Stop me if you've heard this one before: A popular and highly respected political leader is watching his career go up in flames after being caught in a scandalous affair that went on for months behind his wife's back.
It's just about the oldest story in politics. I don't need to tell you that you could substitute any one of about a dozen names in place of John Edwards -- Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Jim McGreevey, Rudy Giuliani, even Gary Condit to some extent -- and the details and end result would basically be the same. In fact, it's the lack of any real sense of shock that's likely at least partially to blame for the mainstream media's reluctance to pursue the story of Edwards's philandering until he came right out and confessed on national television. Although there's little doubt that many "respectable" news organizations were uncomfortable sifting through a field plowed by the National Enquirer, at least a few journalists must have looked at even the hint of another political sex scandal and thought to themselves, "Dear God, not again." Especially not when there are so many consequential issues to be reported on this election season (which isn't meant to imply that these issues actually are being reported on).
But now, once again, the machinery winds up, the shame and humiliation are piled on, the suspiciously contrived contrition is dispensed and, most of all, the pundits and experts line up to debate the supposedly elusive and incomprehensible question of why.
Why would a person like John Edwards, who seemed to have it all, blow everything he'd worked so hard for in the pursuit of quick sex? What made him think he could get away with it?
The answer to the first question is in the question itself: Edwards wanted to get laid because he's a person, and that's what people do. Where we ever got the idea that anyone is above his or her most basic impulses -- particularly the desire to have sex -- is beyond me. What made Edwards think he could get away with it? Nothing. He wasn't thinking at all, and any attempt to rationalize his behavior -- from some bullshit about how the attention lavished on him made him egotistical and narcissistic, to the lamentation of weakness in the face of temptation -- is essentially folly. John Edwards had been married for 31 years to the same woman, and no matter how attractive, intelligent, loyal or universally admired that woman is, there's one thing she can't possibly ever be: somebody else. And somebody else, even for a short time, is what most men and women -- most human beings -- want after three decades of marriage. It's human nature, and only our absurdly puritanical views on sex, coupled with the social mores and stigmas that are the inevitable products of such beliefs, would render it so unspeakably immoral.
What's immoral, actually, is that the bizarre culturally ingrained sentiment which equates marital fidelity with unassailable integrity put John Edwards in a position where he couldn't admit to his urges and was forced to truly betray both his loved ones and constituents by lying to them all. It's the unrealistic expectation of absolute purity and righteousness that will eventually doom almost every person in authority -- man or woman -- to fail us entirely, and that makes the belief system itself wrong. If I'm not mistaken, the religious -- who bear so much of the blame for these antiquated philosophies -- would call this "hating the sin, not the sinner."
John Edwards cheated on his wife. In chasing down that most enticing of hedonistic thrills, he betrayed her -- and for that painful mistake he has to answer to her and no one else. Although hardly anyone would suggest that putting your marriage at risk in the name of a quick affair is the right thing to do, almost everyone should know by now that it's understandable. Even forgivable. This is true whether the person involved in the affair is a politician or a postal worker. Both are driven by the same desires and either can fall victim to them. The people we elect to office are, at their core, still just people.
There can and will be plenty of debate over whether Edwards used campaign money to further his affair -- a revelation that would in fact be unethical if not outright illegal. And there's plenty of cause for finger wagging at the sheer stupidity of his actions, given that, as a man under intense scrutiny 24/7, there was zero chance of his affair not being discovered at some point. But once again, John Edwards wasn't thinking about that. He wasn't thinking at all.
He was just doing what human beings sometimes do -- what none of us is above.
Related: (Eliot Mess/3.12.08)
Sunday, August 10, 2008
All Fall Down
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
Sucks that we forget that these people are humans first..
The one thing the media refuses to talk about and we as a society refuse to learn from this is that sanctimonious bullshit is just that. BULLSHIT. Edwards trotted his family and personal life out at every opportunity, and meanwhile he's itching to get it on with a trashy divorcee. The first fact is, in my view, more significant than the second.
A single man can't run for president in this country. Neither can an an atheist. We demand our leaders conform to a specific image of virtue, even though almost nobody does. Then we act shocked when they fail to live up to those specific standards. It happens again and again and again and each time the media acts shocked. It's disgusting.
You don't have to keep it in your pants to be an effective leader. You certainly don't have to believe in a made up dude who lives in the sky and gets really mad when you have sex. Why is the media so complicit in pretending these things are necessary?
When the story broke, all I could think was... so? Is that all? Big deal. It's so common now that it's just about expected.
What would be more surprising and shocking to me, or anyone for that matter, is if his wife comes out and says she encouraged or okayed it. That would be a real step in an interesting direction and story.
What Rielle Hunter Told Me
[The real John Edwards, she believed, was a brilliant, generous, giving man who was driven by competing impulses-to feed his ego and serve the world.]
