Do You Care If Your Elected Officials Cheat on Their Wives?

[Recidiva]

I don't think anyone "deserves" being cheated on, but I do think that certain cultures accept certain practices. I think, for instance, that Hilary Clinton accepted her husband's adultery in exchange for the position it gave her, despite the obvious humiliation. And I think large numbers of women have accepted adultery (without wanting it or "opening" their marriage) in exchange for social/political/financial power. Should we think of those women as victims?

And I object to using a marriage to gain social or political camouflage or acceptance.

Victim or not, if you keep up a sham marriage on purpose or under duress, that is a bit of an insult to people who keep up healthy, working marriages and are told that's not possible, because nobody does it.

Main reason why I don't want them making policy affecting people trying to make an honest way through the world.

If the motto is essentially "Do As I Say, Not A I Do" or "You Have To Lie To Succeed" then I can do without that message, thanks.

 

[eastern sun]

And I object to using a marriage to gain social or political camouflage or acceptance.

Victim or not, if you keep up a sham marriage on purpose or under duress, that is a bit of an insult to people who keep up healthy, working marriages and are told that's not possible, because nobody does it.

Main reason why I don't want them making choices for me regarding policy affecting people trying to make an honest way through the world.

I think marriage has been an issue of social/financial/political power much longer than it has been about love and honesty.

 

[Recidiva]

I think marriage has been an issue of social/financial/political power much longer than it has been about love and honesty.

Absolutely true. Then present it that way. "When I first saw my wife's portfolio and she saw my ambition, we decided to merge."

Also be discreet enough not to get your ass caught by a reporter. That's talent and honesty.

But don't shroud your campaign in family values crap if that's not what you're about.

 

[eastern sun]

Absolutely true. Then present it that way. "When I first saw my wife's portfolio and she saw my ambition, we decided to merge."

Also be discreet enough not to get your ass caught by a reporter. That's talent and honesty.

But don't shroud your campaign in family values crap if that's not what you're about.

Political rhetoric serves its purpose. And then it's up to the voters.

(Which I believe is the issue at the heart of this thread.)

 

[Recidiva]

Political rhetoric serves its purpose. And then it's up to the voters.

(Which I believe is the issue at the heart of this thread.)

Yes. I'm definitely not a status quo person. I can be condemned as being idealistic and naive and whatever.

But if Jesse Ventura gets elected...theoretically times they are a'changin'.

 

[Keroin]

Anything that doesn't involve making plans for large groups of people and sticking to them and making hard personal sacrifices.

If you can't make honest, clear choices for the people you're supposed to love the most, fuck off.

Go collect stamps or rebuild engines or deal with things other than people.

I don't even know what your job was. Was it as an elected official? Were you subject to background checks, blackmail and media attention?

Otherwise I don't see how it applies.

The above was your criteria for jobs that people who are cheating on spouses should not do. There was nothing in there about blackmail or media attention.

I worked as a stunt performer in the film industry. My actions and decisions on the job directly effected large numbers of people. My job was very much about dealing with people, it also involved being focused, thinking on my feet, and a huge amount of personal sacrifice.

I can think of a coworker I had back then whose personal life was a train wreck but he was someone I wouldn't hesitate to trust on the job. If I were going to be hit by a car, he's the guy I'd want at the wheel, no question. Conversely, I can think of another coworker whose personal life was squeaky clean, who'd never, ever cheat on a spouse and I'd never trust him on the job, with anything. It's not about physical skill, either, it's about an innate ability to make split second, life or death decisions in the face of enormous stress.

This was even more true for the stunt coordinators whose choices could mean serious injury or death for many people if they weren't sound. Some of them fucked up. People have been hurt and killed because of coordinator's bad choices. You know what? It was never the guy cheating on his wife, (and there was lots of that in the film business), it was always the guy, (and woman), who was arrogant and greedy and cared more about being a big shot than about doing his fucking job properly.

So, based on my specific, personal experience, I believe that being unfaithful to a spouse does not mean you are incapable of making sound, rational, safe decisions in your professional life.

 

[eastern sun]

Yes. I'm definitely not a status quo person. I can be condemned as being idealistic and naive and whatever.

But if Jesse Ventura gets elected...theoretically times they are a'changin'.

They said that about Andrew Jackson, too. And his wife was accused of bigamy!

 

[DVS]

Don't really give a fuck what they do in their personal lives, but if they try to act all family guy and all that shit, then get caught, they should be kicked out of office (John Edwards rings a bell, but he's not in office).

