John Edwards admits to extramarital affair

So here we have another politician cheating on his wife, just when she needs him most. Fooling around when your wife is undergoing major medical treatment seems like more of a Republican thing, but not this time.

CNN has a handy timeline of political sex scandals over the past 10 years.

Someone sounds extremely bitter about something.

~snerk~

Here's what was right below your subject line on my Talk page:

Happy Heathens : As we forgive

Gave me a chuckle!

I seem to remember another prominent Dem having an affair while it office and it embarrassing his family and the country in general...who was that...oh yeah President Clinton. I apologize for being a smart aleck but the point is that no party wears a halo.

I'm a little disappointed that it’s Edwards considering he seemed to be a genuine person above that sort of thing. But I guess that's the difference between the public persona and the real person

It's times like these that I wonder if the state-worshippers are as deranged as the fans who obsess over the relationships of Tom Cruise.

>2 codyed:
I am very skeptical of anyone, particularly any politican, who adopts a "holier than thou" persona. Edwards has always struck me as being more than a little smarmy. and this does nothing to change that opinion.

>3 lilithcat:
LOL! I didn't even notice that - how appropriate!

1 .Frankly, I do not care who sleeps with who or when... outside of my own situation. He was running for president, not saint.

2. In this case I am very disappointed because I thought he had more integrity than that, and it makes me sad that I was wrong. It makes me very sad for his wife.

Exactly, mckait--it's just sex. What's the big deal?

I was a John Edwards man am just crushed by this news. I thought he would make a great Attorney General.

One bit of consolation: at least when the Democrats sleep around it's with women instead of other men.

So you're homophobic?

Dems sleeping around? Wasn't Gary Hart also a Democrat?

I don't think party affiliation has anything to do with being a cheating bastard.

That said, I don't think that sleeping around really makes anyone that much of a cheat. I think it's pretty natural. I'm sure I'll catch Hell for it, but I think it's human nature to explore the gene pool. We weren't meant to be monogamous. We're evolutionarily tempted to spread our genes.

What I think makes these people cheaters is the fact that they're politicians. Anyone that is power-thirsty enough to want a public office is almost always willing to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. I don't trust politicians in general...just because of the fact that they want to hold a powerful public office. I'm sure there are some out there that actually mean well (I think most of them did at one point), but now, they are mostly corrupted by the power they hold or the power they seek.

Anyone smart enough to run the country is smart enough to refuse the job!

I understand the eagerness to make fun of Republican extramarital affairs (I have the itch to do so myself), but what's the point? They're not much more hypocritical than Democrats are. Republicans are vocally against "deviant" behaviors and then secretly practice it themselves. Democrats talk high and mighty about "consenting adults" when it comes to sex, but if it's two people doing business in any sector of the economy, suddenly they don't care if you're a consenting adult and they want the government to butt into your business transactions.

>9 geneg: What about the Democrat women? Lesbians one and all?

The hypocritical factor about the Clinton impeachment was that Newt Gingrich, who was heading the Impeachment Hearings, was having an affair of his own at the time. Gingrich had also married his Geometry teacher shortly after he graduated high school, and cheated on (and divorced) ~her~ while she was going through treatments for breast cancer. At the time of the hearings, he was cheating on his second wife.

#13 Depends weener. Are you the alternative?

Men who want to continue to play or know that they will one day want to continue to play the field should frankly avoid marriage until they have found a partner whose personal views on what is and is not an acceptable level of promiscuity mirror their own. If the partner knows and accepts the other partner's outlook on life, his or her standards, etcetera, then there is no grounds for criticism or condemnation of such activities. Unfortunately, the Edwards couple never had such an understanding, as his confession today clearly attests. And that, of course, would make John Edwards a self-centered ass at best...

As for sex scandal coverage, if you really want to catch up, you should troll your way through the last four or so years worth of Wonkette's blog posts. They miss nothing.

(Edit: the link should work now)

The Republicans should be careful with this one, though... Vetting candidates by how they have treated their spouses? That certainly won't help them during this electoral cycle.

You?

Wow. I hadn't seen this. For someone's sake, I really hope this ended before her cancer came back. Cheating on your wife is a failing, for sure. Cheating on your dying wife is bit more than that.

