Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[theologygeek]

I haven't read the whole blog but there are a few passages that makes red flags go up for me.

The quotes are from October 2012.

March 2013:

Wait until that baby is crying all night with an ear infection. That's enough for a stable person to go haywire.

[lipstickgoalie]

Wait until that baby is crying all night with an ear infection. That's enough for a stable person to go haywire.

Exactly my thoughts.

[tigerchild]

Burris,

Yes, we looked at every treatment imaginable that we could afford. He was one of the very VERY fortunate young men who had someone (his foster mom) harp on him until he purchased medical insurance, so he got far more treatment options on a continual basis, both physical and mental, than a lot of people get, especially when they're injured as twentysomething men. My husband was not incapacitated. I could not force him or find him anything that he did not consent to. Period, end of story. He was bigger than me, stronger than me, faster than me, even in a wheelchair. I went to counseling. I went to TBI spouse support groups. I talked to medical support people. In the end, he got to decide what he wanted to do, which was nothing, because it was all my fault, you see. There was only one person I could control--me. So I tried until I couldn't do it anymore, and then I left. And hey, I paid a price for it too.

And I'll disagree that you don't seem to think you're "better". I don't know that you intend it that way, but your comments towards me I think seem to indicate that you do. No, I did not know "full well" what I was signing up for. As I said, there were many aspects of this that I did not see, either because I could not (or would not). Our marriage was not a business arrangement. I was 20 when we first met and fell in love, and thought that love conquered all and stayed for 3 years trying to do just that. As I have said before, a better person than me probably could have made it work. After the first time he beat me up in a rage because he woke up and did not recognize who was next to him in bed, I was scared and hurt. When I had things important to me broken in a rage, it hurt. And I should feel lucky that I only had to deal with "occasional" abuse, I guess?

Once more, it's easy to say that I "should have known" what I was getting into. How? Does anyone ever know what it's like to be there until they live it? I don't think so. I have had comments worded almost exactly like yours thrown in my face when I finally divorced, not only because of the disability factor but also because a good woman loves her husband through his abusive rages because once you get married you'd better take those vows seriously, or else you're shit on a stick. There will always be a part of me that believes I deserve it too, because when I first got married I did indeed look down on people who divorced their spouses with SCI or TBIs. because you know, I knew what love was, and I'd never do that. I guess it never occured to you that when I said comments like this come back to bite you in the ass that might have been speaking of my personal experience too.

Yes, I could have slept in a locked guest bedroom so that I didn't have to worry about being woken up with a slap or a fist to the face or ribcage. I could have kept everything important to me locked up so that it wouldn't be destroyed in a rage if he got pissed off at me. That didn't really seem like much of a life to me. So I put an end to it. I wasn't doing him any favors staying where I was (except for maybe getting him arrested if/when he finally escalated to more or more frequent violence). And god help me, I wanted children one day. When we dated, he never punched me. Never screamed obscenities at me. Never broke things belonging to me. We didn't live together beforehand (I didn't believe in that) or else I think I might have known better. I knew that schedules were hard for him, and directions, I knew about mood swings, ect. I did not truly know, no, what I was"getting into."

Speaking about what people may or may not experience is a tricky issue. Maybe my ex would have been abusive without the TBI. Not everyone with a TBI acts out violently towards others (or themselves). It's hard to negotiate issues of abuse. Is it really, if he can't control impulses? (I should have seen signs of this, because he couldn't keep a job due to outbursts). I do not think people understand how devastating it is to deal with the ambiguity of both abuse and disability. How frequent does "occasional abuse" have to be before it justifies being a horrible shit of a person incapable of upholding vows? My church said never, and then left me.

