Pat Robertsons Advice to Wives of Cheating Husbands

Why are you surprised someone that believes in a patriarchal religion would have this line of thought?

Women get dissed in the bible multiple times. Why believe in a religion that doesn't see you as an equal human being OP?

You gotta give the guy a break - I mean, when he was young (about 150 years ago) that's how people thought.

This doesn't really surprise me. I think he's more honest than a lot of people who think along those same lines.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You know I was just thinking that at least Pat has the balls to say what he means and truly believes.

Even if I think he's an ignorant man, at least he can follow his own convictions.

Truly though, don't take any kind of advice from Pat, he's not there to help you, he's there to help his pocket book.

~Tenth

Cheating is betrayal and at the very top of the "No no" list. Don't even need to bring the 10 Commandments into it. Pat should know this. Him saying what he said just shows that he doesn't really follow the Commandments either. Like they are negotiable.

Sorry Pat... it is a human relationship. Sorry you don't understand this very concept.

I just think it's strange that it sounded on going not past tense.
To cheat is just wrong period.
He didn't give her any helpful advise probably because he'd have to be able to relate to her anger about it but he's not capable of that.

Like it or not, what he said is true but it goes the same way with men, if you ignore your wifes they will look elsewhere for attention.

I think he could have worded it better in all honesty, women shouldn't be expected to be superheroes who cook the best seven course meals everynight then perform in the bedroom to the same standards. But sweat pants and turning into a sloth sure won't keep anyone around either.

Marriage is work, both sides have to work at it if they don't put in equal amounts of time and effort then someone eventually will stray.

The only thing bad about his advice was that it was directed solely for women.

Ahh, i laughed hard reading this. I am genuinely in wonder at what his advice would be to a man in this situation

reply to post by FlyersFan


I can't stand Pat Robertson. He's an arrogant, misogynistic pr%$&k! But this time, he wasn't totally wrong..

The woman, who wrote in, stated:
"We have gone to counseling, but I just can't seem to forgive, nor can I trust. How do you let go of the anger? How do you trust again?"

Although, I don't agree with his apologetic "men may stray" attitude, to be fair, she got a decent answer. He basically said, let go of the past, justify his behavior as him having been "stolen" by sin, find the things that made you fall in love with him and fall in love all over again, and make an effort to make your home extra comfy.

That's a fair Christian response, for the 700 Club and Pat Robertson, in light of the question and the way in which it was posed. IMHO

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Why believe in a religion that doesn't see you as an equal human being OP?

I haven't said anything about my religion or religious beliefs.
The subject is Pat Roberton's advice to a woman with a cheating husband.

It is a simple fact ,really...If you do not treat your man or woman right and do not satisfy their needs(emotionally,sexually,intellectually,etc) then it is natural that they look for other alternative sources to fill the gap and to get what they need....Same principal is required for our relationship with all other species.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
when he was young (about 150 years ago) that's how people thought.

I don't care how old he is or what time period he was born in.
The dude claims to be a spiritual leader of a whole lotta' people.
The spiritual leader of people NOW ... in modern times.
He claims to be a bible believer.
But here he is .. dismissing adultry by men .. brushing it off.

I think his advice ... sucks.
And I agree with the previous poster .. it makes me wonder if he's 'wandered a bit' .. to quote him.

And men like this are one of the reasons I left the church.

2nd line.

I'm surprised this guy is still alive and kicking his own special brand of retardology.

Does Pat ever consider that he is completely out of touch with modern society?

reply to post by Lysergic

Does Pat ever consider that he is completely out of touch with modern society?

He's one of the people trying to push for a theocracy. Very dangerous man, and very wrong. And very much 'followed' by the Christian Coalition/Religious Right "Moral Majority" (which, thankfully, is losing its grip on modern society, but sadly not fast enough).

What an ass.

@FF: Great thread, thanks for exposing him further. s/f

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Pat Robertson is mentally challenged.
Nowhere in "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" does it qualify that this rule only applies to women and not to men.

You may be right about that, but there is what is called Rabbinical Law which defines precisely what is considered adultery, and defines specific instances when a man is committing adultery.

The difference between adultery and fornication is also defined. Fornication is "sex for pleasure", and is actually allowable because it does not compromise the purpose of relations between husband and wife (to procreate).

According to this belief a man can only commit adultery in 2 ways:

If a man puts away (divorces) his wife and marries another. There is actually an exception to this that says that a man can put away his wife for the purpose of fornication ( Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32)

If a man fornicates with a married woman, or a woman who's husband (even if her husband her "put away") is still alive. If the woman with whom the husband fornicated was unmarried it was not considered adultery). Any other sexual relations between a man and an unmarried woman are allowable

A woman, however, would be said to be committing adultery if she is married and having relations with a man, divorced (if the divorcing husband is alive) or single and having relations with a married man.

