Everything you know about affairs is wrong.

[MonteLukast]

I'm opening up a can of worms here-- bracing myself.

When I found this article, my mind started turning to a well-known progressive figure whose name I won't say because you know who he is.
Whose voice we really need and miss right now... and whom the vast majority of us on DU seem uninterested in rehabilitating.

Reading it made me even more convinced that we need a better barometer of a person's character than their marital fidelity.
Like what kind of work environment they live in, for instance: because it speaks to all the self-presentations and compromises we choose to make, in order to stay on the boss' good side and therefore to make a living.
Or how they treat people who make a living in any kind of service job.

In this article, these were some of the points that most jumped out at me:

{It's} more common to unintentionally wind up in an affair. "People who have accidental affairs have no thoughts of being unfaithful," says Snyder. "It's not even consistent with their values system, but the opportunity presents itself."
--Douglas Snyder, Ph.D., couples therapist, psychology professor at Texas A and M

{More} than half of men involved in affairs reported being happy or very happy in their marriages prior to cheating, according to a survey by the late Shirley Glass, Ph.D., noted infidelity researcher and author of NOT "Just Friends." Lots of other factors weigh into a guy's decision to start an affair, including chemistry, opportunity and poor impulse control.

I'll add another myth I fell for: You're aren't susceptible if you're old enough, or if you've been through enough.

I knew that people of all ages, appearances, socioeconomic statuses and value systems can fall in. I was already clued in to that. But I was sure that a strong shared history between two people, particularly when your marriage has survived one of its biggest destroyers before-- I would've thought that THAT would be inoculation against cheating.
What a feeling to have your logical sense be so wrong.

What the mess this progressive found himself in has shown me is, no matter how old you are, how many years of history you have, no matter even what you've been through before-- you can still succumb to an affair.

It's unsettling-- and that's putting it mildly. It opens up the possibility of YOU doing that-- and, furthermore, of having no excuse: no partner who's let themself go, no lack of interest on your part, no lack of communication, no lack of common purpose, no lack of happiness. No excuse, and yet doing it anyway... you, a good, moral, loving person, cheating just because.
No longer can I-- or anyone else?-- say with 100% confidence that "I will NEVER do something like that." Yes, Virginia, you probably will-- given the right time, place, and situation, you will do something like that.

One fight our society finds itself in, over and over again, is the one between people who believe character is inborn and essential, and those who believe that our characters are actually very susceptible to situational factors.
I find myself firmly in the latter camp.
Why? Because we treat people better when we think like a situationalist, rather than an essentialist. We take each person as an individual.
Stereotypes exist for one reason only: Simplicity and time-saving.

It breaks my heart to see people say "See? He was a weasel all along."
It makes me roll my eyes to hear character predictions based on haircuts and houses.

It's not going to be easy to step back from Cosmo and MySpace, and an entire upbringing of "little things say a lot". Only in fun should you tell a person's personality by handbags or cars or shoes.
Or houses and haircuts.
For the majority of folks on the receiving end of snap shorthand character assessments in the real world, it ain't fun at all.

Because attributing a terrible decision in the essentialist way-- to simplify it down to a fundamental character flaw, and then walk away, never to look back-- not only eliminates the possibility of redemption for the bad actor, but keeps us from confronting the terrible situational truth about all ourselves.

Therefore, it puts us in danger of abandoning each other when we prove to be less than perfect. When we need to band with each other more than ever.

Judge him for the more telling markers of character. Judge him for possibly misusing campaign funds. (He's hiding out until he can come up with some proof he didn't.) Watch to see if he really did abandon his ideals. Wag your finger at his less-than-progressive voting record, and challenge him to live up to his mister-come-lately populism.

So that he may work better with us, and be more fully a member of our team.
A teammate I really wish were out there, making great plays for all to see.

:hide:

[Lisa0825]

1. I mostly compartmentalize politics and sex, but

I resent him for risking our future for a fuck. He knew damned well what would happen if/when he was caught, and he risked US for it.

When it comes to personal lives, I have little compassion for people who are cheaters or who are the "other man/woman." I understand that sometimes the relationship has died long before and the affair could be a symptom rather than cause. And I could perhaps forgive someone who just makes a one time mistake. But I think that people who just cheat because they have a cavalier attitude about commitment are assholes and I have no respect for them. If you just don't want to be fully committed, then DO NOT COMMIT. Find someone who will agree to an open relationship, or don't have one at all.

[MonteLukast]

reply

I think that people who just cheat because they have a cavalier attitude about commitment are assholes and I have no respect for them.

The whole point of the Yahoo article was, you don't have to have a cavalier attitude about commitment to have an affair.
A surprising number of cheaters don't.

I do think he thought he could bury it by using his lawyer skills. That was his MO as a lawyer-- prepare to the hilt and leave no stone unturned.
But he couldn't have picked a looser cannon to have an affair with, and that was only one of his mistakes.

[Lisa0825]

8. In past DU discussions, some folks have argued that cheating is no big deal

and that we should just accept it as normal. As I said, I understand that sometimes cheating is not the main issue, and I believe it is forgivable depending on the circumstances... it is probably more often than not a symptom of a problem rather than the main issue. The ones I cannot accept are those who just don't have a conscience about it, and (in my experience) more men than women disregard commitments for their urges.

[NYCGirl]

2. And what percentage of men pay off their girlfriends with campaign

money?