When I walked away from my marriage I lost most of my friends, my community, most of my relatives too (the relatives came around again). You don't do divorce in the church I was raised in. I lost a lot (not all though) of my friends/contacts in the disability community too because I was a pussy who couldn't hack it. (They didn't know about the physical violence though). Because of my experience, I am reluctant to say to anyone who I do not live with that I'm going to judge what they decide to do, or not do. This couple we're talking about does disturb me a bit, but maybe for different reasons than I've heard stated here. But I don't know what it's really like in their house (especially from a blog). I don't know what it's like to live day in and day out with that spouse. I haven't walked in her shoes. Or yours. And you haven't walked in mine. I do think making statements that essentially boil down to "There's only one way to do this and be right" do tend to bite you in the ass. Because you simply do not know where other people are coming from, and regardless of intention, they can be very hurtful.

So I don't know. I certainly did receive many sanctions from my community for the choice I made (perhaps this is comforting). Though I think I would have received them with or without the fact that my spouse had a significant physical disability and a TBI. Still, 17 years out I'm glad I made the choice I did, I'm glad to be alive, glad I did not stay with someone who abused me, even if he may not have been able to help it (and I'll never know the real answer to that question either, I'm unwilling to completely blame the disability OR give him a total pass on that one). But between my experience but also from seeing what can happen when caregivers stay beyond their breaking point and then endanger the people they're caring for? Yeah, I still think that YOU know what YOU can handle, and if YOU can't then please GTFO. Because people who have not been in YOUR shoes don't know what they're talking about. I don't judge people that say, or that go, not anymore. I sure got my comeuppance on that one.

But yes, I made an assumption. I assumed that anyone who's faced a situation where they have to deal with being married to someone with a severe disability that profoundly affects their interactions would say that there's only one way to deal with it, and that you're crap unless you stay together forever. I really can't conceive of thinking that way, after my experience. I would not presume to tell someone that they should divorce their disabled spouse (though I have seen people being told that too, which I find horrifying), but I won't be able to judge someone who can't hack it either. Big surprise, since I couldn't.

[Mama Mia]

Not interested in drama, so moving on.

If I met a man who was cognitively disabled and had sex with him, I'd rightly be called a rapist since he can't consent. Why is is that a marriage license means that sex with Cale is legal? A spouse has the legal right to consent, which he can't give.

I find it absolutely appalling that so many posters on a board that presumably prides itself on promoting equality have such an incredibly insulting and disrespectful view of the disabled.

I also find it both disgusting and vastly amusing that a group of people who constantly snark on fundamentalists repressive view of sexuality, seem to assume that sex is bad and something a disabled person must be protected from! I can't even fathom why the default assumption would be rape for someone who is expressing an active interest in sex with their spouse or partner.

I don't even know what emoticon fits this kind of hypocrisy

[Burris]

You're right; it wasn't meet for me to assume you merely gave up on the whole affair.

I see the growth of a consumer-culture where people are treated as disposable: Too old? trade. Too disabled? Trade - or worse. It's an affront to human dignity.

I apologize for having suggested that of you.

And I'll disagree that you don't seem to think you're "better". I don't know that you intend it that way, but your comments towards me I think seem to indicate that you do.

You were mistaken.

No, I did not know "full well" what I was signing up for. As I said, there were many aspects of this that I did not see, either because I could not (or would not). Our marriage was not a business arrangement. I was 20 when we first met and fell in love, and thought that love conquered all and stayed for 3 years trying to do just that. As I have said before, a better person than me probably could have made it work. After the first time he beat me up in a rage because he woke up and did not recognize who was next to him in bed, I was scared and hurt. When I had things important to me broken in a rage, it hurt. And I should feel lucky that I only had to deal with "occasional" abuse, I guess?

I fucked up a lot of things before the age of 20, so I can see how you might have believed that love could cure any ill. Yes, of course it can't and I wouldn’t say different. I do think, however, that some people give up on their marriages and on their oaths too easily, trading one in for another with the same ease as someone might change his or her coat. I was wrong about you, but I'm certain you've seen what I mean in the conduct of others.

