BS: Sexual Infidelity

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.

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: 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: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:30 AM

I read the title of this thread as Sexual Hifidelity.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 10:35 AM

Janie has it right: "·.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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(But of course, the wisdom is "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.")

Sanford deceived not only his wife, but his staff and the state...and showed appalling carelessness in doing so. That newspaper had email evidence since Dec.! He used his official email to correspond...with full addresses. He would never have survived the investigations that go with an attempt for HIGHER office.
Other politicians have survived the embarrassing publicity over their 'moral' slips, but this goes to basic competence and judgement.

He is toast.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 10:38 AM

Well, there is a school of thought that says the way to demonstrate Alphaness is being impeccable throughout. The other school is the one that teaches being apecker above the neck. After long consideration I am of the opinion that you should not make promises, bonds of trust, that you cannot keep, and should not break those you have made. A conclusion drawn from a survey of experiences, not just a theoretical moral standard.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Cats
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 10:43 AM

It does not matter if the person is a national figure or not. I have recently been on the receiving end, Jon has been having an affair for three and a half years and has now left me. I had no idea although, it transpires, others did. It is the selfishness, the deceit, the lies and the manipulation of people and lives that is the most hurtful. It is also what the person left behind, that this has happened to, has to pick up. They may think it was a bit of fun, enjoyed the temptation, the excitement of the unknown, the pleasure, the affection, the selfishness and the waywardness but the person on the receiving end has their life torn to shreds and finds an empty void where once was love and kindness, trust and respect. The actual act might 'just be sex' to some but it is the reality of the broken lives that you have to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 11:23 AM

I think there is a possible difference between someone having an affair and actually leaving their initial partner? I think the latter would be far and away more taxing for me.

I would accept it if my partner had a sexual relationship outside of our committed one (he knows this, but so far has chosen not to) because I personally believe in his right to do with himself what he will - though I would expect him to be respectful of my physical health.

I also maintain no assumption that he will want to remain with me till our dying days (despite the fact he has always been devoted), people change, they meet other people... If that day ever comes, I will attempt to be as graceful about accepting his choice likewise.

It is hard when others are pulled in other directions - and I have been challenged by dear ones choices in the past, but it's also life and to be expected - or so I believe.

Perhaps I'm a pragmatist who aknowledges the power of human desire in ordinary peoples everyday life, perhaps I am equally idealist who believes in respecting anothers freedom of choice.

I don't quite know what I feel about people other than Nuns and Priests taking vows of such intense and eternal commitment on the basis of youthful passions. I feel it takes exceptional people to do so in full congruence, and with enough introspective awareness and self knowledge, to do so successfully. I think I might perhaps be mature enough now, to do so and I think I might like to marry finally. But even so, I wouldn't presume that a signature on a piece of paper could prevent other events sundering that agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jacqui.c
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 11:46 AM

During my first marriage my husband had affairs when I was pregnant with my second and third child. His second mistress decided she wanted to keep him and that ended the marriage.

My second husband had an affair with an old girlfriend while working away from home. That was the end of that marriage.

18 years into my third marriage I found I had strong feelings for another man. I tried to fight the feelings but, in the end, came to the conclusion that I could no longer stay in that marriage. There was never any chance of a relationship with the other guy, who is still a friend, but I could not stay in a marriage when I had those kind of feelings.

I know, from experience, how devastating it can be to find that the person to whom you have made a commitment is breaking a vow. It takes quite a while to get past that and can leave one feeling diminished and trying to work out where they went wrong and what they could have done to prevent this happening. the answer, of course, in usually nothing.

