# OT: Single Women, BEWARE...



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Jackie just might catch YOU lookin' at her ol' man! :laugh:

From today's CanzanoBlog..



> Check out the latest HBO "Real Sports" episode that features the atypical relationship of Orlando Magic guard Doug Christie and his warden, umm, I mean wife, Jackie.
> 
> Tape it if you have to, because it would make a wonderful wedding gift for a close friend who is at risk to be body-snatched himself or herself. Just drop it in the pile of gifts at the reception, no card necessary.
> 
> ...


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

What if Jackie Christie were actually Terri Schaivo? In that situation. would there be a case for pulling the tube? (groaaaaan.....)


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Nothing turns me on more than an insanely insecure, clingy, co-dependent Woman.

Doug's a real lucky guy.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

The media is having a field day with this story, which I find ironic. In this age of easy divorce, rampant promiscuity (especially in the NBA), broken homes, and angry and depressed kids, we're going to pick on a couple that is working to keep their marriage strong??

I watched the HBO special, and I didn't think the Christies were "nuts" at all. While it may be unusual for a wife to travel with the team, it should also be "unusual" for an NBA player to sleep with a different woman in each city. But it's not. That goes on every night during the NBA season, yet you don't see any TV specials making fun of this highly irresponsible behavior.

Magic Johnson used to regularly have sex with multiple partners--or have we forgeten how he contracted HIV? Magic confessed on national TV that he once had sex with 6 women at the same time. Oh, yeah, by the way, his longtime girlfriend Cookie was home at the time, staying faithful to him. The fact is, many many NBA players are screwing around on their wives when they go on the road, and Jackie and Doug realize this. 

Go ahead and mock them for taking their marriage vows seriously. I'm going to applaud them myself.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Go ahead and mock them for taking their marriage vows seriously. I'm going to applaud them myself.


I understand you applauding them TH. But, the nature of love necessitates a _certain_ amount of trust. I struggle with seeing much of any here -- at least, on the part of Jackie. :whoknows:


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> The media is having a field day with this story, which I find ironic. In this age of easy divorce, rampant promiscuity (especially in the NBA), broken homes, and angry and depressed kids, we're going to pick on a couple that is working to keep their marriage strong??
> 
> I watched the HBO special, and I didn't think the Christies were "nuts" at all. While it may be unusual for a wife to travel with the team, it should also be "unusual" for an NBA player to sleep with a different woman in each city. But it's not. That goes on every night during the NBA season, yet you don't see any TV specials making fun of this highly irresponsible behavior.
> 
> ...




*She also forbids her husband from doing one-on-one interviews with female reporters, unless they resemble his aunt. And she also seems to think that all females want to steal away her husband, as if Jackie's not already tailing the poor sap everytime he leaves the compound anyway.

Then, there's this secret signal that Doug gives Jackie dozens of times DURING games --- just to make sure she knows he loves her and is thinking about her. (I don't even want to know what happens if Doug forgets to signal.)*

I'm sorry, but that's complete dysfunction. There's nothing to commend there. Working through their marriage? Some marriages ARE NOT worth working through. I'm not saying this marriage in particular should end in divorce because I don't have all the facts, but if the above info is indeed correct, I wouldn't think twice about leaving my wife. 

But that's just me. A man that's been in a relationship for 7 years...... and counting.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I'm sorry, but that's complete dysfunction.


Hardly. "Complete dysfunction" is when a married player goes to bed with some stranger waiting outside the locker room after a game, and repeats the same behavior at the next stop on the road trip. That's what leads to broken marriages, sexually-transmitted diseases, and heartbreak.

A married couple sending each other signals during a game is simply their way of pledging their love and affection for each other. It may not be your style, but to call it "dysfunctional" says more about you than it does them.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Hardly. "Complete dysfunction" is when a married player goes to bed with some stranger waiting outside the locker room after a game, and repeats the same behavior at the next stop on the road trip.


