Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Adultery Is a Ho-Hum Issue for '08 Candidates

By Bill Boyarsky, Truthdig. Posted March 17, 2007.


The era of adultery in politics appears to be over, given that the three top candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have broken their marriage vows.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Bill Boyarsky

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Remember how the country held its breath while the Senate voted on Bill Clinton's impeachment and he survived by just a few votes? He paid a high political price for violating the no-nonsense commandment "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and lying about it.

The era of the Scarlet A in politics seems so long ago, especially today, as the three top candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are confessed violators of the commandment, yet their sins are relegated to surprisingly low positions in news stories about their prospects.

Not until the 11th paragraph of the Wall Street Journal's rave story on Newt Gingrich ("He's Back") was there a mention of "two messy divorces," and not until the 17th paragraph were there more details, tactfully presented. The admitted violations by John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are dealt with in similarly restrained fashion. In each case, they are treated analytically, as political problems to be overcome. There is hardly any condemnation from the Republican religious right.

It's easy to say this is hypocrisy. There is a good amount of hypocrisy on the part of the media and the religious right. But I think there is something else at work.

First, let's talk about the media. Seldom have so many reporters been roused to such investigative intensity as those on the Clinton adultery trail, first in Little Rock and then the White House. Pursuing tips from various anti-Clinton Arkansans and right-wingers, reporters eventually nailed him.

That was OK. But the journalism establishment was incredibly sanctimonious about its scandal-chasing, just as it had been several years before in pursuit of Sen. Gary Hart. In both cases, the pursuit was justified by invoking that often self-serving press motto about "the public's right to know."

Having been trained in the rough, raffish and competitive world of San Francisco Bay Area newspapers many years ago, well illustrated by the movie "Zodiac," I've always thought it was more honest to talk about the overriding right in journalism--the owners' right to sell newspapers. Once, while suffering through a panel discussion on journalistic scandal-hunting, I asked why we don't admit we chase stories because they are hot and we don't want to get beat by a competitor. A couple of the panelists sneered their contempt.

For reasons I haven't quite figured out, the Gingrich, Giuliani and McCain stories aren't hot. Maybe they're too old. Maybe the media, after the nation failed to jump on the Clinton impeachment bandwagon, have figured out that adultery doesn't sell as well as it once did. But such considerations don't explain the comparative silence of the religious right.

Where are the battle cries against secularism, such as the declaration of Pat Buchanan at the 1992 Republican National Convention after he lost his campaign for the party's nomination?

"There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America," he said. "It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."

Although he lost the nomination, Buchanan invigorated the religious right, giving it the raw meat it wanted.

President George H.W. Bush could not do that, which may have contributed to his loss to Clinton; nor could the sardonic, worldly, divorced 1996 nominee, Bob Dole.

Bush's son understood much better. With his adviser Karl Rove, Bush snared the right with his opposition to abortion and gay rights and his advocacy of an intolerant and puritan form of family values. The religious-right voters powered him to victory in two elections. They seemed to be the monolithic base Rove had envisioned.

Meanwhile, a much stronger current was building. In the prosperous years produced by Clinton's economic policies, Americans had the leisure to debate what was happening in other people's bedrooms. The war in Iraq changed that. Rove tried to work his dark magic during the 2006 election. The Republicans once again sought to mobilize their religious base. They tried to paint the war as a success. Military funerals were downplayed, and the president surrounded himself with cheering troops in his appearances, rather than amputees and brain-damaged survivors of the war.

But it didn't work. When Bush visited Montana during the campaign, usually a huge news event, the lead story in the local paper was the return of a local soldier killed in the war. As reservists and National Guard personnel returned from duty, and were recalled, word spread through the Midwest and the South--the Bush heartland--as well as along the two coasts.

There's a rule in politics that when times are good, people have time to fret about social issues, such as same-sex marriage. It's a rich subject for an argument. It gives cable television guests and commentators a chance to scream at each other.