My own view is that, if a new relationship is so important then the existing relationship should be ended before beginning a new one. If it isn't that important then what the hell are you doing, risking what you have just for the sake of a fling? Just my opinion, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: kendall
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 11:47 AM

If you are going to dance, you must pay the piper/fiddler.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Big Norman Voice
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:03 PM

Well there's a lot of pious crap spoken about this subject. Glad to see Crow Sister has at least got some grasp of the realities of life.
People do like to take sides on moral issues, even when it has SFA to do with them.
Some folk on here have been castigated for straying, while the many infidelities of others have gone without comment.
If you don't know the full story, keep your trap shut I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:04 PM

Crow Sister, I think you missed my point entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:08 PM

Until AIDS come on the scene, my Rog and I had what one would call an open marriage. We were very open and honest about everything and knew if the other was going to be with someone else. He never went with anyone, but I did a few times. It was never random nor with a stranger just met. Neither of us ever felt threatened or at a loss concerning one another, it was just another aspect of our lives. But, with AIDS and losing dear friends, it became too scary and our lives were changing, settling down into more demanding routines of moving cross-country, kids growing up, etc. so that was the end of that. If it were important to either of us, now, I am sure we would be supportive of one another, but there's so much more to our lives than just sex. I think one of the reasons we are almost at our thirtieth anniversary is we always have been secure with one another...there was never any doubt of our staying together even if we were with someone else for a night or two.

As to public figures...they need to keep it to themselves. This going on tv and doing press releases, etc., speaking to their families through the media is despicable. His leaving no one in charge, etc. IS more troubling and needs to be dealt with, as BillD said. The public, live confessional thing goes back to scarlet letters days, I suppose, and it goes hand in hand with other prurient television these days ala the whole nation/world watching as one young couple's marriage and family fall apart every week in a thirty minute episode of Jon & Kate Plus Eight. THAT should be taken off tv asap, imo!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:43 PM

Hmmm - I've always felt that it isn't the Other Woman's job to keep someone else's husband faithful, yet many people blame her (even if She isn't married to anybody and thus has not broken any vows) as much as the straying husband. Can't say I agree with that, personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:14 PM

Nice story Katlaughing.

I may have missed Janies point, but essentially I guess I would contend that it is a religiously informed societal indoctrination which results in unrealistic *expectations* of eternal monogomy, that is to blame for so many failed marriages - rather than infidelity per se.

Otherwise, I am more than happy to see preachy politicians get caught out in their hypocricy.

Infidelity isn't a form of dysfunction requiring rectification IMHO, it is a natural behavioural trait amongst human beings, which requires honest aknowledgement and broader societal acceptance. What we need to do is rectify our collective assumptions about what is, and what is not, reasonable and realistic to expect within a long term relationship. A slow haul to be sure considering the amount of preaching that we are all subject to everday.

I would also contend that eliminating the 'taboo' element of extramarital affairs, *could* potentially greatly disempower their draw. But that is nothing more than a presumption based on the notion that people can be especially excited by things that are covert and taboo..

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:39 PM

There seem to be two strands of thought getting mixed up here.

FIrst, should people who have promised to be sexually faithful? A promise is a promise - but if they break it, it is nobody's business but theirs and their lover's/family's.

Second, does it matter whether a politician is sexually unfaithful, gay, indulges in muffin the mule, etc (or even steals excessive expenses). The answer is NO! Politicians are in office to get the best outcome for those they represent (and the philosophy on who they represent varies from system to system).

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:45 PM

Sorry, it sounds like I'm some pretending to be some kind of fecking wannabe kool guru or something.

For the record, I used to be an intensely insecure and jealous person, who could not stand for anything other than total monogomy. I questioned my intense feelings, and meditated upon them. It's taken me some years to come to such personal and contentious conclusions about these kinds of matters...

Otherwise, of course, I respect any other persons view.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:52 PM

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your views, CS.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Maryrrf
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:10 PM

I'm not judging infidelity per se, because ultimately it's for a couple to work out what's right for them. It is tragic when one wants monogamy and the other doesn't, and I'm sure that happens often. Whatever the case, it is a private matter that has no business being hashed out in public. But in the case of Sanford, he has been so sanctimonious and judgemental that it's hard to feel sorry for him. This article contains some of his quotes -

"He voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, questioning his "moral legitimacy", and said of a fellow Republican congressman who cheated on his wife: "The bottom line is that he lied under a different oath - the oath to his wife."s ".