["So tell me," I asked, "what do you think of Elizabeth Edwards?" "I've only met her once," Rielle said. "She does not give off good energy. She didn't make eye contact with me."]
[When I next saw Rielle weeks later, she told me that she'd been fired by the Edwards campaign. She seemed perfectly cheerful about it, but she proceeded to tell me a tale of woe-how the campaign hadn't understood her, how they'd ruined the Webisodes, how they'd impeded her vision and how Edwards himself had failed to defend her. The chief villain in this saga was Elizabeth Edwards. "Someday," Rielle said, "the truth about her is going to come out."]
Rielle Hunter is an absolute idiot. She's the worst kind of stupid L.A. cliche. The woman used to date Jay McInerney and was apparently the basis for his bimbo "Alison Poole" character who subsequently went on to appear in both Ellis's Glamorama and American Psycho. HuffPost published the transcript of a conversation between Hunter and McInerney from years ago. Just reading it tells you everything you need to know about Hunter:
Hunter: I thought I was going to LA to be an actress and to get away from New York because I was doing so many drugs. We always think we're going somewhere for some particular reason, and it turns out that that isn't the reason at all
McInerney: Is LA less druggy than New York?
Hunter: Oh yeah. Actually the reason it was less druggy was because someone referred me to a healer who did a clearing on my energy field. I was in a state of ecstasy for about a week and realized what I was looking for, in terms of medication, was inside of me; it was a higher bliss. With that clearing, all desire for drugs or alcohol vanished. I became sober overnight. And then I became a spiritual seeker, addicted to a higher consciousness, addicted to enlightenment.
Uh-huh, sure thing moonbeam.
I was faithful to my husband for 22 years, even the last five when his health caused him to be impotent. But when he requested a divorce, I was in bed with a platonic friend who had had a crush on me five days later. Sex is something people do stupid things for. But is it his child? That seems to be the question now.
He had a typical mid-life crisis. Middle aged man, wife doesn't think he's god-like because she's heard him fart. Younger woman looks up to him, thinks he's god...
It's a very dangerous age for men, so watch out in a few years Chez.
Already lived like a self-absorbed child for far too many years and I've seen the consequences. I have no doubt that I'm well on my way to a mid-life crisis, but I'd rather see it manifest itself in a new Audi TT.
I like your taste, Chez. My wife has told me that my Macbook is the only mid-life crisis I'm allowed to have.
Shit. I feel pathetic. My mid-life crisis didn't involve a trashy affair, a nice car or even a really good computer.
Instead, I became a blogger.
*Hrrrmph*
I've been waiting for you to comment on this, because my reaction to this has been, "i don't understand why his personal life is ANY of our business."
Admittedly the affair is not our business, but it would have been devastating if Edwards had won the nomination with this thing waiting to ruin his, and thereby, the democratic party's chances.
As a past middle aged man who was near seduced by one of his kid's teachers, I can say one thing: given the temptation there was excitement but no real emotion. Frankly, I'm still amazed I didn't do it, and always amazed that people with greater temptation- i.e. power, money, constant flirtation- can avoid it. It's a heady thing, this sex stuff. Likewise, I'm not the least bit interested nor surprised when these people don't give in to hedonism.
OK I get that he's a guy, but why now with this dingbat? He had all those opportunities with Janet and Chrissy, to a lesser extent Teri, and what was the tall one's name again? Like he and Larry weren't cruising the Regal Beagle every night...
It just doesn't add up.
Whoa… Yellow Flag, Time-Out! Bullshit on the field!
Now I know this is bound to send you and others into orbit, but…
Hell, I admit I am no angel, and as far as I am concerned, I am just as flawed as the next guy. One thing I’ve learned in this life is that people, all people, are inherently, FULL OF SHIT, even me, but…
This “People are only human” excuse is such a cop-out. This “sex is what people do” bullshit is just that. BULLSHIT! We are the same age, and I’m married (once) to the same woman for over 12 years. We’ve at times had sex that she or I found unsatisfying or unfulfilling. I’ve had plenty of opportunities to fool around on the side as well, but I didn’t. I try to hold myself to a higher standard, and not to “God”, but to my family, and my wife; my partner.
To err is human, yes, that may be true, but I believe the saying was meant in a different sense, and not for an error in judgment of this kind. You may make a mistake in writing an important phone number or message, or forget an important appointment but…
To stick one’s penis in another woman’s body, is a choice. Just like it is to take that first hit of a cigarette, or pot, coke, etc. To betray the trust in one’s spouse, especially just for the sake of “getting some” is also a choice, and a very selfish one at that! If Edwards was single, or had his wife already succumbed to her illness and passed, and he wanted to chase or ride every skirt in DC or NC, that would be just fine with me. God bless, and more power to him.