At this moment in history, there something more important going on: a war to stop.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
they've been there...
Posted by: blaine s on Mar 17, 2007 1:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they've done that.

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

» RE:FRED THOMPSON--2008 Posted by: kbest
» RE: FRED THOMPSON--2008 Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: FRED THOMPSON--2008 Posted by: kbest
» RE: FRED THOMPSON--2008 Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: FRED THOMPSON--2008 Posted by: MrAllen
How unfortunate that when things are bad, a scandal will cover it up
Posted by: skewitall on Mar 17, 2007 2:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How unfortunate that when things are bad, a war will cover it up.

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

Dead girl/live boy
Posted by: filtersweep on Mar 17, 2007 3:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think old Edwin Edwards' quote has become a truism for politics in general. Affairs still receive play--- if it is with someone of the same sex.

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

On the contrary... morality only applies to the Democrats
Posted by: xbj on Mar 17, 2007 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the contrary... morality only matters if you're a Democrat, because as everyone knows the GOP is Jesus' Party and Republicans and Conservatives are God's own and can do no wrong. Whatsoever. And even if they do, they're forgiven so it doesn't matter. They're going to stop babykilling, for Christ's sake!!!! And homo marriage!!! And fight our endless Holy War against all of Godless Islamic terrorists!!

It's only those Godless liberals that God's Law of justice, truth, and morality applies to.

And rest assured, will be trotted out again. And again. And again.

As long as hatred and intolerance and big evangelism money and political power continues to absolutely corrupt and pervert real Christianity and a single Democratic target exists, morality will be an issue.

And used by those with the least moral standards against those with the highest. To bludgeon them to death.

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

Yeah, right.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 17, 2007 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans are never too hungry, busy, or preoccupied to stick their noses in other people's bedrooms, or obsess on petty gossip. I'd go back and try the hypocrisy theory again.

Isn't the media still banging on that Obama rhymes with Osama, or that he went to a Muslim nursery school? The Right and the media machine will do anything to bring down anyone who's a liberal by their standards.

And Americans do not want to stop the war. They're just upset that it hasn't been going as well as they wanted.

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

» There is no underestimating Posted by: Ellie1
Republican Sex
Posted by: Urstrly on Mar 17, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It blows my mind that any woman thought Rudy or Newt or Bob Barr (the first man to call for impeachment although he was involved in an adulterous relationshop) was sexy. John McCain, maybe, but he treated his first wife despicably to marry the second who had big bucks. Of course, it's about the power. And they married their lovers, which I suppose is very Republican of them.

I thought some of the outrage about the Clinton scandal had to do with a lot of people being turned on to him and feeling cheated that he picked a nobody to fool around with. And, as he explained, he did it because he could (or thought he could.) Frankly, the less of this the better, no matter whose pants come off.

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

» RE: epublican Sex Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Republican Sex Posted by: CatDad
» RE: epublican Sex Posted by: adh
» RE: epublican Sex Posted by: lindalee
Change the Mores
Posted by: Gravitas on Mar 17, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Lewinsky scandal was the biggest waste of air time ever. But beyond that, it is sad we are so Puritanical when there are so many other problems to worry about. Fidelity was an ideal, but never the reality. Some societies accept extramarital far more gracefully than others. Furthermore, we are living longer than ever. It is unrealistic to think that one person can meet someone else's needs for decades or more. Much of the harm
caused by adultery comes only from the way we think about it. I have known a few Euopean couples with a far more sophisticated attitude who felt it actually improved their marriages!

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

About time this non-issue is put to bed. Who cares if leaders
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Mar 17, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have mistresses or commit 'adultery'? Americans should finally join the real world and understand that sex can be separated from love and that there is nothing wrong with sex outside marriage. If anything it can make a relationship more healthy as sexual needs are fulfilled and there is less conflict due to misaligned sexual desires.

