -- is worth the risk it might pose to their relationships. it probably isn't even a commentary on their relationships with Elin or Sandra Bullock. they likely don't think that it harms the relationship at all because, 1) they assume Elin/Sandra will never find out, 2) they've likely made it clear to these women that it's "only sex" and because of their fame/fortune these other women aren't going to ask for anything more, 3) they're used to getting what they want and when they want it, and with getting away with anything and everything.
 
I think you pretty much covered it.

also, it does not help when there are long periods of separation. Not that I am making excuses for Tiger's or Jesse's behavior.
I also believe it begins slowly. With just a casual drink or cup of coffee. Then once they have sex the first time, it gets a little easier. And then a lot easier.

The partner has some responsibility for this too. One should know if their is a distance or estrangement in their relationship. If they just ignore it, it can lead to the partner going outside of the relationship. I think good communication is the key to any successful relationship.
 
I remember Woody Allen's anticlimactic response to the media firestorm over his getting involved with Soon Yi. He dismissed it all, quoting Shakespeare (I think) just saying, "The heart wants what the heart wants". That infuriated people.
 
To steal a thought from Jon Stewart: That theory is so ingenious, it almost doesn't make sense at all. A stretch, much?
 
I remember Woody Allen's anticlimactic response to the media firestorm over his getting involved with Soon Yi. He dismissed it all, quoting Shakespeare (I think) just saying, "The heart wants what the heart wants". That infuriated people.

Yeah-or maybe he's just a douchebag

Jesse James didn't even bother with coffee, if what "bombshell" says is true-he just used the MySpace and it was right down to business. Apparently he used his business as a recruiting tool and a place to do it and many of his employees were aware of that. He settled at least one sexual harassment suit.

I think the only distance in their relationship was when she was off working-and perhaps the distance between who he really was and who she thought he was. I think that second distance happens to many people.

Of course you can cheat with just an emotional affair that never becomes physical-and that can be much worse. In that case it has nothing to do with sex drive.
 
The oft-repeated notion that it's a biological impulse for men but not women bugs the shit out of me.

There is a well-known theory to the effect that men want to have sex with as many women as they can in order to perpetuate their own genetic legacy. The corresponding theory is that women want to have sex only in the context of a relationship or marriage, in order to ensure a protector for any children they might bear.

If this was an abiding natural truth, there would hardly be the need for the kind of intensive cultural pressure to restrict and control female sexuality that actually exists. Monogamy, broadly speaking, is an invention of a patriarchal world view, and its purpose is to ensure that no man need doubt he is the father of his children, born by his women.

If male polygamy is a biological imperative to ensure the survival of the superior males genes - because the superior male fights off all the competition - the equivalent biological drive in the female would be to engage in sex with as many men as possible during the conception period, so that the 'superior' sperm would be the one that made it through to fertilise the egg. It is to prevent this happening that men have placed such emphasis on monogamy through the centuries.
 
^ i find that very interesting.

but why do you think that most men seem to be able to bounce from partner to partner without nary a thought, whereas this doesn't appear to be the case for women?

is the virgin/whore mentality we teach our daughters that powerful? is it all socialization?

and does the above mean anything in that it *isn't* a male biological imperative? that it might also be for women doesn't mean that many men really do have impulses to have sex as much as possible.
 
Now you can cheat all you want and just go into rehab and say you're a sex addict. Now Jesse James is-it seems to be the in thing for celebs and spouses of celebs. Non celebrities would probably do it more if they could afford it.

Sex addiction exists I suppose but it seems like an easy excuse for some people.
 
Sex addiction exists I suppose but it seems like an easy excuse for some people.



due to my job, i actually know something about this. and like most addictions, sex addiction isn't a problem until it becomes a problem. like, when you can't function, or when it measurably detracts from the quality of your life and facilitates the destruction of relationships, it's a problem. i suppose it gets cloudy when you have someone who might not actually care about said relationship. perhaps that's more douchbaggery than sex addiction.

however, it does exist, and it's much more of a problem for the janitor in Oklahoma who spends 6 hours a night online masturbating and spends $10,000 a month on pornography, phone sex lines, and strip clubs, and their life is going down the drain just as assuredly as if he were an alcoholic. Jessie James can afford super-fancy rehab and will always have the money to get himself out of trouble.
 
but why do you think that most men seem to be able to bounce from partner to partner without nary a thought, whereas this doesn't appear to be the case for women?

I think both those scenarios are culturally engrained myths in the same tradition as the virgin/whore mentality - which we teach to our sons as much as our daughters, btw.

Yet, as many women know only too well, men are quite capable of remaining emotionally detached within a relationship but simultaneously loyal and sexually faithful.

And vice versa.

and does the above mean anything in that it *isn't* a male biological imperative? that it might also be for women doesn't mean that many men really do have impulses to have sex as much as possible.