He was thinking. He was just thinking with his genitals. This type of behavior (Edwards’) should be inexcusable, period. The fact that Edwards is a politician should make it worse. Why shouldn’t one hope that those elected to represent us, be of a certain (moral) character? Lord knows it’s hard enough to find a moderately honest person, but to be this selfish and dishonest with his own wife, with whom he made a supposed lifelong commitment to, makes him the biggest kind of piece of shit in my book! (Especially now, with her being terminally ill! What, we just couldn’t wait awhile longer?) If his own wife can’t trust him, how are we to trust that he’ll make right choices (for us) when we need him to? He is a U.S. Senator, we are citizens, and we should hold our elected officials to a higher standard, especially if we claim to be living in one of the greatest nations on the planet.
Personally, I won’t/wouldn’t vote for him anyway, and not because he is (now) an adulterer, but because he was an ambulance chasing attorney. (Which probably explains his lack of ethics and morals, but this is an argument for another day.) Ironically, wouldn’t it be great if she quickly divorces him, takes him for all he’s worth, and donates it all to cancer research?
Your attitude, while spoken like a true nihilist, is just something that I just can’t agree with. I guess I should not be surprised that someone who has married thrice and divorced twice, with a history filled with hedonistic ecstasy induced soirees, and the like, during his tenure on this Earth, feels the way you do. Whatever makes your boat float, man. But I’ve got to cry foul here on this one.
I’ve noticed that Jayne has yet to post a comment on the subject. I eagerly anticipate hearing her feelings on your post. I suspect I can guess her true take on it. Especially considering this food for thought:
While thinking about the post before this one, I’m now imagining you telling Jayne,
“Oh, well, I just screwed Katee Sackhoff six ways from Sunday, because frankly, you are not her, but hey, I’m only human, I had the opportunity, and ah, I took it.”
I’m sure it’ll go over real well. (If she lets it slide, she’s a saint, and a better person then me, or an idiot! (And I don’t believe her to be an idiot.))
Sorry man, but that’s my spiel, and I’m sticking to it. And after all this, if you still believe what you say about “being human” and all still flies, what’s left to say? You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am.
Good luck to ya.
sexual politics aside, do you guys really think that dishonesty in a person's most intimate relationships is no indication of a disposition that will manifest itself on a larger scale?
chez wrote that he wouldn't have an affair now because he's evolved into a person who understands the consequences of his actions, for himself and others. i'm sure this isn't domain specific to adultery; i.e. you've grown, you've worked hard to become someone who deliberates before acting, especially when there is a lot at stake. you made a decision to become a better and smarter human being, despite the obstacles, including your own temptation. i realize that you're not sanctimonious, but this is still a question of values.
shouldn't the leader of a country be at that place in his/her own personal development? don't we want someone with self-control and long-term thinking running the show? or at least someone who is legitimately working toward it and making strides. this behaviour went on recently and while he was pursuing public office. sure, people make mistakes for which they should be forgiven and from which they change for the better. it's very frustrating when good people run for office and are torn down by errors of judgement in their past. i find it equally troublesome, however, when people ignore the connection between present behaviour and potentially dangerous character flaws or cluster traits.
Steve gets the Comment of the Week award -- and it's only Monday.
My first instinct is to say that adultery has one victim and the rest of us should shut up and mind our own business.
As an atheist, I certainly don't believe adultery is a sin, but instead should be measured by the harm done to the spouse. If you expected -- and promised -- absolute fidelity in your marriage, then adultery is a bigger deal. If neither of you is terribly bent out of shape about it, then the infraction is lesser. Either way, it's not the place of the public to be outraged.
The question that makes me scratch my head is not whether adultery is a sin or immoral or just a darned shame, but whether or not it's a personal failure. And if so, is it a personal failure on a big enough scale that it should affect our perception of the adulterer's character? We, as a nation, are obviously able to forgive alcoholism, drug addiction and hypocrisy on a staggering level, and elect the transgressors anyway. Why is adultery different?
If we are not the aggrieved party, how do we measure the degree of an adulterer's lie?
I'm not saying that being human lets him completely off the hook -- only that those who would gawk and criticize (and seem to have made a profession out of it) really need to take a step back.
Don't confuse a reason not to jump down his throat (so to speak) with an outright excuse for his actions.
Chez, this is the most balanced and thoughtful writing about this issue i've read to date. I've worked for the Edwards' campaign and know both of them and their kids. It's very sad for their family, but I agree with you, we are all human and until you are in someone else's shoes, it's hard to judge them.
I think that there is something about the Karma of having a perfect image family-wise that propels some people. That, and some guys just want/need some nasty sex sometimes, and sometimes the "right" person shows up more than willing to offer it up.
I'd be curious to know how many of the "shit happens" crowd defending Edwards are married with kids.
Let's see, she's battling cancer, he's nailing a skank. Hey, shit happens!
You defenders are unreal.