[MonteLukast]

6. That's the real reason why...

... he can't show his face yet.

He's a lawyer. His business by definition deals in proof. He's staying out of sight until he can prove she was NOT paid with our donated money.
I hope he can do it.

[pengillian101]

35. Exactly!

She received campaign money.

[MonteLukast]

37. I don't want to look at her picture.

I know it's bad form to blame the other woman, but she is a parasite; and due to his basically kindhearted nature, I doubt he truly saw her for the parasite she was until it was too late.

[pengillian101]

46. Sorry, here's another pic, so avert your eyes if you must :-)

(The campaign paid her ~$100,000)

"In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up -- feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself."

He says with this statement and his TV interview he will have nothing further to say on the matter.

According to the Associated Press, Edwards' One America Committee paid $100,000 to Midline Groove Productions on July 6, 2006, five days after Hunter, who had no previous video experience, incorporated the firm in Delaware. She produced four webisodes, one only 150-seconds long.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/edwards-rielle.html

Sorry to prattle on so, but he is the biggest disappointment ever. He was on the campaign trail and thought he could keep this secret in this day and age? He's apparently stupid to boot.

And how he could do this to Elizabeth while battling cancer is just beyond belief.

As far as I care, his political career is over.

[MonteLukast]

48. Escape and distraction...

:puke: :puke: :puke: at what glimpse I had of the picture...

She's the total opposite of his wife. He probably thought she was too dumb to do what she did; (as I did too) and underestimated her craftiness.

At least she wasn't an "upgraded" version of Elizabeth. Affairs tend to be most hurtful when the other woman is a prettier, sexier, and especially more fun and relaxed version of yourself.

What really hurts me is that the baby is named after my real name. Now I will never be friends with the family now, because whether it's his or not, Elizabeth will always associate my name with the child that destroyed her husband's public life. And she's the boss in that family.

I dream about being a good friend and trusted associate of their family. That's a long shot. She's downright delusional if she thinks she can take the place of Elizabeth, at any time. She's stupid as Bridget Moynahan, who thought that having Tom Brady's baby would keep him with her forever and ever, because she's just so extra-special.

Why do women in this day and age still believe such tripe?

[dionysus]

82. no offense but.. are you stalking the edwards' ?!?!

"Now I will never be friends with the family now, because whether it's his or not, Elizabeth will always associate my name with the child that destroyed her husband's public life. And she's the boss in that family.

I dream about being a good friend and trusted associate of their family. "

o..m...g...

[MonteLukast]

89. Don't even know them, probably never will.

Location location location, you know. And EE's blogging has gone dark.
Unless I go to work in DC, it's highly unlikely I'll even breathe on them.

[Redbear]

3. I've known hundreds of people who have had affairs.

and its a very complicated subject

whats fascinating is the number of people who think they would never do it, but then they do.

[MonteLukast]

7. Exactly.

Never underestimate the power of situation.

Frighteningly, this is also true of violent behavior.

[aikoaiko]

4. Which philandering progressive are you being coy about?

:shrug:

[Art_from_Ark]

10. I think the reference is to a recent presidential candidate

from one of those Carolina states

[MonteLukast]

13. Awww, you gave too much away!

;-)

[aikoaiko]

86. I was thinking Spitzer or even Bill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Given US History he will be rehabilitated in time

Today I was at Cosco buying some stuff, and there it was the book

The fall and rise of Teddy Kennedy, the lion of the Senate, or something to that effect

Time... the best antidote

of course it also depends on whether the figure in question wants to enter the arena or not

If he does... will take some time...

[Lyric]

9. I don't care about the affair. That's between him and Elizabeth.

What bothers me is that this was such a critical, life-or-death-for-America election, and he chose to throw his hat in the ring knowing full well that he had that awful skeleton in his closet. What if he had been our nominee, and then THAT came out during the general election? Something that should have been a Democratic landslide could have turned into a McCain victory, and we'd have McCain/Palin fiddling with upper-class tax cuts, while Rome burned to the ground around them.

He wasn't likely to be the nominee, but there was always a chance he could have been selected VP, which might have had the same negative impact.

What he did was selfish. THAT is why I am so ashamed of him. It's not about fidelity--I said Clinton's affair was his own business, and so was this. But Clinton's time wasn't as critical as this election. Clinton didn't literally have the fate of the PLANET on the line when he screwed around with Monica.

Trying to paint it as petty resentment over an affair is simplistic and cheap. It's about service to the country. Gaining power was more important to him than making sure that the nation-wrecking Republicans LOST. That kind of selfishness has no place anywhere near the White House.

[MonteLukast]

12. I think he thought he'd gotten rid of the skeleton.

Gaining power was more important to him than making sure that the nation-wrecking Republicans LOST.

Maybe he felt, he can't have a real populist impact until after he'd gotten enough power?

After all, that's the unspoken message we working stiffs put up with everyday in the workplace... we'll get to do interesting and significant stuff after we get the promotion to management, after the boss gives us the keys to the kingdom. Always "someday", always deferred.

[Chovexani]

54. Narcissism

It's a helluva drug.

[FLyellowdog]

11. I forgave him long ago...

whichever one you're talking about.

[MonteLukast]

14. delete

[DURHAM D]

15. It wasn't the affair - it was his hypocrisy.

He condemned Clinton's affair and seized the moral highground for himself, thus proving what a slime ball he really is.

