The problem with men

Bill cheated on Hillary. Franklin cheated on Eleanor. John cheated on Elizabeth. Ross cheated on Rachel, but they were on a break. Anthony didn’t cheat on Huma, he just sexted and sent out pictures of his wang.

Some of our best presidents were philandering horndogs. Some of our worst presidents maintained their marital vows – at least as far as we know anyway. I’m not gonna even try to explain it, I’m just wondering what should the rule for politicians and extra-marital sex be?

If we said it doesn’t matter we would be lying. Sometimes (at least) it does. If we said marital fidelity is a relevant issue in politics that would a license to dig dirt on every candidate. How do we know what’s there until we look, right? But if we said it only matters sometimes, how do we determine what “sometimes” is?

I predict we’ll keep on doing what we’ve been doing. For reasons that are totally unpredictable and incomprehensible we will be wildly inconsistent and occasionally schizophrenic. Sometimes it won’t matter, and others it will.

Some politicians will lose their careers because of mere rumors, while others will get caught red-handed with their hand in the nookie jar and never miss a day of work. Some guys will deny it and get punished anyway, but others will confess and walk scot-free.

A lot of it will have to do with the media and how they react to these stories. But the media are hardly paragons of virtue. How many of them could survive the scrutiny the give to others? If everyone followed Jeebus’ advice about throwing stones the media wouldn’t have much to talk about.

This entry was posted in Nookie Jar, Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The problem with men

  1. myiq2xu says:

    I stole this from over at Uppity’s place:

  2. elliesmom says:

    I’ve been married for close to 40 years, and to the best of my knowledge, my husband has not cheated on me, but, bless his heart, he would make a lousy president. There’s something about the personalities of the men who make good presidents that includes a propensity for infidelity. Maybe it’s the adrenaline surge that they get from risky behavior. Or a belief in their own invincibility. Or just the need for both public and private adoration. But if infidelity was a reason not to vote for someone, many of our very best presidents would have been disqualified. And lying about being unfaithful is expected. Look at how the media has used “he wanted an open marriage” against Newt. Being honest about wanting to continue his affair with Callista is what they’re trying to excoriate him for.

  3. yttik says:

    I think we’re all confused about men and infidelity and this is a good thing. There’s a huge double standard when it comes to women running for office, we are perceived as always existing in a state of evil of some form. Until recently, men could pretty much do what they wanted and everybody would look the other way. Today at least, we are asking WTH? How come this hypocrisy is allowed to continue? A man can have three wives he cheated on, but a woman wearing red pumps on the campaign trial means something really insidious. Palin was too hot, Hillary was too cold, and so it goes until no woman is ever going to be likeable enough. So I think what’s happening to the men is that we’re finally saying, hey wait a minute, if a women’s perceived sexuality is fair game, then maybe your actual proven lack of ethics should be vetted, too?

  4. Dario says:

    I think the extramarital affair should be evaluated by the voters, not the media. The problem has been the media, their tendency to sensationalize or as in the Edwards’ case, not reporting. The voters usually have the right response.

  5. DeniseVB says:

    Game Change reviewer says Sarah Palin is really, really dumb because he was told it was a true story based on “sources” close to the campaign. Gah! PDS warning…..

    • HELENK says:

      Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have scared the old boy network to death.
      They must be trashed and portrayed as stupid, otherwise how would politicians like backtrack be made to look intelligent.

  6. jjmtacoma says:

    I’d guess that you have to have some magical thinking that you can (should?) lead the “free” world.

    Think of all the groupies hanging around adoring them. the wives at home knowing they leave their junk laying around, blow their noses at the table… whatever.

    I can see where the magical thinking could be confirmed by groupies offering understanding and approval. I could also believe that the magical thinking makes them believe they are so much smarter than everyone else that they won’t get caught.

    I still think that infidelity is between the people who made the vow and not any of my business. I’d rather not know about the circumstances in detail. I also think asking BC about it under oath was shitty and not anyone’s business.

  7. HELENK says:

    the congress bill that passed about consumer credit, just screwed the stay at home wife or a widow or divorced wife with children who does not have a job in this economy. She will no longer be able to get credit cards in her name.
    way to go, you stupid asses

  8. foxyladi14 says:

    this goes all the way to the top.

  9. HELENK says:

    Etta James died.
    May she rest in peace. She gave the world some great music

  10. kc says:

    Maybe it has to do with risk taking–yes..

    How many times have we all thought that someone in power has said something or come to a conclusion that we had already thought of??
    But, the difference is –they embrace the risk, for good or ill.

    Frankly, I loved his smackdown last night. The msm needs to be smacked down daily.

  11. votermom says:

    OT: This tag on twitter has some funny stuff

  12. Karma says:

    With the differing ways that sex scandals get covered or covered up, I might try to see where they fit within the TPTBs plans. Did this guy just go against the establishment in a big way or does he need to be taken out to make room for someone else? Basically why is this being revealed now?

    In that sense when Edwards made his 2008 announcement with his wife standing a good foot away. Something was clearly going wrong then and their body language told the tale. But the media played games with the election cycle and kept that out of view until needed. No doubt they noticed the distance too.

    So for the most part I consider it none of my business and generally take a Tinfoil-hat Tuesday approach to such coverage. But in Edwards’ case it was my business because of the impact on the campaign cycle. John and Elizabeth Edwards’ desire to get into the WH didn’t trump the people’s need to know that they were both full of bs.

    When looking at how that all unraveled you can’t help but wonder was silence of that affair leveraged for certain favors being returned on the public stage?

Comments are closed.