We are not.
I would say that people don't think they will be caught because they think they are sneaky enough. Though, I can't imagine being in the public eye, and having an affair. All those paparazzi.. goodness.
So he had an affair. So do many, many people. I don't think it affects his ability to lead.
It affects his reputation though, and reputation is everything I guess.
*shrug*
John Edwards on Bill Clinton in 1999:
“I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.”
/just sayin'
- Jer
You're shocked to find bald-faced hypocrisy in politics?
I might have been on the bandwagon with anyone else saying, "he betrayed his wife and this make his untrustworthy" and I could have done it, like many others, from a position of personal fidelity and NOT from a religious angle, though I certainly believe in that angle as well.
But...
My own wife is the one who pulls me up short on that.
To blenderab, Jayne might very well have shrugged off a Katee Sackhoff fuckfest. My own wife wou'd give me a pass if I fell to the lures of several celebs whom I have Hollywood crushes on.
To everyone else, we don't know that Edwards stepped out without his wife's knowledge. It's not something I might have considered seriously before, but my own wife, in talking with other women, has noted that this is a woman battling breast cancer. Losing pieces from that part of the anatomy can be crushing for both the man and the woman. Sometimes the woman herself no longer feels sexual and is actually happy if the man can find someone else who can get naked and not be sporting missing parts. My wife admitted she might have done just that if she were to lose one or both breasts.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but we just don't know. It still makes one wonder about how he thought he could pull it off without the public finding out, but until Elizabeth Edwards chimes in with "I want a divorce" or "my husband betrayed me" (and last I heard, it sounded like she was supporting him), let's lay off the "he's an asshole stuff."
I don't care what a leader does in his or her bedroom. All the idiots why say it reflects on their abilities to lead and make solid judgements are out-to-lunch. Let's take a small (very small) sample of some leaders who where unfaithful to their wives or just slept around a lot:
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Winston Churchill
J. F. Kennedy
and EVERY French leader EVER
This is a small list. Pretty good company huh?
The ability to be a great leader has nothing to do with the bedroom. Period.
We have a President who lied us into war. Who sanctions torture. Who is selling off our liberties to private industry... and people get all ruffled over infidelity!!????!!!
the guy puts forth, in his own defense, that he didn't cheat on his wife until her cancer was in remission.
and you're gonna tell me that i'm not qualified to judge him for the sleazebag that he is?
fuck him.
Celery, you say:
"i find it equally troublesome, however, when people ignore the connection between present behaviour and potentially dangerous character flaws or cluster traits."
My answer would be that I find it frustrating when people want me to assume something on based on their feelings. Do you know of any studies that show such behavior is indicative of poor overall judgment? That one set of character flaws equates to a bad character overall? Or are you just using YOUR moral compass?
Using Edwards as a the example: yes he committed adultery, that is the biological act of sex outside the rhetorical and fluid bounds of marriage. He was, however, the candidate most concerned with the plight of the poor, showing a character steeped in empathy. Does the former "character flaw" lessen the legitimacy of the latter? Should we, for instance, disregard Jeffersonian theory and eloquence because he had extra-marital sex with a slave, an act that could, given the social positions, be argued was rape?
People do these things much to the consternation of those who do not. In trying to form an understanding of these actions it is important to focus ONLY on these flaws. As someone married for 25 years, I can assure you that my sexuality only encompasses a portion of my humanity, and my sex life with my wife only makes up a portion of our relationship.
From what I heard, Elizabeth was aware of the affair, and apparently forgave him. That says a lot to me, much more than some talking asshead on a news channel.
Thank you Chez, for reminding us of what so many tend to forget: nobody is perfect, and expecting someone to be is ridiculous. This doesn't mean his actions were acceptable; just that this could happen to anyone. To expect that the guy wouldn't find himself wanting something his wife could not give him and find it with another woman is ludicrous. And the only person he ever made a promise of fidelity to was his wife and God. And those are the only people he has to answer to for it.
Seriously, if we are going to be that ridiculous about it, even the "Virgin" Mary technically cheated on her husband.
And as cheetah chrome said, we have had possibly the worst president ever (at least as long as I have been alive). One who has shown time and time again how much contempt he has for the country he swore to protect and defend. A commitment that should be taken as seriously as any other, and he has broken it over and over.
But at least he didn't any snu-snu on the side. Whoop-dee-fricking-do.
P.S. Both FDR and his wife Eleanor were sleeping with other women. And yet, they stayed married and apparently in love for years. What does that tell you?
Power goes to the head...
both of them.
This is about what our ancestors, Hell, maybe our fathers called honor. I don't know what was in his wedding vows, but I know what was in mine and for that reason adultery is out for me. I certainly think less of him now, but I'd still vote for him over McCain, Clinton, or Obama.
Forgive my sense of schadenfreude for seeing yet *another* politician who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act get caught with his dick swinging in the wind.
