The #metoo movement has changed my attitude on couple of things. “The why did she wait so long” and who I’m inclined to the accuser or the celebrity. It was a crazy brave thing to come forward before the #metoo movement, now it merely brave. So I no longer care if happened 2, 10, or 25 years ago. I’ll also tended to assume the celebrity public persona was also how they conducted themselves. Macho in public, probably a dick a private. Chris the sensitive feely type, probably the same way in public. Turns that’s seldom true.
I’m now a lot more inclined to believe the women, but I don’t pass finally judgement until 3 women have accused the guy at which point he is guilty being a reasonable doubt in my book. In this particular case, my gut tells me that the truth is probably somewhere in between,he was controlling, she had an affair.
The whole thing about relationships with members of the opposite sex, it just depends on what works for individual couples. I had a blood relative who who asked me to send a Facebook friend request to his wife, because “she doesn’t send friend requests to men.” That seems a little extreme to me, but it works for them.
I’ve had friends who had extramarital relationships that turned into affairs, and I’ve had friends who didn’t have anything like that, then went to their spouse overnight and said, “I don’t want to be in this relationship anymore, and by the way I’m seeing someone else.” If people want to cheat, they’re going to find a way to cheat, whether or not they are allowed to have friends of the opposite sex.
To me, the most damning part of Hardwick’s response is where he mentioned that she had an affair. She talks about a pretty serious controlling relationship, where she was so desperate for affection that she latched onto the first lifeline she could find, and his response is, “By the way, she cheated on me”?? It doesn’t seem to be relevant at all to the discussion, and in fact supports her argument. It sounds like he’s saying, “I didn’t do anything wrong, plus she deserved it.”
That doesn’t bother me at all, but that’s because I see it in a different way. People who cheat routinely retroactively rewrite what happened in their relationship to make themselves look better, because they have to in order to justify their terrible behavior. Look up cheater behavior like gaslighting, etc. These people lie and make shit up at the drop of a hat (including “controlling behavior”). They make their ex out to be a terrible person (including through outright lying), because it generates an excuse and sympathy for their cheating. Look up some websites like Chumplady on the subject.
And again, this goes in both directions. Male cheaters do the exact same shit (except perhaps the woman in that case was “always nagging,” or cold, frigid, manipulative, whatever).
This does not go in the other direction and absolve Hardwick. He may well be a controlling, manipulative dirtball. But right now, I have no reason to believe one person over the other. None of us were in that relationship. All we are doing is guessing, and I think we are guessing out of sympathy for the poor woman. But until more evidence comes out, we have no way of knowing.
Maybe another reason I’m not as ready to swallow some of these claims - as an attorney, I’ve seen how often pretty clearly false claims of child abuse are made as weapons in divorce/spousal maintenance/child custody cases. I’m sorry, but people routinely make up really nasty shit without a second thought in order to get what they want. It happens all the time.
You are not. Your reaction is completely understandable. I probably would be the same way. I cant imagine how awful that betrayal must have been. Good luck, I hope you find someone who returns your love and trust.
edit:
A good friend of mine literally walked in on his fiance with her “friend”. To his credit he just turned around and left and didnt murder anyone. It was an emotional wound he carried for many years after.
First of all, we should qualify the “people who cheat” statement with the only thing that Chloe Dykstra has said (which Hardwick does not refute): that she kissed one person, then immediately told him about it. I understand where you could say that cheating is an all-or-nothing thing, but I think it’s important to recognize the difference between one kiss and an ongoing affair.
And it’s interesting that you bring up gaslighting, because it certainly seems to be what Hardwick is accused of doing. Which of these are things that she mentions in her article?
Gaslighting is a form of persistent manipulation and brainwashing that causes the victim to doubt her or himself, and ultimately lose her or his own sense of perception, identity, and self-worth.
By staying on the offensive, the gaslighter eventually wears down their victim, who becomes discouraged, resigned, pessimistic, fearful, debilitated, and self-doubting. The victim begins to question her or his own perception, identity, and reality.
