BS: Sexual Infidelity

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Sorcha
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:12 AM

As I was once told, they are Alpha....and what do Alphas DO?????

Yup, you got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:54 AM

It's a breach of trust, and that's all I'll say about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:44 AM

"'It probably strengthens Palin.   At this point she probably owns "family values".'"

                  There's Huckabee. Did you see how he got all jacked out of shape when the RNC decided to back Crisp for the senate in Florida? I think if the Republicans put up a "family values" candidate next time, we'll never hear from them again.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:41 AM

The funny part about it all to me is, they think they can stand in front of the television cameras and bawl, and everything will come out all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:31 AM

One downside to this.   It probably strengthens Palin.   At this point she probably owns "family values".   Sure hope that when the time comes (say 2010) there are enough "conservative" candidates still left to ensure some nice bloody primaries among "conservatives".

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: kendall
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:17 AM

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:52 AM

And Greg has it right: especially anybody whose stock in trade is "family values" really should try to think--if at all possible-- before engaging in this sort of stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:45 AM

Another great story--seems to fit this to a T.   Pretty sure I got it from Mudcat, but don't know who to acknowledge.

.

Mother bathing her little boy in the bathtub.

He's playing with his balls.

Child:   Mommy, are these my brains?

Mother: Not yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:28 AM

The only reason to get worked up is if the politician is a Republican...

Oh, please. What it is, is, the Republicans are just so much better at hypocrisy, mewling on about "family values", "60's morality", "just say no" & all the rest.

They deserve a larger measure of disdain.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:26 AM

I wouldn't dream of trying to impose my own moral values on others and get very irate when people try to impose theirs on me. What I do hate is people whose maxim seems to be, "do as I say, not as I do". That is pure hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:20 AM

I think infidelity is 'just another issue' that marriages face and not by a long straw the most serious - it's just the one we have been indoctrinated to get most outraged about. 'Sex' is the issue that the Church decided to focus on in formulating the 'contract', because sex has historically always been deemed somehow fundamentally 'sinful'.

Deceit comes in all forms, thus the 'contract' IMO is something of a secondary issue to *trust* and *honesty* between partners. And that trust can be compromised by all kinds of things apart from extra-marital sex: drugs, gambling, alcohol, debt etc. All of these things challenge trust and stability in a marriage. It just so happens that 'sex' is for whatever reason historically deemed more 'taboo' than other forms of deceit, and is thus written into the 'contract'.

I also suspect that most people do not enter into either debt, alcoholism, or indeed extra-marital affairs, in cold premeditated fashion whereby one could indicate ones prior intentions to ones partner. People are often weaker than they may think themselves to be, and can get caught-out by animal impulses before they realise how deep they are getting. To strive against such pitfalls is of course up to each of us. But I'm not about to get overly dismayed about the ordinary human failings of someone I don't know, unless it severely infringes upon another innocent parties rights or freedoms.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Midchuck
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:47 AM

The only reason to get worked up is if the politician has made public statements about the morality or immorality of infidelity, and then goes about behaving the same way.

That's true, IMO. But you could have said "The only reason to get worked up is if the politician is a Republican," and made the exact same point in fewer words.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:43 AM

Trying to work out what is moral or immoral in other people's marriages is a mug's game. Intimate wars are no one else's business: people keeping or breaking vows are involved in their own narratives. The only reason to get worked up is if the politician has made public statements about the morality or immorality of infidelity, and then goes about behaving the same way.

The rest is just prurience.

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:32 AM

In that case, be up front with your partner before you act so your partner can decide if they want to risk staying in the relationship with you under those conditions.

Don't break the contract and try to conceal that you have done so.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:19 AM

I don't know what goes on privately between a married couple, and I haven't much interest in their private affairs. I get sick of tabloid sleaze articals. I'm less than interested in revelations about some balding old politicians bit of totty - though it does make me laugh when it's some pontificating religious or political hypocrite advocating 'family values'. Just love it when the vicar gets caught shafting the choir mistress... In Essex a while back we had the famous "Bonking Bishop of Brentwood." Very Benny Hill.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: bubblyrat
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:25 AM

Yes,but the realities of heady young love,with all its protestations and avowalls,and actual married life,with its attendant (usually post-natal) problems are two very different things---I knew many a fit & lusty young married sailor in the Navy who,usually after little Johnny or little Sarah had come along,were demoted to the bottom of the list of their wives' priorities.A few took it with stoicism, I have to say,but the majority,especially after months at sea ,and a few pints of "Tiger" in Singapore, were generally made of weaker stuff--I guess it goes with the job.
                As to politicians----well, women have always been attracted to men in positions of power ; any anthropologist will tell you that .The same goes for rock-stars,racing drivers,bankers,athletes etc. In France,or so my French friend told me,they think that there is something weird about any politician who HASN'T got a mistress ,but of course in England (and,I suspect,the USA) we have these peculiar ideas about morality whereby we drool over salacious and overtly immoral programmes on TV,like the one where total strangers are put together on an island in the hope that sex will ensue,or the disgustingly voyeuristic "Big Brother",whilst simutaneously claiming to be outraged if one of our "Leaders ",whose bored wife is probably having it off with her fitness instructor anyway,has an affair. Human Nature, eh ?? It's a scream,isn't it ?? !! O Tempora ! O Mores !