So now doing an interview with a female reporter and having sex with some skank from a club are the same thing? 

News to me.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> That's what leads to broken marriages, sexually-transmitted diseases, and heartbreak.


Yes. How many marriages have we seen Ann Schatz break up with her horrible beguiling ways. Sure it starts off innocent.... 

"I'm here with Joel Przybilla. Hey Joel, your last name is hard to pronounce!" next thing you know, they're underneath the bleachers bumping uglies. If it's happened once, it's happened a million times.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

The whole traveling with the team is fine, IMO. Especially with all that goes on, but..... I'd draw the line at the rule of not being able to do an interview with a female. Oh and the one about any mandatory signals during the game. I wonder how many times Doug has heard, "Yo, Doug! Get your head in the game and stop signalling your psycho wife".


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

vh1 has already started filming their reality TV show called the Christies.... Not sure if it'll actually come in to fruition


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> So now doing an interview with a female reporter and having sex with some skank from a club are the same thing?


Of course not. The point is, Doug Christie is doing what he feels he needs to to remain faithful to his wife. He should be commended for that. 

Some people are more susceptible to temptation than others. I don't know Doug's personal history, but perhaps he was very promiscuous at one point, and doesn't want to go back to that old way of life. So he and his wife have come up with some rules to help him avoid the old pitfalls. Those rules seem to be working for both of them, so who cares if they seem "weird"? 

What's really weird are the NBA players who sleep around on their wives or girlfriends with any pretty face they happen to meet. But where is the surprise and indignation about that? It doesn't seem to exist on this board.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

Fork said:


> Yes. How many marriages have we seen Ann Schatz break up with her horrible beguiling ways. Sure it starts off innocent....
> 
> "I'm here with Joel Przybilla. Hey Joel, your last name is hard to pronounce!" next thing you know, they're underneath the bleachers bumping uglies. If it's happened once, it's happened a million times.


I think Jackie is okay with interviews if the woman sounds like a man. No way Anne is gonna wooo anyone with that rasp voice


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> What's really weird are the NBA players who sleep around on their wives or girlfriends with any pretty face they happen to meet. But where is the surprise and indignation about that? It doesn't seem to exist on this board.


Probably because every male poster here secretly wishes he could trade places.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Yes. How many marriages have we seen Ann Schatz break up with her horrible beguiling ways. Sure it starts off innocent....
> 
> "I'm here with Joel Przybilla. Hey Joel, your last name is hard to pronounce!" next thing you know, they're underneath the bleachers bumping uglies. If it's happened once, it's happened a million times.


Ann Shatz is lesbian.......I actually ran into her at McMenamins one night and she was holding hands with another woman and acting all cuddley.........But thats neither here nor there....


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Ann Shatz is lesbian.......I actually ran into her at McMenamins one night and she was holding hands with another woman and acting all cuddley.........But thats neither here nor there....


See what I mean? Those female sportscaster types will lure you in! I bet the other chick wasn't even lesbian before Ann Schatz got her in a one-on-one interview. 

And Doug Christie is such a hottie that NO WOMAN ALIVE could resist seducing him instantly upon meeting him. Even a lesbian. Even a woman who's happily married. Jackie Christie knows what's up. 

You go Jackie!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

What ever happened to Jackie Jackyl?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

If a male behaved like Ms Christie, they would be knee deep in TROs. 

But hey, it is OK for *women* to act that way, because all men are promiscuous pigs.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> What's really weird are the NBA players who sleep around on their wives or girlfriends with any pretty face they happen to meet. But where is the surprise and indignation about that? It doesn't seem to exist on this board.


You're the one that turned this into a discussion about NBA players and their inability to stay faithful to their wives. I just don't see the connection between the Christie's story and NBA adultery.

However, now that you've taken this discussion to a different place, I would have to stand with you in saying that I find it immoral to sleep around on one's wife. No matter how famous or rich you are.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I don't think it is intelligent for ANY man to be alone in a closed room with a woman. Too many lives have been ruined by he-said, she-said kinds of things. I will not put myself in a position where I am alone in a closed room with a woman who is not a family member. The downside is there (if unlikely), and the upside is nil. 