Buh-bye.
hahaha! right on, anonymous. were edwards' parents gay? because that's why we can't get married. we're amoral creeps who can't possibly take seriously the vows we'd carelessly make to each other, right? heteros can, though. yeeah.
but as chez mentioned earlier to a different point, i'm not surprised by the hypocrisy of a politician. i say whatever to edwards. we'll never know how his marriage is/was structured and how this thing all really went down. the reality is that i can't judge, nor do i care to opine on what he did. i don't know him, her, or her. just like i don't want the goddamned country telling me how to live my life and love my partner, i don't think i should give a crap about how the edwards' live their lives. get over the righteousness people. and by the way, i like some of his ideas and politics. but whatever with the sleeping around.
Chez said:
"You're shocked to find bald-faced hypocrisy in politics?"
Yeah but it wasn't other politicians who broke this story it was journalists. I'd like to someday see those same journalists who are sitting in judgment to have their private lives ripped open and splayed on the nightly news or better yet their bosses.
You know CNN never did a big package, pun intended, on Richard Quest. So why the double standard?
Chez, I imagine that you would agree, any man who doesn't take responsibility for his child, is no man. If this little girl isn't John's, then his political advisers should've told him to take the paternity test, and then go on denying the affair, and walk away clean, relatively speaking.
in my view, there is no bigger loser in this life, then someone who denies responsibility for a child they created.
NO TEST FOR 'LOVE LIPS' JOHN
[The revelation came as Hunter, 42, broke her silence for the first time yesterday to let Edwards off the hook.
She will not pester her ex-lover to take a DNA test to establish once and for all the paternity of her 5-month-old daughter, her lawyer said.
Hunter, 42, does not wish to take a genetic test "now or in the future," attorney Robert Gordon said in a statement.]
[The mother did not list the father's name on little Frances Quinn Hunter's birth certificate.]
Amen
I can’t believe that so many people are missing this point.
So many of you all out there say that it is none of our business what he does in his personal life. That may be true for some, but not of a politician.
If he was an actor, or some other celebrity, or even some regular Joe on the street, I could care less what he did, or does. But as an elected official, one should expect that he should be able to put the needs of his constituents behind his own needs. He didn’t only betray his wife, but the people who help put him there.
There is no way you can trust him to put the needs of the “greater good” ahead of himself now. If he is willing to fuck over his own wife, he’s definitely willing to sell the rest of us out, possibly, for a lot more or less, than some easy nookie.
To Deacon Blue:
“Jayne might very well have shrugged off a Katee Sackhoff fuckfest. My own wife would give me a pass if I fell to the lures of several celebs whom I have Hollywood crushes on.”
Dude, if you believe that, I got an island to sell you. Yeah, right. Your wife would give you a pass, right up until the time it actually happened. (As if!)
That’s what we Latinos call “La Paja Mental.” (For those of you who are Spanish Challenged, that’s “Mental Masturbation.”)
Really, whatever helps you sleep at night, man.
b8ovin,
i have read studies about the tendency for personality traits to cluster, and that certain traits (like lying), when expressed systematically and repeatedly, take on a larger role in general behaviour. i don't have those studies at hand and i have to get to work this morning.
i do understand how sick you guys must be of having terrible people who look squeaky clean run your country, but then have otherwise good people vilified for personal indiscretions or lifestyle choices. it must also make you angry with these candidates who put so much at risk when they do this shit, knowing how the media and opposition will react.
our current prime minister is a fucktard-wannabe- g.w. bush, but our most beloved prime minister, trudeau (while in office), had a wife that partied with keith richards. then he got divorced and publicly dated various women. to take it one step further, chretien, who led the country for 20 years, had a son in jail, convicted of rape - that was never even raised during an election.
i suppose it's the french influence (not the rape and womanizing, but the laissez-faire attitude of voters toward the personal lives of the leaders). people do seem to draw the line at fraud or shady business dealings. that's probably because (for better or worse) canadians often see the PM as a CEO, rather than a moral leader. perhaps that's why abortion rights have not been seriously challenged, even though we've had mostly catholic prime ministers for the last 50 years. heck, it was a catholic, chretien, who set things in motion to legalize gay marriage.
Celery -- I actually thought your comment was pretty thoughtful. Hope you don't mind me going ahead and publishing it.
no problem... it's your house!
thanks for continuing to make me think.
c
We know he's a Democrat because he's fucking an ugly 44-year-old instead of a 22-year-old cheerleader or a 14-year-old boy. Damn, John. You're a rich man, a former Senator and still pretty attractive; score better trim.
