Messages By: bactphd95

I, too, have "been there". My 1st husband skillfully covered up his mooching under the guise of being a student wanting to be a (fill in the blank, which would change just short of the previously stated goal). For me, though, the charm wore off after 10 years of marriage and a reaction of "my life is over" to the news that we were expecting our first child. Now, he has conned Wife #2, and is trying to convince our pre-teen daughter, into believing that his 6 years-plus of studies over and above a Master's degree (to end "in a year or 2") will allow him to fulfill his "lifelong dream" (the 3rd one in as many decades). Meanwhile, he's months behind on his child support, and collection agencies have called me looking for him. Beware the "professional student"!! 

Hopefully, Dr. Phil got through to Sarah concerning her self-esteem issues. I concur that she needs to understand her real issue(s), probably through counseling, elsewise she will wind up out of the frying pan and into the fire. I could have ended up in that same position; the gentleman who expressed interest in me while I was going through the divorce from the ex ended up filing for bankruptcy (his own irresponsibility with credit cards) shortly after I took a job in another part of my home state.  

Happy ending: I remarried several years ago to a salt-of-the earth type man who adores me, my daughter, and our year-old son. 

Your post went up as I was writing mine; when I saw it, I had to comment. You touched on something that I did not in my original post, the aspect of manipulation. I, too, got accused of not being supportive, my decisions being the cause of the problems, etc., with my ex. It took me a long time to realize that this is EMOTIONAL ABUSE. I feel for you.  

Fortunately, you seem to have taken the first, most important, step: making the decision to reclaim your own life and unload the parasite (get a GOOD lawyer to protect what's left of your assets!). You go, girl! 

Watching the slide show of Pat/Steve/Kim was enough to get me going. 

Kim: My heart goes out. As far as I can tell, the only thing you've done wrong is get involved with someone who has a manipulative, control-freak momma. I hope Steve can see through her. Otherwise, you may need to re-think things. Unfortunately (I know from experience), 99 times out of 100, the manipulator does not change; why should they?  

Steve: Please be man enough to not accept the backbiting from your mother. It was very telling when you mentioned that your mother basically hasn't liked most, if not all, of your girlfriends. Again, this is a strong indicator of a control freak who refuses to let go. Remember, you are an adult who, assuming you momma raised you right, is capable of making major life decisions and accepting the consequences. If you are not as devout a churchgoer as your parents, that's your choice (not necessarily Kim's). Also, please, for the sake of your marriage, don't be at your mother's beck and call, regardless of how much she whines/backbites your wife/threatens. I have seen this dynamic at fairly close quarters, and it's not pretty. Otherwise, your mother's appeasement will be the priority, and not your marriage.  

Pat: You've done the bulk of your job; Steve is 33 (not 17!), and it's time to let him go. Dr. Phil definitely hit it on the head. Steve cannot, nor should he be, at your beck and call at this stage of his life. From what it sounds like, no woman would be "good enough" for your son; after all, any of them take him away from you. He is capable of making decisions about his faith; in fact, it should be his faith, not yours transplanted. Stop blaming Kim for his "transgressions." Most of all, stop, the criticism and whining behind Kim's back!!  

The payoff "Dr. Phil" - type question is this: Is your love for your son conditional on his meeting your every expectation in terms of his life choices? I think not...If you truly want "the best" for your son,  trust his decision-making (after all, you trained him how to do so) and be supportive of his choice. Even if the worst would come to pass, and the marriage not work out, do not administer "I-told-you-so", unless you truly want him on your apron strings. 

So was I (surprised). I, too, think that spending on weddings has gone overboard...perhaps $10K is insignificant to Dr. Phil, but it isn't to a lot of folks. Small wonder that people are in debt up to their eyeballs, wanting to recreate what they see of celebrity weddings on "Entertainment Tonight" or in the tabloids. One thing that did not get brought up in the slide show was exactly who was going to finance his grandiose party. Was the bridegroom-elect going to foot the bill, or was she or her family going to be expected to do it?  

  These two need to ask themselves "What is important to us in terms of marking the start of our life together? What will make this day unforgettable to us?" It's very likely that these two will come to a workable compromise and come up with a paln that will be truly theirs. If it costs under $10K, Ok; if that or a little more, that's ok, too. 

After seeing the synopsis and reading the dissertation's worth of posts, it seems that, although we think we've progressed in our treatment of women since about a century ago, very little has changed. The reasons are legion, and most are well covered in the other posts. The one that has, at best, been tangentially addressed, is conservative religion. The conservatives in (at least) the three Western faiths seem to have the common bond of  "women need to be kept in their place". One of the earlier posters alluded to the passage in Ephesians, quoting the second half of the passage that starts out, "Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as the Church submits to Christ..." Unfortunately, this passage has been so misquoted and misapplied by the cultural right that it's sickening. I know of what I speak (more's the pity); this passage, in its entirety, was read at my 1st wedding ceremony. However, my X decided very early on that only the 1st half (that applied to me) was what mattered. I was supposed to support him, regardless, as well as maintain the household, while he puttered trying to disguise his professional student aspirations. SOME men, however, are much more enlightened...  