I am hardly alone -- it is standard practise for teachers and professors of either sex to make a point of always keeping their door ajar to avoid precisely this kind of problem -- with students of either sex. And it is surely worse when the man is wealthy and a good target. 

So I can understand having this kind of policy in a marriage. It is not a matter of trust: it is a matter of common sense and intelligently playing the odds.

As to their marriage specifically: some women are high maintenance. I don't see that as dysfunctional. "There's nowt as ***** as folk." As long as two people willingly choose to make a marriage I try NEVER to kibbitz about their relationship. Everyone has a unique relationship, and many parts of any marriage could easily look mighty strange to "normal" folk. Besides, there are silver linings with every personality type. 

To sum up: butt out. :biggrin:


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> To sum up: butt out. :biggrin:


Yes. I agree. Jackie Christie should butt out of the picture entirely and let female reporters do their job without, in effect, accusing them all of being homewreckers with zero proof that anything of the sort would ever happen.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> I don't think it is intelligent for ANY man to be alone in a closed room with a woman. Too many lives have been ruined by he-said, she-said kinds of things. I will not put myself in a position where I am alone in a closed room with a woman who is not a family member. The downside is there (if unlikely), and the upside is nil.


You must not have a job then. If I had that kind of a bizarre policy, I doubt I could ever even go to work. I find myself alone in a room with a woman at least 5 times a day. In fact, that's the case right now with one of my officemates. 

I find it not believable that a reporter trying to do her job would ever try anything with Doug Christie. Have you seen the guy?

More importantly, I find it unfair that his idiot wife enforces this policy on him thereby affecting the lives of people who didn't ask into their bizarre control-based relationship.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

The Professional Fan said:


> Nothing turns me on more than an insanely insecure, clingy, co-dependent Woman.
> 
> Doug's a real lucky guy.


 :rofl:


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Fork said:


> You must not have a job then. If I had that kind of a bizarre policy, I doubt I could ever even go to work. I find myself alone in a room with a woman at least 5 times a day. In fact, that's the case right now with one of my officemates.


I know a great many working folks who follow this policy. College professors and priests often do this now -- they keep a door open, or make it clear that anyone can walk in at any moment. Nothing has to actually happen to wreck a reputation -- it just takes the allegation. Can you imagine the damage if your co-worker, mad at you for some reason, went off on a PMS bend and decided that you were sexually harassing her by looking at her cleavage or raising your eyebrows in a suggestive manner? Sure, it'd be stupid, but it would also seriously mess with your life.

And yes, FWIW, I do work for a living.





Fork said:


> I find it not believable that a reporter trying to do her job would ever try anything with Doug Christie.


Huh? He is rich and probably not too bright. Are there better targets? 



Fork said:


> More importantly, I find it unfair that his idiot wife enforces this policy on him thereby affecting the lives of people who didn't ask into their bizarre control-based relationship.


This is simply nuts. Why on earth is it your call whether or not something in someone else's adult consenting relationship strikes you as FAIR? And why does this relationship harm reporters -- if a woman wants an interview she can do it under the terms of the player. How is this any different from the myriads of terms reporters accept all the time to get interviews?

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Fork said:


> Yes. I agree. Jackie Christie should butt out of the picture entirely and let female reporters do their job without, in effect, accusing them all of being homewreckers with zero proof that anything of the sort would ever happen.


You miss the point. In this day and age, anyone can allege anything. The best way to prevent it is to only be in 100% private situations with people whom you trust. All others can leave a door ajar.

Also, homewrecking has nothing to do with it. Fake sexual harassment allegations are filed all the time. You think a professional basketball player wouldn't pay $200k to make one go away? And you don't think some enterprising reporter might give it a shot? I am not talking romance here.

