BS: Sexual Infidelity

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 06:16 PM

You want MORE simmering stories? John Edwards' ex-staffer who covered for him has written a book....

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: meself
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:24 PM

Look, I know it's hard to resist the vicarious thrill of hearing about other people's hiking experiences, and fantasizing about conquering the same trails - but can we get back to talking about the dull old business of forbidden sex?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:17 PM

But does it connect to the US Appalachian Trail?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 03:35 PM

And it's BEAUTIFUL country... The Blue Moutains, The Christmas Moutains... Mount Carleton National Park is a treasure.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 03:11 PM

The Apps run through the northwestern part of New Brunswick.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: PoppaGator
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 01:30 PM

Hadn't heard of the International Appalachian Trail before this.

It apparently lies to the north of the well-known Appalachian Trail of the US, which runs from somewhere in Maine many miles to the south/southwest, terminating in (I believe) Georgia. (That's NOT the Georgia near Anything-bekistan, that is, not the former SSR).

Does the International A.T. connected directly to the larger US trail?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 11:41 PM

Although KAbekistan is unknown to Google, Bobad is not stringing us along. I HAD to check and make sure he was not practicing thread infidelity.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: bobad
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 10:37 PM

"the Trail is not also in Canada, is it?--just asking"

The International Appalachian Trail
525 miles

Location
The 525-mile International Appalachian Trail/Sentier International des Appalaches (IAT-SIA) spans from central Maine to Cap Gaspe at the easternmost tip of the Gaspe peninsula in Quebec.
"the Trail is not also in Canada, is it?--just asking"

Description
The International Appalachian Trail stretches from Baxter Peak on Katahdin in Maine to Cap Gaspe in eastern Quebec. While the official route starts at Abol Bridge and skirts east of Baxter Park, most hikers elect to walk through the Park, exiting the Matagammon Gate, thence eastward toward the Maine-New Brunswick line. After crossing the international boundary the trail follows the gentle curves of the Tobique River toward New Brunswick's highest peak, Mt. Carleton. Then the trail swings west into the French-speaking areas of New Brunswick before roughly following the Restigouche River and crossing into Quebec. In Quebec the trail parallels the Matapedia River along its eastern bank, then veers east, following the mountainous spine of Gaspe to Mt. Jacques Cartier, the highest peak in the region. Then the trail follows the northern coast of the Gaspe until the trail's terminus at Cap Gaspe, in Parc Forillon.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 10:01 PM

Gnu--

We learned earlier in the thread that Kabekistan is on the Appalachian Trail, and Kabekistan must be pretty far to the east.   Since Maine has the easternmost part of the Trail-- (the Trail is not also in Canada, is it?--just asking)--, Kabekistan must be in Maine.   But it must be in a really far eastern portion of Maine--certainly not in a part I've ever seen.

I'm just trying to be logical here.

(Latitude just makes it too complicated.)

.

.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: meself
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 08:27 AM

I take your poiht - but in some of these cases (and all I know about the Sanford business is what I've read in this thread), it's more like the chef is getting fired for running a red light, and the school bus driver for giving someone food poisoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 07:43 AM

"higher standard of morality than you hold yourself"

Not at all!

And I hope you take my thoughts more as ponderment, and less as pronouncement.

I guess what I should have referred to is the struggle that goes on in my mind when the Sanfords, or the Edwards', or the Clintons, have the media, the scrutiny, the you-and-me-over-breakfast reading their intimate emails and details. How prurient, how awful.

But if you or I were to behave as they have, there would probably not be the public shaming. And if there were, I certainly would not take part. Unless we are friends-and-relations (a whole other story)truly your marriage and your bed are not my business. Nor are the private lives of public officials, except if they and to the extent that they bring shame and dishonesty to public office.

An analogy I think of is driving: if you cruise through a stop sign, it'll bother me alright, but I'll probably just shake my fist and get over it. But if I see the school bus do it, I'll be on the phone so fast that bus driver's head'll spin.

Know what I mean?

So, no, I don't want to draw and quarter Mark Sanford, or John Edwards. But I do want to slap them hard.

And, another example: I am a chef, and trained in food safety, sanitation, etc. If you cater a friend's wedding and everyone gets food poisoning.... would it be looked at the same as if I do it, even if neither of us intend for it to happen?