Errr..."people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind.

Using official e-mails and thinking he could pull off sneaking away to Argentina while saying he was hiking the Appalachian Trail was pretty weird...

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: PoppaGator
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:12 PM

The discussion on this morning's Today show centered on the question "Why do MEN cheat?" I'm very happy to see that no one in this forum has fallen into that line of thought. (Not yet, anyway.)

Who the hell are these guys cheating with? In the overwhelming majority of case, with women. Neither gender has a patent on infidelity.

I'd like to point out that there's a significant difference between losing interest in a current partner while being drawn to someone else, on the one hand, and carrying out an affair with no intention of terminating the existing relationship. Trying to have your cake and eat it too, to continue appearing as the good-guy husband and father that people look up to (and will vote for) ~ that's cheating.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Cats
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:36 PM

Totally agree PoppaGator. Having the cake, and all the ingredients, and not seeing any reason why that should be at all hurtful... and carrying on the affair under your own roof by tricking your partner ....That is Cheating and Low.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: PoppaGator
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:53 PM

By the way ~ did anyone connect the original excuse ("I'm hiking on the Appalachian Trail") with the fact that Naked Hiking Day ~ celebrated nationally, but primarily on that very trail ~ had been scheduled for that very weekend?

My first thought was that maybe the guy doesn't want the public to know he's a nudism enthusiast.

Of course, I was wrong. He was naked, all right, but not out on the trail ~ he was naked between the sheets in Buenos Aires.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 03:36 PM

From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:30 AM

I read the title of this thread as Sexual Hifidelity.


That's when you can clearly hear them coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 03:38 PM

There are many potential betrayals in any marriage, whether it's gambling away the house or bank account or maintaining a secret life of burglary and theft, or a Dr. Jekyll type of night life or sexual infidelity which exposes the 'innocent' partner to disease, news of a second family somewhere, revealing to one's own young children the frailty of their parent and having to accept that the person you love does not share your mores.

From what I understand to be the case, women, by and large, more so than men, tend to 'make it personal'- we hear of a case and immediately apply it to how we would feel in similar circumstance.

I do the same. Frankly, I don't care what other people do. I just would not want it in my own life.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 03:42 PM

Sexual In Fidelity :

Stop that!

deargnu

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: 3refs
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 04:14 PM

I got caught a long time ago, with someone who stumbled out of the pages of Playboy! I'd go back to jail for 6 years if I could make it go away! Forgiveness was there, but it will never be forgotten!

I think there's quite a difference between a "one nighter" and something that goes on for years. Being drunk and stupid is a long way from calculating and purposeful!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Wesley S
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 04:25 PM

As it's been said before - the men need someone to cheat with. So the women { or men } helping the married person cheat is equally guilty of deception in my eyes. Bottom line - if you want to screw around with someone other than your spouse - get a divorce.

It's really not that difficult to keep your pants zipped up. If you want to that is....

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Deckman
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:33 PM

Think it through folks! REALLY ... if we didn't have people who broke their marriage vows ... WHERE IN HECK WOULD WE GET ALL THOSE BALLADS WE SING! Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM

I wasn't ever drunk or stupid, fwiw. Also, when my first husband was "catting" around, I figured what was good for the goose was good for the gander and had a couple of my own flings. We were young and stupid and our marriage did not last. Now we are very good friends after a 32 year hiatus.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:52 PM

I think people oughta mind their own business.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Big Norman Voice
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:27 PM

Some folks just can't do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Joe_F
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:35 PM

Now that we have largely gotten away from the notion that people have to make promises in order to get laid, that is all the more reasons to expect that people who do make promises will keep them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: kendall
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:38 PM

Commiting adultry is similar to any other crime. People do it because they think they can get away with it, or they have no concept of consequences.
I've never met a woman who would be worth losing my marriage and reputation for.
I cant say I'm never tempted, I sure as Hell have been, but as Lord Chesterfield said to his son about sex: "The pleasure is temporary, the cost is damndable and the position ridiculous."