Once more, it's easy to say that I "should have known" what I was getting into. How? Does anyone ever know what it's like to be there until they live it?

This is one instance where my own misuse of English hanged me: I don't think anyone knows fully what they're getting into, but I do think people - especially people who marry disabled spouses - should expect a lot more frailly a lot sooner than in general.

As I said myself, though, while I expected my husband's break cycle would return as he aged, neither I nor anyone else could have seen his lung failure coming. Whether I expected that particular hardship or not really doesn't matter, though: I knew at the outset, when we signed the compact, that we'd face tough times.

That thought must surely have crossed your own mind when you married. Or maybe it didn't. (I wasn't exactly a paragon of thoughtfulness or kindness at age 20.)

I have had comments worded almost exactly like yours thrown in my face when I finally divorced, not only because of the disability factor but also because a good woman loves her husband through his abusive rages because once you get married you'd better take those vows seriously, or else you're shit on a stick.

I don't think anyone should stay with an abuser. Such a one has already broken his own oath.

I was more upset about the disability aspect of it.

There will always be a part of me that believes I deserve it too

You didn't deserve it, and I'm suitably chastened for having shat on you before knowing all the facts.

I guess it never occured to you that when I said comments like this come back to bite you in the ass that might have been speaking of my personal experience too.

You're right; it hadn't occurred to me - and it should have, since when I make comments like that, I too am speaking from personal experience of having been bitten in the ass by my own hubris, cruelty...nationalism. (Jesus H. Christ, but anything can become cult-like now-days.)

When we dated, he never punched me. Never screamed obscenities at me. Never broke things belonging to me. We didn't live together beforehand (I didn't believe in that) or else I think I might have known better. I knew that schedules were hard for him, and directions, I knew about mood swings, ect. I did not truly know, no, what I was"getting into."

If he could control himself before marriage, and then became an abuser after marriage, then I respectfully suggest his abusive behaviour had far less to do with his brain injury than it did with her underlying personality. What you describe sounds predatory.

I do not think people understand how devastating it is to deal with the ambiguity of both abuse and disability.

I'm sad for you, and glad I didn't have to walk in those shoes with my own husband.

When I walked away from my marriage I lost most of my friends, my community, most of my relatives too (the relatives came around again). You don't do divorce in the church I was raised in. I lost a lot (not all though) of my friends/contacts in the disability community too because I was a pussy who couldn't hack it.

*sigh* They wronged you.

As I did.

[Burris]

Let me be the loser for all I care, do us all a favour and shut up already!

You are a loser, Latraviata - and an abhorrent excuse for a human being as well.

That said, I'd be happy never to engage with you again. That is why I never answer those of your posts not directed specifically to me (except for when you talk about me in the third person in an effort to “educate†other posters as to your opinion of me.)

That said, I'm not going to ignore it when you crawl out from under your rock to throw feces at me whenever I make a comment on any given topic. Just fuck off when it comes to me, and we'll both be happier for it.

[lipstickgoalie]

I find it absolutely appalling that so many posters on a board that presumably prides itself on promoting equality have such an incredibly insulting and disrespectful view of the disabled.

I also find it both disgusting and vastly amusing that a group of people who constantly snark on fundamentalists repressive view of sexuality, seem to assume that sex is bad and something a disabled person must be protected from! I can't even fathom why the default assumption would be rape for someone who is expressing an active interest in sex with their spouse or partner.

I don't even know what emoticon fits this kind of hypocrisy

I think I see where you are coming from. My biggest concern is not with the sex but with parenthood. Consenting to sex is one thing but consenting, fully informed, to parenthood is another thing entirely.

I think some people have expressed concern about the ability to fully consent to sex and all that entails when an individual can not fully comprehend all the potential consequences of having sex. And that includes parenthood. I don't think that makes those of us with concerns horrible disabled hating people. I think it is a very complex issue.