A single man and a single woman having relations is considered fornication, unless the woman is betrothed (engaged) and the man which she was having relations with was not her husband to be. In this instance, a woman would be considered to be committing adultery.

The punishment for adultery is the same for both the man and the woman (usually death by stoning), however a woman would be punished for fornication, and a man would not be.

This may explain why the Pat Robertson's of the world seem to allude to the idea that cheating is ok and "expected".

It may also explain the tendency for those who have been married and divorced in the Catholic church to seek annulments.



Personally I do not adhere to these beliefs, but I know of it because this was the explanation that was given to me to justify the wandering ways of one of my exes, and why one ex (whom I loved very much) felt that I was not worth marrying because he could not bear the thought of being associated with such a sin (He was Catholic, and I was a divorcee, his marriage was annulled and mine was not).

Now, with all of that said, Here is my 2¢.

There is a tendency that modern society has the expectation that once a man and woman are married that they are to have no interest in other men or women, and only have attention and appreciation for their respective husbands and wives. Married couples are not "allowed" to appreciate others or flirt in any way. This seems to be especially true for men.

How many videos are there of women smacking their men when they are caught "looking at" another woman?

To me personally, this is unrealistic, and I believe that suppression of these things has a great influence on whether or not a man (or woman) will cheat. There are those that believe that the longer you suppress a desire the more intense the need to fulfill it becomes, and the more involved and complicated sating that desire becomes. When it comes to men cheating on women (or women cheating on men), it generally has nothing to do with the sex life, but an attention (or lack thereof) factor. How can one appreciate another without having something else to compare it to? If you are not allowed to look (or even flirt),or seek the attention (and I'm not talking sex here) or conversation of another of the opposite sex, how can you appreciate what you have, and the attention your partner gives you? From my experience, and from the experiences of those around me, this seems to be the case more often than not.

What "society" defines as cheating varies widely, but it is generally accepted that any attention given to a member of the opposite sex in any type of provocative or flirtatious manner is a big no-no.

In my current relationship (which just celebrated it's 12th year) not only do I find no offense in his appreciation of other women (looking or flirting), he does not take offense to my appreciation of other men, and in that we find a greater appreciation in each other. We do not try to hide it from each other either and often laugh at the actions and reactions of others, which has helped us maintain an open dialogue of our needs and desires for each other, and I feel helped us maintain a healthy and appreciative relationship.

Besides, I have always said that when my husband stops looking at other good looking women and appreciating their beauty, I'm in big trouble, because if he is no longer interested in women, he is probably no longer interested in me! :lol

Pat Robertson is a piece of garbage?

Who could have predicted such a thing?

I mean, besides anyone who isn't mentally defective....

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You just make my day, girl, sometimes I wonder about Pat Robertsons, I think his anti aging "magic protein drinks are seeping into his brain.

Let not forget that he has done controversial comments during his reign. and top the charts on stupidity.

Pat Robertson and his marbles parted ways a long time ago. This is just further evidence. Here's the clip:



As a Christian, I must state that I'm thoroughly disgusted with this man, and he definitely vexes my spirit, so to speak. He in no way represents me or my way of thinking. I may be wrong, but I've never actually heard him quote a single Bible verse, which is pretty odd for a preacher. I also don't much care for the fact that he has a loyal, rabid following of viewers who hang on his every deluded word(I've run into these guys).

Besides the obvious adultery, here is another verse I seldom hear, perhaps because it puts the man and the woman on an equal footing:

"A wife does not have the right over her own body, but her husband does. In the same way, a husband does not have the right over his own body, but his wife does."-1 Cor 7:4

In marriage, you belong to each other, and please note that it works both ways, Mr. Robertson. Evidently, he's someone who doesn't speak in a scriptural manner, again odd for a preacher, but simply blathers on about whatever pops into his fool, ill-informed head.

I actually don't much care for television "ministries", they're generally all about egos and money. My small, Word oriented church is fine with me, without some guy in a custom-fitted suit with diamond rings on his fingers going on about how much he needs donations. Well, I'd better quit out of consideration for my blood pressure. Anyway, I have a Zen Garden to tend.

reply to post by FissionSurplus

"Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" does it qualify that this rule only applies to women and not to men.

Plus, if women are to blame for wandering husbands I'd imagine god would have made the 11th commandment: Thy spouse shall make a wonderful home to keep the other spouse faithful.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

He is beating around the bush (no pun intended) about saying that if the woman would continue to keep the husband happy (in the bedroom) then they will have less temptation to go out and find some from not his wife....

How happy can a wife make a husband if the church only recognizes the missionary position?