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:04 PM

Well, like I have said in the past, why a sane man would want to carry on with two women is beyond my ability to figurate... Ain't that like unConstitutional??? Like "double jeoprady", 'er somethin' like that???

Okay, let me put the qualifier on that... Young people, like in their 20's ain't grown up 'nuff to understand that... Heck, when I was in my 20s I was stupid and did stupid stuff... So did my wife at the time... Hey, it was the fuckin' 60's, wasn't it???

But I got over it and most folks do...

Nah, I think I'll just play this hand out, thank you...

There was a country song that came out about 20 years ago entitled, "Tryin' to Love Two Women"... It was either Conway of George Jones...

"Tryin' to love two women
is like a ball and chain..."

Yeah...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:14 PM

You have a ball with the good one and get chained by the bad one? Very deep.... real deep... chest wader deep. Where is my shovel???? buried?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Alice
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:27 PM

HIV, AIDS, Syphilis, Herpes, Gonorrhea, Papilloma virus (which can cause cancer), Candida, Chlamydia, Trichomoniasis, Bacterial Vaginosis, ... all of these someone can bring back to their spouse/partner after straying into an affair. You never know who that person slept with and who they slept with, etc. I once heard someone explain STD awareness as realizing that you are having sex with everyone else that the other person has had sex with. (Its almost like a pyramid scheme). You don't know who all those other partners came into contact with.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: bobad
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:31 PM

If it weren't for cheating where would country music be?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:00 PM

Right, bo-zer... Cheatin' and country music go hand in hand...

Tryin' to love two women
is like a ball and chain
One's got yer heart
The other has yer name
It's a long, long road
And it tires you brain...

Thisw poor SC governor... I reckon if he's that eat up then he ougtta just say, "Screw it (not literlly, he's allready doen that), I love this Argentine woman and I am gonna just up and leave the country and hook up with here and become an Argentine laborer" or whatever folks with no skills other than being a US politacan e4nd up doing when they move to Argentina with no skills...

Or he needs to break it off with the Argentine lady and suck it up here in the states... Do the counseling and all the required crapolla that the American society expects for him to be one of "them" again...

I donno... His choice...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Deckman
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:01 PM

I well remember a few years ago when some polygamist was taken to court, found guilty, and then sentenced. At that time I asked: "Why sentence him any more ... he's ALREADY been punished enough!" bad bad bob

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:35 PM

When one of these weak sisters finally kicks out one of these little cowardly tittybabies, I'll believe "we've really come a long way, baby!" Who wants to be married to a cowardly liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:40 PM

"Naked hiking day?" Now there's a holiday worth taking the day off for!!! But I have to wait another year...boo! arf!arf!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jeddy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 10:00 PM

there is a couple who take the dogs down our local park.
i think they are maried but she has a long term girlfreind and he ain't comlaining!

good for them they are able to get what they all need out of it and no one feels threatened.

i get jealous enough of my other halfs past partners without new ones. i couldn't handle, it but as long as everyone agrees, fair enough.   the problem comes when lies are being told, which when it comes out, makes the faithful one feel like not only are they not good enough but that they must be stupid not to have seen it.

where poloticians are concerned they may do as they wish just as long as they do the job well and are not being hipocrites( i so wanted to write hippgriffs instead).

i think those who are cheating or about to, should first think of what it is that they stand to lose, trust is easily lost and so hard to get back.          preach over lol

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 10:13 PM

Crow Sister and Kat, if you don't make a promise of fidelity, then no promise is broken and it sounds like that was not one of the promises on which your committed relationships are based.