My grandmother had polio and lost her ability to walk before my mother was born. If it weren't for at least one disabled person having sex I wouldn't be here. And my husband is disabled, albeit minimally, and I am pro having sex with him. But you damn well better believe we had a very long discussion about having children and that we revisit that topic periodically for reassessment.

[happy atheist]

I wasn't familiar with the Cale and Kathleen blog until this thread, but a quite a few of the categorical judgements and assumptions made here have made me uncomfortable. I have skimmed through the blog but links to entries that I missed are welcome.

So, I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a bit. I don't exactly have a dog in this fight, nor do I have much expertise in the area of TBI (other than having known a few people who have recovered to varying degrees from it). I do have experience in APS where a lot of these issues come up all the time.

What is APS?

[dianapavelovna]

Adult Protective Services

[theologygeek]

I find it absolutely appalling that so many posters on a board that presumably prides itself on promoting equality have such an incredibly insulting and disrespectful view of the disabled.

I also find it both disgusting and vastly amusing that a group of people who constantly snark on fundamentalists repressive view of sexuality, seem to assume that sex is bad and something a disabled person must be protected from! I can't even fathom why the default assumption would be rape for someone who is expressing an active interest in sex with their spouse or partner.

I don't even know what emoticon fits this kind of hypocrisy

You're lumping all disabled people into the same category by saying "a disabled person." Like I said on page 3, if he doesn't have the mental capacity to consent, then it's rape. http://rainn.org/get-information/types- ... as-it-rape Cale is not just "a disabled person." He's mentally challenged. Years ago, it was called mentally retarded. What's insulting and disrespectful is having sex with a mentally retarded person, and having a baby by him. That is as bad as the abortion argument, because Kathleen is telling Cale what he will do with his body. I'm sorry, but if a man is "freaked out" and "confused," and "This was all very out of sorts in his mind" (his wife's words) because he doesn't understand that it's not time for the baby to come out yet, then he does NOT have the mental capacity to consent to sex or fatherhood. This is not a man with no arms. All disabilities are not the same, and should not have an across the board rule.

[Marianne]

You're lumping all disabled people into the same category by saying "a disabled person." Like I said on page 3, if he doesn't have the mental capacity to consent, then it's rape. http://rainn.org/get-information/types- ... as-it-rape Cale is not just "a disabled person." He's mentally challenged. Years ago, it was called mentally retarded. What's insulting and disrespectful is having sex with a mentally retarded person, and having a baby by him. That is as bad as the abortion argument, because Kathleen is telling Cale what he will do with his body. I'm sorry, but if a man is "freaked out" and "confused," and "This was all very out of sorts in his mind" (his wife's words) because he doesn't understand that it's not time for the baby to come out yet, then he does NOT have the mental capacity to consent to sex or fatherhood. This is not a man with no arms. All disabilities are not the same, and should not have an across the board rule.

+1. All disabilities are not the same. I am physically disabled, my girlfriend has a severe learning disability (cognitive impairment), and of course we have sex together. One of our neighbor is married to a woman who has a slight mental disability (mild mental retardation and some difficulties to interract - a bit like someone with Asperger's) and they have 3 children. The difference is that he does not describe by himself his wife as a "child stuck in an adult's body." The difference is that when he goes outside, we are 100% sure that his wife can take care of children without putting them in danger. Is it sure with Cale ? She herself describes his husband as a kid,but she had a children with him. This is my concern. Already, imagine this with the gender inversed. Woman with severe TBI who became pregnant. The reaction will not be the same.

[DrWhat]

Of course the man probably still has sexual desires. Plenty of children masturbate and this is completely normal with minimal consequences.

His TBI clearly has affected more than just his intellectual ability as evidenced by his emotional outbursts. These stories demonstrate that he does not have the emotional intelligence or insight to comprehend the larger context of a sexual relationship, physical consequences and limits of sex, or the emotional attachments formed by sex (which will most certainly be painful and complicated in this wife's case). Given his evidence of frontal lobe or limbic system dysfunction I would be worried that his lack of disinhibition and likely impulsivity may result in violent outbursts or lack of control during sex or if he is denied (and this is not stereotypically judging the mentally disabled but speaking from experience with working with TBI patients).

