I've long suspected this, and studies have confirmed it. Women will more often forgive their mate's infidelity if they perceive it as just a physical weakness as opposed to an emotional attachment to the other woman.
Men, on the other hand, don't give a hoot what the motive may have been. If their mate has sex with another man, it is unforgivable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mark Sanford was uninvited to be a featured speaker at the so-called Republican "Values Summit" after his "hike along the Appalachian Trail." It is those holier-than-thou Republicans who fall the hardest. Having said that, Spitzer (who did resign, as most Republicans refuse to do when caught) didn't just commit adultery, he spent many thousands of dollars on high-class callgirls and with the typical hubris of the powerful, just tried to hide it. I hated to lose his intellect, but he did the right thing. Sanford, on the other hand, is hypocritical and proud of it. Typical right winger!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

are a big deal, no one likes to be lied to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry but in my almost humble opinion the author has logic errors

…adultery is not going to destroy the institution of marriage... But it is the first cause of divorce, which has been growing exponentially since the sixties. In some countries there are more people divorced now than married. When 90 % of the people are divorced, and this is where we are heading, will the “institution of marriage” still not be destroyed?

…it's not marriage, but divorce rather, that's changed over the past sixty years… same strange logic, when divorce soars, “marriage” is still the same, so even if we have 90 % divorce, the 10% still married will remain unchanged, of course, so “marriage” will remain unchanged.

Marriage is based on trust, just like every other partnership, commercial, political, etc. Infidelity destroys trust forever, so even if you do not divorce, there is no marriage any more. There is an infinite distance between fear of infidelity and knowledge of infidelity. We are heading not so slow but sure to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a sad, mentally sick, fatherless society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From my perspective of a single man who divorced his wife due to her adultery, I'm happy I don't have to live in a rotten, or consummated, wedlock. I realize now that women's emancipation was of a huge benefit for all of us.

Formalized marriage is going to vanish, hopefully. We can be committed, devoted, partners and parents without official certificates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real problem here is Sanford's willingness to use one metric for other people, and then a different one for himself. Sanford called for the resignations of Clinton, Larry Craig and others. He also said that if he were ever found in such a position (committing adultery), that he hoped he would have the moral courage to quit.

No leader can be allowed to so visibly allow himself a behavior that he punishes other people for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If infants enjoy infantry as much as adults enjoy adultery?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I love my wife and I would never go out with another woman no matter how attractive she may look. In fact, I have been helping my ailing wife all along and now she's getting much better because I dedicated my love to helping her out. Adultry only ruins relationships and can even result in more deadbeat offspring who are the victims of irresponsible people taking sex for a joyride. The author should be shot for writing such rubbish !

If Bill Clinton hadn't let his zipper down, Gore would have easily won in 2000 and we wouldn't have had Iraq or 9/11 !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you're speaking for ALL women.... right Samara?


woooooooo hooooooooooooo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unless you have been throwing verbal stones at other people for their behavior.... and quite frankly if you deliver vomitous press conferences justifying your behavior like a truant teenager. Adultry is okay for adults. For two faced, moralizing Republicans it's not okay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did you notice, dear author, that all your examples of philanderers are men? I am not saying women don't cheat, we certainly do. But your article is standing up for male public figures who acted high and mighty and then betrayed their wives with affairs, leaving the wives publicly humiliated. My problem with these guys is what they do to the women they are married to, like John Edwards also. Even Bill Clinton. What pissed me off about him is what his actions did to Hilary's public image. She ended up looking worse than he did because of the stigma that men cheat because the wife is too frigid or ugly or whatever. To me, the real travesty is how the victim of adultery looks to society, not what becomes of the adulterer. Everyone makes mistakes, but it seems to me that when men cheat, it's the wives who pay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think marriage is outdated, but if you make a commitment- stand by it. That is a big deal.

If you cannot keep it in your pants, say goodbye and leave. Don't cheat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with the article. Monogamy was not the norm throughout most of history. The whole idea of marriage for romantic love is relatively new and still not universal. That two people live happily every after and can fulfill each other's every need is a fantasy.

But some people like fantasies, and others seem to obsess on restricting pleasure. So we have a bunch of fools and puritans dictating how we need to live our lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wrote this article and have no problems with it being reposted, but whoever reposted it changed my headline. It was originally: “Infidelity: As it was, is, and always will be.” Someone else made up “Relax: Adultery is no Big Deal.”

