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.