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Donal
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:49 AM

Most Western marriage ceremonies contain some sort of vow of fidelity. How can anyone trust a person who is prepared to break such a solemn vow?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:44 AM

From my point of view, the issue isn't so much that he is a hypocrite in terms of the conservative "family values" that he professes, it is that he walked out on the state that he was sworn to govern with no word, warning, or indication of when he'd be back.
I suppose
it could be argued that, given his record, the state was better off without him, but he could have at least asked somebody to watch the place while he was gone--

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:38 AM

Sorry. That post was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:30 AM

I read the title of this thread as Sexual Hifidelity.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:32 AM

I don't know, Janie. It's just sex. People in the U.S. get so torqued about things that have some parts of the world scratching their heads in wonder at us (we fall somewhere in between the live-and-let-live French and the off-with-their-heads Saudis). When Gary Hart challenged the press to find him he deserved to get caught on the 'Monkey Business,' but he seems to have started an open season pursuit that continues to this day: see who you can stake out and catch in the act. Most people probably suffer enough via the personal consequences at home when they are found out. Being slammed by the press and the American public has always seemed stupid and none of our business.

My first impulse isn't that someone caught in such an embarrassing situation should completely quit their jobs. If you're a big crime fighter and commit a crime, like Spitzer did, in soliciting a woman across state lines blah blah blah, then he was asking to take a fall. But a lot of the rest of this reaction is overkill and events like this show the extreme Victorian underpinnings of the seemingly parochial American education that somehow teaches that some ethical lapses are worse than others, even when they aren't. It's all a sliding scale, it's a value judgment. Moral relativism? Maybe. I'd rather the media got upset about violent crime than sneaky sex.

I haven't followed this fellow's story closely, and I didn't listen to the press conference, I've heard excerpts. It seems to me that disappearing as far away and as long as he did requires a little better cover story and preparation than vaguely saying he's going hiking. (Dave Letterman addressed it well this evening--just come clean, say you're going to Argentina, but have a good excuse for being there.) I suppose the number and character of lies told versus the casual concealment of what was going on will have a qualitative effect on his family response--was he carelessly trampling his family's feelings, or had he done this often enough that until someone got curious, it was just his little peculiarity, wanting time away. Apparently his wife knew about this. I think the fallout of this misadventure is up to her.

I know there are Mudcatters who have strict religious opinions that dictate their own behavior and would try to dictate the behavior of others. I'm not posting this opinion to engage them in debate and no one need pass judgement on my philosophy of politics and sex. I'm just stating a point of view.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:26 PM

I agree. I don't necessarily equate morality primarily - or only - with sexual betrayal but marital infidelity certainly denotes a certain immaturity that doesn't speak well of the person.

I wonder whether there is more of it nowadays or is it only or mostly that it's become less stigmatized in the eyes of the public. I know that keeping a mistress in times past was common, even expected, among some powers even if it was less openly spoken of.

Reminds me of an old story. This politician confesses to his wife that he has a mistress and she is devastated, not having suspected such a thing, but he tells her that it is very common in their circle. She insists that he point her out to her at the next official function they attend.

In due time they attend a fancy formal occasion and when they get inside he points out his inamorata and then a moment later he points to another woman and says, That one is the mistress of Ambassador Adams.

She looks at her carefully then turns to him. "I like ours better," she says.

Subject: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:14 PM

Gov. Sanford of SC is only the latest in a series of high profile cases of politicians having extra-marital sex or affairs. Politicians offend me particularly because I still think it reasonable, though certainly not realistic, to expect our leaders to accept their responsibilities to be role models.

Politicians and public figures aside, I do not countenance the lack of personal integrity exhibited by so many men and women, the immaturity, the selfishness and lack of impulse control, that leads them cheat on their wives and husbands or committed partners. I have the same intolerance for those they cheat with. It is indicative of a complete lack of concern and respect for others and ultimately, for the self.



I'm probably stepping on some toes here, but so be it.   I needed to get this off my chest.