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 12:02 AM

In adjudicating the compromise made by those who make a vow and later break it, the firt thing you have to understand is the actual dynamics in he equation. Human individual decisions run deeper than any code that can be writ or recited as a series of principles. This does not make them less valuable as principles, but of you do not have some insight into the actual pressures in play you will not understand; if you do not understand, you will not forgive; and if you do not forgive, you will not meet the person on their own ground on which the decisions are immediately and genuinely made. A wife can let her own distress produce sharp language that in turn doubles that distress in her husband; but that language can be forgotten while the force it produces goes on to create tragedy. And vice-versa.

Full ownership of those things one has done is no easy challenge to throw out to someone.   To place it before another require understanding what you are asking, not a superficial recitation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 09:31 PM

In working with couples where infidelity has occurred, it is important to help both parties accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions and emotions. There is a difference between responsibility and blame, and it is often difficult for individuals and couples to distingiush between these two concepts.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 09:03 PM

For myself, meself, I do not hold them to a higher standard, but I certainly hold them to the same high standard I hold for myself. I know Dani very intimately, and can also say that she lives by very high standards herself. It is not that we expect people in positions of public trust to exceed our expectations of ourselves. It is that we reasonably suppose and expect that those in positions of public trust, human as the rest of us, to be responsible with the public trust they have pursued and acheived.

In that I am a social worker and psychotherapist, I am very mindful and judiciously consider the ethics involved in my work. I have a duty to strive to be impeccable in upholding the ethics of my profession and public service, and to maintain very rigorous boundaries.   That is irrespective of whether I am talking about my private practice or my practice in public mental health.   I live and practice in a small rural community where there is likely to be some overlap in the personal and professional. This is all the more reason that I am obligated to strive for impeccable standards and boundaries.

Years before I went back to school for my master's degree to become a psychotherapist, I was still in State government and was a public servant. I have always ascribed to, and strived to live by standards that warrant the public trust. It is reasonable to expect the same of elected officials as I expect of myself. I am not a saint or a paragon of virtue, but I take my personal and professional responsibilities very seriously, and see no reason why others are incapable of the same.    I don't make a judgement on the personhood of people who cheat or lie, but I do make a judgement on the behaviors., and am quite comfortable condemning those behaviors. I think condemnation and social stigma for dishonest behaviors more socially constructive than destructive.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: meself
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 07:42 PM

The idea of holding elected officials - or anyone else, for that matter - to a higher standard of morality than you hold yourself to strikes me as the height - or is that depth? - of hypocrisy.

Having said that - a thief may well recognize that it is not a good idea to have thieves running the country; a drunk may not want a fellow drunk at the control switch. Fine, as long as they don't get all self-righteous about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 07:38 PM

Oh... ahhh... I meant by "post menopausal" that I am not into that any more. And I am celibate. Unless I win the lotto tonight. If I do, I am gonna pull a Pierre and find a breeder to squeeze out some pups in short order.

I know that doesn't sound terribly romantic, or even within the loose bounds of decorum within this forum, but, if I win the lotto, I am gettin me some pups. They would be so cute... curly red hair... hair would be cool...

Oh. Sorry.

Marry anyone? ME??? Not likely. I barely entertain.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 07:27 PM

Defintely both, and beyond.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 06:36 PM

Post menopausal or a good cook? Perhaps both?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Big Norman Voice
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 06:30 PM

So is he

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 06:03 PM

Good Gnu.

Now, will you marry me? I'm post menopausal and a good cook;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 05:29 PM

Janie... excellent post!

Ron... "Kabekistan--that must be pretty far east in Maine."

No, it's a tad north if Maine.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 05:04 PM

Rats, LF. I was asleep at the wheel.

Thought I had this one;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Big Norman Voice
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 05:00 PM

LF you are a plonker. Please keep your flippant posts for flippant threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Leadfingers
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 04:45 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 04:05 PM

OK, here's the thing... I may be a Pollyanna, but I still believe in the concept of The Public Trust.

We are all of us flawed, and stumbling through this world (especially when it comes to love!) But when a person is elected to uphold the laws, (especially as a governor) and to work to set standards of education for our children, to represent us at home and abroad, I DO hold them to a higher standard.

I mean, I am aware that politicians are human, and that their marriages and relationships are truly none of my business. I am not a stone-caster, by ANY means.

However, when politicians behave in ways that demonstrate a disregard for personal loyalty and integrity, they have lost me. I want them to do better, and be better, and try harder, as they set an example. I just do!

Bill Clinton is a great example. I wanted him so badly to be our president, was so hopeful on so many levels. And there is plenty he did well he should be remembered for. But when I had an opportunity to see him this year, made sure my daughter came, ('cause how often do you get to see an American President?!). When the time came actually meet him, I didn't even want to shake his hand. All the awe for me was lost in "Ewwwww!!".