We have all made promises in our lives that later we have found we can not keep, for any number of reasons. Sometimes we make a decision that we no longer want to keep the promise.   I make very few promises, coming from a family who takes it's promises very, very seriously. I have certainly broken promises, but in my adult life I do not think I have ever broken a promise without advance notice and a discussion.

While there are certainly many exceptions, in Western culture, most committed relationships include an expressed expectation and promise of sexual fidelity, and monogamy is, generally speaking, the normative value in our culture. "Cheating" is when one breaks the rules.

A definition of infidelity: Infidelity is a violation of the mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries of an intimate relationship, which constitutes a significant breach of faith or a betrayal of core shared values with which the integrity of the relationship is defined. (from Wikipedia.)

While I agree that how a couple or a family chooses to deal with infidelity within the immediate family unit is no one's business but theirs, I disagree that nothing about it is anyone else's business. Reading between the lines of history, I think Mamie Eisenhower and Eleanor Roosevelt and their spouses came to some sort of agreement and accomodation

We are social creatures, imbedded in larger families, neighborhoods, communities, mutual friends. In the case of marriage, it is not only a contract between two individuals, it is also a contract between the couple and the community. It recognizes the interdependence on which the social fabric depends. That is why witnesses are required. That is the prime reason behind all the public ceremony that usually surrounds the rite of marriage in what we call a Wedding. The role of the community as witness to the marriage is both a pledge to support the couple's commitment, and also to hold the couple accountable to the community for that commitment.

Where there is a strong community, the infidelity has an effect on everyone within the social circle of the couple, and children, if there are any. Few among us have not experienced the rippling effect of some one's infidelity on our relationships with the couple involved, our children, our churches or workplaces, our circle of friends, and also acquaintances and/or our extended families.

Infidelity is the most difficult issue for a couple to truly overcome. In most relationships in our culture, it strikes at the core of trust. Once trust is broken at a core level, it almost never can be fully re-established. I have seen this played out again and again in couple's therapy. There may be forgiveness, but the betrayed party never forgets, and rarely truly puts it behind them.

Reading between the lines of easily accessible history, Mamie Eisenhower and Eleanor Roosevelt and their presidential spouses eventually came to some sort of agreement and decision regarding discrete accomodation. It doesn't sound like the same was true of John and Jackie Kennedy. And it certainly was not true of Bill Clinton.

I am not particularly concerned with Sanford except as the latest example among public figures. How he and his wife choose to deal with it is indeed their private decision. As others have noted, he went about his own liason in a manner that is a flagrant violation and abnegation of his public responsibilities.

I heard an extremely obnoxious but priceless statement from john q. public regarding Sanford on NPR this afternoon. Some "person in the street" said, "If you need to get laid, you need to get laid."

I'm disgusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 10:40 PM

And sorry for not editing out redundancies in my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:14 AM

Well at least the language has been enriched.   If you want to do something and don't want to tell your wife about it, you just say: "Sorry, I'll be hiking the Appalachian Trail".

e.g.   "Sorry honey, I won't be able to clean out the garage this evening--I'll be hiking the
Appalachian Trail."

What? That may not have the desired result?


Well, at least guys can use it with each other:   "Hey Larry, haven't seen you for awhile.   Been doing a lot of hiking the Appalachian Trail?"

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:26 AM

Janie, I agree with you, IF that is a promise which has been made, both parties should keep it. In our case, we are neither church people nor Christian, though we are spiritual.

I find the john q. public comment from NPR as disgusting as you do and I do NOT advocate anyone cheating on their partner UNLESS both parties have an agreement and even that takes a great deal of maturity, confidence, and trust. I don't think there are many who are predisposed in our society to handle it that way.