>21 timspalding: It didn't. And it is. It really is.

>22 BGP:

I don't think the duration's established, I have to say.

>23 timspalding: I'm sorry to say that it has been established.

Or maybe it hasn't, depending on how you view remission. One could say that this all took place after she had survived a death sentence, but anyone who is familiar with cancer knows full well that remission is no guarantee of success, no guarantee at all. And with the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that this nasty business took place between death sentence one and two...

Elizabeth Edwards has a blog post up at

Daily Kos

He doesn't deserve her.

#18: Why are you bringing up the subject of rape? Are you trying to be coherent? Don't let the gills stop you from trying to make sense up here on land.

>26 Lunar: Heheheh! You're right, that was my bad: it was the "Government as Cockblocker" routine*! And it was superb!

*How did I possibly confuse the two? It appears that I was just a wee bit too hasty to respond to your post. Tsk, tsk. I know.

#11 - we may be evolutionarily tempted to spread our genes, we may not. But we have brains and don't have to act like animals.

That said, I don't disapprove of single people sleeping around with other single people. But if you are in a committed relationship or a marriage then you have effectively opted out of the rights to go sleeping around for the sake of the gene pool argument (unless of course you have both agreed to an 'open' relationship.)

Plus, if your career in the public eye has relied to some extent on your going about telling everyone you are a married, family man, that kind of makes you an idiot to think you won't get caught.

I'm with you all the way on the rest of what you said though.

#27: "Government as Cockblocker"

Now that's more like it. Or maybe it's more of a chastity belt... something with a key belonging to the guy who makes sure you're only in it for procreation.

>28 QueenOfDenmark: - You're right, we do have brains, but that doesn't seperate us from the animals. We are animals, and I'm not surprised that we sometimes act like it! I didn't mean to imply that I thought cheating was right, only that it seems to be in our nature. I completely agree that a person, once committed to another person, has effectively waived his or her right to cat around. I know if I were to marry, I would forgo the sleeping around, and expect the same of my wife. But I know there would still be a chance that one of us would cheat. And again, I don't think it's right, but I think people need to be aware that when they enter marriage, there is a chance that infidelity will occur. Further, if you marry a politician, those chances increase exponentially because politicians are (for the most part), lying, cheating, power-hungry, egocentric, arrogant people--otherwise, they wouldn't be politicians. They'd be doing something proper and beneficial.

> 28 I get that this seems to be one more example of blatant hypocrisy in a public figure. I suppose this is so newsworthy because Obama hasn't picked a running-mate yet. So conceivably, Edwards could have been the man. But aside from that angle, I just don't get why this was the story that certain venues (Slate, for example) kept harping and harping about until it made the big news cycle.

Last year, for no particular reason that I can explain, I watched Judge Judy regularly for a period of a month or so. A lot of times, the "case" is between two former lovers. Usually they had not been married, but often they cohabited. One thing that struck me was the sense of outrage that often came out when the man had not been sexually exclusive to the woman in the relationship.

I realize that in our culture, marriage generally implies a promise to monogamy. But given the biological urge to reproduce and the statistical evidence that non-monogamy is common even within marriage (people have affairs), wouldn't we be better off emotionally if we didn't cling so tightly to the idea that exclusivity is the essential test for loving committment?

Disclaimer: I am not advocating open relationships. I am just asking why sex is the criterion for demonstrating love?

One bit of consolation: at least when the Democrats sleep around it's with women instead of other men.

Thanks for that little bit of homophobia, Gene. Brightened my morning considerably.

Given the track record on politicians and sex, one starts to wonder whether it's the politicians or our expectations that are flawed.

Any ideas on how politicians' activities mirror those of the general population (or not, as the case may be)? Or is that not ascertainable?

i don't see how the romantic life of politicians matters, aside from the nasty puritanical hangover that afflicts many americans. i'm more disturbed by the smug self-righteousness of those who are wagging their fingers. but then the ethical track record of the most vocal moralizers usually isn't very good.

#32: An oft-quoted statistic is that about 1/7th of children are not genetically related to their supposed father, and that this is remarkably consistent across social classes and environments. I don't have a reference, though.