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

tlong said:


> Probably because every male poster here secretly wishes he could trade places.


You mean no-strings-attached sex with a different beautiful and excited young woman every night? 









Nah... every straight man here would turn it down in a heartbeat. :angel:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I just don't see the connection between the Christie's story and NBA adultery.


You must be the only one. The main reason they are doing this is to protect Doug from temptation with other women. What part of that don't you get?


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> And Doug Christie is such a hottie that NO WOMAN ALIVE could resist seducing him instantly upon meeting him. Even a lesbian. Even a woman who's happily married.


LOL, Fork. I agree that this is the part that really bugs me. As a single working woman, the idea that doing my job means I'm trying to swipe some guy from another woman is very offensive. It's offensive to me as a woman, as a professional and it's offensive to the man to say he can't resist any woman, even if she's a lesbian and/or happily married and/or totally uninterested in him. As far as the rest, it's pretty much their business and fine with me. But forbidding women to do their job, or at any rate putting obstacles in their path because they are women, is very inappropriate. I don't know if Jackie Christie has ever held a paying job. If she has she would surely know that the VAST majority of women are working for a living and only trying to do our jobs. 
And a lot of fans who are women just want an autograph or photo. I can assure you I have zero, repeat zero, desire to sleep with any man in the NBA.
Being a lesbian, alas, does not discourage many men. Quite a few figure that a woman is only a lesbian because she has not experienced him. Gag.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> You must be the only one. The main reason they are doing this is to protect Doug from temptation with other women. What part of that don't you get?


All of it. Really. Who is "they?"


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> I don't think it is intelligent for ANY man to be alone in a closed room with a woman.


They sap our precious bodily fluids.

barfo


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> I will not put myself in a position where I am alone in a closed room with a woman who is not a family member.


Ewwww....Incest is even ickier than adultery. :naughty:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

As someone who's marriage is in it's 27th year and healthier than ever, despite my working alongside women and my wife working alongside men, often times alone with each, even (shudder) forging friendships with said opposite sexes, I give the Christies zero chance of ever being happy together, let alone trusting each other as far as Jackie can throw a basketball.

It appears neither one has any self-esteem to speak of, nor any respect for the other.

We can only hope they never procreate.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> As someone who's marriage is in it's 27th year and healthier than ever, despite my working alongside women and my wife working alongside men, often times alone with each, even (shudder) forging friendships with said opposite sexes, I give the Christies zero chance of ever being happy together, let alone trusting each other as far as Jackie can throw a basketball.
> 
> It appears neither one has any self-esteem to speak of, nor any respect for the other.
> 
> We can only hope they never procreate.


Amen brother!

This notion that men need to be "protected" from temptation is grossly insulting. A man who behaved like Jackie Christie would be labeled a "stalker", "control freak", "bully", and other choice (and deserved) names.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Amen brother!
> 
> This notion that men need to be "protected" from temptation is grossly insulting.


Really?

When we try to lose weight, we protect ourselves from temptation by not storing cookies on our desks. Is this insulting to you?

When I try to work, I avoid opening this forum, or I might waste time on some silly thread. I am not insulted by the need to protect myself from temptation.

I am happily married. I happen to like women. A lot. In my cogent moments there is nothing I would do to mess up the blessings I have. But I (and I am surely not alone) have a self-destructive streak, which, combined with my fondness for females, could lead to trouble in the wrong circumstance. So do I:

A: Play it safe, protecting myself from temptation, or

B: Know that I am strong enough to resist a beautiful woman who knocks on my hotel room door for an intimate chat

???

I see nothing insulting at all by accepting that people are people, and so we are often weak and driven by our animal natures. 

Back in college, I had two very close friends from high school (both male). They went to different colleges. Friend A was dating a girl. She was going to visit the college of Friend B, so Friend A asked B to take his girl around, show her a good time. No problem, right? After all, these are young adults, fully in control of themselves.

