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

[midwestyankee]

Sorry to say this, but why on earth would anyone stay with someone who isn't meeting their needs?

If my husband stops sleeping with me, starts beating me, cheats on me, I'll divorce him.

What a novel concept.

I hate to be the only naysayer in this thread, but I don't think affairs are necessary. Divorce the person who can't meet your needs, then sleep with whoever you want.

Fine. Have a good time telling your eight year old that you need to do what she will see as destroying her world when it comes to pass that your husband no longer meets your sexual needs.

Until you have walked in these people's shoes, it's just not fair to stand in black-and-white judgment.

 

[DiscusDave]

I'm not advocating we never judge people for their bad choices. Just that I don't understand picking a politician based on whether they seem nice or whether they smoked pot in college. The whole personality contest aspect is bizarre to me.

As far as cheating goes, I don't think it should get you a gold star on your forehead, but I also don't think the level of vitriol a cheater (whether politician, celebrity, average Joe, etc.) typically receives is warranted. That person is always the easy target. Again, bad behavior is bad behavior, and everyone should own their fuck-ups. I just don't need to see anyone burned in effigy over an affair.

I relate it almost to picking said spouse or significant other in the first place. To me, if I were to know of past infidelities a possible mate had had, I would be more cautious to actually pursue anything with them:

The reason... "if they did it once, what's to say they won't do it again?"

Granted a committed relationship such as marriage or other form there of (long term, and such-and-such) has more bearing on personal decisions, but it's all based on trust. If you can't trust that person to not go off and fuck somebody else, how can you trust them to remember to go pick up the kids from soccer practice, or remember your anniversary, or even believe what they tell you. It sucks, but people make those kinds of personality connections all the time.

An elected official is voted into office by people who believe he or she is a person of their word, and are putting their trust into that politician. Something like infidelity can dash that trust, even if you aren't the one being cheated on. I think with the weight of the issues some of these politicians have to deal with, it's a scary thought to have someone you don't trust making decisions over something that affects everyone.

If someone you are close to, lets say a friend, "cheats" on their significant other, wouldn't your view of them change a bit when you discover this fact? Even if it's not a change in a necessarily negative way, it would still change IMO.

To me, society itself is built around the idea of the monogamy. We have hard times dealing with open relationships, polygamy is illegal (granted some take this to an extreme and cause a lot of damage with it, but in theory it doesn't seem bad), and infidelity can be grounds for divorce. If all of these factors play huge rolls in societal thought in general, I think they would play a hige roll in the views of the official.

And hell, JMohegan mentioned a bunch of different reasons choose to vote for someone... how do you know people in society who are unfaithful in marital or committed relationships won't look at the politician and say "Wow! I can relate to them. They needed something more and got it."

In my eyes, as soon as you step into such a public realm as politics, you're consciously entering a "No Private Life Zone." It's just the nature of the beast. You work in the public eye, you live in the public eye.

 

[JMohegan]

Fair enough. Of course it works both ways.

Do you honestly believe that everyone who cheats is "an unreasonable monster?"

No. But I've spoken to enough philandering middle-aged guys to recognize midlife cheating syndrome when I see it.

If you think you're protecting your 8 year old by fuckin' around behind your wife's back, you're just kidding yourself. Kids are more aware than you think, and in any case - the time spent devoted to an affair is time spent away from the family unit.

And when the wife finds out, what happens next won't be entirely in your control. Which could be the ultimate point.

My strong suspicion is that, more often than not, the middle-aged family man cheats knowing full well that he'll get caught. Somehow he feels this is a way of lessening his responsibility for the inevitable divorce.

 

[Keroin]

The thing that bothers me about a politician who cheats in his/her marriage/committed relationship is the likelihood that his/her ethics are, at the least, shaky in other areas, such as taking bribes (or "campaign contributions") from people who expect - and get - special consideration from him/her. I know that seems as if I'm effectively holding them to a higher standard, but the fact is, leaders should be held to a higher standard, at least IMNSHO. How else can they lead?

Sorry, but I don't buy this argument. You're claiming that because a politician has one fault that it is predictive that he'll have another. All politicians have faults. Would you allow only perfect people to run for office? We'd not have very many office holders.

I'm with MWY on this. Saints make me nervous. Flaws make people human, make them empathetic, make them more likely to see that the world is not black and white.