I think adultery is a big deal—between the two people who are married. I don’t think it should be as big of a deal—as far as the media is concerned—when other people do it. The point is, adultery is a common (moral) crime committed among humans beings, and—as per the write-up—it’s been committed over thousands of years. So we needn’t be surprised anymore when we find out another politician or public figure has been unfaithful, and we certainly shouldn’t dedicate as much TV time to it. The world has more important problems that deserve our attention.

As far as the hypocrisy is concerned: I agree, many of the unfaithful have been hypocrites. However, I don’t think the public gives them much choice. They have to appear as family men. The public wouldn't exactly support a man who stood on the soapbox and openly admitted he was a womanizer. Some might appreciate the honesty, most would not. Part of the political image is what we project onto those running and, after a while, we're fools for falling for the picture perfect political family. Politicians (and priests) fall short of the glory just like the rest of us. If we focus more on their leadership abilities and their record of promises -to- actual policies then we might not be as disappointed.

When I say, “Infidelity is not going to destroy the institution of marriage,” what I mean is that people will always get married. We will always aspire to create and maintain the ultimate loving relationship. I don’t think this desire will ever go away. Some couples will succeed and others will not. As far as the couples who don’t make it: I think it’s better to have a 50% divorce rate than a 50% “people stuck in a miserable relationship they can’t get out of rate,” which was our one-time alternative.

I tip my hat to those—like my parents—who can be married for thirty or more years without inviting a third party into the bedroom. It is not easy and quite commendable.

Thank you everyone for participating. This is a lively discussion!

Samara
www.LetterLover.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For whatever reasons, adultery has never been OK. I don't think that's about to change. We like loyalty. Men and women chose to be faithful to each other when they marry. No one is forced to get married, so it's choice. If one or the other has second thoughts, they should get out. In all fairness to the other partner any other way of finding out involves being humiliated. It's not about having an open mind or being a prude. It's about crossing the line. Very few people would openly flirt with someone else's husband or wife. It's frowned on, even though it's harmless. What happens to people when things go on secretly? Well they worry themselves sick about who will find out. Back in the 60's and 70's when it was OK to "Do It In The Road" people still respected mariage. So for those who need variety and sexual freedom, stay single. No one gets hurt. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexual jealousy is possibly the hardest emotion to control, and quite a few people will reach for a gun when they feel it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

studies in past revealed 60% Of Men and 40% of women cheated in marriage.

Sexual stimulation is greatest energy factor.

I have seen many marriages destroyed.

Children suffered.

Family suffered.

Is sex with hotter body worth it.NO.

Temporary. Then, want a new one.

I hurt from lifetime of anguish I nave observed.

Pal loved wife and kids. Hot young house painter started sticking wife.

She left large home, executive mate and moved into trailer park.

Hurt two teenage kids.

Killed husband. Lost 35 lbs in few weeks contemplated suicide.

Has never recovered.

There is so much that is inside and never meets the eye.

It hurts to see so much pain from sexual stimulation.

House of Prostitution on each street corner like beer parlors.

Stimulated for beer or sex come get over it.

It is awful.

Yet! We promote it.

Lady usually cannot be host or guest on TV unless show breasts.

TV show naked teen agers.

Yet! We make fun of Muslims for covering bodies to reduce sexual stimulation.

Which is correct????

I prefer covering.

Conversation at golf club by young men.

"Today, the gals prefer S over F."

They get a thrill and no danger of pregnancy.

What a Modern World!!!!

cswinney2@triad.rr.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting piece. Infidelity will always exist, as long as people value power and ego more than their hearts, especially their deepest feelings, respect and empathy towards their partner.

One thing you didn't mention is the possible increase in infidelity due to the 'availability' created by the internet. Now, if a marriage is strong, influences like the internet may not matter, but, when a marriage is experiencing trouble, it's easy (or often an excuse) to go online and have affairs.

For anyone who has been in a relationship where a partner has 'strayed', this is a painful article to read. Even if a couple 'stays together', there is often untold pain to the person who is hurt.

I think that even more have been tempted to stray who don't. Perhaps they were attracted to someone else, but that person didn't return the attention.

Often, the 'wronged' partner knew things weren't going well in the marriage and either tried to do something (ineffective) about it or denied the problem.

