The worry is that Giuliani would follow a program basically dictated by his wife. For instance, whatever she feels about “mail order brides” (dating women who are not American), then that will be Giuliani’s policy.

Would Giuliani try to ban alimony with her disagreeing with him by calling him on the phone all the time?

It is very worrisome that Giuliani says he is seriously worried about losing her.

(”He’s a beast. He ignores me. Its always me that makes the effort for intimacy but he won’t even answer the phone, yer disHonour”)

No need to posit ‘afraid of losing her’ as a reason. How about simply ‘obeying the law’ ? Perhaps Mr. Giuliani ought to offer that to his audiences as his reason. It would count as ‘etiquette’ and at least be more honest. It would illustrate the parlous state of play a lot better too.

The old psychologists categorisation of ‘controlling behaviour’ is out of date. In the past shrinks concentrated all of their criticism on men controlling women and ignored the preponderance of the behaviour being located in women controlling men. The law does the same but with teeth. Mr. Giuliani has more than an election or a wife to lose. His entire wordly goods are on the line if he fails to answer his wife’s calls.

How come there is not a peep of criticism of Mrs. Giuliani ? It is she who is stalking the poor bugger. It seems he can’t stand to give a public speech without her interupting and demanding attention. Come on Dr Helen. When are you going to tell Mrs. Giuliani to shut the fuck up.

I appreciate Dr Helen’s criticisms regarding the incidents but when are such women going to form men’s rights groups and overturn the damage their sistas have done, rather than heap even more misandric criticism on men?

This is the stink of the Elephant in the room that everyone is carefully avoiding seeing. Maybe Dr Helen can talk about avoidance behaviours next.