So Girlfriend of A goes out on the town with B. They both drink a fair amount. They get back to his room (where she is staying), and, like true platonic friends, they sleep in the same bed. The girl wears almost nothing. And the next day she goes back to her boyfriend, claiming that B came on to her. B claims, of course, that she came onto him. In any event, they certainly strayed from A's plan.

In any case, something happened. Now I ask you: between two normal attractive people, who *wouldn't* take the opportunity to have a little fun under those circumstances? If they hadn't fooled around something was clearly wrong! People *should* be attracted to other people. Add in privacy and alcohol...

Should B and Girl have just had no problem resisting temptation? 

I suggest that circumstances have a lot to do with what people actually end up doing. By and large, people will NOT resist temptation. This is not insulting. It is accepting the simple reality. It is why, for example, so very many women who would not ordinarily be considered loose slept with Bill Clinton; there was temptation and they gave into it -- by all accounts, happily. It didn't matter if the woman was old, ugly, fat, or even (GASP!) a professional. Clinton lined them up and knocked them down. :clown: 

The esasiest and best thing to do is just to have guidelines to keep it simple and clear. Especially because, despite whatever we think when we are excited and tipsy, life is about so very much more than with whom one commits sexual acts. 

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I admit to being very confused.


In our modern world, right-thinking (which is to say Left Thinking) people tell us that we are supposed to accept people for who they are. It does not matter if they are man or woman, white, black, brown yellow or polka-dotted. It does not matter if they are young, old, fat, thin, ugly, attractive.

It is not supposed to matter if they are homosexual. We are even supposed to accept homosexual marriage (whatever that may be) in all its permutations. We are supposed to be non-judgmental about philanderers, homewreckers, promiscuity, bull-*****, "open" marriages, or anything between consenting adults.

But if a couple try to define their man-woman relationship a little different from our oh-so-enlightened "normality", then THAT has crossed the line!!!

Why does everyone have their panties in a twist about a consensual relationship between a man and a woman in which they have chosen to define their marriage a little differently than most? Whose business is it? Don't we accept that consenting adults can define their own relationship to each other? Posts like "they will never be happy" are simply idiotic. How on earth do any of us know what will make two other people happy?

In any case, the hypocrisy of the "open-minded" is stunning. What happened to celebrating diversity?

iWatas


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> The esasiest and best thing to do is just to have guidelines to keep it simple and clear.iWatas


We do.

They are called marriage vows.

All you gotta do is walk your talk and everything will be fine.

Any man (or woman) who can't keep his word has nothing.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> We are even supposed to accept homosexual marriage (whatever that may be) in all its permutations. We are supposed to be non-judgmental about philanderers, homewreckers, promiscuity, bull-*****, "open" marriages, or anything between consenting adults.
> 
> But if a couple try to define their man-woman relationship a little different from our oh-so-enlightened "normality", then THAT has crossed the line!!!


Great post, Iwatas. You hit that one out of the park. Liberals will defend every form of perversion under the sun, but will then turn around and ridicule a heterosexual couple who are trying to preserve their marriage.

"Desperate Housewives" who cheat and lie and fornicate are just normal American women, don't you know. But the Christies? Now there's a real threat to our civilization.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I give the Christies zero chance of ever being happy together, let alone trusting each other as far as Jackie can throw a basketball.
> 
> It appears neither one has any self-esteem to speak of, nor any respect for the other.


Nonsense. The Christies ARE happy together, or didn't you notice? Anyone who saw the HBO special saw a very close, very content married couple. It's clear that they hold the same values, and agree on the best way to conduct their marriage.

The "trust" thing is way overrated. Marriages fall apart every day, and it's not for a lack of trust. It's because one or both of the partners get angry or upset with each other, and let their attentions wander. And if you don't think NBA players are chased by women, wake up and smell the coffee. These women hover around locker rooms, team buses, and hotels, trying to seduce a "star" player. They are called groupies. Look it up. 

