BS: Sexual Infidelity

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:59 PM

Yeah, it's kind of nobody else's business, so why are we subjected to this?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:01 PM

"...subjected to this". Uh, nobody is subjected to reading or hearing anything about Sanford, just as they are not forced to wallow in Michael Jackson trivia. Exactly who is holding a gun to your head making you follow this stuff?

Some of us are interested in Sanford's situation for any number of reasons. Mine is that he was--til now--a "bright new face" on the Republican side, talked about already regarding the 2012 election.

So much for that idea.

As I said, the latest "crossing lines" ramblings have taken care of that rather neatly. He'll be lucky to last the week out as governor.

I was already plenty disgusted with Sanford--free to piously refuse stimulus funds, knowing that his legislature would override him and the funds would come to SC anyway. Neatly getting the cake and eating it.



And re: Palin:   too bad about her rough patch up in AK. Please keep us posted on developments, Ebbie. I'd be more concerned about Palin than Sanford--at least he wasn't looking forward to Armageddon. And she already has a huge national fan base of Neanderthals--not that I mean to demean Neanderthals.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:32 PM

freda, excellent points.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 01:38 AM

I agree, Dorothy. It is lying that is the issue...and the lying is an issue because of what it means in terms of trust. The Sanford debacle is what triggered my thoughts and led to me starting the thread, but I wasn't simply thinking of powerful political figures. I haven't followed the Sanford story since the first headlines. However, public leaders, be they politicians or preachers, violate not only the private trust of their personal relationships, they also violate the public trust when they violate the values they say they stand for.

While I have a childish yearning for our political leaders to be paragons of virtue, I don't actually expect them to be. However, I do expect them to be capable of self control, and also do not see any reason to excuse stupid and self-centered behavior by smart people.

Judging behavior is different from judging the person. I try, not always successfully, to separate the two. We all do things that are ineffective or hurtful to ourselves or others. We all make mistakes or exercise bad judgement or make bad choices. There is a difference between blaming some one, which I see as judgement on their personhood, and and holding them accountable and responsible for their choices.

In our world today, not only does the media no longer have an unspoken contract to let the personal be personal, political enemies and opposition to other political figures are quick to dig for dirt, distort, and use any means possible to discredit the opposition. The fight for political power and leverage knows no limits of decency or privacy, and the least hint of transgression will be exploited to the fullest extent possible by the opposition.   I don't like that, but I know that and accept that as the reality of the past 20-30 years. If I know that, then I certainly expect a powerful politician to know that.

Even if he and his wife had come to some sort of accommodation, there is no good excuse for him not realizing that 1) there no longer is privacy in our culture for public figures - that the political machinery of the opposition is constantly scanning and searching for "dirt" ( or even dust that can be turned into dirt), and that the media will in no way turn discreetly away.   

Much of this is attributable (ible?) to the technology of communication and electronic connectivity. The ability to not only track and discover more, but also the ability to communicate and pass on rumor and speculation with the push of a button on a keyboard. John and Robert Kennedy would be very tarnished characters today, rather than candidates for sainthood, if they were in power now and doing what they did then in their personal lives.   

In all of our lives, largely because of advances in technology, there is much less separation between the public and the private. This has happened very quickly, more quickly than we humans have been able to adapt to it. For a person who is interested in "finding out", it is more possible to learn much more about any individual, couple, or family in the arena of what has traditionally been considered private and personal than at any time in the history of man. And most of us don't really recognize the extent to which that is true, nor do we as individuals or a society understand the sociopolitical implications of that.

I'm thinking out loud now, and will stop, because I realize I am trying to unravel a thread that may take awhile. I'm sure I am not the only person here to be pondering about the implications and consequences for us as individuals, communities and societies. I'd be very interested in learning what paths others are following as they think through these issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 01:41 AM

Dorothy, that is a right on target remark regarding the young lady who said she can not help how she feels.

The analogy I use in DBT groups is "Emotions definitely belong on the bus, but there are very few times when they belong in the driver's seat.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 03:02 AM

Part of the issue, sometimes, is all the other passengers yelling at the driver...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 08:31 AM

"Uh, nobody is subjected to reading or hearing anything about Sanford, just as they are not forced to wallow in Michael Jackson trivia."

                   While that might be true of Sanford, I wasn't able to turn on any news show anywhere this week that wasn't wall-to-wall Michael Jackson. I always thought of him as a children's entertainer like Captain Kangaroo.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:20 AM

"Yeah, it's kind of nobody else's business, so why are we subjected to this?"

I agree, Riginslinger, it's nobody else's business but in this age the media has made it our business. and in doing so, they're pushing a line.. Yes, I turn the page, or scroll to another part of the screen, but I'm not going to pretend I can't see it.

One of the problems that contributes is the social condemnation of divorce. in Oz, we have nice, clean, divorce by consent, and divorced politicians whose careers aren't ruined. we also have a lesbian Minister for the environment, who is a very smart and capable woman (being limited by the attitudes of the party in power, caught between business and the planet).

our papers don't make negative judgements about her sexual preference, the criticism is about policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:06 AM

Well, freda, it's about time the US caught up with the land of the Wizard.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:15 AM

just you wait until there is a juicey piece of gossip on that woman. stand back becuse as with every other politcian the mud will come flying. while we do not hve to take notice of the speculation and gossopmongering it is interesting to see what values these people really have when it comes to making mistakes.i can forgive the ones who say ' i messed up i am very sorry' but when they expect to get away with it and still have our trust then that is a whole different story, well to me at least.

owning up takes courage and humiliy while the other just says to me, i think i am the dogs whatsits and you should bow down to me anyway.

arrogence(?) is the word i was looking for.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:21 AM

I'd love to see one of these politicians say " I messed up. But it's nobodys business but my wife's and mine.And the other womans. If you don't like it - don't vote for me next time".