Amy, watch the behavior (both yours and his) very carefully over the next few months, after the "Dr. Phil Show" lights have faded. Don't let yourself get sucked in to the familiar pattern, and don't let him walk all over you. Good luck to both of you in counseling.  

I have small tolerance for dependent, silly and whiny, either. However, it is difficult to stand tall when you are as beaten down as this woman has been.   

BUT...given that your mama was obviously very "no-nonsense" (as you appear to be yourself), your use of the quote "...then I take away reason and accountability" seems to be a bit of an insult to those of us women who not only have those attributes, but are trying to impart them to our children.  

I ve been there in both roles -- currently a SAHM of a toddler & a 4th grader and was in the work force for a # of years before the toddler arrived. Both my mother & my recently deceased MIL were in the work force most of their "workable" lives, including when their children were young. So, here are a couple of other "apples and oranges" differences" between the generations to consider.   

In the 1970s, the "full-time" work week was 35-37.5 hours; today, that's considered "part-time," if you can get it at all.   

Both moms (one small town, one suburban metropolitan area) had one-way commutes of under 15 minutes; my commute in 2005 in a small-to-medium metropolitan area was often 45 minutes or more 1 way.   

Not only are the demands for school readiness more than ever, parents of schoolchildren are expected to be "line-workers" in the education of their children -- homework assistance, drilling that used to take place in class, and the like.  

So, I agree that the comparisons to our mothers' generation in terms of which is "better" or "worse" is pretty much a moot point. They are different, that's all.  

The point of this show, I thought, was that NOBODY has the right to treat his (or her) life partner, who looks to him/her for emotional support and that "safe place," the way that Amy was being treated. Period.   

Although it is easy to blame MySpace, etc., the Web per se is not the problem. Unfortunately, the Internet has made it a lot easier, not just to conduct legitimate business (correspondence, shopping, research of all kinds), but also to do nasty stuff to innocent kids.   

First, these sickos can connect with like-minded types & reinforce that what they're doing is OK, normal stuff. Second, finding potential vicitms in chat rooms, MySpace, is made much more simple.  

However, as several earlier posters have related through their stories, it is not just something that cropped up with the advent of the Web a few years ago, but these pervs have been plying their trade probably throughout human history. Let me share 2 stories, both from about 1978.  

First, the two 4th grade classmates went to visit a local barbershop on the way home from school (the proprietor was a prominent church member). The first couple of times, the "kind" barber gave them candy, but it didn't take long for the porn to come out. The minute one of the girls told her mother about it (thank goodness for that child's sense of "something isn't right" and the open communication lines!), that was the end of the trips to the barbershop and, soon after, the friendship.  

Second, the almost-eighth-grade graduate picked up the telephone one day. The male voice on the other end asked, "Is this [Jennifer Jones]?" "Yes". "I'm [Salvatore Vinnelli] from the Barbizon Modeling Studio, and we are interested in doing a photo shoot." (pause) "I need to ask you a few questions first." "OK" "Do you have any hair under your arms or 'down there'? "Uh, I don't think I need to answer that." SLAM.  

I guess my "take-home" thought for the day is that although vigilance is important, we parents also need to give our kids the (age-appropriate) tools to realize when something isn't right, and that they can come to us and we'll help them through.  

This episode got to me on a # of levels, as I have a highly-spirited "tween" daughter.

After reading the transcript, reading all 54 pages of posts (as of 8/17 10 AM ET), and seeing the re-broadcast show last night, I have come to some conclusions. First off, Amanda has some major anger issues. The chip on her shoulder is visible from low-flying aricraft! On the basis of what was shown, this may stem from one or more of the following:

• Mom is a relentless control freak, based largely on the notorious shower incident. [However, if this were truly the case, the relationship with George would not have been permitted to progress at all. After all, both were 14 when it started (IMO - WAY too young for a serious, exclusive relationship!). If Linda (Mom) is on the level, she did try to "work out a compromise" early on (e.g., he can see her at their house, which Amanda & George rejected almost outright) and only clamped down after Amanda started having troubles in school. How far along in the relationship did this happen, I wonder?]
• Dad is passive at best, absentee at worst, based on his conduct after his daughter disappeared.
• Mom & Dad's marital problems were likely there at least as long as George, judging from Amanda's conversation with Phil. Amanda may have been in denial, but she could have been aware of it at some level.
• As stated by both parents ad infinitum, George is clearly the "forbidden fruit,", and probably the "anti-Daddy." The throwing around of the "gypsy" term made the parents sound a bit elitist, therefore Amanda has figured out a button to push/an excuse to rebel.
• Amanda may well have been fed a steady diet of "your family doesn't really care about you, but we really love you" from George's family, for their own purposes. [This tactic is sometimes used by divorced/separated parents to win over a child's "loyalty'.]