The gaslighter has the power to grant acceptance, approval, respect, safety, and security. The gaslighter also has the power (and often threatens to) take them away. A codependent relationship is formed based on fear, vulnerability, and marginalization.
At its extreme, the ultimate objective of a pathological gaslighter is to control, dominate, and take advantage of another individual…
You know another time when people make their ex out to be a terrible person? When he is actually a terrible person.
We’re also guessing because Dykstra has little reason to make up the story at this time, while Hardwick has every reason to deny the allegations and say that she’s lying. It’s not like the internet was abuzz with rumors about Dykstra cheating on Hardwick, so she had to manufacture a story to absolve herself (the “gaslighting” you claim she’s doing). In fact, she is the one who brought up the issue of her own infidelity! If this story was just a tactic to defend herself, why would she mention the accusation in the first place?
Meanwhile, Hardwick has been very careful to not deny any of the specific allegations she made, such as demanding sex, telling her she couldn’t go out with friends, not talking when in public, and on and on. He denied sexually assaulting her, mentioned her infidelity, and that’s about it.
Seriously, what does she have to gain by this, except possibly ruining her own career even further? This isn’t a custody battle. There is no divorce or spousal settlement involved. And in the same way, it’s not like she has to defend herself for kissing someone else. There is no law being broken here, and if she wants to leave him for someone else, she doesn’t need to justify it to anyone.
So again, why would she bring this up at this point in time, except to keep other people from potentially getting into the same kinds of harmful relationships? She’s blaming herself more than anyone, for not seeing the warning signs and letting herself go down this road of tying her self-worth to someone else. She’s trying to present her story as a learning tool, not as a cudgel to destroy Hardwick.
I[quote=“Andy_Bates, post:46, topic:135786, full:true”]
First of all, we should qualify the “people who cheat” statement with the only thing that Chloe Dykstra has said (which Hardwick does not refute): that she kissed one person, then immediately told him about it. I understand where you could say that cheating is an all-or-nothing thing, but I think it’s important to recognize the difference between one kiss and an ongoing affair.
[/quote]
Why? If we’re assuming what the guy is doing here, why not assume what the woman is doing? Hardwick does not only refute it, he said she had an affair. Why should I not believe him, but I’m supposed to believe her?
I don’t know that she just had one kiss. I know that’s what she said. In fact, she does not really say that was all it was. That’s just the only part of it she mentions. Which again, is something that people who cheat routinely do. Tell you about the small part of it, in order to avoid talking about the big part of it. Get out in front of it by offering up a bit of truth, to avoid the larger part.
With affairs, you very often have to keep poking and prodding to get the actual story. They only had drinks. Then you find out that wasn’t the case, well, they only kissed. Then that wasn’t the case, well, yes, they went to the motel, but they couldn’t go through with it and didn’t do anything. Well, they went to the motel and she gave him a handjob, but it stopped there. Etc.
Look up trickle truth. It’s very real.
Yes, he may well have done all of those things. I have no idea. I wasn’t there.
Of course. That’s why lying about it works - because a lot of the time it’s actually true, so when people lie, it’s very plausible sounding.
I think this is really naive. I’m not sure if it is intentionally so.
I can think of a number of reasons she would lie, and a number of reasons she would bring out this story. She may want to control the narrative of the affair (either with friends, family, and colleagues, or in the public if it was going to be exposed). She may be unable to admit to herself that she just had an affair, and needs to create an internal narrative to feel better about her decisions. She may hate the guy’s guts and want revenge, which does not however, mean he actually did the things. She may think it gives her some additional time in the media, during an era where such stories are generating a lot of sympathy and attention. She may have demanded money, and not gotten it. She may have a very different perspective on what actually happened. She may be mentally ill.
It’s also possible that some of the things she said happened, but some did not. It’s possible some things happened, but were miscommunication between them. It’s possible some of the things that happened were her badly misinterpreting what happened.
Point is, I don’t know. She may also be telling the truth. But I have no possible idea how I would know that, not having actually been in the relationship. But to suggest she does not have potential reasons for either outright lying, or for simply interpreting things very differently from what actually happened, seems silly.
