Rule 3 unresolved issues

As one of the wives on the board, I can honestly say that this journey would be so much harder were we not allowed to be here. My husband is not a 'computer person'. You will never see him posting here. If he has questions, he'll ask me to "go on that internet group and see what they think." I only talked him into online banking a week ago. Had I not gone in search of answers, we would have been at the mercy of a very questionable Uro from the start. This has been one of the best places to find real answers. And for the most part, questions are answered and treatment options are discussed with respect. While I have felt that a couple of questions got my fingers smacked, the information I gained was worth the sting. And we all have to keep in mind that we can't read each others tone, body language and facial expressions from a post. We have to assume the best motives.

As to understanding libido: Allen you are right. Women have some idea about how men feel about that part of their identity, but we can't really know. However, after 35 years of marriage, I do know my husband quite well. I know the loss of libido was devastating. I am somewhat younger than Randy, and my own sex life stopped dead long before my 50th birthday. It was a very important part of our lives together, and we both mourned for it.

Most of the time, if you see partners/wives/caregivers on this site, it's because their husbands don't/can't/won't come here themselves. You rarely see both posting. Without their caregivers being able to access the considerable knowledge on this site, a lot of men would be flying blind.

Donna.

I'm just popping in as I'm traveling for a couple of weeks and essentially off the grid. First of all the inclusion of spouses/wives/partners here is absolutely welcomed. Secondly, I get the difference of opinion that wives may have. My wife wanted to "get it out" from the get go. That was understandable from her perspective but not so much from mine as maintenance of sexual performance was very high on my priority list. In retrospect she is VERY happy we made the choice we made...

Finally, re the Rule 3 question - I did not read the deleted part so am a disadvantage and unable to respond very well to that. I'll simply say that the mods do a LOT of chatting behind the scenes and do our best to present a cogent and united approach to our interpretation of the rules. Sometime we fail but it's not because of lack of trying. Suggestions are always welcomed and our emails are open.

Jim

I agree with Jim, that wives are not only welcome here but respected, and deserve our support. They are as much a "victim" (not a great word, but just cant think of another) of this disease as are their husbands.

Pratoman said...
....Second of all, I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask the membership about interpretation of rule #3. It offers the opportunity for a free for all, which thankfully has not happened yet. More important, the moderators need to interpret the rules. We use our best judgement and try to be fair. Sometimes we err. When that is clear, we correct our mistake. ..

Here's a few rambling thoughts about this thread...

Actually I think this is a healthy discussion since we are an extended anonymous (in most cases) family that shares a common bond. If the participants believe there is inappropriate censoring (aka application of rules) that will create and foster contention and agitation.

I have participated in forums for many years, I'm the primary administrator on a popular Jeep forum and staff on a very large RV forum. On the two forums I moderate I will not allow flaming - my retort is always "criticize ideas and not people." As others have mentioned there's quite a bit of a hysteresis (or gray area) where a discussion begins to enter that zone where the discussion *could* turn ugly or cross an absolute boundry, it's up to a moderator to turn the bus around and get it under control.

One of the mods here mentioned having behind a closed door consultation with their peers when dealing with a situation which is exactly what we do in the other forums. Chatting and coming to a consensus always provides the best possible outcome, however it might not be perceived by all as a desired outcome. The mods have to use their best judgement to make a call (trying hard to avoid a sports analogy here.)

Generally speaking, I think this is an extremely well moderated and managed forum due to the involvement and dedication of the mods. It's a lot of work.

I'm one of the wives on the thread. (My husband is computer literate but we tag team each other. He digs into other sites, and we share information.) I wish I had discovered it earlier--would've saved a couple months of running around and possibly changed the treatment decision.)

I'm grateful every day for the respect and incredible amount of help I've gotten on this site. There have been a number of us--wives and daughters--who feel this forum is like a family. Last week when Kathy's father died, man oh man, you were all there. This forum is truly outstanding. It's welcoming, respectful, helpful, compassionate, and very, very well moderated. Also, most of the postings are on point and rarely veer off, which makes the forum useful and efficient.

So thank you all. Sending a big shout-out to the mods especially. You're doing a great job and making great calls.

Two quick comments:

1) I did read the original unmodified post this morning. I read it as merely a request/plea for consistency in the application of the so-called “rules.”

2) Regarding the 2nd part, this was NOT a question as to whether spouses should or should not participate in HW/PC, which several have misinterpreted it as. Rather, it was a question on whether our responses should be nuanced to consider the perspectives of the poster, which as described are different.

TA, correct summary?

Pratoman, "I’ll try to let you know before I delete anything in your posts, which I don’t make a habit of doing lol." Yet - just a few hours later, that is exactly what you did. I sent you an email. I tried to reproduce what you deleted. I'll let the Site Administrator adjudicate this.

Just FYI, if anyone else has read this far through this increasingly sad bun fight, I'd like to offer a reminder about the forum's ignore function.

It will easily block a forum name so you don't see any of their posts in any thread. Also, once you've done that, it will also no longer show you any threads started by that forum name.

If you're logged in, it's the little thumbs down icon in any post by the individual you want to ignore. You can also un-ignore by either editing your profile, or just logging out to see all posts on a temporary basis.

In this forum, as in many aspects of life, sometimes the juice just isn't worth the squeeze...

I’m confused, is this about not allowing women on this forum or just about his support group? One is none of our business it’s his group, if it’s about here that and the escalation post just sounds like a power play.

Redwing your post offer more info about ignoring than about learning...we are all adults here...we get it...your advice is well intentioned...as all roads to truth are...but when there are so many roads out there...pick one ...hope for the best...accept the consequences...and try another one...I know it was not your intent to patronize...but after...I think 2 and maybe 3 times very recently...It prompted this response...


as far as support goes( this always seems to be a good buzzword when all else fails... not necessarily specific to you...for the last time for everyone...support is not always...a feel good...gee whiz...what a good boy am I...that is pure pretension...which makes the "actor" feel better long term...the acted on feels good short term until reality reveals...and it always does..."Ahh my friends and ahh my foes it cast a lovely light"...Edna St Vincent Millay...Savage Beauty...check her out...the title alone deserves a peak... take the post as support...not criticism.....
.

Heh, logos you're probably right. Now that you point it out, I have mentioned it a lot lately.

There've just been so many threads recently with people fussing at and about each other. So, it seemed a lot of people were not aware of that capability of the forum's software. On the other hand maybe they are aware but just like fussing; it wears me out. That's sure not why I stay here. I don't like conflict.

My goal is to help, but I'm also sure I miss the mark occasionally. Apologies in advance when that happens.

After consulting with the other mods I have edited the original post to restore a synopsis of of Tall Allen's Part I (from my recollections which I invite him to help me correct).

Since the topic of Part I is the interpretation of Rule 3 I will make one quick observation that Rule 3 is at the same time very clear and requiring constant judgement calls in application. The rule calls for "respect" for other members and their decisions, not necessarily "agreement" with those decisions. Rule 3 is broken when you disrespect another member personally or when you couch your disagreement with their decisions in such a way as to imply that only an idiot would make such a mistake. Deciding what is, and what is not respectful will always require some judgement. Most of you do a pretty good job of drawing the line but the moderators have the right and the responsibility to be the final arbitrators.