It is obvious that our society still has different standards for men and women...men are expected to stray a little, women are not supposed to even have a libido. THAT disgusts me....that we still have such suppositions in a supposedly enlightened age.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:00 AM

Who says women are not expected to have a libido? Am I right that most of the advocates of guilt here are from the USA? If so, it would (again) probably benefit that country to have a lot less religion in its makeup.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Midchuck
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:08 AM

Am I right that most of the advocates of guilt here are from the USA? If so, it would (again) probably benefit that country to have a lot less religion in its makeup.

If it helps any, a great many people in the USA agree with you. Unfortunately, in a country that more or less invented the idea of religious freedom, too many seem to feel that they're being denied religious freedom if they aren't allowed to force their religion on others.

Real religious faith means not having to make logical sense.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:25 AM

The great tension is between the rise of the idea that our feelings are all important, that they are the test of things; and the concept of the promise and the vow, which is in one sense public, but in a related sense, is a form of internalized public stance, as it is simultaneously made to at least one other person, and in that sense to the community. The tension is (1) to determine what is or is not the defining characteristic of one's self -- is it all what I want or need, or does it involve public elements; and (2) the implications of the decisions.

The political ramifications are obvious: Republicans accuse Democrats of being purely random "feeling" people with no morals, so if they are in charge, everything will dissolve into chaos; meanwhile Democrats believe that moral judgements without regard for the people involved are heartless ideology or hypocrisy. This is why Republicans were so gleeful about Cliinton; and why Democrats are so gleeful about Republican shenanigans. No one ever accused Bill Clinton of hypocrisy.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:33 AM

"Real religious faith means not having to make sense".   Now there's a nice objective statement.

In fact, the same can be said of atheism.

There's no proof either way. (Here we go again.   An amazing number of threads seem to lead down this road).

Agnosticism makes perfect sense.   Neither of the other two choices mentioned do--if sense is your main goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:35 AM

"...logical sense".   Don't want to misquote.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 09:11 AM

Ron D: "Agnosticism makes perfect sense."

I completely agree.

I certainly believe that agnosticism makes much more logical sense than atheism. Not that I would challenge anothers beliefs, only where their belief became an insistence that they were being fully objective and impartial, and indeed assuming their position was necessarily correct and applicable to all.

Gnosticism (or other spiritual paths with advocate direct empirical experience over Priestly intercession) IMO also makes similar sense, as neither agnosticism nor gnosticism are predicated upon blind faith.

Bit of a tangent of course...

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 11:25 AM

Sorry I brought it up. How about we get back on track with the original discussion instead of going down that old and tired religion road, again. Or, start a different thread or resurrect (pun intended) one of the old ones if you want to bash about? Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:48 PM

I don't understand the obsession with the sex lives of politicians..who cares who they sleep with ? As long at they do what they are elected to do and are not involved in criminal activity..it is really none of our bleedin business.
   Most countries take the view that people, politicians included, are entitled to a private life...let them have a private life.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:13 PM

GFM

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: 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 - 03:59 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:34 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: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:54 PM

You done good, Janie!

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: 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: 27 Jun 09 - 12:55 PM

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

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: Leadfingers
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 04:45 PM

100

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: 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: 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 - 06:03 PM

Good Gnu.

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

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 - 06:36 PM

Post menopausal or a good cook? Perhaps both?

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

Defintely both, and beyond.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: gnu
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 03:11 PM

The Apps run through the northwestern part of New Brunswick.

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: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:17 PM

But does it connect to the US Appalachian Trail?

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: 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: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 09:49 PM

Here's my take. Politicians that don't honor contracts can't be trusted.

Here's another problem. Jack Kennedy was called by those around him, "Jack the Zipper".
Jackie got the house in Washington after coming to terms.

Bill Clinton, a Kennedy supporter misread the public mood and the Christian Right.

Almost all the Presses at one time or another had mistresses. FDR with Lucy Murphy,
Ike had his, Hey hey LBJ, how many gals did you screw today?

Hence, most politicians can't be trusted.

That's hope you can believe in.