What’s he supposed to say, other than to deny? Is he supposed to say, for example,: “Chloe seemed to like to sexually flirt with other men when she was in a relationship with me, and I didn’t like that, so I told her to stop as a condition to being in a relationship with me?”
Or, “Sex is an important element of a relationship. I told Chloe that I wanted regular sex as part of our relationship, as part of open and honest communication with her about an important part of a relationship that a lot of people fight over in relationships. I never raped her. I never forced her to have sex. I never had sex with her without her consent. I have a reasonable right, as a person in a relationship, to make my wants and needs in a relationship clear. Chloe was free to leave if she did not want to have sex with me.”
I’m not really sure that it’s particularly helpful for him to drag this out into the public by recounting the details of what should (if he didn’t do anything wrong, which is a big if) be a private relationship.
How is she ruining her own career even further? I had no idea who the hell she even was - now I do know. I know that I know who she is now. How do we know what she demanded of him prior to this? How do we know what their mutual friends and colleagues thought of her having an affair (if you’re going to insist on assuming, without reason, that there was no affair, I see no reason why not to insist on assuming the opposite - again, it’s just silly, as neither of us know). Do you really think that people only do things like this for pure monetary gain? Do you think people do not have motivations such as revenge? Do you think people slash car tires, call people’s work and make false reports, etc. after breakups because they’re only trying to get monetary gain?
If that were the case, there wouldn’t be so many asshole men stalking and terrifying women they’ve broken up with.
Again, my point is that we have no idea what actually happened here. There are elements of her story that are absolutely terrible, if true. There are elements of her story that I could absolutely see being her perspective on something that is reasonable from the other side (the previously mentioned, “Hey, I’m an alcoholic - I don’t want to be in a relationship with someone who drinks”).
I have no idea why we would assume her story over his at this point, or his over hers.
If someone were victim blaming, that would be true.
Acknowledging we have no possible way of knowing what actually happened is not victim blaming.
Unless we really want to continue in the realm of assuming people are guilty because they fall into categories of people we want to distrust, and that people are justified because they tell us they are.
She has every right to tell her story. Much like cops have a right to say, “He was reaching for something.” I’d just prefer more evidence before being certain that he really was reaching for something than simply a person saying, “It really happened.”
I get it. People can be horrible and I your line of business, you’ve seen the worst of it. And as always, because of your skewed sample, you make unfounded assumptions about the general population because of it.
Seriously, this is why “believe the women” is a thing.
When women come forward like this, even today, they risk a lot, especially when its out in the open. I am sure even now, she is dealing with hate mail and other crap from misguilded fans. She’ll probably still be labeled as a trouble maker, and it will taint her career, at least among some groups.
So, to come out is to risk a lot, and I doubt they do it for shits and giggles. So, yeah, I am going to believe her over Hardwick. I see which said has the most to lose for making this accusation.
It’s not a matter of sociopathy. But at this point, you’re just ignoring everything in favor of, “He thinks she must be lying.” There’s not much point in talking about it further with someone like you.
That’s the most creative way to reject someone’s empirical experiences in favor of non-empirical social doctrine I may have ever seen.
As a lawyer married to a divorce lawyer, I have the same approach to public allegations. Sly’s not wrong about people’s capacity to lie, from reasons many would consider trivial or pointless, up to self-justification and avoidance of punishment.
I would suggest taking a few courses in statistics and in sampling. It will give you a clear understanding on when random sampling is important when it comes to the making statically claims of significants. Observational studies are a good starting place to answering questions, but there is a reason why we in the social sciences try to rely on large sample sizes and have set up all kinds of strategies to come up with the a fair sample.
But yes, I stand by it. Both of Sly and your wife have see only seen a very narrow population and those experiences should not, hell cannot be generalized to the population at large.
These sorts of things can really Jade a person.
Yeah, that was a black eye 3 years ago in the field of ESP. As you might know, research that doesn’t have a significant result usually isn’t published, which is unfortunate, since we will never know how many other fair studies in ESP there are that found the Null Hypothesis to be true. It’s why a few journals are changing the criteria on what gets published, including accepting papers on the basis of Design, rather than the results.
Still better than anecdotal evidence.