If the politician is not using public funds or company time to fuel his affair, and if he hasn't previously stood on top of morality mountain lecturing to all the evil doers of the world, then his marriage and any issues within it are his business. I'd also argue that some of the best leaders in history have probably been total bastards in some respect.

 

[Keroin]

The reason... "if they did it once, what's to say they won't do it again?"

Have you repeated every mistake or bad decision you've ever made in your life? Would you consider it fair if everyone assumed that you would?

I shoplifted a couple of times when I was a teen. Stupid. I'd never steal anything, ever again but imagine if I'd been branded as a thief for the rest of my life because of some foolish mistake I made.

 

[Netzach]

So it's the wife's fault that the guy's fuckin' around?

C'mon, MWY. If you want us to see the cheater as something other than an unreasonable monster, surely it's fair to see the one being cheated on as something other than an unreasonable monster too.

Every incidence on God's Green Earth is its OWN incidence. You have no idea until you're in it or you know, and if you're watching on TV you don't know.

And I weigh the issue in relation to leaders with that in mind.

Frankly I have so many MORE reasons to worry about or dislike someone it ranks with dog interaction for me.

If you're beating your dog on film, that's a no brainer. Calling your wife a trollop cunt seems to fly OK if you have an R on your side. That's pretty much how R's see women in general. Frankly, if any of these people *were* in open relationships like mine - do you think they're able to be open about that? Of course the fuck not. They'd never be elected. You have no idea if there are arrangements and understandings, and once its out in the open it's time for the wife to stand there and do her martyr act. It's a disgusting form of Roman Circus and the sooner we treat this like Europeans the better.

 

[Netzach]

No. But I've spoken to enough philandering middle-aged guys to recognize midlife cheating syndrome when I see it.

If you think you're protecting your 8 year old by fuckin' around behind your wife's back, you're just kidding yourself. Kids are more aware than you think, and in any case - the time spent devoted to an affair is time spent away from the family unit.

And when the wife finds out, what happens next won't be entirely in your control. Which could be the ultimate point.

My strong suspicion is that, more often than not, the middle-aged family man cheats knowing full well that he'll get caught. Somehow he feels this is a way of lessening his responsibility for the inevitable divorce.

I agree with the latter. However on the "kids are so smart" level, they can also generally tell when someone's damn clinical with the unfulfilledness. Duh.

 

[JMohegan]

I agree with the latter. However on the "kids are so smart" level, they can also generally tell when someone's damn clinical with the unfulfilledness. Duh.

I agree with this, too.

 

[Recidiva]

It does bother me. To use a court term, "it goes to motive, your honor."

I believe in transparency in government. An inability to negotiate transparent interpersonal relationships and to have a separate set of morals, public and private, is an indicator that a person's capable of compartmentalizing to a destructive capacity.

I wouldn't impeach someone for doing it, but I wouldn't elect someone that was doing it during election.

If they'll screw around and socially betray the person they vowed to love, honor and protect before witnesses, why the hell would I think they would give a damn about me or my needs?

I have been divorced twice, so I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying I have no respect for those who use marriage as a social tool to make them look stable when they're not.

 

[satindesire]

Fine. Have a good time telling your eight year old that you need to do what she will see as destroying her world when it comes to pass that your husband no longer meets your sexual needs.

Until you have walked in these people's shoes, it's just not fair to stand in black-and-white judgment.

My parents separated for eight years when I was a child. I HAVE walked in their shoes.

Staying together for the sake of the kids is the biggest cop out in the universe.

 

[intothewoods]

I relate it almost to picking said spouse or significant other in the first place. To me, if I were to know of past infidelities a possible mate had had, I would be more cautious to actually pursue anything with them:

The reason... "if they did it once, what's to say they won't do it again?"

Granted a committed relationship such as marriage or other form there of (long term, and such-and-such) has more bearing on personal decisions, but it's all based on trust. If you can't trust that person to not go off and fuck somebody else, how can you trust them to remember to go pick up the kids from soccer practice, or remember your anniversary, or even believe what they tell you. It sucks, but people make those kinds of personality connections all the time.