I am very angry at John Edwards first for cheating on his wife, second for lying about it, and third for having the unmitigated gall to continue running for President when he knew it could blow up in his face at any minute and damage the Democratic Party and our country.

#33 theoria - I don't think their romantic lives matter, so much as their lying about them and breaking vows that they are using to leverage their political careers. If you're going to run around using your Christianity as a reason to vote for you, then act like a Christian. (It applies to any religion, it's just that John Edwards is Christian).

#32: An oft-quoted statistic is that about 1/7th of children are not genetically related to their supposed father, and that this is remarkably consistent across social classes and environments. I don't have a reference, though.

I wonder what the ratio of consummated relationships is to the number of relationships that result in offspring. I guess you'd also have to take into account whether or not you've got a few outliers skewing the numbers.

>33 theoria:

So I wouldn't take this idea *very* far; I don't think cheating is ipso facto a very significant data point. Certainly many excellent leaders have also cheated on their spouses. But I'm always troubled by the extreme counter-argument, the idea that a candidate's private life has "nothing to do" with how they can or will govern.

Maybe it's the startup mentality, but I don't acknowledge this bright line between home life and work life. Our personalities are complex, certainly, and it's extremely hard to understand someone's personal world in its context. But we aren't two individuals. The way we act and treat people is a reflection on who we are. How trustworthy are we? Do we look out only for ourselves? Do we lie when convenient? Will we attack others to distract attention from our failings? I just can't believe human beings have one set of answers at home and an entirely different set of answers at work.

I think we can disagree on what this means in any context--what it means that Reagan was distant with his children, or that Clinton fooled around. Probably some failings matter and some don't. Maybe its so hard to untangle the issue that, prudentially, we shouldn't even try. And maybe some failings are even *good* for politics! (I strikes me that, whether you like him or not, Clinton was "slippery" in both personal and political matters; I also think that generally worked for him.)

But I can't believe the personal and the political are completely different spheres.

#35 & 37

Agree with both ideas, the politician & the man are one. But as #35 said, Edwards presented himself as a family man with christian values. I read his wife's book about her cancer, it showed Edwards in a very positive light. But if he couldn't keep his marriage vows, why did he make a point of going after the family & the religious voters? It might have been better if he just kept his mouth shut. It's not so much what he does in his personal life, but presenting himself as someone with values (that he doesn't live up to) is not a good thing.

> #38

Because he's no different than anyone else.

Current mores of society say that fidelity in marriage matters. Yet, the vast majority of married people have affairs - women more so than men. (I'll have to find those statistics and add a link later.) That's why people lie about it. Infidelity on marriage does not equate to greater or lesser leadership qualities. Okay, there may be a little correlation, but not to any extreme. Edward's business required him to live a lie. Should he have chosen another occupation? Not in my eyes. People do stupid things. The also do very smart and good things. It's a matter of balance. Does he ~constantly~ screw around behind his wife's back, or was this the first time? Did he neglect his family at the time he had this affair? Did he, oh.... lie about something and send over 4,000 men and women to die? Forge documents, perhaps?

Frankly, now that this is all out in the open, no one can threaten to expose him now, so you can kiss the possibility of extortion away. I think he'd be a fine candidate for some Cabinet position.

This has to do with the character of the people we elect. If many of our politicians engage in this behavior, and many of them apparently do, is that reflected in the quality of our government? If our politicians exhibit this kind of moral behavior at home does that give an indication of what character they will bring to the office? Leadership starts with character. If you don't honor yourself, you sure as hell won't honor others.

As far as dems and women vs. republics and men, it's a stretch to call the truth homophobic, just as it's a stretch to say if you disagree with the way Israel treats Palestine you are anti-semitic. Any Democrat or other flavor of Liberal that spins the truth to fit their pre-conceived notion makes them every bit as evil as the Republics. The truth is the truth is the truth, to attempt to shape it in any way is lying. Lying in governance is despicable regardless of who does it. When dems lie, they usually know they are doing it. When republics lie they are so far in the clouds they can't tell lies from the truth. Dems lie to you and I, Republics not only lie to you and I, but what's worse is they lie to themselves. They're both liars. Why do you think we have reached this pass as a nation? Because of bold leadership based on honest appraisals of our situation in the world. Hardly.

