Posted on 07/16/2004 5:06:01 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The author must have been out of towm or under a rock during the clinton presidency. This was all blamed on lewinsky for "seducing" clinton.
Sorry, but, I am a man and I am married. If I ever decided to have an affair (which I wouldn't because I love my wife dearly) why would I not be the one blamed. If I lied, tricked, deceived and pursued a single woman into bed with me, with my marital status unbeknownst to her, why is she to blame?
See that's the problem, people are so quick to go after the woman. That's what I don't understand. If it is rape, the strategy is to discredit the woman, if it is an affair as stated above, it is the woman's fault. You know that is the one thing that made my blood boil with the whole Clinton/Lewinsky fling...the press attacked her. Granted she is no innocent, but the insults, slurs and harrassment that she suffered as a result, while Clinton basically had no backlash was unbelievable. Anyone remember the 'portly pepperpot' descriptiuon added to her name in just about every news article? did anyone, anyone ever ask Clinton ...Hey you were married, why did you pursue this young intern? Why couldn't you keep it in your pants? He even talks about it in his book, like it was no big deal. he had to sleep on the couch for awhile...big deal.
Speaking as a father of a young girl, I truly think the world would be a better place if a greater percentage of the men in this world kept "it" in their pants.
>>Husbands cheat, pianos can't.<<
So if I want to steal your piano but cannot get it out the door, I am innocent?
We used to look down on women who attempted to steal a woman's husband. All women looked down on them. Now they are justified? You seem to be saying that this is all on the man, who I will admit is a creep, but if you don't want to eat junk food, you keep it out of the house. If women still stood by each other and did not go after other women's husband's, a cheating husband would have no one to cheat with.
What about the women who attempt to have affairs with men who are strong and do not cheat? I had an Aunt who did everything but rape my Dad. She was going through a tough time in her life and my Mom moved her in with them. My Dad finally had to tell my Mom what was going on with her sister and my Mom threw her out. Was she innocent?
>>If I lied, tricked, deceived and pursued a single woman into bed with me, with my marital status unbeknownst to her, why is she to blame? <<
I agree. But I know of three marriages which were broken or threatened to be broken because of women who knew the men were married but didn't care.
Do you think Monica didn't know Bill was married? She was young and stupid but gee....
If Monica Lewinsky were to have stolen Hillary Clinton's watch .............
At least she would have had something worth a damn.
See, that's my point. Your mom and sister were obligated to each other. The aunt broke the sister bond. Shrillary and Monica had no bond, they were nothing to each other. Bubba, on the other hand, did had a bond with his wife and the nation. Of course Monica and your aunt are not innocent but that's apples and oranges. As for the Commandment, it was that a man may not covet his neighbor's wife. Rather sexist but there's nothing there about a single woman going after a married man. And if I remember correctly from Catechism class, it is the married person who commits adultery but not the single person because the married person has the commitment of marriage whereas the single person doesn't.
ANY sex outside of marriage is a sin . IMHO
Of course she knew he was married, but if memory serves me correctly, she was basically put to blame by the media. It takes two to tango as someone else said in another post and the general perception was that she caused this, she should have known Willie couldn't keep his trousers on and not put herself in that position. Which is a load of crap if you ask me. She may have been willing, but Willie was the aggressor.
Plus, yes, she was young and stupid, but he should have known better
Let me point out that there are a number of women who don't seem to WANT to feel sexy in their husbands' arms, much less anyone else's. Women are fools if they think they can cut their men off from sexual intimacy for months at a time, and not run the risk of them looking elsewhere. You can say anything you want about what men SHOULD do in such a case, but it's like spitting in the wind, given the power of the male sexual drive.
-ccm
Ridiculous. It's the man who signed the covenant, not the girl.
Oh please. Hillary's "reptilian nature" is hardly speculative; she accepted ongoing philandering in exchange for power. The only legitimate pain she experienced at the time was that of despot who feels his power slipping away; not that of a woman scorned.
I understand the good Rabbi's point, but the Clinton's are hardly an appropriate example of the pain of infidelity.
WHAT ABOUT APOLOGIZING FOR RUINING LINDA TRIPP"S LIFE??? GEEZ! the arrogance! the misdirection of a shallow and vain and vacuous life!!! tripp has a so-called friend tell her all kinds of ILLEGALITIES and then makes her swear, complete with veiled threats, not to tell THE TRUTH in court!!!! WHAT ABOUT HER?
So if lifelong companion doesn't provide same, it's OK to have an affair then?
"But when she took away a woman's husband"
But she RETURNED HIM! (maybe a little worse for the wear)
/smirk
In the olden days when adultery was taken seriously, a participant in adultery could be sued for "alienation of affection".
Why not today ?
sex is a desire, not a need. In marriage it is also a right, but it comes with a lot of responsibility. 'Months at a time' or not, 'looking elsewhere' is wrong.
Dr. Laura makes that point often. She chastises women who, after having their first child, seem to lose interest in sex. "Why should he stop being a man because YOU decide he's done his duty, fathered a child, and he can now step to the back of the bus?" She blames women for the break-up of marriages after children come along because women hide behind their children to stop being the wives their husbands married.
Men should certainly not be looking elsewhere, but it should surprise no one that they do, if their women try to turn them into monks.
Well of course it is and I never said it wasn't. That does nothing to change the facts of biology and evolutionary psychology.
My point is, a woman who cuts her husband off from sex for months at a time, and expects the man's sense of right and wrong to keep him out of the arms of other women, is taking a serious risk. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's the way it always was and always will be. You can huff and puff about how wrong or wicked it is all you like, and be perfectly correct, and yet not change the behavior of men one iota.
-ccm
Its human nature. The alienation of affections can sprout from what seems at the time the most inconsequential thing in the world imaginable...
It's obvious: We need a constitutional amendment against adultery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.