... I'm just sayin'.

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 12:55 PM

Kabekistan--that must be pretty far east in Maine.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 11:00 AM

He's not available for comment--he's out hiking the Appalachian Trail in eastern Kabekistan.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 09:58 PM

"My plumber Max..."

Ah, but what does your plumber Joe say?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:54 PM

You done good, Janie!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:34 PM

Alas, Bill, I lack your succinctness.   Probably because I lack your clarity and am processing and figuring things out in the process of writing here. Journaling, so to speak, as I go.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:13 PM

("could not get this post to submit.")

Yep..it happens. I copy it, then hit **reload** in the browser..(not 'refresh' in Mudcat.) This puts a new copy in the cache and overrides whatever problem was going on. Wish Jeff was still around to explain it.

And thank you, Janie, for the rational & coherent look at some of the issues.



and I'm sort of indebted to Sanford for bringing this issue to such ...ummmmm... 'interesting' attention. I am not happy he did all this, but it sure is making people think.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:02 PM

Weirdest thing. I could not get this post to submit. Finally had to copy it to pages and then back to a dialog box - this after 5 tries.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:01 PM

I hear what you are saying, Gnu. I think there are very strong reasons for a society to have norms, mores and values that provide for a stable family environment for the purpose of rearing children, including strong cultural support and an array of social sanctions for flouting that most important of social contracts. However, there are cultures that do that in the context of polygamous families. In cultures where polygamy is a norm, they still involve solomn commitment and overt interdependency and mutual responsibility.

I personally value monogamy, but I don't see monogamy as being the only arrangement that provides the stability and support needed to provide appropriate care for children. The inherent value lies with the conditions that underpin whatever the (usually culturally based) social contract is that represents a society's effort to provide for the rearing of young. The power of any social contract rests on strong belief in honesty and integrity.

Obviously, in Western society, the advent of good, reliable forms of birth control has changed mores and norms very rapidly. However, we have not found ways to compensate for what that means in terms of child-rearing. Additionally, we have come to value the rights and immediate needs and wants of the individual over the responsibilities of the individual to others, and to society.   There is no intelligent dialogue on any significant scale to address the consequences, intended and unintended, in these shifts. Largely, in my very humble opinion, because of the failure to understand the function of values. In terms of marriage, and the "solomn" commitment that at one time upheld that institution, I have this to say. It is only my opinion, FWIW, but I think it is a sound and well-reasoned opinion. Marriage is hard. No one goes into a first marriage, presumably at a fairly young age really knowing what they are in for.   Talk with long-time couples who consider themselves happily and successfully married, and they will still tell you how hard it was, and that there were many unpleasant surprises along the way.   

From a sociobiological perspective, the primary function of marriage is to produce offspring and then rear them at least until they themselves reach reproductive age. It requires both the support of an integrated social system, and the threat of stigma from an integrated social system to hold many, if not most, marriages together over the long haul. Speaking very generally, I tend to think the evidence is that long-haul marriages are best for children. Our cultural mores had become so hide-bound in that respect, that when it was in the best interest of children for the marriage to dissolve, that usually did not happen. Now the pendulum seems to have swung too far in the other direction. Another explanation is we are evolving socially very unevenly. If we don't kill ourselves off through climate change first, it will be interesting to see what finally socially evolves.

I am not a religious person, and have been gradually moving over the past several years in the direction of thinking it quite unlikely there is a god or a supreme consciousness or superintelligence. What that as meant for me is that I have had to change the basis on which I base my moral values, and to come to understand them as choices based on any combination of rational thought and inculturation by family and society. As I have moved in this direction, I have found that little has changed regarding my values. What has changed is the basis of them. There are values that I choose to believe are inherent because there is much evidence that aspiring to those values is life-enhancing and responsible, both individually and collectively, in terms of fostering survival of our species and the earth, or that cross-cultural study and experience strongly suggests their universal functionality.    That doesn't make them inherent, but I firmly choose to treat them as such.   

There are other values that I also hold dear and practice in my personal life that I none-the-less understand as personal and culturally determined values. Monogamy is one of those. One function of religion in a society is to provide a non-rational basis for necessary values.   That is fine with me, though I do wish people in general would put a bit more effort into disquishing between belief and fact, and even more often, learn to be aware within themselves of the distinct difference between a thought (cognition) and a feeling (emotion.)