And I think if Bill Clinton had taken that approach it would have saved all of us a lot of trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:41 AM

"...Yes, conservatives sin just as much as liberals. But they aren't "socially permissive and casually tolerant" — at least not in the same way that liberals are.

First of all, there's a difference in what bothers them. When a liberal politician engages in sexual betrayal, what bothers his erstwhile supporters is the betrayal. When a conservative politician does it, what bothers the supporters is the sex.

And after watching a series of scandals unfold, I've come to the conclusion that the liberal reaction — that the hypocrisy of the moralizers undermines their cause — just doesn't come to grips with the conservative worldview.

From their point of view the cause, the need to police what people do in bed, is, by definition, right, because it's literally God-given. So the fact that some of those trying to police what other people do in bed are themselves doing nasty things does not reflect on the cause itself — on the contrary, it shows just how necessary more bed-snooping is. "

(Paul Krugman)

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:16 PM

i don't get why it would bother anyone who and how we have sex with. for me you could be into that chocking thing that gives you a bigger' smile' and all i would say is be careful.

as long as EVERYONE involved is willing and comfortable do what you want, just don't betray anyone or start being a hipocrite about it.

sorry to be repeating myself, but a lack of honetsty is one of my pet hates, there is no need to lie and cheat anyone.

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:51 PM

jeddy - If you're looking for honesty in American politics, you might go a long ways to find it. In the last election, by my recollection, there were two honest candidtates, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul--they were both from opposite ends of the electorate--but I think they were both honest. We know the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:03 PM

Janie: truth and trust are totally entwined in my belief system. To lie is to break trust is to steal the truth. A liar is, therefore, a thief, imo. A thief is not fit to hold public office; they cannot be trusted to serve the public good rather than their own.

To judge the act, not the person: I totally believe (non-negotiably) that each human being does the best of which they are capable at any given moment in their life. If they could have done better, they would have. Therefore, I can forgive the person while still holding them responsible for the consequences of their behavior. I will not trust them, however, regardless of the reasons for the act.

Expectations frequently lead to disappointment. If we don't expect anything, we will not be disappointed. But we may be happily surprised. Or unhappily surprised. Or we may learn to recognize that what happens, happens and that is the way it is. To expect anything of someone else, especially a politician, is very dicey.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 07:05 AM

"turn on any news show..."   There's a simple solution to that problem. And since you have a computer, you can easily do it:   don't rely on TV for any of your news.

You can get all the news you could possibly want, including both reputable and off-the-wall perspectives, by just checking online.   And if you buy a newspaper, obviously no one forces you to read any of the articles about Jackson, Sanford or anybody else you don't want to hear about--unless you do want to tell us about the person holding a gun to your head insisting that you read about these topics.

If more people did refuse to watch TV news when it focused on trivia, advertisers would get the message.

The fact however is that it seems there was a huge interest in Jackson's life and death--and ratings were very high.   But you do not have to contribute to this, if you don't want to.

If you don't want to hear about Jackson, but still watch TV news at the time of his death, your complaining comes under the heading of whining.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 08:25 AM

And there's a $5 fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 08:28 AM

I am SO with you, Ron. If I hear one.. more.. person.. complain of too much MJ (or ANY coverage) on tv or radio, I'll spit! Do they not realize how stupid they sound?

You CHOOSE to put up with that )@$&... or not!

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:22 AM

Well, let see: you turn on your car radio because you want to find out what's going on in Iran, how the health care legislation is faring, and what the stock market is doing. All you can get is blather about Michael Jackson, so you turn to another station, all you can get is blather about Michael Jackson, so you turn to another station and...

                I don't remember all this fuss when Captain Kangaroo died, and one child entertainer is the same as the next, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jeddy
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:28 AM

rigs,
maybe you should give up on your radio for a bit and listen to cds/ tapes or your ipod thingy, then at least you would make someone smile as they pull up next to you at traffic lights. i love watching people singing in their cars, i have made some people smile too.

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:34 AM

"your radio".   Not true. I was in my car listening to the radio--and found a lot of news not about Jackson. Try public radio, C-Span etc.

As I said, $5 fine for whining.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:35 AM

That was re: " you turn on your car radio..."

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:43 PM

Honest politicians include Dennis Kucinich, Rep. John Lewis, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee
and a very few others.

Early print-outs from Ron Paul make him out to have given racist comments.

I agree that the violation of trust is a bad thing for politicians. If they are unfaithful,
I mistrust them.

The hypocrisy of the Republican Party on this issue as they went after Bill Clinton is
appalling. Ken Starr brought pornography to a national level.

It's interesting that the wayward Dems have been ejected or resigned from office.
The Republican ones are still in office. Double standard.

Of course sexual infidelities pale alongside the tacit acceptance of torture now prevalent
in both Republican and Democratic Parties. Our country has become sick. (Dick Cheney).

I think that the media made infidelity a public issue. It no longer becomes a private
issue as a result.

To judge the person apart from the act is difficult to do. I think that we can judge whether a person is trustworthy or not on the basis of how they act.

I think we can say that the person who is untrustworthy is dysfunctional and sick.
I don't think they're going to any hell because I don't think that it exists except
as the price they pay for their actions in this lifetime.

I think that infidelity will always be a problem for religious people. I call the Jimmy Swaggart syndrome the "Christian Swing".