Many times perhaps there is nothing a partner can do when their partner is straying (or thinking about it). Often the infidelity is a symptom of a larger pattern of 'dishonesty' or 'attempts to one up' in a person.

Particularly if the victim is too afraid to confront their partner or, if the partner isn't willing to look at his or her part in the 'wedge' that is leading to the occurrence.

Would it discourage infidelity to make laws stronger or create incentives to 'keep it in your pants'? Sounds silly but this may be our future, along with the food police and such.

You know, that may work. You see, the one who 'strays' is often the more powerful partner in a relationship. Or, they are trying to take power. Those who are 'power sensitive' often respond to authoritarian tactics. Read Deborah Tanner's work on this idea.

That's why throughout history those 'in power' or of some 'high rank' have mistresses and or 'side salads' (I loved that one!). When you are in a relationship where power is unequal, perhaps the one with 'too much' power treats the partner more like a 'possession' or a 'thing' than in relationships where power is more equal?

Life will always be complex, and people even more complex. The reasons for non-monogamy are unlimited. The king and trash collector both have affairs, right?

As a love coach I do what I can to help individuals 'stay true' and/or select a life partner who seems to truly value monogamy, but we never really know what the future holds.

Perhaps the best thing helpers can do is to teach individuals (especially women) to be more resilient, to take better care of themselves, so that they can better handle infidelity, should it visit them.

Luckily, women don't have to stay and put up with it. However, that doesn't mean she isn't going to have other big challenges in letting a relationship go. The person must often choose: is it better for a person's self respect to be single and struggling to survive than to stay and work it out? Particularly if minor children are involved. Each person's circumstances are unique so there is no one right answer....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nations have met their demise when morals begin to be "no big deal". It's happened throughout recorded history. Get out your history books people. Wars didn't do it. Moral decay has always been the internal cause and effect.

It's happening (and has been happening for quite some time now) in our precious country. We are on the downward spiral, and I'm not sure there's the time or even enough interest to try to turn back!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was not so many decades ago that divorce was a shameful thing and, as a consequence, many marriages stayed intact on paper only, where couples lived together just trying to tolerate each other rather than leave themselves open to the "shame" of a divorce. These days standards have changed and divorce is not considered shameful, at least not by most people in our society. So, families are more likely to be split.

But infidelity is, what ever you might like to call it or to justify it, the embodiment of dishonesty. It's a betrayal of trust. It is treacherous. It is a breach of a (usually) solemn promise, a breach of contract.

If you can live with that, okay - I'm not here to stand in judgement! But you can't get away from the fact that it is dishonest.

So, if you do it, you can't, or shouldn't, claim the high moral ground and criticize our leaders of dishonesty if we are dishonest ourselves. Can you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone seems to agree that it is the breaking of trust that is the main issue here. When we trust in a relationship we simultaneously invest varying degrees of our personalities [ mind ,intellect,ego body, emotions] into another person and trust that they will keep it safe. This is a very risky investment, because they most likely will not value all aspects to the same degree that we would like. Now, there is one thing that precedes all others in this matter and that is, the believe that life is confined to the body/personality. This belief precipitates the fundamental mistake of investing in our own personalities. The stronger the identification with personality the greater the pain when an external care taker [partner] violates our trust. The solution? If there is no attachment to personality/body, then trusting someone else to keep it safe is a non issue. Of course, all of this investment into our personality/body and relationships is based on the idea that it will give us more of what we desire, and unfortunately, it works to varying degrees. It would be safer and more fruitful to identify with that which the personality appears in, awareness awake to it self. This 'essential" experience is completely safe and trustworthy because it is always available and never requires investment. It is who and what we are. The desire to discover this deepest aspect of life that transcends body/personality usually comes about when the repeated pain of trust violations exceed the pleasure of investment. Good luck to all future investors, but don't be to angry at your partner for lying when we willingly put our most precious gifts into an unlocked safety deposit box.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Aside to Samara O'Shea:

Was it not possible to give your article a grammatically-correct title?

It is egregiously incorrect to insert the word "OF" as a qualifier as you have done in offering us "Too Big OF [sic] a Deal" as your header.

Just because the majority of ignorant and undereducated Americans write and speak this way does not make it good grammar. Don't speak/write down to us. Stamp Out Bad Usage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disclaimer: I have been married to the same woman for 34 years and have never strayed.