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:51 PM

It IS about the kids if a couple chooses to have kids. Even if a couple discovers they they never should have married each other, they should design any new arrangements to make it as easy on the kids as possible.
It IS the case sometimes that remaining together may be harder on the kids than separating, but every effort should be made. If infidelity is a major issue, it 'can' be better for kids not to watch the game play out.

   I was personally acquainted a number of years ago with some people who had a very 'open' lifestyle with no jealousy and where the kids knew everyone and 'flowing relationships' were taken for granted. But each family was still defined, and none of the kids doubted who loved them and took care of them. Unusual, but they seemed to make it work. I do NOT recommend that just anyone try this.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:47 PM

"I don't think there is any inherent value in monogamy."

I would not have children with a woman who held that premise. It's all about the kids... all of the laws, all of the religious "rights".. all of the ceremonies, vows, public undertakings, whatever.

Even in the civil contract ceremony in Canada (that I attended) and written in law... "... forsaking all others...". It's for the kids.

If you forsake your spouse or your children, you forsake yourself. And you have no rights under law or God, unless forgiven.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:41 PM

If you are human you are a foibled mess with clay feet, but sexual infidelity is not among my foibles. My plumber Max says that it can happen in flash but living in the moment always provided my conscience to have the last word.
Saying no has cost me some friends but not my wife.
At least not in the last 21 years.

There's always tommorrow ;')

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:28 PM

Janie, you do, for the most part, speak my mind. As did Amos a while ago. I hope you can get beyond that guilt feeling. I had that also and it is so counterproductive. CS is correct, we do make these commitments with so little self-knowledge and even less knowledge of the other. New knowledge sometimes requires a re-thinking. Scientists do it all the time!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM

I don't think there is any inherent value in monogamy. I do think there is inherent value in honesty and in the notion of interdependence and mutual responsibility. I think that because the social contract is the essential glue that holds us together, and we humans have evolved in such a way that social organization is key to our survival.

If one thinks that social organization and structure are not necessary, take a look at Somalia.

So I think that dishonest violations of the contract on which the integrity of a relationship is based, and which the violator attempts to hide so as not to experience consequences are aggregeous. I obviously have a very strongly held value about this.

When I decided to leave my marriage, I broke an important commitment. I had some very good reasons for doing so, but it was still a choice. While I do not regret my decision, I will always feel somewhat guilty about it.

Infidelity had nothing to with it by the way. Years ago we were separated for a year and in counseling to see if we could make things work. When we came together as a couple we did have an explicit mutual expectation of sexual fidelity. During the time we were separated a female apprentice was working daily with my spouse, was very infatuated with him and came onto him very strongly. He found her very attractive. We talked about this in marital counseling. He was essentially wanting my permission to have a sexual relationship with her. I was very clear that he had to make his own decision about that. I was also very clear that while I had no idea at that time if we were going to reconcile otherwise, I was certain that I was not interested in continuing the hard work of attempting to work out our problems if he chose to enter into a sexual relationship with her. As it happens, he chose not to, but whatever he might have chosen, he acted with honesty and integrity in discussing it with me first so that I could also make an honest and informed choice. He did not try to "have his cake and eat it to."

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jacqui.c
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 04:57 PM

From a genetic point of view I would guess that the majority of men want their female to be monogamous in order to ensure that the children of the union carry their own genes. That one is pretty well hard wired in. Women, on the whole, tend to want a monogamous relationship so that the hunter-gatherer in the family is working on behalf of her children, not disappearing off into the wild blue yonder and leaving her to fend for herself whilst raising the family. It mostly comes down to a question of security for both parties.

Our modern lifestyle may have changed but the genetic hardwiring of both sexes hasn't yet caught up with these changes.

Then you have the role of religion in the mix, with the customs and mores associated with those religions, which compound the faithful unto death idea. Just look at what is happening now with the attitude toward gay marriage. What we hear from the opponents to this idea is that it will have a derogatory effect on family life. The nuclear family unit is seen as the norm and we are generally brought up to believe that that is the status to which we should aspire. It's going to take a lot of time to lose that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:59 PM

I'd like to know how many people make that vow, whilst knowing next to nothing about themselves? I'd like to know how many would support the condemnation of another who broke their vow under unexpected extreme provocation?

I feel that no-one has questioned the real value of monogomy (desrcibed as it is by the 'heterosexual Christian nuclear family') being the prevailing presumption in Western Culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:22 PM

Thank you, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:15 PM

Jesus, make that:

Female Genital Mutilation.