Personally, I don't think he is worthy of your or my concern.

[MonteLukast]

17. I wouldn't call him a slimeball...

... as much I would call him as naive as the rest of us... thinking he would never do something like that, thinking it would never happen to him. It's probably in fact a testament to how confident he felt in his marriage.

His stance on gay marriage, though; THAT I find censure-worthy. And pathetic. Can't people evolve beyond their backward religious upbringing for a change-- especially when they're married to, and deeply love, such a dyed-in-the-wool progressive herself?

[DURHAM D]

19. You are ignoring the fact that he made those "I am better than Clinton is comments"

while or after his affair. It had already "happened" to him.

Also, I live in his neighborhood and heard many things about him and his behavior going back years. YFTR, everyone here loves Elizabeth.

[MonteLukast]

20. He made those comments after 1998?

I remember his ripping into Clinton in that over-the-top way back then, but not recently...

[DURHAM D]

22. Yes, during the primary in 2008. n/t

[tonysam]

27. That's False.

Try again.

[tonysam]

25. Uh, No He Didn't.

In fact, he defended Clinton during the Lewinsky mess.

Nice try. This person was blackmailed out of the primary race, pure and simple, just when he started getting traction.

He should have handled the controversy from the get-go and could have worked it to his advantage.

[DURHAM D]

30. That new baby makes it hard to work it to his advantage. n/t

[MonteLukast]

40. I wouldn't want to talk about it, either...

... if I were him.

Talk about a fatal case of "he thought it couldn't happen to him", if what I suspect is correct. Seeing a single episode of Jerry Springer ought to clue everybody in to the fact that some people get pregnant accidentally on purpose. I'm going to get flamed for doing so, more than likely; but that woman strikes me as someone who would definitely get at a rich man's money in the surest, most law-bound way possible.

It doesn't even have to be his. To us, it looks enough like it might be his that he's lost credibility.
Remember he wanted the test and she didn't.

He probably thought he was too sophisticated for it to happen to him... that it only happened to lower-class people and immature pro athletes, not sharp lawyers like himself.

Feeling yourself to be in the company of those you find contemptible is poison by itself.

[dionysus]

83. "This person was blackmailed out of the primary race, pure and simple" delusion, it's a

hell of a drug....
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[MonteLukast]

90. That *is* off the mark...

He couldn't win, with or without the problem. And his ambition in the past suggested to me that he would definitely NOT being happy being a running mate again, therefore I didn't want him to be VP.

The Labor Department is where he needs to concentrate.

[dionysus]

96. if he's sincere about that, which i am not sure he is, then he should go for it.

and BTW, i am not a fan of john but EE is great.

[InvisibleTouch]

16. I always felt that those who expressed the most outrage over the matter...

...were the very people who were likely to have done it themselves. I could practically pick them out of the threads. Not just a passing "Gee, I'm disappointed, I thought better of the guy," but a full-blown high-horse moral condemnation. Too much protest.

Myself, I am not a big believer in exclusive relationships, and I think we as a culture take "sexual fidelity" far too seriously, turning it into an ideal that simply isn't attainable in a social primate. (Even those non-human species who are held up as being "monogamous" have been shown to be anything but, when the opportunity arises.) I can accept that a person can love and/or be attracted to more than one individual at a time.

To me, the tragedy was that a Democrat is automatically demonized for something that rethugs have been doing all along. How many rethug leaders are on their third wives, trading in the "old lady" for a younger model? What about the one that served his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital for cancer treatment? That's a lot worse than having an affair! And yet that guy holds his head up in public, while "our" guy is in hiding, his career is over. Now there I could muster some outrage!

[MonteLukast]

18. Somebody just asked me...

... indirectly, why I think he's worthy of my time.

Think of it as my small part in saving his career.

[DURHAM D]

21. Why, do you think he would care about your career? Nope. n/t

[InvisibleTouch]

26. Well, good luck to you.

I'd like to see him back in the fray. But he's going to have to come out of hiding and be confident and bold, and follow up on those plans he had before the whole mess aired. He was working on some important issues, and it's a shame to lose his input. I think Bill Clinton could be a good role model here. He didn't let the finger-waggers keep him down when there was work to be done.

[tonysam]

28. He and Bill Clinton Were Close Friends.

Clinton couldn't say enough about him when he campaigned for Hillary. No, JRE simply should have leveled with the public when he first announced and have gotten the whole thing out of the way. When he didn't, he opened himself to blackmail.

And that's what happened to him...the affair was known about for months among political insiders.

[MonteLukast]

36. And from what I can gather...

... that woman was a master blackmailer.

The sad thing about it is, on one level she's simply a woman who wanted the good life, very badly.

Spending time in the company of those you admire is one way to take on a grander, classier identity of your own. If I were her, I'd certainly want a better identity than that. If I'd worked for him, there's an excellent chance I'd have felt that way-- like I was becoming more special simply by being in the presence of him, and his family. In her own way, Wendy Button fell for it, too.

Nobody likes to sit around and wait for someone else to bless them with the good life and this grander identity. And yet, we're given the message that this is the only socially correct thing to do, this grown-up version of sitting by the phone waiting for the phone call that'll never happen.
We admire the guts of a go-getter, someone who doesn't wait for life to happen to them.
Except when they do it wrong. Then they get nothing but scorn.