I think the Christies are showing the ultimate "respect" for each other. What the heck do you think Doug is doing every time he gives his wife that signal during a game? That shows her that he loves her and is thinking of her. And why do you think Jackie travels with the team? It's because she loves her husband so much that she is willing to fight for him, and help protect their marriage from outside pressures. Every couple should work this hard to preserve their union. There would be far less divorce and broken families.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

I've been thoroughly enlightened. If Doug is happy and content with the way things are, then who am I to judge?

I mean after all, this _is_ their marriage. :yes:


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> You mean no-strings-attached sex with a different beautiful and excited young woman every night?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Riiiiiight.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

I find it very troubling that I agree with Talkhard for once, but mostly I do.

I watched the piece on HBO too. I think their relationship is weird. But the thing is, Doug Christie is not a victim. His wife is not making him signal her 45 times (!) a game. This is the life they chose and they obviously like it. I will also say that Mrs. Christie's point that there are women out there in the NBA world who want to take her husband is 100% correct. It's not paranoia if its real.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Back in college, I had two very close friends from high school (both male). They went to different colleges. Friend A was dating a girl. She was going to visit the college of Friend B, so Friend A asked B to take his girl around, show her a good time. No problem, right? After all, these are young adults, fully in control of themselves.
> 
> So Girlfriend of A goes out on the town with B. They both drink a fair amount. They get back to his room (where she is staying), and, like true platonic friends, they sleep in the same bed. The girl wears almost nothing. And the next day she goes back to her boyfriend, claiming that B came on to her. B claims, of course, that she came onto him. In any event, they certainly strayed from A's plan.
> 
> ...


Yep. That's EXACTLY the way most on-on-one interviews between a man and a woman happen. You coulnd't be more right.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

shes not even good looking


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Evidently none of you 'this is great for the family!' types saw the 20/20 special about Christie Doug and his idiot wife. 

True, she goes with him on most road trips throughout the season, but she leaves their kids at home. Is that what it means to 'preserve the family'? So her psychotic jealousy and utter selfishness has an unintended victim...the kids.

Won't anyone think of the children?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

And for y'all who think this psycho behavior doesn't affect the lives of others. 

"A spokeswoman for the Sacramento Kings who was let go last autumn has sued the Kings organization, player Doug Christie and his wife, Jackie, alleging harassment and discrimination that she contends resulted from Christie's practice of avoiding contact with all women but his wife.

Stephanie Shepard, who was assistant manager and later manager of media relations for the Kings over four years, accuses the team of reducing her responsibilities and eventually terminating her employment after Jackie Christie complained about her because she gave Doug Christie a phone message."

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2003/06/30/story2.html


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Didn't she also jump in and attack Rick Fox in the tunnel when he and Doug got into a scuffle.

The lady isn't quite right. He loves her and good for them, but she seems to have serious issues that are not healthy.

And why do we have to compare this to players cheating on their wives? Who on this board says "whatever, that's totally normal" when we hear of cases like Kobe Bryant or others?

I agree, this is better than the worst case scenario of a completely busted marriage, but it's a far cry from a healthy one, IMO. 

Trust is NOT overrated. If you truly love someone and care about them and want to be good to them - you can do it, I don't care who you are... if you're with someone who can't be trusted, than you shouldn't be with that person. Going around and asserting complete control over their lives and behavior is no substitute and will assuredly lead to resentment.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Didn't she also jump in and attack Rick Fox in the tunnel when he and Doug got into a scuffle.
> 
> The lady isn't quite right.


So if Jackie herself were in a scuffle with another woman, Doug would be crazy to jump in and defend her?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> So if Jackie herself were in a scuffle with another woman, Doug would be crazy to jump in and defend her?


No. But he would be crazy to marry (and stay married) to a woman who abandons her children during the season just so she can keep constant tabs on him while at the same time costing a reporter her job. That would be crazy.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> So if Jackie herself were in a scuffle with another woman, Doug would be crazy to jump in and defend her?