> 37
I agree that some 'private' behaviors matter (for example, alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual abuse, criminality, etc.) for governance. But this is not the case with Edwards. Let's imagine that Thomas Jefferson had lived in an age of tabloids, cable news, and blogs. His relationship with Sally Hemings would have been discussed and dissected 24/7, and the paternity of her children would have become the subject of speculation by the brightest pundits. A variety of moralitarians would have declared Jefferson unqualified for higher office and his behavior would be viewed as evidence of a decline of family values. His fall from prominence as an author of the constitution would have been swift and one of the 'founders' would today be remembered as a philanderer.

Theoria sayz, "Let's imagine that Thomas Jefferson had lived in an age of tabloids, cable news, and blogs. His relationship with Sally Hemings would have been discussed and dissected 24/7, and the paternity of her children would have become the subject of speculation by the brightest pundits."

Actually Jefferson's enemies were all over this. this was in the political air as thick as flies. It was only after Jefferson was deified fifty or so years later that we "forgot" about this indiscretion.

An interesting book that covers the Tabloid wars of the late eighteenth, early nineteenth centuries is American Aurora which covers and reprints a lot of the stories of the top political tabloid of the time.

As Ecclesiastes (I think) says, "There is nothing new under the sun". We've been here before.

As far as dems and women vs. republics and men, it's a stretch to call the truth homophobic, just as it's a stretch to say if you disagree with the way Israel treats Palestine you are anti-semitic.

No. Not even remotely close. You indicate with your original statement that having an affair with a member of the opposite sex is preferable to having one with a member of the same sex.

Unless, of course, your stating that Republicans, be they men or women prefer having affairs with men and Democrats, be they men or women, prefer having affairs with women. I don't believe that this is the point that you were making.

>41 theoria:

I have to say, I think Jefferson's personal life matches his political one rather well. Jefferson never resolved the issue of black Americans and slavery in either. He was anti-slavery as a younger man—the original Declaration of Independence included a paragraph condemning the British for the slave trade, while also condemning the king for enrolling freed slaves in his armies. Later on he accommodated himself to the institution, and justified its continuance. Meanwhile, in his personal life he had something more than mere rape with Ms. Hemmings, freed some of her family members and and allowed two of her children to "escape." But otherwise he died so deeply in debt that the rest were split up and sold on his death.

As Sgt. Friday would have said, "Just the facts ma'am, Just the facts".

It's verifiable that more Republics have homosexual affairs than Democrats. I don't care, personally, but Republics seem to put an awful lot of stock in homophobia. I'm just making an observation. It goes to their credibility on homosexuality specifically, and morality in general.

And yes, morality is important in governance, witness the last eight years.

Bullshit, brother. You take consolation in those "facts."

As they say, sometimes the truth hurts.

Sounds like homophobia to me, man. But hey, at least you have the consolation that your philandering party members aren't faggots. At least not the ones that you know of... You'll always have that.

I find it very interesting that people get upset when people act like...people.

Affairs, when the spouse is ill, are not that uncommon. (I hear more than I want, sometimes, as a pastor and chaplain.) In some way they are understandable...not excusable, but understandable. Usually the healthy spouse has more than their share of hurts, which they often cannot really express because the focus is on the sick spouse. If they let their guard down, and find someone who is "more than willing to listen" it is a disaster in the making. (Add to this the minor human inconvenience of sex...cut someone off for a loooong time, and they may wonder.

I don't excuse it. But I have seen enough of it to understand it. I don't condemn it...that is between whoever and whatever God they worship. (Spouses often need the warning not to wander... and to be told they are very susceptible to affairs. But they usually don't get it, or don't hear it. Pity.)

As to which party is worst on this count...why is that a concern?

I think what Gene might have been getting at is the extra layer of hypocrisy that comes with a Republican being caught having gay sex, since their party line is basically anti-gay.

Surely you see the difference between a virulently anti-gay, pro "family values" politician with a wife and kids being caught having gay sex on the sly and an out-of-the closet politician having a normal gay relationship.