An elected official is voted into office by people who believe he or she is a person of their word, and are putting their trust into that politician. Something like infidelity can dash that trust, even if you aren't the one being cheated on. I think with the weight of the issues some of these politicians have to deal with, it's a scary thought to have someone you don't trust making decisions over something that affects everyone.

If someone you are close to, lets say a friend, "cheats" on their significant other, wouldn't your view of them change a bit when you discover this fact? Even if it's not a change in a necessarily negative way, it would still change IMO.

To me, society itself is built around the idea of the monogamy. We have hard times dealing with open relationships, polygamy is illegal (granted some take this to an extreme and cause a lot of damage with it, but in theory it doesn't seem bad), and infidelity can be grounds for divorce. If all of these factors play huge rolls in societal thought in general, I think they would play a hige roll in the views of the official.

And hell, JMohegan mentioned a bunch of different reasons choose to vote for someone... how do you know people in society who are unfaithful in marital or committed relationships won't look at the politician and say "Wow! I can relate to them. They needed something more and got it."

In my eyes, as soon as you step into such a public realm as politics, you're consciously entering a "No Private Life Zone." It's just the nature of the beast. You work in the public eye, you live in the public eye.

I try to be as rational as possible when I decide who to vote for. Heck, at some point along the way, I also try to be rational when I pick a life partner. So perhaps I am Spock in the Spock v. Kirk debate. Anyway, I don't expect perfection from a politician in order to trust him. I can't think of a politician who hasn't made what I consider a poor choice in their work at some point, and that's a lot more disappointing than whether they've lied to their spouse.

The whole area of infidelity and the choices people make in troubled marriages is very, very grey to me. I do think differently about someone if they've cheated, but I also think differently about someone who refuses to have sex with their spouse, or lies about money or umpteen million other things that, sadly, people do to their partners every day.

I agree that politicians know what they are getting into, but I still don't think that means the vitriol and the media attention to these things are a good thing.

 

[midwestyankee]

My parents separated for eight years when I was a child. I HAVE walked in their shoes.

Staying together for the sake of the kids is the biggest cop out in the universe.

You've walked in your children's shoes, not your parents' in fact.

I agree with you that staying in a bad marriage for the sake of the children is usually a mistake but all I was talking about was the moment of telling your daughter that you have to break up her life for reasons that she would never be able to comprehend as anything but selfish.

All I'm trying to say here is that every life is different and it gets my hackles up any time someone who isn't in that life chooses to judge it from the outside without all the evidence.

Judge not, lest ye be judged, eh? Or does it only matter when it's someone else?

 

[Recidiva]

My parents separated for eight years when I was a child. I HAVE walked in their shoes.

Staying together for the sake of the kids is the biggest cop out in the universe.

I agree. I think children need to know life changes and you need to adapt and admit when things are broken, and go make something that works.

My kids are horrified at the idea of me staying with their fathers and are sure life would have entirely sucked.

I can't back up trying to pretend that things are stable and loving instead of going out and creating something honestly stable and loving.

I think you end up teaching children that you should lie, cheat and steal to keep the status quo, and that's not what I want my kids learning.

All my sympathies to those who make those sacrifices in an unhappy marriage, but that's not the way I would go. Not for me, but for everyone involved. I think everyone deserves to be loved and needs the freedom of opportunity to find and build that love without being ashamed of it or making it some thing in the shadows of your life.

One of my ex husbands went on to find someone much better suited to him and I'm happy for him. I'm glad I made the choices I made.

 

[Recidiva]

You've walked in your children's shoes, not your parents' in fact.

I agree with you that staying in a bad marriage for the sake of the children is usually a mistake but all I was talking about was the moment of telling your daughter that you have to break up her life for reasons that she would never be able to comprehend as anything but selfish.

All I'm trying to say here is that every life is different and it gets my hackles up any time someone who isn't in that life chooses to judge it from the outside without all the evidence.

Judge not, lest ye be judged, eh? Or does it only matter when it's someone else?

In my case, I've faced that choice and made a different choice than yours and for me, I know what was right.

My parents stayed together and I wish they hadn't. It's a miserable sham. I hate seeing my parents be so terrified to start over that they live lovelessly.

I'm not saying it's right for anybody else and always across the board, I'm saying it's proved itself absolutely to be the right choice for me. And that's why I tell my side of things.