Isn't it entirely possible that Elizabeth Edwards knew about his philanderings and looked the other way or even gave tacit approval? She was/is being treated for cancer so I can't imagine she had much interest in the ol' rumpity pump. She has to feign outrage for the cameras, but after 31 years she's probably angry mostly because he got caught.
blenderab, please don't tell me you know my wife better than I do, or that you know squat about what we would, wouldn't or currently do sexually. If in the unlikely event someone like Gwen Stefani, Angelina Jolie or Angela Bassett threw themselves at me (which obviously ain't gonna happen), my wife would kick my ass for NOT taking the opportunity, Ten Commandments and marriage vows or not...
Blender -- No offense intended man, but you're actually missing the point. What I'm saying is that if we didn't judge sexual indiscretions so harshly, Edwards wouldn't have betrayed us at all. If we didn't hold him to a ridiculously high standard when it comes to sex and what's essentially a family matter -- if we didn't feel the need to make our elected officials out to be saints -- he may have cheated, but he wouldn't have lied and covered it up, thereby letting us all down. If we, by some miracle, regarded his sex life as being, for the most part, beyond the purview of his constituents, none of this crap would be happening.
He is an arrogant, selfish, douche-bag prick of a man who not only cheated on his wife of 30 years, but cheated on his wife who was very sick with breast cancer. She should leave his prissy ass and this scandal behind because this pain could potentially make her sicker. My father battled cancer on and off since 1992 and lost his battle earlier this year. If my mother would have cheated on him when he was so ill, I would have cut her out of my life. He's human and has basic sexual urges and blah blah blah. ( I guess when your wife has cancer it's all about you) I may be biased here for personal reasons and you may slaughter me with wise-ass comments, but it's just my opinion. And my father's death is too recent (6 months) for me to think anything else. You're still a great writer. I'll still read your blogs.
When humans stop thinking that they are thinking w/the right head and learn to be honest w/themselves, we may become something approaching worthy of existence...i.e., to stop thinking only 2 seconds in front of their genitals.
In the meantime, think of what this child will have to wrestle with insofar as coming into this world is concerned:
"well, you see dear, mommy was.."
Fuck these people and their egocentric spelunking.
Additionally, anyone who stands on a podium pouring judgment on others and posturing the "higher standard" because of income or prominence, deserves to be pilloried accordingly.
Don't want to face the heat?
Don't get in front of a camera making it seem as if you're better than the unwashed masses, because at the end of the day, you have to wipe your ass too.
America: Bringing our future in one tryst at a time.
Long and short, if you're going to talk the talk, then walk the walk; if you're not going to walk the walk, then shut the fuck up and stop clogging our airwaves w/hypocrisy.
This goes for politicians of ANY stripe.
I wonder how many folks who apply this meter to politicians (even if there is only evidence of one fleeting affair) would apply it to their own daily life?
My supervisor (or boss) is a philandering prick, so I'm going to quit my job.
My butcher seems to be seeing some young lady on the side...I'll start getting all my meat from Wal-Mart instead.
My friend of 25 years had a weekend fling while her husband was in Iraq so I'm going to never talk to her again.
Etc.
As if sexual infidelity is one of only a few sins worth worrying about.
As if politicians are any more moral (they aren't) or need to be (they don't) to do their jobs effectively.
I think the point of this post is that infidelity is a temptation that every person on the planet will have to face. The judgement of such a betrayal is, and should be, limited to the persons and personal relations directly effected by the practitioner.
When we are dealing with the people who make decisions that effect the entire country, and sometimes the entire world, I find it extremely important to judge them on their policy decisions, not their private decisions. As I said in a comment above, there are more than plenty of instances where thinkers and leaders habitually make bad choices in their personal lives and yet continue to be very good thinkers and leaders. My point is that focusing on their personal lives is a distraction and a disservice. Political opponents know it is way easier to disseminate their opponents via personal attacks as opposed to their policy decisions. Imagine the thought and rigor we could except from our leaders if we ignored such tactics and forced them to compete solely through the issues.
I’m not saying Edwards isn’t a jerk for his infidelity; I’m saying we shouldn’t even know of it. Let John Edwards’ family, friends and colleagues deal with his mistake, that’s their prerogative not ours.
On the other hand... all Brad and Anjolina can do is dupe me into wasting 20 bucks at the movies (more like 3 bucks at the videostore)... so continue to poke your collective noses into celebrities personal lives. I think it’s a nice dose of pee in their pools and brings a necessary balance to all their inflated importance. Otherwise, get on Edwards case for his decisions in Washington and get out of his bedroom.
Crap! I meant "dismantle" not "disseminate," and "expect" not "except"...
Try this:
Political opponents know it is way easier to dismantle their opponents via personal attacks as opposed to their policy decisions. Imagine the thought and rigor we could expect from our leaders if we ignored such tactics and forced them to compete solely through the issues.
sorry folks.
No one forces a double-talking politician to get in front of crowds of people and spout sanctimonious platitudes, only later to be called on it.
The logic follows: what behavior is locally (at home), radiates outward, not vice-versa.