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

Adultery
Posted by: boing007 on Mar 17, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the other hand, the Republicans loved to use this
tactic to destroy their political opponents, citing personal
morality as a necessary attribute to becoming President.
Now that the shoes are on their foots they don't want to
discuss it any more. Hypocrites. So, let us not ignore
their adulterous behavior. Make them suffer like
they made others suffer. Don't let them off the hook!

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

» RE: Adultery Posted by: Vik
Chabuka
Posted by: chabuka on Mar 17, 2007 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think adultery matters that much, because people are not planning on voting for Republican any way. Put the importance of adultery before the mess our country is in and adultery becomes trivial

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

Define Adultery
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 17, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1- If a single person is involved in a sexual relationship with another single person, who really cares? It's their private business.

2- If a married person is cheating or a single person is in a relationship with someone who is married, that is an issue. It reflects their character.

3- If someone is 'in the closet', especially if they are espousing policy views that differ from their lifestyle, that is an issue. It is nothing short of hypocrisy. Someone in the closet is also a prime target for blackmail.

Does adultery matter? It depends on how you define it and the circumstances.

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

Republican/Evangelical Double Standards
Posted by: TennMom on Mar 17, 2007 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be blunt, I don't care who is screwing who. I do care that the Republicans have the audacity to disregard adultery with a wink and a nod, while adamantly insisting that abortion, under any circumstances, is wrong. That revered book, which the Republicans and evangelicals thump, from every pulpit and every stage, clearly has Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" is used by the right to justify their attempt to deny women the right to choose. After all, they reason, God said you cannot kill, so that biblical law should apply even to the unborn. Contrarily, these same self- righteous adherents ignore this same commandment when giving their "blessing" to the death penalty.

The "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrites use that same good book to deny homosexual rights. While our omniscient Lord wasn't concerned enough with homosexuality to include it in the laws He handed down to Moses, these latter day, self-appointed moral police have proclaimed that they are to determine what is, or is not moral. Their hypocrisy is loathsome and their interpretation of the Bible is self-serving. How else are they to explain their disregard for the rest of God's supreme laws? God's disdain for adultery, lying and stealing is such that those misdeeds are included in the Ten Commandments. The Religious Right, and the politicians who pander to them, need to practice what they preach. If they want to use God's laws as the basis for our nation's laws, they need to include all of the commandments, not just the commandments which support their dogmatic viewpoint.

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

Attack, damn it!
Posted by: tap17x on Mar 17, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Dems lie down and take it, they deserve to lose. The only proper tactic in '08 will be to scream repeatedly about the morality (if any) of the Refucklican candidate, whoever it is, until the voters are sick of the "culture war" issue. Then they might, even in their vast stupidity, start paying attention to issues that matter. When Kerry was attacked by the so-called Swiftboaters, he should have pointed out that Bush is a deserter, and harped on that endlessly until the Swifties shut the fuck up. If your enemies attack you, attack them twice.

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

» I totally agree!!!!! Posted by: Ellie1
libertyordeath
Posted by: libertyordeath on Mar 17, 2007 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one should give a rat's ass about adultery but the clergy.It is none of our damn business!

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

libertyordeath
Posted by: libertyordeath on Mar 17, 2007 5:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Adultery should be a non-issue.What about lowering taxes or cleaning and streamling government?

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

libertyordeath
Posted by: libertyordeath on Mar 17, 2007 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Adultery should be a non-issue.What about lowering taxes or cleaning and streamlining government?

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

Bush & Condi
Posted by: Jeanne on Mar 17, 2007 10:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue of adultery only bothers Republicans when Democrats are guilty of it. Somehow, when it's their own, there are justifiable circumstances. It's called hypocrisy. On another note, though, has anyone besides me gotten that eerie, queasy feeling about Condi Rice and George W? She is everywhere he is. She went with W down on his Latin America jaunt. I didn't think presidents needed their secretaries of state to act as tour guide on their state visits. She reportedly always accompanies the family to Camp David. And who can forget the catty remarks of Laura regarding Condi's presidential prospects (her unsuitability due to her unmarried and childless state). I smell a rat, or rather a long-standing affair. I have no proof, just idle speculation.