 

[Keroin]

I can't help wondering how the public would react if they discovered a major political figure called his wife a slave, lashed her with whips and paddles, tied her up, put a collar around her neck, punctured her skin with needles, or any of the many, many things we all think are just a matter of personal preference.

I'm picturing the arguments now...

"If he can treat his wife like that, someone he vowed to love and honour, how can he be trusted?!"

The outrage and disgust would be off the charts, regardless of what the wife might say.

Shades of grey. Perspective.

What happens in a marriage is between the married couple. If a leader is doing his job and doing it well, that is what concerns me most. This doesn't mean I'd turn a blind eye to everything, just that I'd judge every perceived moral transgression on an individual basis.

 

[Recidiva]

I can't help wondering how the public would react if they discovered a major political figure called his wife a slave, lashed her with whips and paddles, tied her up, put a collar around her neck, punctured her skin with needles, or any of the many, many things we all think are just a matter of personal preference.

I'm picturing the arguments now...

"If he can treat his wife like that, someone he vowed to love and honour, how can he be trusted?!"

The outrage and disgust would be off the charts, regardless of what the wife might say.

Shades of grey. Perspective.

What happens in a marriage is between the married couple. If a leader is doing his job and doing it well, that is what concerns me most. This doesn't mean I'd turn a blind eye to everything, just that I'd judge every perceived moral transgression on an individual basis.

All I'd care about that is whether or not it was consensual.

In my opinion, cheating isn't consensual.

 

[Keroin]

All I'd care about that is whether or not it was consensual.

In my opinion, cheating isn't consensual.

Of course but that's you...and me and most people on this board. Still, we are the minority. Most people would consider it hideous, whether it was consensual or not.

Perspective.

 

[Recidiva]

Of course but that's you...and me and most people on this board. Still, we are the minority. Most people would consider it hideous, whether it was consensual or not.

Perspective.

I don't expect politicians to be paragons of virtue, but I'd rather pick the visibly flawed, honest ones, with broken marriages and less than perfect grades, but saying things that make sense from a person who makes HONEST mistakes and learns from them.

There's a difference between leading and trying to be the generic paragon to suit the polls. The best leaders are the ones who are willing to fight for something they believe in, not just exhibit believable qualities.

Nor would I ever attempt to be a politician. I'd be busy doing my job trying to make things better and get ripped to ridiculous social shreds and think people deserve what they get.

The type of politician I would BE is the type I vote for.

Minority needs a voice.

 

[JMohegan]

Every incidence on God's Green Earth is its OWN incidence. You have no idea until you're in it or you know, and if you're watching on TV you don't know.

And I weigh the issue in relation to leaders with that in mind.

Frankly I have so many MORE reasons to worry about or dislike someone it ranks with dog interaction for me.

If you're beating your dog on film, that's a no brainer. Calling your wife a trollop cunt seems to fly OK if you have an R on your side. That's pretty much how R's see women in general. Frankly, if any of these people *were* in open relationships like mine - do you think they're able to be open about that? Of course the fuck not. They'd never be elected. You have no idea if there are arrangements and understandings, and once its out in the open it's time for the wife to stand there and do her martyr act. It's a disgusting form of Roman Circus and the sooner we treat this like Europeans the better.

At the national level, they'd never get elected if they were Muslim or gay or agnostic.

There's a lot that turns one's stomach, when dealing with the general electorate.

Perhaps for this reason, I'm having a hard time mustering outrage on behalf of the politician caught cheating. After all, the consequences are entirely preventable.

 

[ZRT]

I'm with Satin on the whole 'not accidentally falling into vaginas' line of thinking.

It is an integrity issue to me, first of all. It's also a professionalism issue- in theory, people go into politics to serve the common good and advance an ideology. Affairs risk their careers in various ways- potential for blackmail, potential for damaging their party and their cause, potential for damaging the public relationship with the government.

I don't expect flawless people. Hell, I can understand an instance of infidelity (even if I don't approve), or even a side relationship for a while (again even if I don't approve.)

But those who betray their profession by giving into their basis impulses aren't trustworthy to carry out their duties. That isn't to say that they can't do some good or will consistently return bad product in government, but it's a big gamble to take.

Besides, if we don't have standards of character for our leadership, we're going to keep getting scum. But then the American political process is essentially just a glitz and glamor show these days anyway, so it's pretty much moot point.