In the meantime, some of these pols manage occasionally to do some social good.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 10:15 PM

As I recall, Stringsinger (love that name!) FDR's 'friend' was Lucy Mercer.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 10:53 PM

I'm with Ebbie and Poppagator:   the burning question really is:   does the International Appalachian Trail connect to the Trail in the US? And I just can't understand why Kabekistan doesn't come up on Google--Google must not be infallible after all. Amos couldn't possibly have made it up. We never do that sort of thing on Mudcat.

But, after all, what other than hiking would you discuss on a sex thread?   And I even did learn something from the thread--though not anything about sexual infidelity.   I would guess most of us probably have a pretty good idea about that.   As the little boy said:   "Are these my brains?"

By the way, Gov. Kaine now says: "I'm an Appalachian Trail kind of guy."

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 12:47 AM

What do Mudcat and politics have in common?

Strange, (and in the case of Mudcat) sometimes wondrous morphs.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 02:26 AM

A morph can be most interesting, Janie. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 04:09 AM

"Sorry, I'll be hiking the Appalachian Trail".

In the UK, the equivalent term is "Discussing Uganda".

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 12:26 PM

If you bloody well want to know about the International App Trail - GOOGLE it yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 12:29 PM

As for S. I:. It seems to have gotten lost on the trail.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 01:19 PM

OK, OK:

Evidently

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: 3refs
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 01:49 PM

And then there's the "other kind"!
Knock, knock, could you pass me some toilet paper please!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 02:55 PM

I am not that into telling other people who they should or shouldn't sleep with. I am, however, pretty firmly of the belief that reading other people's love letters and then publishing them for the titillation of other smutty minded people is not the action of a gentleman, or gentlewoman.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jeddy
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:32 PM

here here greg, that goes for that prat paul burell as well!!!

the thing that does worry me about poloticians doing the dirty is, if they can lie and cheat on their wifes/ husbands, then how much easier woukd they find it to lie and cheat the public?

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:19 PM

Precisely, Jade. Though, I reckon they do find it easier to lie and cheat the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jeddy
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:04 PM

i forgot that they already have over here with the expenses scandle, they still haven't been honest even when they got caught.

is that still running or have we ' forgotten' that by now?

take care

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:06 PM

He ought to jest tell everybody to go fuck off and run off with the mistress.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:46 PM

In the UK the equivalent term to "hiking the Appalachian Trail" in this context is "discussing Uganda"?   There must be a story to this--any chance we can hear it?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Maryrrf
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 10:21 PM

I hate the man's politics, and at first I had no sympathy for him because he had criticized other peoples indiscretions in a self righteous manner. But I really believe he fell head over heels in love and it just bowled him over. I don't think it was only about sex. I think he really was caught up in some very powerful emotions that caused him to act irrationally. In a way I think he wanted to get caught. His wife found a letter from his mistress (or to his mistress, versions differ) in a file where he had asked her to go look for something.(?!) That was how she found out, several months ago. Then he made the 'secret' trip to Argentina - he couldn't have thought he could just disappear and get away with it, at least not rationally. The emails sound very gushy and corny when published online but I believe both of the parties were sincere. It must be horribly painful to have their words dragged out in the press and hashed over.

His political career, and most likely his marriage, are shot. He has publicly said that Maria is his soul mate but he's 'trying to fall back in love with his wife'. That doesn't sound very promising. Perhaps he should follow Edward VIII's example, resign as governor and be with the woman he loves.

Strange how existence sometimes turns the tables on people. I do feel some sympathy for the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:04 PM

Sanford now says he "crossed lines" with other women.   What the hell does that mean?   This guy has a political death-wish. And now he's achieved his goal. He is now toast. Congratulations to him. The other Republicans will never sit around waiting for the death of 1,000 cuts. He will probably resign by the end of the week.

As I said earlier, the only downside for those of us on the other side is that it strengthens Palin.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:05 PM

Sounds like the Appalachian Trail has been pretty crowded.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:36 PM

"As I said earlier, the only downside for those of us on the other side is that it strengthens Palin..."