If politicians would focus on policy in their speeches instead of "morality" and pageantry, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Instead, we have a hypocrite who very publicly signed the "Defense of Marriage Act," itself a piece of political smoke-and-mirrors legislation.
Don't blame the rest of us for frying these red herrings.
And yes, some individual standards are monk-like, so they earn the right to hold others to said standard.
Not all of us are double-talking hypocrites and, furthermore, "being human" is a weak, jaded excuse for lack of control of one's hormones and the inability to rein in one's overinflated sense of power and entitlement.
Practice self-overcoming, not self-indulgence to every whim.
I know you are all tired of me saying it, just as I am, but here is my last comment on this post. I promise, (but frankly, I could argue with you, Cheetah and/or Deacon about this for days.)
First off, Chez: No, I’m not offended, and actually saw your “point.” I believe that most of us are slighting or “ignoring,” for lack of a better word, the biggest, most important point of it all. Anyone who is willing to do this, (especially with a terminally ill spouse,) is basically a selfish prick. He vowed to love, honor, and obey. He in essence failed on 2 out of 3 of these promises. Not to me, or us as a whole, but to whom should have been the most important person in his life. It IS, or should be a big deal!
It frankly IS the worse thing that a spouse can do to their partner. Period. (And someone who disagrees with this or believes that it’s understandable, has no business being married to begin with.)
Yeah, I said it! (And people wonder why the divorce rate has dangles around 50% for the last several decades.)
And let’s get real; his infidelity DOES affect his ability to lead. For example, many elected officials today, or anyone in an important position, (NSA, FBI, CIA) having access to or holding sensitive data could inadvertently slip or give up vital information. Sex is the oldest trick (tool) in the espionage handbook. (It could happen, and has.)
Secondly, I happened to disagree of your “writing off” of his deed as this “we’re only human thing.” (See past comment(s).) I saw your reply defending it. Sorry, but I still don’t buy it, but I guess I’m just an opinionated idiot with a different view/position.
Also, I know that you’re both busy with the baby, but I noticed that Jayne still hasn’t replied to your post, or my question about how she’d feel about my “Starbuck” scenario. I honestly don’t think she really has to, I’d bet on the answer. Yes, I could be wrong, but like I did before, I’ll play the odds.
Thirdly, the media’s handling, or attitude, about Edwards and this situation is in fact meaningless to me, and a lot of other people. As far as I’m concerned, from what I’ve heard, it happened, someone claimed it, he denied it, he was found out, again it was reported, he admitted to it, end of story. I’ve yet to see an actual story of it, on T.V or in print. I honestly don’t give a shit about the details. I’ve got my own crap to deal with.
Next, ponder this: If it had come out that “W” was screwing some other woman, would he have been elected (or reelected) President? No. Must I say why?
Imagine perhaps, if we didn’t have to wait till after he was in office to find out that he would betray us to his pals in the Oil companies, the industrial war machine, etc. Think about it, it’s possible if he had fucked up and got caught beforehand, more people would have felt that he couldn’t be trusted, and he may not have gotten elected, and we actually might not be in this mess we’re in now. (Wow, conspiracy theory is kind of fun. Hey, I can dream.)
Lastly, to Deacon:
Man, I tried to do right by you, so I forwarded your comments to my pals Brad and Ang. They were totally willing to hook up with you and your wife, but after tossing it around, they decided to pass. Angie felt that it might be “too weird” if your wife watched, and Brad’s biggest concern is that he’d “tear it up” and ruin your wife, and your sex life for you both for the rest of your lives. Sorry.
I guess you won’t have to worry about it anymore. Your marriage is safe, for now, that is, unless one of your other fantasies turns up.
Good luck in that endeavor.
Much love,
Blender
Thanks, Blender. Now my wife would like you to put in a good word for her with Benicio del Toro.
Just for the record, the WORST thing you can do to your spouse is NOT to cheat. It is to physically abuse him or her, whether battery, rape or whatever.
Just sayin'
Whoa! Benicio del Toro… I love this woman! Different strokes for different folks, I guess…
Now I know that I promised to drop this, but your last comment is just the most ridiculous thing said to date, and I couldn’t resist calling you out on it.
“Just for the record, the WORST thing you can do to your spouse is NOT to cheat.”
Let’s see… “Well, my marriage sucks. I guess instead of me doing something like working it out, trying to get help, or even leaving her, and eventually perhaps get a divorce, I’ll have me some sex outside the marriage. That’ll fix it…
FUCKING GENIOUS!
And abuse, whether physical, like your examples, or verbal, or emotional are just as detrimental to one's spouse.
“It is to physically abuse him or her, whether battery, rape or whatever.”
Let me reply with something just as retarded like "physical wounds will eventually heal," blah, blah, blah.
Please… there are no abuses that are more or less acceptable.