I tend to be greedy for life and adventure myself, and she made me feel ashamed to be so. Like it really is better to play the waiting game and make my life smaller, even as I know that feels like death. It's a question I've dealt with for ages: how to be an important part of someone's life without making an ass of yourself... or having to be "the one".

[JI7]

75. they were not close friends, Clinton knew the threat was Obama

in the primary and it wouldn't hurt to talk up anyone other than Obama. from what i understand there is no mention of him in Clinton's book.

[MonteLukast]

45. Jimmy Carter would be better.

Bill Clinton's still too corporatist.
I think a lot of Southern anger toward Clinton was sublimated NAFTA outrage. But people are more comfortable talking about family anxieties than issues that affect your ability to earn a living, so...

I think the disappearance of his projects looked worse than the affair did for his populist image IMO.

[paulsby]

23. so fricking what?

what a bunch of rationalizing crap.

like this

"What the mess this progressive found himself in has shown me is, no matter how old you are, how many years of history you have, no matter even what you've been through before-- you can still succumb to an affair. "

and YOU still have 100% control over whether you succumb or not

ya know? free will, temptation, personal responsibility.

as a guy, i naturally want to schtup anything with a pulse.

that';s biology.

but whether or not i "succumb" or any other man does is entirely WITHIN MY FRIGGING CONTROL.

edwards made a bad choice. i don't think he's a terrible person. i think he's flawed, and he made a big mistake.

that mistake was entirely of his own choosing, and it is entirely up to his wife, if she wants to forgive him for it and/or stay with him or not.

but he IS entirely to blame.

he wasn't drugged with GHB and raped while in a stupor.

he made the frigging choice.

[MonteLukast]

29. Yes, he made the choice...

... and if you've ever tried to change your eating habits, or any bad habit in general, you should know that your 100% control doesn't always come through for you.

And I think culture has a lot more to do with men "wanting to schtup everything with a pulse" than biology does.
Of course, certain specific men feel it more than others, so...

[paulsby]

34. wrong and wrong

first of all, i have HAD to change my eating habits. as a competitive strength athlete.

it sucks, but it was a choice i made

in... my... control.

and it's not culture that makes men want to schtup everything with a pulse. it's thousands of years of evolution

look at evolutionary biology and reproductive strategies.

men can spread their seed.

it's a biological urge.

look at shortened refractory periods when different sex partners are introduced

[ContinentalOp]

24. Oh I think we know plenty about his character...

and it has nothing to do with the affair. I couldn't care less about that. The fact that he would run for President after having that affair reveals his true lack of character. He's a power hungry creep like all of the rest and he knowingly put our party and our entire country in jeopardy to pursue his own personal ambitions. All the while knowing that he had an career-ending skeleton in his closet.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. You mean he shouldn't have run

like when FDR dropped out of the '32 race because he had cheated on Eleanor in the 1910s, and Eisenhower dropped out of the '52 race because of his fling with Kay Sommersby? :shrug:

[JI7]

31. it's not the affair, people think he is a phony, Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer

are examples of people who have credibility on the issues they speak of so people still listen to them on those issues regardless of their personal moral feelings.

people don't feel the same way about the one you are speaking of. in fact many thought he was a phony before the affair and the affair just made everything more sleazier with the campaign funds for the girlfriend and the baby involved that is his and so far he wont acknowledge.

[DURHAM D]

33. I thought he told Elizabeth (acknowledged) his child earlier this month.

In fact, I assumed that fact is what started this thread from out of the ether world.

[JI7]

38. i read about that but it seemed more like blog gossip rather than anything

for sure.

but i'm sure Elizabeth probably knows by now. and the baby looks very much like him. it also said Edwards told because Hunter was upset Elizabeth was going to write something in her book and i guess threatened to go public maybe. i don't know.

[MonteLukast]

42. I still hope it's not his.

Looks of babies don't say much.
He needs real proof. He was willing to provide it. She wasn't.

I loathe H. more every time I read of her. She has a history of burning through money, like Blago. She saw a meal ticket in JE, and was just smart enough to know if she got pregnant, she would trap him into binding financial support.

He's vindicated if the baby's not his-- and she's exposed for the loathsome parasite she is.

[JI7]

47. they decided before that he would offer to take a test and she would refuse

i don't care for hunter and think less of edwards for not just having an affair, but doing it with her.

he has admitted to the affair so i don't know where the vindicated part comes in.

[MonteLukast]

49. I don't believe that such an agreement would take place.

Just because some things in the Enquirer were true (or any other publication) doesn't mean they all are true.

It's a juicy line that supposedly explains everything. But I just don't buy it. Too open-and-shut.

[MonteLukast]

50. We don't trust those...

... who resemble the "motivational speaker" type.

Especially since that type is so heavily favored in sales and customer service jobs at our expense... and the last decade saw the effective conversion of ALL our jobs into sales and customer service jobs. :grr:

He just seemed more than that, somehow.

[Gabi Hayes]

39. don't hear...I can shout you

http://www.kurtericson.com/txroadkill/roadkillaudio/alieninvasion.mp3

[eridani]

41. Guess this is probably the wrong thread for advocating polyamory

No politician active at the national level can ever afford to say "Fuck off, busybodies! We have an arrangement that isn't any of your beeswax." It isn't an easy option, though. As Dylan used to say "To live outside the law you must be honest."

[MonteLukast]

43. I was kind of hoping...

... they'd entered into such an arrangement with the Kerrys in '04. :evilgrin:

Seriously, for a while there, they all worked so well together.