I wonder, though, if a lesbian Democratic Senator was caught cheating on her wife with another woman, what would people say? Would no one care, or would it be trumpeted as proof that gay people can't handle monogamous relationships?

Jesse sayz, "... philandering party members aren't faggots". and while calling me homophobic. Sheesh. Oh I get it you're referring to a bundle of sticks, right?

Why are we talking about homosexuality? And being so nasty about it...

Amen.

Wow did things take a nasty turn since this afternoon. I appreciate Arctic-Stranger's words of wisdom on the subject, and having some experience in ministry and hospital chaplaincy (though not as much, I'm sure) I agree with his observations.

I don't know, this certainly exposes his human weakness but does it disqualify him totally from a position of power? I'm not as familiar with details of the relationship, but it does seem to be an isolated incident during an extremely stressful time in his life. It shows bad judgment, and shows his character is somewhat flawed, but I don't think it shows such a bad character that he cannot trusted to continue to serve the country in some shape or form?

I guess another way to look at it is this. If Bill Clinton were nominated as a cabinet member (assuming an Obama victory, and that they got along better) or other important position, ambassador etc, would most people stand and rail so about his past affairs? Obviously the pundits would and people like Rush Limbaugh would have a field day, but would most "normal" Americans even bat an eye? Its a question to consider I think.

>51 geneg: Gene, I shouldn't have to elaborate, but... there is a very specific reason as to why he, and another LTer posting earlier in the thread, have taken umbrage with the following sentence of yours:

"One bit of consolation: at least when the Democrats sleep around it's with women instead of other men."

Now, when I first read the sentence, I assumed that you were speaking of crisis control, etcetera, etcetera, for, let's be honest here, the Republicans will find a way to maximally profit off of any and all gay sex scandals which take place in the Democratic Party (the only exception being a case similar to Jim McGreevy, who chose to drop out of politics entirely when it became clear that he could not contain the spread of his story).

Mind you, I'm not entirely innocent myself: in a post which has now been deleted, I playfully rejoined the post by the first person who called you out on your statement (if only because he had himself called out another LTer on another matter, but then, that's another story entirely). Be that as it may, as it is now abundantly clear that your initial statement has been met with some discontent, it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea for you to lay this issue to rest by either reaffirming your support of the sentence in question (with the full knowledge of what has been inferred from it) or explaining specifically what you intended your message to convey.

Or not. It's just an idea.

I agree with weener in thinking that geneg wasn't bashing gays as much as he was railing against "the republics" and I'm with BGP in hoping that geneg clarifies his remark and clears the air around here.

Please don't let us turn into "Two Americas"!

#31 - Because it is one of the closest and most personal things that people can do together. And to make a commitment of marriage most often means saying vows where you promise to stay faithful, no matter what your genes are programmed to do, and so even when tempted your brain ought to kick in at some point and say "this will hurt the person that I love, damage our life together or at least make it different. It could hurt our children and it really isn't worth it." Sex is obviously not the only criterion for demonstrating love, but inside a marriage or a relationship that seems to be committed it is a personal and precious one that is all the more special because it is sometimes so difficult to keep.

If a politician cheats on his/her partner they are only cheating on that partner and possiblly thier family but they are showing the voting public that they are capable of poor decisions, weak wills, bad judgement, arrogance, unfaithfulness, lies, untrustworthiness and so much more.

If you can betray the person you are supposed to care for the most what's to stop you from betraying your political party, your supporters, your country?

His greatest betrayal was to his wife, who no doubt is standing by him and smiling while he tries to fix his career and thinks about having his secretary pop out and buy her something nice for being so good about it. But the votors who trusted him have also been let down by him because he has lied about his marriage, his values and his abilities to put his brain before his penis.

And as most politicians trade off family values and marital status when it suits them they shouldn't be surprised when their affairs are splashed over the front pages, their families are hurt and the votors have lost faith.

Well, back to the original question (or at least what I think it was)--and, while it would be nice to have all our leaders pure in thought and deed, one reality seems to be that private sexual morality doesn't seem to have that much to do with public service and the decisions men (mostly men, historically) have made in that arena.