Still, it's not good to have a public official cheating on their wife/husband, because it sometimes tends to make you wonder...if they are so good at lying, are they lying to voters, too?

 

[Recidiva]

The above was your criteria for jobs that people who are cheating on spouses should not do. There was nothing in there about blackmail or media attention.

I worked as a stunt performer in the film industry. My actions and decisions on the job directly effected large numbers of people. My job was very much about dealing with people, it also involved being focused, thinking on my feet, and a huge amount of personal sacrifice.

I can think of a coworker I had back then whose personal life was a train wreck but he was someone I wouldn't hesitate to trust on the job. If I were going to be hit by a car, he's the guy I'd want at the wheel, no question. Conversely, I can think of another coworker whose personal life was squeaky clean, who'd never, ever cheat on a spouse and I'd never trust him on the job, with anything. It's not about physical skill, either, it's about an innate ability to make split second, life or death decisions in the face of enormous stress.

This was even more true for the stunt coordinators whose choices could mean serious injury or death for many people if they weren't sound. Some of them fucked up. People have been hurt and killed because of coordinator's bad choices. You know what? It was never the guy cheating on his wife, (and there was lots of that in the film business), it was always the guy, (and woman), who was arrogant and greedy and cared more about being a big shot than about doing his fucking job properly.

So, based on my specific, personal experience, I believe that being unfaithful to a spouse does not mean you are incapable of making sound, rational, safe decisions in your professional life.

I mentioned blackmailability and media attention certainly in other posts. Inherent in my argument is the idea that people who are hypocrites and lie to the public (I have a healthy, happy marriage on all campaign fliers) obviously think they needed to do so in order to win. They'll be acutely vulnerable to having that image threatened. If they choose to maintain that lie and still have affairs, they are logically very vulnerable to blackmail. That vulnerability to blackmail is definitely foremost in my mind. I wouldn't feel how I felt without the knowledge that politicians are acutely vulnerable to that. "Here, sign this "Clean Air" Bill that really means my company can pollute freely in legalese, and nobody will find out you're having an affair. Nobody will know."

That's what I mean about compromised integrity being a real risk.

I don't think you betrayed anybody or "sold" your marriage to someone to gain your job or position, nor would you need to do so to maintain it. To equate the two is not something I did in my head. If you did it in yours I'd suggest you un-equate it and rethink what you think I think.

I don't think stunt coordinators undergo that scrutiny or that level of responsibility. Nor are they elected.

I never blanket stated they'd be incapable of any choice or any decision. I reiterated I wouldn't vote for them because that lack of integrity makes them vulnerable to blackmail and it's just incredibly stupid and arrogant to do so in a political forum. If I didn't underline this in red repeatedly it's because I think it's so incredibly obvious.

You can't factor bribery and blackmail out of my equation as if it never existed and claim it must be a condemnation of you personally or "all people who have jobs."

 

[Keroin]

This is what I asked you...

So, which jobs should not be allowed to be performed by people who have cheated on a spouse? We also need to trust doctors, pilots and a number of other professions.

I'm not being defensive, I'm just curious where we draw the line.

This was your answer...

Anything that doesn't involve making plans for large groups of people and sticking to them and making hard personal sacrifices.

If you can't make honest, clear choices for the people you're supposed to love the most, fuck off.

Go collect stamps or rebuild engines or deal with things other than people.

It seemed pretty straight forward to me. I'd say someone whose decisions can directly result in someone's death falls under your definition.

Also, as Netz mentioned, the closet homosexual can just as easily be blackmailed and fall under media scrutiny. So can the BDSM practitioner, so can any number of people the public loves to tar and feather. I'm not buying that argument.

 

[Recidiva]

This is what I asked you...



This was your answer...



It seemed pretty straight forward to me. I'd say someone whose decisions can directly result in someone's death falls under your definition.

Also, as Netz mentioned, the closet homosexual can just as easily be blackmailed and fall under media scrutiny. So can the BDSM practitioner, so can any number of people the public loves to tar and feather. I'm not buying that argument.

On open homosexual is not blackmailable on those grounds. And they do get elected.

Choosing to hide aspects of your life and then "go public" otherwise while selling a false image is a risk. If you want to think I'm saying something else, that's a choice. It's not a fact.

I'm not selling anything. But you're wrong about what you think I think.

 

[satindesire]

I don't think anyone "deserves" being cheated on, but I do think that certain cultures accept certain practices. I think, for instance, that Hilary Clinton accepted her husband's adultery in exchange for the position it gave her, despite the obvious humiliation. And I think large numbers of women have accepted adultery (without wanting it or "opening" their marriage) in exchange for social/political/financial power. Should we think of those women as victims?