{/perv}

[Chovexani]

55. It's never the wrong thread for that

Then again, someone did actually call me an honest-to-god pervert on a thread about McGreevey having threesomes with his wife and boyfriend. Like, insultingly and totally serious-like.

That may have been my proudest ever moment on DU. And I'm not even lying.

[MonteLukast]

57. It's fiction, but...

... I think you'd like the polifics Livejournal community. (as well as other similar sites) Lots of pervy goodness there.

[Chovexani]

59. You say that like I'm not already reading it on my Friends page.

:hide:

[eridani]

62. Wasn't the McGreevey thing non-consensual?

Not our polyamory poster children if so.

[Chovexani]

63. It was a classic case of he said/she said, really.

It's been a while, but from what I remember she was very publicly wearing the mantle of the aggrieved wife, but one of Jim's boyfriends was saying she was full of shit and regularly joined in with them. This is when she was pushing her book, and after that we didn't hear anything else on it.

I don't think we'll ever get the truth about that situation (whether anyone besides Jim, Dina and their children deserve it is a topic for another time). My objections weren't necessarily about the specific situation, more that so many DUers were hyperventilating and pearl-clutching over something that is really fairly common. People were ready to stone all three of them, which I thought was just plain weird for a supposedly progressive site.

[MonteLukast]

65. It goes along with our habit of...

... disposing of people.

Our bosses dispose of us; we dispose of anybody who doesn't measure up in our own lives.

People say that children of abusers become abusers themselves; and it never looked quite that linear a relationship to me; but as far as the disposing of other people goes, it works exactly that way.

[EFerrari]

44. The agreements between two people about their marriage

are none of my business.

[GaYellowDawg]

51. It's not the sex itself that's the disqualifier for me, it's the judgement.

If you're a political candidate for office in the United States, it is stupid to have an affair.

STUPID.

STUPID.

STUPID.

You know why? Because it will ALWAYS be found out. Always. And someone will ALWAYS go to the media with it, because s/he is outraged or wants the publicity or for money or for politics. And it ALWAYS does damage, not just to the candidate, but to the candidate's causes, no matter how noble, and to the political party. It's really stupid that it does damage to the candidate's causes - it's a circumstantial ad hominem - but regardless of the fact that it's stupid, that's what happens, and a politician or political candidate knows that.

That said, with Edwards, there was the additional disappointment of what he'd done to Elizabeth. Much of my admiration for John Edwards was tied up in the kind of woman he's married to. The worst thing, though, was that it was stupid, and damaged his causes. Advocacy for the poor went into the toilet because it was his main issue.

[MonteLukast]

52. And that's why...

... I'm trying my small part to bring him back.

And hopefully, doing my small part in the much more arduous task of changing the American response to candidates who stray.

I wish I were a family friend. I wish I'd known them for years, and that I was trusted enough to help them work this out.

[Chovexani]

53. Some thoughts. Forgive me if I ramble a bit.

Edit: I refuse to touch the Edwards issue with a 10' pole, it's old news, that flame war was had and fought valiantly, the dead horse sent to the glue factory. I'm speaking of John and Jane Q Public with the following. Run of the mill people who are not running for office and have the political angle to add to it.

As someone who is rather militantly polyamorous, I'm just sort of baffled and saddened by prevailing attitudes on relationships in our society, and wonder why people are so fucking surprised when all this Puritan-born dysfunction comes to light in the way of affairs and the like. Keep in mind when you read this, that I'm coming from the position of someone who does not do monogamy well at all--been there, done serial monogamy, failed horribly, got the t-shirts. I was much, much happier when I learned there was another way of doing things that would be a lot better for me.

This is not to say polyamory is inherently superior (what's good for Chovexani and her harem of nubile ladies and gents is not necessarily good for all!), or that polys do not have our share of emotionally damaged narcissists, co-dependants, and the like--but I think that there are certain things polys get very right, ideals that we generally hold as a community even if we don't always live up to them, that monos would do well to learn from us. For instance, the importance of communication, and the idea that it is the foundational element of a good relationship. Way too many people are stuck in miserable het relationships because they have swallowed this Martian vs. Venetian melodrama packaged and sold by the self-help, Dr. Oprah industry and ladyrags that men and women are inherently "different", are incapable of understanding each other, and that clearly communicating needs and wants is something to be avoided. And I have way too many mono friends of every orientation asking me for advice about various things in their relationships when 99% of the time it's a conversation they need to be having with their partner if they really want to solve it. Seriously, why are you asking the Slut-geon General what to do about your man not picking up after himself, or how to deal with your lady hollering at you about doing XYZ hobby all the time. Fucking tell him to pick up after himself. Talk to her and see if y'all can't come up with a decent compromise about how you spend your free time. This should not be rocket science, really.

I also feel like this codependent "two halves of one whole" nonsense our society pushes leads to an inordinate amount of pressure on people, and I think folks would do well to leave this in the 1950s where it belongs. Personally, I'd like to think I'm not half a person. I've always felt 1 + 1 = 2 is a far better equation than .5 +.5 = 1. Expecting a single person to fulfill all your needs in life is batshit insane and patently unfair. Even for people who are strictly monogamous and are not necessarily prepared or willing to negotiate for having needs met by other romantic partners, shit, you each need to have your own life outside the relationship. My last boyfriend drove me up the goddamn wall because when I wasn't with him, he was calling me constantly or waiting for me to get online. Anything I did, he had to do. My circle of friends became his circle of friends. It's like he had no identity outside of "Chovexani's boyfriend". That kind of thing can lead to a lot of bitterness and resentment, and when you couple that with outside factors and a healthy dose of human fragility it's like a molotov cocktail of WHOREON (apply directly to the crotch).