I agree that adultery, as such, is a private and personal issue between spouses. What Ensign and Sanford (and other Republicans with similar feet of clay) are being castigated for is not the adultery, per se, but their self-righteous holier-than-thou attitude and their arrogant assumption that they have the right to dictate morals to everybody else - even as they break their own code with startling frequency.

If the injunction is "He who is without sin can cast the first stone" then it is the faux-pious bluenoses like Sanford and Ensign who should be the ones to shut up about morality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Between private people and some politicians it is not the end of the world.

When it involves public figures and politicians who belong to the party that has a huge stake in telling us how to live they deserve full-court shaming and to be hounded out of office not because they are adulterers, but because they are hypocrites.

It's not the adultery, it's the hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's "not that big a deal" not "not that big of a deal."

(This aside from the more important question of whether the headline accurately represents the author's argument.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Adultery is a symptom of a sick marriage, it isn't the cause.

If adultery happens in a marriage, you can bet you can trace it back to a simple lack of respect for oneself and for one's partner. It's a selfish act, which points to a much larger problem. If one partner in a marriage is selfish, then I would posit that adultery isn't the worst problem you have.

The REAL issue when debating marriage, to me, is whether or not it's a valid institution at all. There are both pluses and minuses to marriage, but the Right puts that institution on some religious pedestal, uses marriage as a measuring stick of "success in life," and have co-opted marriage and twisted it into some God-affirming/sanctioned institution that is built on myth and wishful thinking. Some of the most loving and committed relationships I've seen were between people who chose NOT to marry.

With a failure rate of well over 50% and climbing every year, it isn't difficult to believe we've outgrown this archaic tradition and should just move on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now's the time to free ourselves completely...
We need emotional and financial stability so this arrangement is a futility.
Instead we should have group living arrangements with contractual conditions allowing biodivesification of sexual relations.
A group would be much more flexible and stable and not have the fear of total emotional and financial abandonment. It would allow for pooled wage less devastated by job losses and allow for some to stay home and attend to the hearth and family in a world of increasing eco-economic stress and instability.
The nuclear family died when both parents had to work to make enought to live. When there was less time to keep up a house, job, family, and sexual relations. This isn't a matter of rich elitist privilege it is an matter of survival and recognition of sexual instincts for genetic diversity as well as security.
It is time to think outside of the suburban box and the autocratic patriarchal God of dominance and submission. The god of war of the sexes and war against our own senses!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In general I agree with the author. Adultry has been around for eons. What has changed over time is what we consider marriage to be, and what we expect to get from it. We now go looking for a "soulmate" rather than a good provider or status, etc as previous generations did.

I also agree with the comments that adulterous politicians do not necessarily need to step down or be exiled. It is the fact that so many of them spout off about following Christian values, and use the Bible as a bludgeon to fight anything they see as threatening our "Good Christian Nation" -blah, blah, blah. Then suddenly they are at the center of a very UNChristian scandal involving illegal use of funds, prostitutes, and elaborate lies. HELLO! Where are their Christain values now???

What we really need is thoroughly REMOVE religioius beliefs from our laws and government completely. This is a FREE country, not a CHRISTIAN one - we should all be able to live by our own beliefs, not be held to one groups extreme beliefs!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the hallmarks of psychopaths is that they treat other people as objects or as a "means to an end" rather than as "persons." Using Buber's terms, the psychopath has an "I - It" relationship to other people rather than an "I - Thou" relationship. The "golden rule" does not apply. Inasmuch as adultery requires deceit and satisfying one's needs regardless of the feelings of others, it is a form of psychopathic behavior. But then again, so are politics and organized religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Monogamy is not natural for human beings, male or female. Yet, considering the strict sanctions against adultery that have existed for centuries, people still do it.

We must ask ourselves, what was the original point in mandating monogamous marriage in the first place?

Religion?

No, guess again. In ancient times, when hunter-gatherers settled into agricultural societies, the ideas of private property and inheritance were established. To reliably name heirs, a man had to know which children were actually his. To do this, the sexuality of women had to be tightly controlled. Thus, formal monogamous marriage was established, with polygyny for the rich(and where the women were still monogamous, even the men weren't). This is also why women have been traditionally punished more harshly than men for adultery and why virginity was required for brides.

It had nothing to do with love, as marriage was mainly a practical arrangement until around the beginning of the 18th century.

Religion put its stamp of approval on this, which gave it the force of law in societies where religion was the law. The pronouncement of "God said it" was to ensure compliance to what went against basic human nature.