So much easier to type... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:13 PM

GFM

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:11 PM

Although "monogamy " may be the alleged norm, serial monogamy is more certainly more prevalent and "sexual fidelity", or not, needs to be totally between those in any given relationship at any given time. No body's business but those involved.

For me, the real issue here is TRUTH. We know most politicians lie. (Perhaps most people do.) But to lie so everyone can see it needs to be political suicide. If they lie about "this", then how can we trust anything they say? We cannot.

I don't care how anyone carries on their sex life as long as it is honest, and not harmful, in the eyes of those to whom it matters - wives, mistresses, children. Or, in the case of public figures - the public. Even as chairperson of the local women's resource centre, I accepted that my personal life had to be above reproach lest I give the centre a black eye. Getting that off the ground was far more important to me that anything else.

I am missing something to notice that it only male politicians who seem to get caught?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: meself
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:06 PM

GMF?

Gay Married Female?
Godforsaken Miserable Fidelity?
Great Married Fornication?
Group Monogamy Forever?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:03 PM

There really is no issue of guilt per se, but one of broken agreements. More important, breaking an agreementwith enough importance to be elevated to the stature of "vow".

Opting for the indulgence in feelings over internal stature means you walk into the next morning with your feelings momentarily satiated and your ability to keep your own word and be true to your own commitments semi-permanently dinged. This is a stupid bargain to make.

In addition, breaking agreements with others is hurtful, and breaking very important ones with others is often very hurtful. So in addition to seriously dinging your own integrity, you have undermined the trust of the relationship AND hurt someone else. THis makes it a prohibitively expensive indulgence, just as doing some bizarre tempting drug might be.

If there is "guilt"--meaning a wish to turn back the clock and undo what has been done--it comes only from these things. AFAIK the only remedy is to rebuild your integrity anew by embracing higher standards of honesty and communication than you have done in the past, and suffer through the climb back up into your own good graces.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:40 PM

I understand that our social 'norm' is monogomy.

I just distrust the forms of brainwashing (IMHO!) that lead people to believe that it is either 'normal' (aka 'natural') or indeed plausible, to lead their lives in such a fashion without encountering severe reality checking.

GMF is completely 'normative' within other cultures, as is arranged marriage, or indeed abduction and rape leading to marriage, but it doesn't necessarily make it the most constructive or enlightened approach to adopt in a self-professed "enlightened" society such as the West.

Strong examples, I understand. But agreements made under extreme social pressure, or before an individual has had enough personal experience to determine their own values outside of collectively assumed/indoctrinated ones, will mean all kinds of people get pulled into contracts that are not in any way right for them.

How do we feel about people that go AWOL when they disagree with a governments aggressive foreign policy, or Civil Servants who break confidentiality, in public interest for example. These people are breaking promises and contracts too.
Is it ever as black and white as that?

Think of the amount of Gay men, who have had families because homosexuality was not 'normative'? How many of those who broke their eternal promises, would we condemn as cads?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:21 PM

Janie makes a whole lot of sense.

In my view, it ought to be legally 'possible' for people to write their 'marriage' contracts to reflect personal views...including same-sex, multiple relationships..etc. Then, in cases of upsets, certain details would not be at question....

But this would not deal with the issue of political office. NO MATTER WHAT a major politician and his/her spouse agree on (like Eisenhower or Roosevelt), they know that many constituents will not agree and can/will vote to reflect more conservative views. Back then, the press had some sort of agreement to not publish everything they knew....now, with technology as it is (like finding cell phone records from the Atlanta airport), it has become a major sport and business to follow, record, film, question and analyze everything a major public figure does. This has both positive & negative aspects, as it is often the case that 'morals' get confused with 'ability to do the job' and occupy way too much of the news cycle.


Sanford not only broke obvious 'promises'...both specific & implied...with his wife AND his constituents...he also showed an abysmal lack of recognition of how private he could keep such affairs. If he had tried to run for president, someone whould have gleefully broken the story at an 'interesting' moment. He merely made it easier.

What is most interesting to me, is how other Republicans are struggling to decide what to say publically.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: PoppaGator
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:18 PM

Hmmm ~ thought I posted a while ago, but apparently not. Unless maybe I did, and got censored. Here goes, again:

This guy had to go all the way to Argentina to find someone to cheat with? Doesn't speak well of his competence...

If he had been able to set up his love nest a little closer to home, he wouldn't have had to abandon his post for so long, and probably would never have been caught.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jacqui.c
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 01:13 PM

Problem was that Sanford was not doing what he was elected to do. He disappeared without giving his staff any way to contact him. whatever the reason he was derelict in his duty to the electorate.