The tl;dr version: this article is really interesting but in general I don't think conversations about why people cheat are usually constructive, because they never seem to question the accepted, conventional wisdom behind monogamous relationships. They never go after the sacred cows people hold and set themselves up for failure with. Please, please don't mistake this for me blaming the victim. Cheating is an inherently selfish, douchey act and IMO there is no good excuse for it. That said, the fact that I had to include such a disclaimer on this post is an indicator of how fucked up our national dialogue is on this. Anyone who points out the emperor has no clothes is seen as a no good slut and a cheater apologist. I will gladly--even proudly--cop to the former but I'll be damned if I'll take the latter.

I think there would be a lot less cheating across the board if people felt more free to talk about their wants, needs, and expectations without a whole lot of judgey societal bullshit. When we expect every relationship to fit into the same cookie cutter mold, is it any wonder half are doomed for failure?

[MonteLukast]

56. Very intelligently said! Thank you.

I wholeheartedly support the questioning of sacred cows. I make it a point to do it on a regular basis.
The problem is, it's had the effect of making me just a wee bit of a social outcast. ;-) Comfortability is, regrettably, still Job One in relationship building; and one way to foment comfort in everyday life is, of course, swallowing the conventional wisdom whole. :eyes:

I guess the problem with relationships arises when you're in someone's circle of friends, but you're not THE partner. You get jealous, wondering "what's wrong with me that SHE is his life partner and not me?" and "If I'm more attractive, confident and fun than him, I will become her favorite". There are certain experiences that "the one" has that other friends, no matter how dear, don't have; and you start to get resentful because it's the experiences you want, and you can't get them because of who you are... and all anybody tells you in everyday life is to suck it up and move on.

To me the solution would be, finding a way to be active and attract lots of life experiences whether or not you're ever deemed someone's "one".
You certainly would not do what H did, try to shoehorn your way into someone's life without regard for anyone else or the foundation already in place. The problem is that we do a lousy job of teaching a newcomer how to graciously join an established social group, and that has as much to do with that dratted comfortability as anything else.

A lot of times I curse the fact that we are social beings. As such, we roll over like lapdogs in the face of "judgey societal bullshit".

[Chovexani]

58. I tend to choke on conventional wisdom myself

Else it just gives me indigestion when I force it on myself. :P

I totally get what you mean about that weird, delicate balance of a social group. I think at the root of a lot of this stuff is just plain human insecurity. Loads of people are not content to simply be happy with themselves and their own accomplishments and talents, but play a constant game of oneupmanship with folks. A lot of them aren't even aware that they're doing it. It's lizard brain stuff. "I'm lame but I bet if I did x, y, z, dated So-and-So, drove this car, people would think I'm awesome". Even tightly knit circles of friends can succumb to this, as I found out last year when a close friend quite literally flipped the fuck out me out of nowhere. This chick just could not deal with the fact that she couldn't replace me in our circle of friends when I moved away. Mind you, this chick is a social butterfly (I decidedly am not), is extremely connected in our local fandom community, and is the last person in NYC working for a large media conglomerate who is still employed. But she couldn't deal with the best friends I've had for going on 13 years constantly talking about how much they missed me (she's known them about half that long).

I also know a lot of people who are just plain miserable unless they have a partner, who will drive themselves crazy to find one when they're single. Because they don't have confidence in their own ability to make themselves happy, and they aren't comfortable with just plain "Me". That kind of mentality can wreak havoc on all kinds of relationships, whether they're romantic or platonic. The friend I mentioned? Also this sort, to a tee. I don't think it's coincidental.

I read self-help books a lot of times for a good cheap laugh, and in nearly every "how to get over a breakup" book, there is ALWAYS advice to take time to nurture yourself and your own interests, like taking up a new hobby, and the like. And it's always coming from the angle of cleaning yourself up so someone will want you again, never just doing it for your own sake. I always have to scratch my head and yell at the book, "why the HELL are you not doing that 24/7/365 regardless of relationship status?! What kind of dry assed toast person are you?!"

Our culture puts such a crazy amount of emphasis on romantic love like it's the end-all, be-all of life, that it creates an obscenely intense pressure to be partnered, particularly for hetero women (who are, after all, worthless without a man!). People make that their focus in life instead of how to be a good person, for themselves and for people outside of the narrow "people I'd like to fuck and/or marry" pool. Then they wonder why they end up either miserable and alone, or making their partners miserable.

[EFerrari]

60. There was this great out lesbian teacher at the JC I went to at 16.

She chewed on a pipe in public and more or less terrorized the rest of this campus just by breathing. Once, after listening to someone regurgitate some conventional wisdom about fidelity in class, she took her pipe out of her mouth, looked straight at the student and said,"what two people agree to is a marriage". We were all dumbstruck.

lolol

[Manifestor_of_Light]

69. Excellent posts, Montelukast and Chovexani.

Great discussions.

Yes, our society chews people up and throws them away. Marx probably had insight into that, or Chomsky.