            If one is on the other side, I would think something that strengthened Palin would be a good thing. How much appeal would she have in a general election nation wide?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 02:16 AM

Another leap to the side: Palin has become a sticky subject in Alaska. Not only Democrats but members of her own party are fed up and getting progressively more vocal about it. In some ways it has become a running joke.

At the moment, in addition to the bigger fights she is waging on every hand, she is apparently going to be a no-show at the Capital city's ceremonies replicating the activities of July 4 fifty years ago. Alaska had just been named a state and this was the first time that the 49-star flag had been hoisted. The governor at the time was here and spoke, other dignitaries spoke, a full court of queen and princesses was on hand as well as a crowd of several thousand and I don't know what all else.

This time, fifty years later, Governor Palin has refused to commit herself as to whether she will be present nor has she named someone to represent her. The Lieutenant Governor has already officially said that he can't be present.

Palin has political enemies here and a good many of the private sector is no longer that fond of her either. Neither am I but I do want her here- as the governor of the state it is the proper thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 02:35 AM

Maryrrf,

While I can share your empathy at a personal level - we are all fallible human beings- I disagree with your assertion that his (or anyone else's) emotions cause us to act in certain ways. I subscribe to the notion that as an adult human being, I am responsible for my thoughts, emotions and behaviors, and my capacity to make choices.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 07:00 AM

Ron Davies

""discussing Uganda"?   There must be a story to this--any chance we can hear it?"

It was popularised by the British satirical magazine Private Eye. I can't remember the full story or the names of the protagonists but I think there was a UN conference where a politician (possibly Ugandan) and a journalist disappeared for a while and then reappeared looking a bit flushed and tousled. When asked what they had been doing, they replied "Discussing Ugandan affairs."

PE also gave us "Tired and emotional" = drunk.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Maryrrf
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 08:25 AM

I agree to an extent, Janie. Ultimately however strong our emotions might be, we're responsible for our actions. But emotions can be very powerful. In some of the spiritual texts the emotions are likened to water, which can be calm or can turn into a raging, stormy sea and swamp a person's psyche. We're supposed to be able to rule our emotions with our minds, but sometimes we don't succeed. The thing that struck me about Sanford is that everyone described him as very cold - even 'asexual' and more interested in graphs and charts, logic, etc. He may be someone who ignored his emotional side for many years and when he did get in touch with it (and Maria seems to have been the trigger that unleashed it) it overwhelmed him.

NOf course he and only he is responsible for his actions, and he'll have to live with the consequences. The story would actually make an interesting novel.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:05 AM

Hey Janie,

I'm on your side. If you make your bed funny you'll in it, so to speak.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 04:14 PM

Janie reminds me of acerbic remark I once made to a young woman who said, "I cain't help the way I feel."
"But you can certainly help what you do about it!"

This Marie may have unlocked the door to his emotions but neither one of them needed to walk through. Pity the wife who put up with him all those years and never found the key. Or the other way around?

I still believe the lie is more damning than the sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:23 PM

Religion is used to divide the righteous "us" from the evil "them", and that evil can be political, financial or moral. And moral condemnation, sex scandals in politics, just divert attention from the decisions in parliament. Politicians have so much power, and they get it by persuading the elctorate that they are trustworthy. So many buy into the game of claiming to be even MORE trustworthy. and for religious people, of whatever faith, that ofetn involves fingerpointing at the less holy.

But up there in the halls of power, a cocktail of long hours and separation from family, mixed with adoring supporters addicted to the powerful, makes for a heady mix.

Are Christian politicians lining up to denounce those who fall off the path of chastity the same ones who queued up to support George Bush's war in Iraq? Which is the greater desecration?

Someone can be very good at their job, but not personally perfect. Should they have to be? This sort of public confession has been popularised by talk shows, and follows intrusive media comment.

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".