I agree that the man deserves a sexual release and if he is enjoying sex with his wife he can consent to the level of whatever his cognitive/emotional age is. But the "squicky" part is that the wife is knowingly engaging in a sexual relationship with a person that she sees as a child/adolescent mentally by her own accounts. She knows he shows evidence of outbursts and clearly lacks the emotional intelligence to provide any sort of satisfying emotional connection or understanding during sex. While a history of adult romantic relationship in the past may be strong enough to allow her to sincerely remain married, I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that she is having sex with her husband because she is truly sexually attracted to him or that it allows her a satisfying, healthy sexual emotional relationship. She seems to only be doing this to get pregnant. That is why it feels exploitive.

Of course maybe her history has allowed her to remain truly sexually attracted to her husband and maybe he does show tenderness and understanding during sex or at least continue to have physical skill. But it seems highly unlikely.

[polecat]

I find it absolutely appalling that so many posters on a board that presumably prides itself on promoting equality have such an incredibly insulting and disrespectful view of the disabled.

I also find it both disgusting and vastly amusing that a group of people who constantly snark on fundamentalists repressive view of sexuality, seem to assume that sex is bad and something a disabled person must be protected from! I can't even fathom why the default assumption would be rape for someone who is expressing an active interest in sex with their spouse or partner.

I don't even know what emoticon fits this kind of hypocrisy

Sex isn't bad. However, if a 16-year-old boy were expressing an active interest in having sex with me, most right-thinking people would call me a rapist if I had sex with him. It's not wrong for him to have consensual sex with another 16 yo, but it would absolutely be wrong for me -- an adult woman -- to have sex with him. If I considered my husband a 3 yo in an adult's body (her words, mind you) and still had sex with him -- that's a pretty hazy area and even more so if I were his primary caregiver. I don't think I'd say what's going on here is rape, but it's definitely something I would personally not be comfortable with.

There is a delicate balance between avoiding exploitation of those who are particularly vulnerable to abuse and protecting the rights of the disabled (specifically mentally in this context). This sums up my feelings on the matter:

"For valid consent to sex, women with learning disabilities must know that sex, especially when initiated by a more powerful person, is not required and compulsory. People must have sufficient communication skills to be able to make their choice (to engage in sexual activity or not) known to the other party. This means that either verbally or through an alternative communication system known to both parties they must be able to give/deny/withdraw consent at any stage in the activity. Silence or non-communication must not be interpreted as consent. There needs to be a reasonable degree of equality between the parties, so that both parties have sufficient power to make the choice to engage or not engage in sex, without fear of adverse consequences."

http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/200F ... ncy07.html

[happy atheist]

Adult Protective Services

Thank you.

[thekate]

I'm on board with much of that, but this portion makes me uncomfortable:

So, unwanted sex is OK if the person won't remember it? No. That's not OK with me at all.

Yes. I think the author was doing a "worst case scenario" of not having a blanket ban on sex, but at best it's worded very poorly.

The article's not a perfect fit for this case either because it's 2 dementia patients, so no inherent imbalance of power, but I also don't think that mental disabilities necessarily preclude ability to consent to sex. The relevance was that it's not the same as a minor who has a lifetime of sex to look forward to; enforced unwanted celibacy can be just as degrading.

[Nootbar]

On the comments page:

Reply

Sarah Morrison10/26/13, 12:13 PM

I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there is an athirst, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion website out there dedicated to litterally tearing apart good, wholesome, Godly folks like you guys. I just noticed that you have come under attack there.