Two brilliant men, vitally important to the founding of the United States, were Jefferson and Franklin, and the private morality of either doesn't necessarily bear a lot of scrutiny. But thank goodness, I say, that they lived in an age of somewhat less public trumpeting of their indiscretions.

Conversely, some of the most upright and faithful of our presidents don't fare that well when they are being ranked as presidents--Hoover? Carter? (And I'm not trying to start some discussion of whether this or that guy really was faithful . . .). Harding was unfaithful and generally thought to be a pretty bad president; F.D.R. was unfaithful and mostly considered to be a great president. Of the two presidents who were impeached (both acquitted), one was famously not faithful and the other, Andrew Johnson, probably was.

There's just not much evidence for a strong correlation between sexual fidelity and ability to lead the nation.

If there was any correlation between fidelity and competence of leadership, then our current President would be having a 3-way with Rove and Rice on the White House lawn every day at Noon. (Even ~I~ think that's a bit over the top, but it suffices...)

People have affairs for hundreds of reasons. Most are very bad excuses, but there are a few very good reasons why people otherwise "behave badly". I would not be as quick to condemn the individual as I would those who made a very private matter so very public. Whistle-blowing is one thing, but it doesn't apply here.

I was going to do this before BGP suggested it, just to clear the air.

I have a step-daughter who I raised from the age of seven who is married (she lives in Cambridge, Mass.) to a most wonderful woman. The only problem I have is just that my wife's father's bloodline now rests on our son. this is a quirk of mine (bloodlines) because my great-grandfather's branch of the Greathouse family rests on my son also. I am faced with my name line possibly dying out (I have a granddaughter who carries the blood through my daughter). As I said this is my problem, no one else's and in this day and age I can hear the WTFs going around.

My comment wasn't intended as a dig against homosexuals. It was a comment on the guilt-ridden hypocrisy of the Republic Party. I have known closeted homosexuals who believed they were an abomination in the eyes of God, and were so full of guilt and shame over their sexual orientation that, as Shakespeare once said, they protested to much. I believe people in this condition hold that if they deny this homosexuality in others it will relieve some of their own guilt and shame. To me this is tragic. Nevertheless, because these people are generally authoritarians, and believe in an authoritarian God, they must whip this obsession in themselves by beating it in others. It is not in them to understand that for whatever reason, this is a significant part of who they are and no matter how hard they try, they cannot "be cured". You can't cure something that's not wrong with you. So, to reiterate this was supposed to be a jab against the hypocrisy of the Republic Party and the tragic results for some very authoritarian people.

I took Jesse's first shot as just another bit of Liberal PC bullshit. That's why in my response I made mention of Israel/Palestine, another sensitive area eat up with PC bullshit. Try to suggest Palestine might have a moral argument to make against Israel on these boards and see what happens. I expect most of you have been there and done that. I know I certainly have and have no interest in starting that discussion up here.

After Jesse's second response I figured I had hit a liberal PC nerve and just lost control of myself. Jesse can be a pretty snarky sort of guy himself so I wondered how far I could press him on this issue, remember, I thought this was about Liberal PC, not homosexuality per se.

Jesse, if it was not about Liberal PC then, but about a sense of personal insult, then I was misunderstood, otherwise, my sin was letting the good times get away from me.

> 57 I agree with pretty much everything you said. I think monogamy is a wonderful thing, and I very much appreciate that when people enter into a conventional marriage, they are promising to be monogamous.

My point was, it goes beyond sex. If someone pledges to be faithful to me, then I want faithfulness in every possible sector of our relationship. I don't want that person lying to me, or spending our collective money carelessly, or talking trash about me to other people, etc., either. That kind of infidelity can be extremely hurtful, sometimes in life-ruining ways. (Not to be crass here, but it's one thing to find out your lover dallied with someone else. It's another thing to have to file bankruptcy because he/she spent all your money and ruined your credit rating. Or maybe worse: that he/she belittled you and told all your secrets to all your mutual friends and now they are all laughing at you.)

When I see someone on these court TV shows, or in the celebrity gossip reporting (to which I try very hard not to expose myself), all I see is basic unfaithfulness all around. So it shouldn't be surprising that they are sexually unfaithful to one another, either.