Go ahead and look at each instance/behavior one by one... it doesn't look so bad that way.

However, when you put them all together into one person, it creates a compelling argument for unhealthy behavior. If anything, I think that her behavior will create problems in their marriage as opposed to solving them - but who knows? 

I think that Doug is working with (or enabling) her rather than them working together to make the best marriage that they can. The fact that he goes along with it can either be looked at as an argument that he agrees that he is not to be trusted, or that he is flat out afraid of pissing her off... 

I go with the latter, you say potahto...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

it's interesting that this has turned into a "liberal" vs a "conservative" arguement to some.

It's odd to me, that if this was a man (as has been stated) that was this controlling over his wife, he'd be called every name in the book. A sexist pig. A control freak. A stalker..

but when a woman does it, apparently it's ok because Doug is just a stupid man who can't control himself.

There is such a thing as trust, and while it's true that the % of NBA players that cheat is probably higher than that of us normals (despite what some of the board wants to think), I think that it's not a healthy relationship to have someone basically be on a chain like Doug is. He can't even have female *friends*. 

Thats not healthy, not because someone has to have opposite sex friends to be healthy, but it's really not giving someone the ability to be themselves. 

But whatever. It's just those crazy libruls that are coming up with some crazy marriage destroying conspiracies!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> it's interesting that this has turned into a "liberal" vs a "conservative" arguement to some.
> 
> It's odd to me, that if this was a man (as has been stated) that was this controlling over his wife, he'd be called every name in the book. A sexist pig. A control freak. A stalker..
> 
> ...


Good post. This has nothing to do with being intolerant towards a group of people, making it a "diversity" issue. This is reading about a particular, isolated instance of behaviour and not considering it healthy or normal.

Or even appropriate when it becomes an obstacle to other people doing their jobs. The fact that the people blocked (women) also happen to face many other obstacles in the workplace, it makes it even more inappropriate behaviour.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> When we try to lose weight, we protect ourselves from temptation by not storing cookies on our desks. Is this insulting to you?


Someone chosing to not buy cookies is not insulting to me. Comparing a woman to a cookie is. A cookie has no choice as to whether or not it is consumed. As a woman I have a choice (unless forced, which obviously happens) and it is really offensive as I said before to think that because I'm a woman I will choose to act unprofessionally. What bugs me is the "guilty until proven innocent" view. 
Iwatas, you were the one who talked about "homosexual perversions", I did not call heterosexuality or heterosexual marriage a perversion. I said and think that what goes on between the Christies is their own business as long as both consent, but I draw the line at prohibiting someone from interacting with female professionals just because they are female. Then it becomes no longer a personal matter between spouses. The lawsuit referred to is an example of what can happen.
It may be their business, but I agree with those who say that a man doing this would be considered controlling and Ms. Christie is being controlling if she says her husband can't go anywhere without her or can't speak to other women, at least young ones, even in a clearly professional interaction. I've known women in that position. I once worked with a woman who was married to a man like that. We had a staff meeting once after work and the manager had to call her husband to explain there really was a meeting so he would not think she'd gone out for a cup of coffee with co-workers, as this was forbidden. In fact, he got angry when she told a male store clerk he'd given her too much changes since she was not allowed to speak to other men. She finally quit her job because she unaviodably met men at work and he did not want her to have any interaction with other men. 
These people, and the Christies, are not in the category mentioned earlier, single college students in a casual relationship who are more susceptible to temptation; they are mature married people. 
If I were told I could not get a job because someone there thought that being a woman meant I'd try to seduce the men on the job I'd damn well be po'd.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

If someone discriminates for poor reasons, it hurts them the most. But everyone is free to decide who they do and do not want to associate with -- and they are stuck with the consequences of those choices.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> If someone discriminates for poor reasons, it hurts them the most.


Clearly not true, considering the fact that this female reporter from Sacramento got fired because of Jackie Christie's bizarre behavior, yet Doug Christie and his psycho wife are still bazillionaires.


----------