Yet people have committed adultery all through the centuries, as it's almost impossible to completely thwart human nature.

We see adultery more in the news now, as the original valid reasons for monogamy no longer exist:

Marriage is no longer primarily about reproduction, DNA tests prove paternity, non-marital children enjoy the same rights as marital children, women are no longer legally dependent on men for their survival, etc.

However, cultural sensibilities have not caught up to current practical realities, especially considering that few people know the real reasons why monogamy was mandated in the first place.

It's time our society stopped insisting that every marriage be a monogamous one in "one size fits all" style. Only then will the hypocrisy end, as human nature will surely not change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets remember that in Europe where having a lover is often the norm, its the fact that it isn't being sneaked or cheated that makes it acceptable. Here in the states its the person who makes loud pronouncements against sex outside marriage who then do what they denounce, that are the problem. Many couples have an understanding that is private and between the man and the woman. And its non of my business what as a couple they do in private. Provided neither one is lecturing the rest of us on the evils of adultery, cheating, sneaking sex. Thus having a marriage where there is an 'understanding', is vastly different from some self righteous public crusader, committing adultery .Former Congressman Gingrich,Governor Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, Senator John Ensign ALL are hypocrites. They never said what Bill Clinton did in private was private. No. They wanted to punish him for something that was NONE of our business. Personally I could care less what consenting adults do. Many of the founding fathers had lovers. But they also didn't make it an issue for public consumption. Neither do European leaders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I had a mistress. I have not ever, and will not ever, apologise for that.

So why do I look down my nose at the aforementioned politicians and think that their resignations are reasonable?

Because they lied about it. Like lying to your spouse is unacceptable in marriage, lying to the public is unacceptable from my representatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Under ordinary circumstances, adultery is only between the people directly effected. Even when the person is famous, their affairs are no one's business. When a religious right person who makes policies for all and crusades as a sex-negative, family-values, 'morals' preaching, abstinence-for-everyone-else kind of law-maker, then it's time to circulated the pictures and and make a big deal of it. Ensign was a "Promise Keeper." They don't just make phoney 'moral' posturings. They want a theocracy without reproductive freedom, same-gender marriage, and all things 'adult.' He should be exposed, lampooned and pressured to resign. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I did not understand the Clinton thing at the time and I have still have this one big question.

Certainly the euros didn't get it and I suspect many of my fellow canadians didn't get it either (whether or not they knew that Trudeau had smuggled classical guitarist Liona Boyd into 24 Sussex Drive but made her hide under the coats in the back of the car) - and we are still not getting it ... I stand with CBC host Evan Solomon when he asks Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 commission:

"The question is ... if 40 odd million dollars were spent investigating President Bill Clinton’s sexual infidelities, why did the American people and the world have to wait 441 days for a [9/11] commission that was originally budgeted for 3 million dollars and given barely a year...?"

Why indeed. I am not necessarily condoning adultery - but - priorities, people, priorities.

The Lee Hamilton Interview

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would love to see a politician do as Jesus did and say to a crowd hungry for a (figurative) stoning, "He who has not sinned, cast the first stone." If the crowd were in an honest mood, then at least half of them would walk away. Subsequently, half of the viewers at home would turn off their television sets in solidarity.

I would too. But it would have to be a politician who hasn't been spokesperson, cheerleader, and head stone-thrower of the stoning posse for the past 20 years. Like, for instance, Bill Clinton, who didn't preach about other people's adultery while committing his.

Ensign and Sanford have been loudly and publicly driving people out of office for the same stuff they've done -- adultery and lying, not to mention misappropriation of funds to support that adultery and cover-up -- for way too long to stand in for Jesus on this one. Isn't there another applicable parable -- you know, the one about the mote in another person's eye and the beam in one's own?

I agree that adultery is distasteful, but not that big a deal. In fact, so many liberals feel the same that I'm surprised to find this piece on AlterNet -- seems like the "cultural conservative" sites would find it more interesting. But hypocrisy, lying, abandonment of post, and misappropriation of public funds cover the gamut from revolting behavior to serious crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not the ADULTERY.

It's the flying off and leaving the state decapitated with nobody in charge. It's the girlfriend and her husband on the campaign payroll. It's the smarmy pay-off to them by mom and dad. It's the vicious denigration of gays that came before the lies about the "wide stance". It's the lies and cover-ups, perjuries upon compounded perjuries.