Normally I would ignore it, but these women have actually gone as far as to stalk out blog owners online (including their Facebook pages) and use that information to make false reports to CPS. I am praying for you and your family and hope that these monsters don't attack you too terribly.

The only advise I can offer is to make the blog private and be sure not to friend anyone you don't know on Facebook. As I said, this group can be dangerous and they are malicious and nasty women. Blessings and apologies.

Reply

Replies

Sarah Morrison10/26/13, 12:24 PM

It seems as though I forgot to include the link:

http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19767

Frankly I'm annoyed we are all tarnished with the same brush. Some of us are Christian. Buddhist. Pro-life. I consider myself a good person. I am kind. I am a nurse & do volunteer work. I believe in marriage equity. I believe in love. I don't 'snark' on people. I am not mean about people we discuss here. I don't say anything here I would be upset about saying at a dinner table or at work.

90% of people on FJ are lovely, kind people. Just like anywhere else.

That's all.

I'm not an atheist, nor am I pro-abortion. I am rather fond of the gays, tho.

[MrsFoxx]

I'm not an atheist, nor am I pro-abortion. I am rather fond of the gays, tho.

I second that.

[Curious]

I'm not an atheist, nor am I pro-abortion. I am rather fond of the gays, tho.

If you notice the date on that comment, that's just HGR on one of her first attempts to get fundies to privatize their blogs so we wouldn't have anything to talk about :roll:

[theologygeek]

Sarah Morrison10/26/13, 12:13 PM

I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there is an athirst, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion website out there dedicated to litterally tearing apart good, wholesome, Godly folks like you guys. I just noticed that you have come under attack there.

Normally I would ignore it, but these women have actually gone as far as to stalk out blog owners online (including their Facebook pages) and use that information to make false reports to CPS. I am praying for you and your family and hope that these monsters don't attack you too terribly.

Dear Sarah Morrison,

I'm a Christian, and I think this whole thing is disgusting. Where is your compassion for the victim, God's fragile child? This man has been used by his wife for her own selfish desires. How is she honoring him in sickness? She raped him physically and mentally. I could ask my three year old grandson if he would like me to get him a gorilla for his birthday, and he would enthusiastically respond yes. I could ask him if he wants to be a daddy, and he would probably say "Yes! I love babies!" It's people like you who give Christians a bad name. Having sex with a man who has the mental capacity of a three year old is wicked, and frankly, disgusting. I have changed my opinion since I posted on page 3 after reading through that blog. She raped him.

[SunnyAndrsn]

I've hesitated to weigh in on this one because it hits so close to home. My brother has Huntington's disease. His wife knew this when they married, as he was symptomatic. While my brother absolutely could consent to sex and wanted a child. SIL chose to create a child with a person that had a terminal illness, one that could be passed on to the child. My brother is now in a nursing home, and his child will never have memories of him being healthy.

To condense the story as much as possible, he was the primary caregiver for his child while his wife was at work. I told his doctor, who in turn of course reported it to social services, as my brother is a vulnerable adult and the child, of course, was also potentially at risk. No one ever wanted the child to be removed from the home, we all wanted my brother to have as much time with her as possible, BUT at no time should he ever had the responsibility of caring for her. It caused a huge rift in our family, as I was deemed the one who "tried to get the baby taken away." She wasn't, and my father paid for proper daycare.

There is still a family rift, it's hard on my father, and I will likely never see my brother or his child ever again. I've essentially been banned.

I don't have an issue with her having sex with her husband, TBI or not. I have had residents in the nursing home with dementia who we would give viagra before going on home visits with their spouse. The residents always came back happy and relaxed.

I do have an issue with bringing a child into an already stressful situation. What will this child's life be like with a father that is a child? How will the child feel about his/her mother when he/she is old enough to understand the circumstances surrounding conception? Adults have a choice about the relationships--in good times, in bad, sickness and health, etc. Children do not. To intentionally do this to a child is wrong, IMO.