 However, IF Amanda is so mature at 16,

• why does she have to resort to copping an "attitude" whenever it is possible she's going to be crossed?
• why is it so important for her to be with /in contact with the b/f 24/7?
• besides escaping Mom's rules, what problem did she think running away from her (I believe) MA home to FL w/her b/f's family would solve?
• why did she convey the impression ("Look, I'm Paris Hilton", "Busted by Dr. Phil") that she's milking her 15 min. of fame for all it's worth?

Who needs to be held accountable? Just about all the dramatis personae here:

• Dad, (1) for being pretty much absentee for too long (2) for putting your daughter in the middle of your marital problems. Amanda wound up "looking for love in all the wrong places."
• Mom, although I sympathize with your desperation in that hotel room (after all, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and Amanda had already run once), the shower scene was over the top, something worthy of Jerry Springer. I can guess that, despite your assertion that she was compliant until George's entrance, you 2 butted heads fairly frequently. You need to do a better job of picking your battles.
• Sis, maybe. What did you hope to accomplish in the shower that Mom couldn't (besides earning BPs with Mom)? However, unlike several of these posters, I won't pass judgment on why you are living at home at age 20 without a social life; for all we know you're an engineering major who is working PT and commuting to save dorm costs.
• George, for clearly not respecting the wishes of Amanda's parents in terms of where/when/how they can see each other.
• George's family, for harboring her for several months before taking off once it was obvious that the authorities were closing in. How could you not have known that this MINOR was the subject of a search, especially after the cops called on you?? You took this MINOR at her word when she said it was OK with her Mom, knowing that she didn't approve of the relationship in the first place? How dumb do you think the rest of us are? Once that MINOR was taken across state lines, it became a FEDERAL offense; it doesn't matter whether you are "Gypsy," "Traveller," "Moonie," or WASP Southern Baptist!!
• Amanda, your decision-making skills need work, as do your coping skills. You (and George, too) cannot seem to think of anyone besides "ME" and any time besides "NOW". Get over playing "one against the other," whether it's Dad or George vs. Mom. There is a bigger picture here.

I think the boarding school option is the best choice. With George et al., it appears that she's in with a bunch of scam artists (look at their behavior when the cops came around, folks!). With Mom (and maybe Dad), it's the same toxic brew reheated; she'd probably be "outta here" in 6 months or less. Mom & Dad have their own work to do, regardless of what happens in the marriage.

I hope things work out best for Amanda, whoever she really is; I don't think even she knows yet. At the very least, she needs her HS diploma. If George is willing to wait for her another year or so, then Mom & Dad may do best to let her go, difficult though it may be, and be ready to pick up the pieces if necessary. However, I will be surprised if he's still in the picture even at this point (6 months after the original airing); M&D may be picking up the pieces from a broken-hearted 18-y.o. when she finds out he's moved on. (For those posters who said, in so many words, "I ran off and married my sweetheart that I started dating at 14/15/16 and we ended up OK," congratulations. You all are among the (depending on the data) 15% or so of those early teen marriages that make it. Due in most cases to a lack of education and job opportunities and therefore $ to live on, these tend to end in divorce or have other trouble much more often than not.) 

(We didn't have 0s back in the '70s.) I, too, was "skinny Minnie" in HS, weighing all of 88 lbs. (at 5'1")  when I graduated, and got asked routinely if I had an eating disorder...I didn't. No, Sara, skinniness is not all that Hollyweird makes it out to be, as you know first-hand.

About a quarter of a century and 2 children later, I'm not sure I could get a leg into size 0's. But you know what (and I direct this at all of the scale- and dress size-obsessed people out there, not just Britney & Janie)? It's not that big a deal.  I am healthy and content in my own skin (there's just a bit more of it these days :-) ). Just like Robin said, as long as you're healthy, that's what matters. Get over your self-conscious emphasis on the superficial, folks!! To quote the great philosopher Judge Judy, "Beauty Fades, Dumb Is Forever."

As juliemom (I think) said, we all have different body types, and we each need to accept our own for what it is. For instance, my sister & I are both well under 5'4", but have very different frames. On me 145 lb. would look obscenely obese, as my frame is small, whereas on my sister, 145  would almost look like skin-and bones, as she has broad shoulders and a "barrel chest". Don't wish you "looked like" anybody else; you are you.