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

adultery a non-issue...unless
Posted by: bouyant on Mar 17, 2007 11:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's YOUR spouse doing it!

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

» Or it's the other team's politician(s) Posted by: MartianBachelor
I Appear To Be Missing Something...?
Posted by: grumble-bum on Mar 18, 2007 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the hell did Gingrich become one of the top 3 contenders? My impression, from Alternet & other progressive sites, as well as the MSM was that his run was a non-starter.

Also, I find it odd that the author states that a large bloc of conservative voters "powered" our current pResident to power in the last 2 elections. While the reactionary Right certainly played a major role, both elections seemed to be decided mostly by outright theft & vote tampering.

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

» RE: I Appear To Be Missing Something...? Posted by: MartianBachelor
I remember it a bit differently
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Mar 18, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--Remember how the country held its breath while the Senate voted on Bill Clinton's impeachment and he survived by just a few votes?

What I remember is that the House had already impeached Clinton and that the Senate vote to convict him and remove him from office got only 50 votes in favor, not even a simple majority, and 17 less than the two-thirds supermajority needed to convict and remove. That's considerably more than "just a few."

I wish people would keep these things straight. It wasn't all that long ago.

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

justice
Posted by: fuzypupy on Mar 18, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when are reporters going to stop saying the religious right won the presidency for bush when everyone who follows the evidence knows it was florida coruption in 2000 and ohio coruption in 2004

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

Boyarsky Gets a Number of Points Wrong
Posted by: faultroy on Mar 18, 2007 2:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, a correction: President Clinton's Impeachment hearings had nothing to do with Infidelity and everything to do with the FEDERAL OFFENSE of lying under oath. Under the constitution, a president committing a felony is subject to impeachment. The real issue was to do it during or after office in this regard.
As we all know, Clinton was being sued by Jessica Hahn for
making improper sexual advances. Clinton's trial for lying under oath is related to his cross examination by Hahn's attorneys to having been involved in similar situations. He lied when he said he had not. It was Monica Lewinsky's refusal to lie for him on the witness stand that did him in (in NOT saying that he was the man that she was referring to when discussing her tryst with a "high government official"and secretly taped by Linda Tripp) (And remember Clinton's response was that he had not actually lied under oath because he had never actually had coitus with her, and therefore had not had "sex" with her. Rather like his commentary about smoking Marijuana and "not inhaling."
Boyarksy is surprised that the Gingrich/Giuliani/McCain
infidelity issues have not sparked more concern and interest from the Republican Right, and he goes on to discuss the hypocrisy of Christian Conservatives with respect to this issue. First of all, the Presidential race hasn't even started yet, though I admit the talking heads and everyone else in the media (including now Boyarsky) is doing everything in their power to provoke both interest and commentary. Second, almost everyone has had some personal experience with divorce and has been its victim in some way or another. Most americans find this to be a thoroughly depressing issue. We all understand that no one should be imprisoned by a loveless unhappy marriage, but we all agree it makes a person less of a morally upright person by having to go thru divorce. Divorce is a sign of "failure to get it right." My guess it will the the one item that will be the tie breaker with respect to two similar candidates.
This is one issue that both men and women agree upon: someone's connubial indiscretions are relative with respect to their personal values and their constancy. No one respects a cheating husband or wife. And yes, there is a double standard. Let a female politician be accused of such an indiscretion, and it will be the kiss of death.
Because of the incredibly lax atmosphere in American Society, Conservatism is actually growing. I can see this on the very pages of Alternet and the comments by readers to these articles. Americans continue and want to believe that marriage, commitment and values do matter. And, the more liberals deny this to be germane, the more reactionary the rest of us get and the more we assert just the opposite.
To put it another way: The more ignorant liberals deny it is about morality and its relevance, the more frothing-at-the-mouth reactionary conservatives they create. San Francisco Liberals are the greatest recruiting strategy that conservatives have ever been bequeathed! I used to staunchly defend a woman's Right to Choose--until I read the wacko comments and articles floating around the Feminist Net. Now I believe all women that use the word "feminism" in a sentence should be tarred, feathered and neutered--before their eighteenth birthday!!
A few days ago Wisconsin Public Radio cited a study of potential voters saying that a candidate's morality, values and credibility were much more important than his specific position on important issues. I believe this to be accurate.
And contrary to Boyarsky's assertion... this will be a hotly debated issue once the race comes in full swing--if for no other reason than Americans' preoccupation with this thorny dilemma--that is of course assuming that the front running candidates have been guilty of this act .