I think you're mistaking acceptance and forgiveness after the cheating happens, for complete awareness that the husband WILL cheat eventually with SOMEONE before it happens.

And in my eyes, that's not the same thing at all.

In a community where consent and communication are key to our world, I'm simply shocked and amazed at how accepting people can be towards infidelity.

 

[eastern sun]

I think you're mistaking acceptance and forgiveness after the cheating happens, for complete awareness that the husband WILL cheat eventually with SOMEONE before it happens.

And in my eyes, that's not the same thing at all.

In a community where consent and communication are key to our world, I'm simply shocked and amazed at how accepting people can be towards infidelity.

I don't think I am making that mistake. I think we all know that people might cheat in a marriage. And spending only a small amount of time in certain social groups can show you the "odds" on it occurring.

You might choose to believe that you can live in those circles, and beat the odds. You might choose to believe that your love is deeper, stronger, more durable than everyone else's. You might choose to believe that you are a more attractive and desirable spouse. You might choose to believe that your spouse will never betray you.

But . . . Why doesn't it surprise me when celebrity couples break up? Or politicians get caught with their pants down?

Why doesn't it surprise me that mob bosses and financial wizards and upper east side icons keep their mistresses in fancy apartments all over the city?

Because it's common knowledge. And even more familiar to the people living those lives.

The real surprise was when Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward grew old together!

In my own marriage, we have betrayed each other many times over in big and petty ways. And only a few of those betrayals had anything to do with sex at all.

I agree with you, satin, that acceptance and forgiveness are crucial to a lasting marriage. But I also think people routinely choose to enter marriages, and accept or turn a blind eye to infidelities, as part of the overall package.

 

[satindesire]

I don't think I am making that mistake. I think we all know that people might cheat in a marriage. And spending only a small amount of time in certain social groups can show you the "odds" on it occurring.

You might choose to believe that you can live in those circles, and beat the odds. You might choose to believe that your love is deeper, stronger, more durable than everyone else's. You might choose to believe that you are a more attractive and desirable spouse. You might choose to believe that your spouse will never betray you.

But . . . Why doesn't it surprise me when celebrity couples break up? Or politicians get caught with their pants down?

Why doesn't it surprise me that mob bosses and financial wizards and upper east side icons keep their mistresses in fancy apartments all over the city?

Because it's common knowledge. And even more familiar to the people living those lives.

The real surprise was when Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward grew old together!

In my own marriage, we have betrayed each other many times over in big and petty ways. And only a few of those betrayals had anything to do with sex at all.

I agree with you, satin, that acceptance and forgiveness are crucial to a lasting marriage. But I also think people routinely choose to enter marriages, and accept or turn a blind eye to infidelities, as part of the overall package.

So tell me why infidelity is okay since it's 'expected'? And why is it okay in those kinds of situations since it's 'common knowledge'?

 

[Recidiva]

I don't think I am making that mistake. I think we all know that people might cheat in a marriage. And spending only a small amount of time in certain social groups can show you the "odds" on it occurring.

You might choose to believe that you can live in those circles, and beat the odds. You might choose to believe that your love is deeper, stronger, more durable than everyone else's. You might choose to believe that you are a more attractive and desirable spouse. You might choose to believe that your spouse will never betray you.

But . . . Why doesn't it surprise me when celebrity couples break up? Or politicians get caught with their pants down?

Why doesn't it surprise me that mob bosses and financial wizards and upper east side icons keep their mistresses in fancy apartments all over the city?

Because it's common knowledge. And even more familiar to the people living those lives.

The real surprise was when Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward grew old together!

In my own marriage, we have betrayed each other many times over in big and petty ways. And only a few of those betrayals had anything to do with sex at all.

I agree with you, satin, that acceptance and forgiveness are crucial to a lasting marriage. But I also think people routinely choose to enter marriages, and accept or turn a blind eye to infidelities, as part of the overall package.

What is common practice with other people doesn't concern me in an elected official.

It's whether or not they respect what my common practices are and can treat them with something other than contempt, dismissal and mockery.

 

[Keroin]

On open homosexual is not blackmailable on those grounds. And they do get elected.

Choosing to hide aspects of your life and then "go public" otherwise while selling a false image is a risk. If you want to think I'm saying something else, that's a choice. It's not a fact.

I'm not selling anything. But you're wrong about what you think I think.

Obviously, the problem with me is my lack of reading comprehension.