[Clementine]

If Kathleen had any decency, she would have had a private blog, open only to invited people, from the start or wite with a lot more respect when it comes to Cale.

I think that Cale has the right to his integrity, even if he has a brain injury and is like a three year old. He is an adult man with a past and he has served in the army.

He can't consent to having his private life plastered online for anybody to read about.

He deserves better than to be portrayed like a big, adorable, but difficult, toddler by his overly enthusistic wife.

Her way of infantalizing him and pretend that it's so funny and so cute is so degrading. Who the fuck makes a list like that and posts online?

I try to imagine doing the same thing with my grandmother after she got Alzheimer's and gradually lost her abilities and old personality. She was an outdoorsy, brassy, fun-loving woman before she got ill.

"Nana likes to put pink ribbons in her hair, carries her teddybear everywhere with her and eat the pastries we bring her with her hands and sometimes can't find the way to her room. She looks like she is in a game show when she opens ALL the doors in the corridor where she lives. We have so much fun with her, we all really should embrace our inner child ha ha!".

It's unimaginable.

[latraviata]

If Kathleen had any decency, she would have had a private blog, open only to invited people, from the start or wite with a lot more respect when it comes to Cale.

I think that Cale has the right to his integrity, even if he has a brain injury and is like a three year old. He is an adult man with a past and he has served in the army.

He can't consent to having his private life plastered online for anybody to read about.

He deserves better than to be portrayed like a big, adorable, but difficult, toddler by his overly enthusistic wife.

Her way of infantalizing him and pretend that it's so funny and so cute is so degrading. Who the fuck makes a list like that and posts online?

I try to imagine doing the same thing with my grandmother after she got Alzheimer's and gradually lost her abilities and old personality. She was an outdoorsy, brassy, fun-loving woman before she got ill.

"Nana likes to put pink ribbons in her hair, carries her teddybear everywhere with her and eat the pastries we bring her with her hands and sometimes can't find the way to her room. She looks like she is in a game show when she opens ALL the doors in the corridor where she lives. We have so much fun with her, we all really should embrace our inner child ha ha!".

It's unimaginable.

So true!

[MrsFoxx]

If Kathleen had any decency, she would have had a private blog, open only to invited people, from the start or wite with a lot more respect when it comes to Cale.

I think that Cale has the right to his integrity, even if he has a brain injury and is like a three year old. He is an adult man with a past and he has served in the army.

He can't consent to having his private life plastered online for anybody to read about.

He deserves better than to be portrayed like a big, adorable, but difficult, toddler by his overly enthusistic wife.

Her way of infantalizing him and pretend that it's so funny and so cute is so degrading. Who the fuck makes a list like that and posts online?

I try to imagine doing the same thing with my grandmother after she got Alzheimer's and gradually lost her abilities and old personality. She was an outdoorsy, brassy, fun-loving woman before she got ill.

"Nana likes to put pink ribbons in her hair, carries her teddybear everywhere with her and eat the pastries we bring her with her hands and sometimes can't find the way to her room. She looks like she is in a game show when she opens ALL the doors in the corridor where she lives. We have so much fun with her, we all really should embrace our inner child ha ha!".

It's unimaginable.

Amen and amen.

I've been wondering if part of this isn't Kathleen's immaturity. A mature woman who respects her spouse doesn't exploit him the way that her blog exploits Cale. Just like a mature woman is honest with herself about the implications of bringing a child into the world.

[latraviata]

Amen and amen.

I've been wondering if part of this isn't Kathleen's immaturity. A mature woman who respects her spouse doesn't exploit him the way that her blog exploits Cale. Just like a mature woman is honest with herself about the implications of bringing a child into the world.

And amen again!

[Mama Mia]

If I wasn't typing on a iPad I would swear that all of these phenomenally dismissive and insulting views of the disabled ( or, to be more specific) a severely cognitively impaired adult were straight out of the 1800s. I find it extremely disturbing.