To suggest that men somehow feel genetically or hormonally compelled to have sex with as many partners as possible is as absurd as arguing that women are biologically destined to do the cooking and cleaning.
 
i had a girlfriend for over a year who cheated on me. my best friend packed up his life, gave us his career and moved to maine to be with his college girlfriend, only to find out 3 months later that she was schtooping some other dude. this is not a quality that is inherent in males and not females...

we're all animals. this same type of behavior is common in the animal kingdom. it's our ability to reason that makes us not want to do it, but i believe it is a natrual thing for both men and women. just seems more prevelant in the alpha male because, well, they're more obnoxious about it. :shrug:


i fully agree with the statement that if you're really unhappy with the relationship and want to move on then just do so. that's where our ability to reason comes on... "hey, maybe this isn't such a great idea!"

some people just can't figure that part out.



as for jesse james... something about this whole sandra bullock thing doesn't seem right...

the guy is apparently facsinated with nazi-ism, and you're telling me in 5 years of being married she never even caught a whif?

bullok lived in germany until she was 12. she's fluent in german. and now her husband appears to have a thing for nazi's.

that's just a coinkydink? really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10x38SMb-g

really?
 
That's funny, I had nannies and I can't seem to find even one good woman, much less several. I'd like to know where all my multiple girlfriends are? :lol:
 
the only thing i'll add, however, is that though it might seem to make sense that a woman would want to have sex with as many powerful men as possible to ensure that her baby is, likewise, powerful, from an evolutionary perspective, the need to "keep" someone around to help provide for the baby likely overrides this suggested impulse.

i've heard it said -- from my friends who have babies -- that newborns most resemble their fathers, and it's suggested that this is an evolutionary adaptation because if the newborn looks like the father, he recognizes the baby as his own, and therefore won't kill the baby because it's a baby by another man.

so, looking at it that way, it does seem as if there are more biological incentives for a woman to value monogamy more than a man might.
 
i fully agree with the statement that if you're really unhappy with the relationship and want to move on then just do so. that's where our ability to reason comes on... "hey, maybe this isn't such a great idea!"

some people just can't figure that part out.

But if monogamy is unnatural, does that mean every impulse a man has to sleep with someone else (when followed through) implies that he's unhappy in his relationship?

A friend of mine in university days was a (seemingly) insensitive playa. When he eventually met the one and got married, I was quite sure he wasn't capable of long-term monogamy. And there were clues to that along the way.

Before turning 30, she'd developed a rare and deadly form of cancer that needed radical surgery and treatment over an 8 week period in another city. Of course regular life went on hold and he was there with her for every minute. Various friends and close family made short visits but for the most part, he was on his own to take care of her and deal with his own experience.

This was in the days just before blogging and for his own sanity and to update loved ones who couldn't be there, he'd send a daily journal-type email to a bunch of us.

I can hardly describe what it was like to take that journey with him. It was harrowing in the horrific detail of what radical cancer treatment can be like up close. But more than that, it was a rare and intimate glimpse into the depth and strength of his unwavering loyalty, commitment and love for his partner, and when it really mattered most, had her back.

She recovered.

She ending up leaving him.
 
But if monogamy is unnatural, does that mean every impulse a man has to sleep with someone else (when followed through) implies that he's unhappy in his relationship?


no, i think it means that, if monogamy is unnatural, he might be momentarily unhappy that he cannot have sex with many other people, but he's made the rational decision that choosing to remain monogamous will increase his overall happiness because he values his relationship. he understands that sexuality is but one component of a relationship.

i also agree that many men can be perfectly happy in their relationships but simply want to have sex with other people. it can be entirely independent of their partner. however, it's the choice to cheat that may represent problems in the relationship because he's clearly putting his momentary pleasure above their mutual trust in one another.

however, what do we think about the idea -- the anecdotally French idea -- that men often do have women on the side, and that this might actually help a long-term relationship? that if the extramarital sex is understood as being sex-for-sex, and nothing else, that a man having an outlet -- possibly a don't-ask-don't-tell kind of thing -- actually helps him remain committed to the marriage.

just food for thought.
 
But if monogamy is unnatural, does that mean every impulse a man has to sleep with someone else (when followed through) implies that he's unhappy in his relationship?

i believe the problem that many make is that they directly tie relationships with sex.

i'm very happily in a relationship right now. it doesn't mean that i don't have urges. that i don't turn and look when someone attractive walks by. i just don't act on those urges because it would ruin the relationship, and that's a hell of a lot more important thatn a quick lay.

we all have these same sexual urges for someone else... as if nobody here who's married or in a happy relationship hasn't oogled over some celebrity or sports figure who's just so dreamy... some of us just have the ability to not act upon those urges better than others.
 