 

[Recidiva]

Obviously, the problem with me is my lack of reading comprehension.

I've already said it was probably my writing or lack of skill thereof, I'll go that way.

Someone believes me or they don't and that's nobody's fault if they think I'm trying to covertly insult someone. I'm sure it's common enough in people to not be outside the realm of possibility in anybody's mind.

My only defense and track record is that I have no problem OVERTLY insulting someone, there's no need for me to resort to being sly.

I'm blunt and apparently hurtful, I'm not veiled. I may overstate while playing with words or being what I think is obviously a joke, but if I'd intended personal insult, I'd have had no problem delivering it directly instead of just being badly stated and unclear.

 

[eastern sun]

So tell me why infidelity is okay since it's 'expected'? And why is it okay in those kinds of situations since it's 'common knowledge'?

Earlier in this thread, I wrote

Enlightenment sends you back to your loved ones, to do right by them, and ease their suffering.

and

the biggest problem with rationalizing sexual misconduct on the part of politicians (or anyone) is that it dismisses the fact that it often triggers craving cycles that can ultimately cloud one's best judgement. And lead to increasingly impulsive and/or reckless behavior.

I don't think our politicians should be held to any higher standard than anyone else, but I do think we shouldn't rationalize bad behavior just because it releases tension.

I also think, however, that "sexual misconduct" should be defined by the circumstances of the case. Not every act of adultery should be construed as "misconduct," but the outcome or potential fallout is certainly valid criteria.

I don't think every act of adultery constitutes "sexual misconduct." The individuals involved are the best judge of their circumstances.

I do think people who have caused their wives/husbands to suffer have been wrong. And should be held accountable for their actions. And that may be either or both of the parties involved.

I also think it's disingenuous on the part of some political wives to paint themselves as a victim of their cheating spouse. I think they feel victimized primarily by the public humiliation that the media circus brings on. And knew for a long time that "something was up."

as an aside - How ignorant are wives usually of their husband's doings? Do you believe Bernie Madoff's wife was completely in the dark? She's painting herself that way. I think he agreed to take the fall for everyone as way of penance.

 

[eastern sun]

What is common practice with other people doesn't concern me in an elected official.

It's whether or not they respect what my common practices are and can treat them with something other than contempt, dismissal and mockery.

But what about what is common practice for an elected official?

 

[satindesire]

I guess I just can't swallow the opinion that infidelity really is the best choice in any circumstance. To me, it smacks of laziness and an unwillingness to have self control.

Regardless of whether a person is a political official or not.

 

[Recidiva]

Earlier in this thread, I wrote



and



I don't think every act of adultery constitutes "sexual misconduct." The individuals involved are the best judge of their circumstances.

I do think people who have caused their wives/husbands to suffer have been wrong. And should be held accountable for their actions. And that may be either or both of the parties involved.

I also think it's disingenuous on the part of some political wives to paint themselves as a victim of their cheating spouse. I think they feel victimized primarily by the public humiliation that the media circus brings on. And knew for a long time that "something was up."

as an aside - How ignorant are wives usually of their husband's doings? Do you believe Bernie Madoff's wife was completely in the dark? She's painting herself that way. I think he agreed to take the fall for everyone as way of penance.

I agree with you here, but there are exceptional liars in the world. Someone ruthlessly attaining a goal in this manner has no problem choosing trusting people as spouses who will back them up unquestioningly. It's very hard to tell, because all the false evidence is pointing to a false conclusion, and the true evidence is buried deep.

It's easy to doubt a bad liar. Good liars inspire deep loyalty by design, and always have a scapegoat or a very beautifully crafted excuse at hand.

 

[eastern sun]

I guess I just can't swallow the opinion that infidelity really is the best choice in any circumstance. To me, it smacks of laziness and an unwillingness to have self control.

Regardless of whether a person is a political official or not.

I have a husband with cuckold fantasies.

 

[Recidiva]

But what about what is common practice for an elected official?

If someone presents themselves as someone who respects the law, who will be in the position of crafting and executing that law, who will make good choices and keep their promises, that's a fairly common practice.

 

[Recidiva]

I have a husband with cuckold fantasies.

*gigglesnort*

 

[Keroin]

I guess I just can't swallow the opinion that infidelity really is the best choice in any circumstance. To me, it smacks of laziness and an unwillingness to have self control.

Regardless of whether a person is a political official or not.

Didn't you post, recently, in another thread, that you and your current husband started getting together while you were with someone else?

Added: So would you say that in my case, my affair, I was just lazy and lacking self control?