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

» So do you... Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
Is Adultery...
Posted by: bob t on Mar 19, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...truly a ho-hum issue. It is only a ho-hum issue because the republican candidates are so guilty of so much adultery especially Giuliani (Catholic) the front runner and Gingrich who all the R's are hoping will run. Romney is not an adulterer but the R's know that he has little chance of being elected as a Mormon due to the evangelicals not liking Mormonism which admittedly is a strange religion. But that may be because most of us don't understand it.
The point is that adultery is only a ho-hum issue if the screaming repubs want it to be, and therefore stop screaming about it to get their candidates elected. The R's still have far to much power in America via their Big Religions, both Catholics and evangelical fundies.
As a Catholic but most assuredly not a Rethug, the party of war-death-killing for profit, I am very different from most Catholics who indeed are rethugs. If Catholics are true to their faith adultery should be a HUGE issue to them because most Catholics are fundies.
However, my guess is that most Catholics are republicans because the Catholic Church tells them to be R's and they want to go to heaven same as Islamic fundies and the 72 virgins and evangelical fundies and the 'rapture'.
So what I am saying is that Catholics will vote for an adulterer if he is a Republican. They will violate their religious principles to get a Repub elected becase the deal is that the Repubs will enact laws that will stop all abortions and no matter the reason including the health of the mother.
You might ask how do I know that. I know that because that is what the Pope demands before he will endorse a political candidate thru the local bishops or archbishops in that country. I also know that because a Catholic mens organization is funing millions of dollars to a group tasked with exactly that purpose. And third, I know that because Antonin Scalia, in a speech he gave in May 2000 said, in effect, religious law is higher than american law. In that very same speech he advocates the end of democracy in America. Given that he believes that and wants to see that means that Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito also want that and given their power they will make it happen. I also know that because Karl Rove said a somewhat similar thing. He said we will abolish the Democratic Party, and the Repubs intend to do it by 2020 or earlier.
Should that happen America will become a "Totalitarian Republican Theocracy" and we will be at war to dominate the entire world until the entire world is free from abortion or the entire world ends in total destruction via global nuclear war. Because I don't think the Russians, the Chinese or the Europeans will go along with the antiabortion issue/agenda that the Pope and the Catholic Church hierarchy is demanding.
The Repubs also want war and to dominate the entire world, not because they care anything about the abortion issue but because they want domination for money and power.
The Pope and the Catholic Church by selling it's religious values to the highest bidder has made a deal with the devil and 'we the ordinary everyday people' are going to pay the price for the religious fundamentalism of Pope John Paul II and the current Pope. But then they will not pay the price for thiri deeds, 'we the people' will pay that price. The Republicans have made the deal with the Catholic Church because they want money and power and domination over the world as do the Neocons.
This wretched deal between the Pope and the Republicans is evil beyond measure.

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

"Adultery" is a stupid, anachronistic term
Posted by: spencerh on Mar 19, 2007 9:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So much nuance is left out if you use this ancient term. Such a broad spectrum of relationship types are painted together with one stroke.

Was the relationship consensual/agreed upon with the main couple?

Are the main couple swingers? Sharers?

Are they polyamorous?

Are they in a polyfidelity relationship?

To those who use "adultery", these things are often all the same. Not to mention the fact that what consenting adults do should be their business only.

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