Suzie

Bini, that's a great site! Thanks for sharing. Are you a vegetarian or vegan?

I thought the author was very respectful and professional. Lauren Green's interview was embarrassing to say the least, she didn't seem prepared (it seems to me she didn't even read the book). The whole thing was done very unprofessionally and her insistence about why a guy who has a Phd in religion would write a book about Jesus Christ is one of the most unintelligent, and idiotic question from a so called "journalist" that I have heard in a while. She is a devoted Christian and that's all cool with me, but anyone who has worked in media before knows you need to separate your interviews from your personal/religious views and be impartial. Lauren Green in that interview, failed to do so.

I don't know about your particular situation but this reminds me about a couple of sisters I know from the Church that are married to non-members husbands and they are in a similar situation than yours. In their case, they met their husbands when they were going through a period of inactivity, but sometime along the way, they became active again and that caused a lot of conflict in the marriage. One of them is a good friend of mine. The way she sees is that the husband hates everything about the Church because it changed his wife and she doesn't agree with it. But the truth is that she indeed changed and the husband feels that he is married to a different woman. All of the sudden she dresses more conservative, no longer drinks beer and became religious. I totally understand the guy's frustration. I just cannot understand how they cannot see it. In this particular scenario, it seems to be that your husband just needed to rant a bit and needed you to be more empathetic about his experience. Your husband always comes first and validating his feelings is crucial to the development and healing of your relationship.

Well, sometimes it's not racial prejudice but just crap service. If you tell me your husband heard one of the waitresses make a comment or make a face or something then I think perhaps could be racial prejudice. Keep in mind that for our Latino amigos, "gringos" usually tip best if they are happy with their food, therefore in this particular scenario I am not sure it was racial prejudice.

IF he is happy, IF he is the one choosing to do all these things, I don't see anything wrong with it. By the other hand, IF it's the mother pressuring him to do it, it seems like someone wants to ensure they are going to be well taken care of when they hit retirement age.

I didn't not say there are no consequences, I said that psychologists evaluate MORE than sexual behavior in order to diagnose emotional or mental harm of some sort. Yes, some psychologists believe that. It's actually quite a common belief.

Talking from a pure psychological aspect (let's leave religion aside for a moment), how exactly a 15 year old is harmed emotionally by being sexually active? Psychology could argue on the contrary, that a teenager who did not experience sexual relations is at a disadvantage over their peers because they're not allowing the normal process of sexual exploration to take place during this critical time of their lives. I am not condoning fornication, I am merely talking from a psychological point of view and trying to make a point that more information is needed and evaluated (besides sexual behavior) to assess someone's mental and emotional health.

I'm very sorry to hear about your story. I'm surprised the police is not involved, how come? This is more common than what people think and is usually related to a poor emotional development (on the part of your wife). The person in question usually appears as grounded and "normal" but the way they emotionally connect to others is like someone who is of a much younger age so when they meet someone like the 17 year old boy, they tend to focus on one aspect or characteristic that they like based on what they were looking for in a boy when they were teenagers themselves. Before the sexual talk even emerge, there is a strong emotional bond created and they start seeing the teenager as someone of their own age. We call it "counter-transference" (also very common between therapists and clients). Basically the person idealizes one aspect of the teenager and "dreams" about it romantically and then "projects" that on to her own twisted reality. There is no way on earth you could have seen this one coming because most of the time, it is not noticeable. There is hope, there is treatment yet she has to be willing to go through it all AND cut ALL communications with this boy. She's not the only one who needs therapy. You also need it, the boy and his family also need it since in most situations, the victim has unfulfilled emotional needs.

Was it John? I'm not convinced. According to "Who Really Wrote the Gospels? A Study of Traditional Authorship" The book of John has a few comments made by editors and for some reason, made it to the original text.

I'm sorry to hear about it Eowyn. If it was me, I would be fuming! In my experience, I realized that a lot of members think they should get free services just because you attend the same ward or you belong to the same Church. Business is business for me, and my job is what allows me to pay the bills and should be respected. Now, I did offer free services in the past to people who really need it and asked me about it but others did not need it but they tried to take full advantage and it got me quite upset. So if a member asks me again for my services, I am usually straightforward and say something like "Sure, you can call me to make an appointment and I'll let you know my fees". That's usually the last time I hear about them.

Oh you wanna keep busy? I have a whole list of things to do at my house, feel free to PM.

Why wait until you are baptized? :) If they are interested, you can make arrangements with the missionaries and see how things turn out.

I eat baked chicken with a little mayo on the side and sweet relish on top of french fries.

In the book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" there is this quote: "Treat a man as he is and he will remain as he is. Treat a man as he can and should be and he will become as he can and should be."

Thanks for your post. Since the "how" in this particular scenario is crucial to the understanding of your position, I can only reply based on the limited information presented.

Key words: "I encountered", and not "We encountered".The thing is, they were his games and the issue at hand was a marital problem, not a problem of your own that leaves you with the right to just get his stuff and throw them away because you find them to be a problem that needs to be solved (that's what people do with children hence my earlier post). So who gets to decide what is best for the couple? One person?

Geez, my curiosity is killing me. What are you guys talking about?

Anatess, not trying to nitpick but, telling your husband he needs to "stop" playing games and then throwing away his games is a behavior that a parent would impose to a child. I am not saying you did something wrong, I am trying to analyze your reasoning since you said expectations mean consequences for things that aren't met and it's something you do with kids and you cannot do with your husband. But: A. "Stop playing games, it's taking away time from our marriage". (This is your expectation from him which is: Do not do anything that takes away time from our marriage). B: Throwing the games away after a year or two (This is the consequence when those expectations haven't been met to your satisfaction).

Breasts might not fit the average definition of "private" (genitalia) yet, I think it seems to be about semantics. What about intimate parts of the body? (if the word private isn't acceptable).

Necking: passionate kissing and intimate contact (see President Kimball Speaks Out, p. 8). Petting: “fondling of the private parts of the body for the purpose of sexual arousal” (President Kimball Speaks Out, p. 8). LDS.org - Aaronic Priesthood Chapter Detail - Personal Purity through Self-discipline President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality: "Since courtship is prelude to marriage and encourages close associations, many have convinced themselves that intimacies are legitimate—a part of the courting process. Many have cast off bridle and harness and have relaxed the restraints. Instead of remaining in the field of simple expressions of affection, some have turned themselves loose to fondling, often called “necking,” with its intimate contacts and its passionate kissing. Necking is the younger member of this unholy family. Its bigger sister is called “petting.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng

A-bolt, I don't like the term "repeat offender", sounds like a criminal term and you are not a criminal. I suppose your Stake President would want to know what are the triggers that are causing you to behave this way. You need to stay away from that girl, or at least don't be with her alone.

Hispanic is a ethnicity not a race. There are white, black, Asian, mixed people in this group. When people think about Hispanics, they think about someone who look like Jennifer Lopez or Eva Longoria. But you have people like Cameron Diaz or Celia Cruz. This ethnic group is VERY broad. I rather the term Latino/a when I talk about Central or South American people or their descendants. And let's face it, in the US people categorize others based on phenotypes. Basically, if you look Asian, then you are Asian, etc. Mr. President is considered Black but anywhere else with a large black population, he would be considered "mixed". Now with Zimmerman, when his name was released CNN and the rest automatically assumed he was "Caucasian" because of his last name. They got a surprise afterwards.

He will be acquitted. Heck, if someone like Casey Anthony can walk out free why not Zimmerman?

Andy, whatever you choose I wish you the best :)

All I have to say is: Did God tell him to have an emotional (and perhaps not only emotional) affair too? One word: BOLOGNA.