Aren't you beginning to wonder if the Congress of these United States is used as a giant candy store by some of the people privileged enough to be sent there ?

It's not the adultery that makes a person unfit to hold office. It's the matter-of-fact ill-use of said office in service of personal priorities. It's the obvious subversion of any goal in service of the constituents of said office to the higher personal goal of being re-elected in perpetuity to said office. This, in spite of the predilection of some people to engage in behaviors so risky that, in retrospect, you'd think they were TRYING with all their energy to be thrown out.

It's not the adultery. It's the assumption of privilege so arrogant that just looking at it causes us ordinary folks to disbelieve our eyes and ears. Can a member of the US Senate really have spent his brief time in office behaving like a manipulative, 20-year-old geek?

The adultery is their wives' problem. How they got away with this kind of malfeasance in office is the only thing that should concern us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sometimes the AlterNet tailored advertising above and below articles like this just smarms me out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's what so energy sucking about a man cheating on the woman he's living with, and it's usually men. The lies are the worst as you don't know who or what to believe or trust anymore. That's how it chips away at the betrayed woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a single woman, plenty of married men flirt with me. Actually more married men flirt with me than single men.

And our pop culture promotes this, and some married women are into it to. There was actually an article in our local paper last year, profiling local married male MD's as "local McDreamies" ala the nighttime soap opera "Grey's Anatomy". One of these "hunky" doctor's wives was actually quoted that she liked for other women to be jealous of her. WTF.

Anyway, in real life, I don't care. I'm not married, and I do not aspire to be any asshole's mistress. Thank goodness I live in a time when I can own property by myself. Good grief.

And yeah, the governor of South Carolina should be replaced with an adult.

Michele

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Colonmeister up above has the best one about infants and infantry. However a going hypothesis
is that fiddling around is the cause of infidelity, especially when there are guys and the string things are guitars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...if you find some let me know.

Second the comment "I would love to see a politician do as Jesus did and say to a crowd hungry for a (figurative) stoning, "He who has not sinned, cast the first stone..." is inane, as there would be NO one in jail. If it were not for "Jesus" and religion, many people of victimless crimes would not be in jail. Though this is another article for another time, this is the defense that the religious use...WHEN CAUGHT!

No matter how you flush it, you never mentioned in your original article about the hypocrisy that is the MOST important issue with most of these adulterers. The same people who had trouble with Clinton, have trouble with gays, etc. are now telling us that "god" forgives them for the same thing.

Even in your rebuttal about the title above, you are an apologist for the hypocrite in the adulterer. "If we focus more on their leadership abilities and their record of promises -to- actual policies then we might not be as disappointed." The hypocrisy is part and parcel of their leadership abilities and their record.

Adultry,not a problem with me.

Hypocrisy..."the false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings"

Hypocrite..."one who behaves otherwise"

I, and most people here, have big trouble with the last two.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So any morality would get in their way...their god is liberalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sl;eeping around is whats not a big deal. its icky and people always idealize it but the reality is there is usually only one person worth swapping spit with at any given time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

does this Bacon woman bleach her arm-hair or not? Gee, thanks for this pointless text.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DVD to MP4 Mac+|+Mac TOD Converter/……&/Mac DVD to MOV

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is that actually possible?

It is amazingly. It works on any man but has to be done by a woman.

The reason is phenomenal. Man has always had a weakness for women. Physically and mentally,he has an unseen weakness. Any woman can hypnotise any men using the ancient artform of Hypnotism.


Do we ladies have the last say? We look after the kids. We cook his dinner. We keep the house in order. At the end of the day,we deserve a little tenderness. How many times has he taken us for granted? We do the shitload and there he is glued to the screen watching his football.

I needed to change things alittle when it came to my husband and now his twirled round my little fingers.

THINGS are about to change Ladies!!!


Lets control our men through the power of Hypnotism. Lets turn the tables around. Get him to cook for you. Get him to wash those dishes. Get him to give you that massage while you tune in to your favourite episode of Desperate Housewives.


Ive done it and you can too.Enough is enough. Its time to put him under Hypnosis and I'll tell you just how. It sure as hell works for
me and it will for you too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'Nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with Applekings. People who love their genitals more than their childen always find reasons to justify why they do what they should not do, including blaming the victim spouse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]