Headache-in-a-suitcase said:
i had a girlfriend for over a year who cheated on me. my best friend packed up his life, gave us his career and moved to maine to be with his college girlfriend, only to find out 3 months later that she was schtooping some other dude. this is not a quality that is inherent in males and not females...


Ship of Fools said:
That's funny, I had nannies and I can't seem to find even one good woman, much less several. I'd like to know where all my multiple girlfriends are?

I am not convinced the threadstarter is taking on board the different perspectives being offered.

But anyway:

Many studies have convincingly documented the point that men
are far more susceptible than women to severe and intractable loveshyness.
For example, in a 1983 study which incorporated a large sample
of university students, sociologists David Knox and Kenneth Wilson
obtained strong support for the view that love-shyness is primarily a
male problem. Fully 20 percent of the male students surveyed complained
of painful feelings of shyness vis-a-vis the opposite sex in informal
social situations. Less than 5 percent of the women students had a
similar complaint. And very few of this small minority of women students
suffered emotionally from their shyness vis-a-vis the opposite sex
to the debilitating extent to which the male love-shys suffered from their
shyness.

A seldom mentioned factor which I believe serves to increase the
shyness (and diminish the self-confidence) of young men as compared
to that of young women is the fact that women do the lion's share of the
rejecting in male/female relationships. Within marriage, 90 percent of
all divorces are sought by wives and not by husbands. And among
courting couples at least two-thirds of all of the break-ups which occur
are precipitated by the female partner, not by the male partner. In a wellknown 1976 study by sociologists Charles Hill, Letitia Peplau, and Zick
Rubin, most of the terminated "steady dating" relationships had been
terminated by the girl, not by the boy.

Even normally self-confident men have been found to suffer far
more than women when courtship relationships are terminated. Yet
most young men are forced to suffer far more such relationship breakups
than women. Such broken relationships very often take a severe
emotional toll upon many of the men who suffer them. It is often forgotten
that males are human beings with feelings too, every bit as much
as females. Yet the relationship terminations which men are forced to
endure often create large-scale and often dangerous emotional upheavals;
and some victims of such persistent rejection eventually become so
emotionally scarred and calloused that they become incapable of expressing
their feelings, even to themselves. Women often complain that men
cannot express their feelings in a meaningful way; yet the steady stream
of rejections which some men suffer at the hands of women often creates
a trained incapacity for the expression of inner feelings.
It is also important to note that even normally adjusted young men
experience significantly fewer serious man/woman relationships before
marriage than (even very average) young women do. And I think this
too bespeaks some of the serious shortcomings in contemporary courtship
norms. Human beings do not like to be rejected. It can be extremely
painful when a person is rejected by an opposite-sexed stranger upon
asking for a date. And it can be profoundly devastating to the emotions
when a man is rejected by a woman with whom he has maintained a
relationship over several months or longer. Why does the American
culture persist in requiring the male (not the female) to withstand the
lion's share of such emotional devastation?! I would suggest that the
severe emotional scars endemic in severe and intractable love-shyness
very often reflect a history of such rejection. In essence, the risk-taking
involved in starting new relationships must be shared equally by women
and men alike.

Source: Love-shy.com: Support for the dating-challenged - Dr. Gilmartin's book
 
I am not convinced the threadstarter is taking on board the different perspectives being offered.

But anyway:



Source: Love-shy.com: Support for the dating-challenged - Dr. Gilmartin's book

I wouldn't quote that link if I were you. I've visited the love-shy.com forums before, and there are some crazy mofos over there. I mean, literally insane, psycho, loony, crazy people.

They seem to think that, just because they're men, they're entitled to a woman. And they say horrible things about women who join the site (you can't be love-shy! You're a woman, so therefore you can get sex whenever you want!), advocate rape and murder, and glorify people like that gym shooter who shot a bunch of women because he wasn't getting any (they considered him somewhat of a hero.) :doh:

I'm not denying that the condition exists, because I believe I have it. But I also believe that women can also be love shy, which is something that Gilmartin neglected to mention in his book. I've known several women who fit the profile, as well as many other guys.
 
however, what do we think about the idea -- the anecdotally French idea -- that men often do have women on the side, and that this might actually help a long-term relationship? that if the extramarital sex is understood as being sex-for-sex, and nothing else, that a man having an outlet -- possibly a don't-ask-don't-tell kind of thing -- actually helps him remain committed to the marriage.

Do French wives do that too?
 
But anyway:

That was interesting.

My parents were among the first big divorce wave in the 70s. Many of their broad social circle ended up separating in a small time frame. From what I recall, it was mostly the wives that initiated.

In the spring after 9/11, many many couples in my broad social circle ended up separating or divorced, virtually all initiated by the women.

Perhaps it's a female version of polygamy. :hmm:
 
Back
Top Bottom