And while we’re at it, only an idiot would think that infidelity may not count for some as emotional abuse. That is of course, unless you have an “open marriage.”
In your case, your relationship must be “special,” but trust me, for most NORMAL people, (and by normal, I mean the average person,) if one cheats on your wife, take Chez's "Saturday Morning" and Warner Brothers' lead, and do her a favor… you may as well just drop an anvil on her head. It’ll probably hurt just as much, and it may save her the pain of having to deal with it in the future.
Honestly, I used to enjoy your replies, insights, and views on other topics, but frankly, I expected better from you here. This was ponderous and weak. Next time, bring you’re “A” game. And thanks for proving my original point in my first reply… “People are inherently, full of shit!”
Just sayin’
Am I gonna have to separate you two?
And Blender -- am I also gonna have to impose a 1,000 word limit on each comment?
: )
Sorry. I'll behave, but I've never heard such craziness in my life!
;)
Keep in mind, you disagreed with me from the beginning, so you know where I stand.
Blender, not to argue, just to clarify. I didn't mean that you SHOULD cheat. I meant that it is not the worst thing to cheat. Poor phrasing on my part. Didn't even notice it. It was meant to be a lead in for my point that the WORST thing is to physically abuse your spouse.
I hate miscommunication, particularly when perpetuated by myself, a writer. It's part of the challenge of visiting many blogs, leaving comments, and trying to write my own.
My apologies, once again, for the confusion.
Oh, and for the record, I still say that physically abusing your spouse is the worst abuse because generally speaking, that shit is habitual.
Cheating is sometimes habitual, and taken to certain extremes, could be as bad as physical abuse, but I think those occasions are more rare...and often cheating is not habitual but a one-time fuck up.
I have never cheated on my wife, btw, and have no particular desire to. I was simply making some points that it isn't exactly as cut and dried as you try to make it. But we have different viewpoints, and I accept that yours is different and that you put special weight on cheating for some reason. I pick different battles to worry about in life.
Peace.
This is why I stay single... ;)
Thank you for clearing that up.
Even though your rationale(s) doesn't fly with me, I would like to apologize.
After some intense soul searching, I realized that I am, and have been, overly sensitive to this issue. Not because I've had any personal experiences with cheating or spousal abuse (of any kind), but because after being orphaned by my father, (by his death,) at a very young age, I was raised by my mother, (who worked 2 jobs to make ends meet,) my grandmother, and 2 older sisters.
Please forgive me for being an asshole, and having too much respect for women.
I'm done.
I'm certainly guilty of being an ass at times myself, blender...maybe even in this current (well, now it's "past") discussion. You will never piss me off by having respect for women. I do, too, even if perhaps that didn't come across well enough this time around.
I've cheated and been cheated on. When you cheat, it's not like you are "not thinking" as Chez stated, but more like you are consciously deciding that you are not thinking, so that later you can rationalize. (Those of you with cheating experience know what I'm talking about.)
It's far more devestating to be cheated on. That "not thinking" rationalization is abundantly clear. The only way to interpret it in the thick of things is that your partner has so little regard for you that they were "not thinking" of you as they completely tore your world asunder.
I did the cheating before being cheated on, so the huge disparity of perspective was clear. It made me decide to never perpetrate that upon anybody again.
When I cheated I was a total douchebag, so forgive me if I find it hard to be more...forgiving. I was completely cavalier about my partner's feelings, and I betrayed him in conversations with the other. In fact, the secretive conversations that one has with the other at the ignorance of the spouse felt like the biggest of all betrayals...and what affair doesn't have the secrets and the planning?
However, the very act, combined with receiving same, brought change for the better (for future partners anyway), so I do believe that people can change and are worthy of forgiving.
I am not going to make any guesses about the Edward's private sexual life. For all I know his wife encouraged him to take other lovers long before she ever got sick. There are plenty of polyamorous people out there. I agree that their sexual arrangements are none of my business.
I still think he betrayed us horribly though. Dan Savage, a gay advise columnist, encourages outing gay politicians that politically back anti-gay policy. I share his attitude of no mercy under those hypocritical circumstances. In taht case, their private sex lives ARE pertinent because it shows that they refuse to subscribe to what they require from everybody else. Same thing applies here.
What's more, if what Americans insist upon is a squeaky clean personal life, then a candidate better make damn sure that he either has a squeaky clean life or that he defends a dirtier outlook. I'm all for the latter, though I know it's viewed as an impossibility. No one ever said it would be easy.
Despite what most have said here, fidelity is very doable. It happens every day and it can be sustained for a lifetime. If you get tired of your spouse, there are ways to stay married, and remain faithful even if you are with others sexually. That also happens every day. We seemed to have decided as a nation, not to accept alternatives to monogomy, but clearly, we do that at our own risk, and with severe consequence.
Post a Comment