 

[Netzach]

So, FDR, Kennedy, Jefferson. All crap leadership.

What is Grover Cleveland greatness material? Wilson?

The fact is, most marriages have included a "whatever works" definition of monogamy. Americans can't fucking abide that news flash.

And the fact still remains I don't care about peeking under the bed of anyone unless they happen to have a thing for peeking under mine.

Leadership means character it doesn't mean spotless unimpeachable I would marry him MYSELF character. It means character I can stomach in situations no one emerges from without some shit on him. If he's banging a sheep I don't care.

I've met enough people I'd trust with my house, car keys, and health, who are cheating on a spouse that I really don't see this as a moral failing so much as a state of humanity when you build your boxes too small for yourself. It's like a tragedy of mis-connection and life's shit and it can happen to a lot of very loving and well intentioned people and guess what, *wives have extracurriculars too.* By the time dick hits pussy the damage is well done AND, what's more, you have no idea what's going on at home anyway. No idea in the world unless you live there. No idea of what kind of unspokens exist, what kind of boat can or can't be rocked. I'm not talking about wife blame, but come on. Happy fulfilled people don't just suddenly go "huh, new pussy." They just do not. They don't even notice it often.

It's not like, woo, let's give the man a prize, but go ahead, pick up your stone first. I'll pass.

There are people curing cancer at this moment who are also banging hookers. That's all.

 

[Netzach]

You have to realize, prior to Clinton and Boxers v. Briefs we had the *good sense not to go asking this question that fucking hard.*

That's over. There's no privacy. Put your dick on hold for 4 years. If I were in office, senate, rep or other, I wouldn't even fuck my husband.

 

[Keroin]

So, FDR, Kennedy, Jefferson. All crap leadership.

What is Grover Cleveland greatness material? Wilson?

The fact is, most marriages have included a "whatever works" definition of monogamy. Americans can't fucking abide that news flash.

And the fact still remains I don't care about peeking under the bed of anyone unless they happen to have a thing for peeking under mine.

Leadership means character it doesn't mean spotless unimpeachable I would marry him MYSELF character. It means character I can stomach in situations no one emerges from without some shit on him. If he's banging a sheep I don't care.

I've met enough people I'd trust with my house, car keys, and health, who are cheating on a spouse that I really don't see this as a moral failing so much as a state of humanity when you build your boxes too small for yourself. It's like a tragedy of mis-connection and life's shit and it can happen to a lot of very loving and well intentioned people and guess what, *wives have extracurriculars too.* By the time dick hits pussy the damage is well done AND, what's more, you have no idea what's going on at home anyway. No idea in the world unless you live there. No idea of what kind of unspokens exist, what kind of boat can or can't be rocked. I'm not talking about wife blame, but come on. Happy fulfilled people don't just suddenly go "huh, new pussy." They just do not. They don't even notice it often.

It's not like, woo, let's give the man a prize, but go ahead, pick up your stone first. I'll pass.

There are people curing cancer at this moment who are also banging hookers. That's all.

Very well said.

I have a good friend who has been having an affair for about three years. His reasons for cheating are selfish and he'll be the first to admit that, his reasons for staying with his wife are definitely not selfish- no, children are not involved but it is complicated. The part in bold applies directly to him. If he were to run for office, (which he'd never do), I'd vote for him without hesitation.

 

[popcorn2721]

Ya know I could really fucken care less... they are all corrupt and worthless.

 

[midwestyankee]

Very well said.

I have a good friend who has been having an affair for about three years. His reasons for cheating are selfish and he'll be the first to admit that, his reasons for staying with his wife are definitely not selfish- no, children are not involved but it is complicated. The part in bold applies directly to him. If he were to run for office, (which he'd never do), I'd vote for him without hesitation.

This is essentially my take as well. I just can't see having an affair as proof positive that a person is unethical. It's a failure of the marriage, to be sure. And yes, acting outside the agreement of the marriage is not morally right. But I just don't buy the line that a man or woman who cheats on his marriage is, by definition, unethical or not to be trusted at his job.

Do we ever, ever raise the he-can't-possibly-do-his-job issue when a quarterback gets sacked on a Friday night? Of course not. On Sunday we expect him to use good judgement under pressure. And usually they do. Why the double standard for politicians?