My mom and grandmom were champion worrywarts. Worry all the time about me, what if this happened, that happened, yada yada. Worried about what people think.

My father who was very wise, said, "Most people are worried about what you think of THEM, because they are self centered."

And mom and grandmom would just sit there with mouths hanging open, gobsmacked. :evilgrin:

People try to impress others, and who is watching them anyway? Probably nobody.

And, yes, monogamy is not the right framework for a lot of people.

If two people can be friends and realize that one person cannot satisfy your social needs, and communicate, they might have a chance.

I've been in several bad relationships with men (I'm a hetero female) where all they did was criticize me, and everything I did, constantly. A lot of people out there do nothing but criticize everyone and everything in their environment, instead of trying to relate to others and be supporting. And then they act shocked when I broke up with them for my own sanity.

Those relationships are living death. Too damn many control freaks out there. :banghead:

[MonteLukast]

73. The only problem with the...

... subject of this thread, is that they were an example of monogamy that could be exciting and uplifting.

What is the most bothersome thing about monogamy? The traditional gender roles it gradually nudges you into, especially when kids arrive.

The Edwardses were true equals; it seemed (and still may be) a real feminist, egalitarian marriage. I was pleased seeing the studies saying that equal marriages were happier and healthier, after seeing so many studies saying that traditional ones were happier. Of course, I don't know if things were really that egalitarian around the kids, because, obviously, I don't see them up close-- but the cancer introduced an inequality into the relationship.

It always mystified me why a man with such a wonderful, equal partnership, a partner in every sense of the word; would fall for a woman who was clearly powerless, skill-less and shallow; in other words, a very negatively traditional sort. The answer must be: the great demon, comfortability.
On some visceral level, we think of H types as being easy to get along with. And above all, "fun". The great appeal of a bimbo is her appearance of likeability and approachability. Complex, richly textured women are less comfortable. They require-- no, demand more thought and heart of you.

JE succumbed to the pull of comfortability, and I want to slap him for that. He was a coward in the face of his wife's cancer, shirking at up-till-then excellent track record of communication. He probably also thought, "I'm different from the other guys, I'm progressive and sophisticated; this won't happen to me", so he displayed a naivete that's pathetic in somebody who's supposed to have strong instincts about people, as good lawyers are.

Of course, if you're dealing with an especially manipulative sort (like H?) your defenses may be broken down...

[MedleyMisty]

76. I just wanted to say thanks for saying that polyamory doesn't work for everyone

Monogamy actually does work quite well for me and my husband, but when the topic comes up I feel like people think that there is something wrong with me for liking monogamy - I was actually accused once of being a rigid fundie when I'm actually quite the raging atheist.

For me, the big deal in relationships is honesty. Thus I don't like cheating. Have all the partners you want as long as you're honest about it and not betraying someone who thinks that you're being faithful.

We randomly got married, mostly for tax and legal reasons, in a drive-thru chapel in Gatlinburg. We don't wear rings. I didn't change my last name. He does 98% of the housework. Neither of us want to have kids, ever. We are both very atheist. Neither of us really give a shit about what society thinks or "expectations" or "gender roles" or any of that shit. We just both want one life partner.

I realize that the insults and assumptions and generalizations that I get for being monogamous are tiny in comparison to what you probably get as poly and that actually a lot of what I get probably comes from the frustration of people who are more like you in a society that seems to be built more for people like me. But still, it is frustrating to be called a religious fundamentalist sexist prude just on the basis that I am happy with only one partner. Honestly, I have not been attracted to anyone else since I met him and the idea of sex with someone other than him really squicks me out. But that's how I am, and other people are different.

As far as the OP goes - different people have different levels of impulse control and ego strength. Like once I read this book called something like "Going to Get My Baby Out of Jail". The protagonist was a woman who didn't really have a developed sense of self and just let things happen to her, like an affair. Then the person she was having the affair with killed her husband. By the end of the book, she's starting to develop some and realizes how she had just sort of drifted along and let things happen and let other people make her choices for her.

Oh, and I got your Lich King joke in the thread about the Pope. :) Haven't played in a while, though.

[MonteLukast]

97. Impulse control and ego strength...

And look at what it took to crack his foundation in those, too. Look at all he went through before.
I think the cancer was the straw breaking the camel's back. It might be in fact a testament to the strength of their marriage: I can survive losing my son and an election, but I can't deal with losing my mate-- got to get away, got to do something, ANYTHING to keep me from thinking about this. I can't face my mate, because she's the one passing into unrecognizability... I don't know where we stand anymore.

I fault him for losing his heart at this stage. When it comes to communicating about traumatic experiences with your mate, there is no exception when your mate happens to be the one going through too many changes for you to handle. He wimped out and took the comfortable route instead if the courageous one. I understand where he came from, but that doesn't excuse him.

[Ex Lurker]

61. OTOH I know of a case where a boss had an affair with

a subordinate, and walked out on his wife and three kids, the youngest of whom was two years old at the time. Did I mention his wife also worked at the same company, and this all went on under her nose? Anyway, the two cheaters have been married for about 15 years and have two more kids of their own. They appear to be happy, and are active churchgoers. I still think they're both scumbags and wouldn't trust either one as far as I can throw them.

[MonteLukast]

64. All I know is...

... if I were JE, I'd feel like blowing my brains out.

Your heart, mind and voice are your most precious gifts as a human. If I were facing the prospect of nobody every caring about what I had to say again, I'd feel like I had no purpose in life anymore.