So it's one thing for Edwards to have shown the poor judgement of having an affair. But will he be faithful to the people of the US? That's the issue his behavior calls into question (and rightly so).

I just wish Edwards were the nominee. I say this without any partisan feeling whatsoever but purely for the history and entertainment.

This election has been absolutely extraordinary. Obama and Clinton fighting it out to the very end, wooing superdelegates, campaigning in overseas territories, arguing over Florida and Michigan. McCain completely written off and somehow winning it. And we're not even to the conventions!

A post-primary pre-convention revelation like this would be... well, I think I might faint from the joy of it.

I wish I could look at politics as the circus it obviously is, but to me it's far too important. I know I should lighten up, but it's not in me.

#31

The best book on sex and marriage that I know of: Passionate Marriage: Keeping Love and Intimacy Alive in Committed Relationships by David Schnarch. If you want a more clinical look, Constructing the Sexual Crucible; An Integration of Sexual and Marital Therapy is good, but very technical.

#60

My apologies, Gene. It seems that the two of us were being rather bitterly ironic right past each other.

Okay everybody! Group hug now. Group hug.

Don't sweat the small stuff and we'll be okay, Jesse. Just remember two things when we discuss: I am not a homophobe and I am not an anti-Semite. I do, on the other hand think Political Correctness is a conspiracy to prevent open discussion on prickly issues, which of course are the issues that are in most dire need of open discussion. Political Correctness usually stems from someone who feels power slipping away by virtue of understanding.

I apologize for letting my inner Kokopelli loose. I work hard at keeping him reined in but sometimes he sneaks out, usually much to my detriment.

#61- So it's one thing for Edwards to have shown the poor judgement of having an affair. But will he be faithful to the people of the US? That's the issue his behavior calls into question (and rightly so).

That's what I meant but you said it better.

#61, 68. I don't think I agree. You are saying that either people are faithful or they are not. If they are unfaithful in one way, they are unfaithful, and are not to be trusted in anything else. I don't think that's true. George Bush lies almost compulsively, but I don't think he cheats on his wife. And I really don't think Elliot Spitzer would ever have sold influence to corporate lobbyists. Everybody is both faithful and unfaithful.

Now, a guy that runs for a high office such as the presidency thinks he can do anything successfully. He thinks he can have an affair and not get caught ... and what his wife doesn't know won't hurt her ... so it isn't wrong, in his mind. It seems like they are all like that, to one extent or another. The "honest" ones are just those that aren't as greedy. The "faithful" ones are just the ones that aren't as libidinous. I am just thankful that Edwards didn't win the nomination ... and I was for him in the primaries.

There are plenty of secrets in the world. A guy did a big genetic study in Britain in the fifties. He took DNA from both parents and their children, to find out how genes mix with inheritance. But he never published, because the first thing he noticed was that 10% of the children were unrelated to their fathers. This result has been repeated in Britain and the US multiple times since, giving numbers between 7 and 15%. Folks, real monogamy is rare. People just lie to themselves.

69>

"There are plenty of secrets in the world..."

And lots of second-guessing. John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Prince Harry Windsor have received the most scrutiny in this regard. -And I understand that even illustrious families are also affected from time to time.

Consider Lady Dedlock!

I agree. Real monogamy is rare, and there are many secrets in the world.

Monogamy is inhuman. Men, and apparently women, as well, were not meant to be monogamous. Monogamy is a by-product of the Patriarchal system. Monogamy is about bloodlines, not faithfulness.

However, when dealing with such a foundational pillar of western culture, it can be a measure of one's character. The question becomes: how much of one's character can be measured by that criterion?

One-twenty-seventh.

You godless infidel!

one-twenty-first!!!!!!

Monogamy is a by-product of the Patriarchal system.

...which is Bush's fault!

hah! i agree... lol

I don't know...monogamy feels pretty natural to me.

Yeah I've managed not to ravage other women. So I say 1/15th.

I've always wondered why monogamy (lit. single-marriage) meant not having sex with anyone else, but bigamy (lit. double-marriate) meant being married to two people, whether or not you're having sex.