Some people get a taste of public life and it gets in their blood, and they never want to let it go. To know that there's so much good you could have done, and not be able to do it, eats away at your soul.

And to know that the cause is someone who took advantage of your kindness and your weak moments to get hers... and worst of all, not being able to make a convincing case for yourself despite your years of lawyers' training...

I know that he's not the only one. I know that there are others to take his place. Hell, Andrew Cuomo is very nicely filling in the gaps Spitzer left. But a lifetime of enforced idleness is worse than death, especially if you were bitten by the public service bug.

Part of the reason I defend him is because he's so illustrative. I've got the idea that we'll all learn how to treat each other better if we can figure out how to bring him back into the fold.

[dionysus]

80. he didn't feel bad until he got busted.

[MonteLukast]

95. People who feel bad often don't show it.

If people can read your emotions like a book, than 99% of the world's population is better at concealing them than you are.

[Kitty Herder]

66. "Accidental" affair?

"Oh, honey, I'm sorry, I tripped and my dick just landed there?"

There is not such thing as an accidental affair. It is always a choice.

[MonteLukast]

67. By "accidental", I think the author simply meant...

... an affair you don't start out intending to have.

[Kitty Herder]

68. Yes, but it sounds like the author is trying to take responsibility

off the backs of those who cheat.

Cheaters are responsible for the massive damage they cause to their families whether they set out with the intention of cheating or not.

[MonteLukast]

70. And that's why he was stupid...

... to think he was immune.

Sorry for the unfortunate implications of pushing responsibility-- I think the main purpose of the article is to puncture some myths about why people cheat, and to warn us all not to get too confident that we will always be able to resist. That to be wary of everyday situations where one thing leads to another, and before you know it, you're doing something that's going to destroy your family and your reputation.

That's the way it happens for basically decent-hearted people who cheat. Not all cheaters are callous and habitual about it, or see their spouse as someone to get away from.

[MountainLaurel]

84. I was wondering about that too

An accident is when a tree falls on your car, not when you fuck a person other than your spouse.

[MonteLukast]

91. Maybe I should change that word in the OP?

Because so many people are misunderstanding it.

[Smith_3]

71. Another attempt to talk down Bill's major fuckups in order to be able to keep blaming Nader. nt

[JI7]

74. no

[Naturyl]

72. He screwed up royally... but who hasn't?

I feel like he's done his time, now.

Wouldn't mind seeing him start becoming visible again. He's not a perfect guy (who is?), but his voice is needed.

[dionysus]

77. yeah, smoove johnny "accidentally" cheated on his terminally ill wife... hooookay

:rofl:

[MonteLukast]

78. Did you *read* the OP?

It uses the word "accidentally" in a different context than you think.

[dionysus]

79. yeah, i did read it. it's funny to me whenever someone tries to rehabilitate the phoney ass scumbag

he was a fake populist on top of all that. you got played...

[MonteLukast]

88. Laugh away.

Things aren't always what they seem.

Throwing people away is what the righties do. Not me.

[tritsofme]

81. I hope John has a long and fruitful career in the private sector.

And that he stays very far away from politics.

[C......N......C]

85. Mating is natural. That is nature. That is what fills the world.

Besides affairs there are other things that are wrong, but don't deserve the death sentence. There should be some way to discourage it, but it is going to happen again, probably. Why ? That is nature. If you are a Catholic, you go to confession and say you are sorry and that is that. I respect women's feelings more than any other thing in the world. That is why I don't cheat. But that is probably my only virtue. I have more disdain for guys that cheat than girls. Girls do all the work with the least credit and they need positive reinforcement. Everybody gets married again or stays married. What's the point in punishing for it? But I do agree with you.

[Kalyke]

87. Personally, I think he's just smarmy all the way around.

And, yes, I will judge him for this.

I don't understand why Elizabeth stays with him - she's not trapped by finances.

I got rid of a cheating spouse when I was a stay-at-home Mom earning about $300 a month freelancing. If I can do it, a more well-off woman can. There is no reason for women to perpetuate the belief that men cheating is "normal" or "ok" and teach this to their daughters (and I would guess this goes for cheating wives, too, but, despite the sexual revolution, they still don't cheat as often).

[MonteLukast]

93. Because they love each other?

And because this behavior was not a pattern on his part, like it was with Clinton.

The interloper was sent packing a long time ago.
It sounds like she started out as someone who needed to get back on her feet-- and in this day, anyone who gives you a good, well-paying job is your savior!-- and both Es were generous and hospitable. And what did she do? She stabbed them in the back, especially EE, so that she could get hers.

The saddest thing of all is that EE will probably never be quite her generous self again. She will always be a little more wary, a litlte more cynical, a little bit more reluctant to help anyone down on their luck... this at a time when we all need to be mroe generous with each other than ever.

The conservatives love it when someone takes advantage of liberals' hospitality... it gives them a chance to say, "I told you so".

[BlueIris]

92. Thanks for that post. Very informative.

Terribly sorry for the loss you allude to, by the way. That's the worst thing for a family to go through.

[MonteLukast]

94. ((hugs you))

I feel so alone in my point of view on this. I'm certainly in the minority here, who thinks he should be brought back instead of left to rot in the curb.

Thanks for the kudos.

[SammyWinstonJack]

98. I think he should never have been run off in the first place.

I will always support him. :thumbsup: