Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Neither of the examples you gave are good role models. Do you think of role models as someone that would cheat on their spouse and is dis-honest? I personally think Bill Clinton is the scumn of the earth. I feel the same about any person that would get on national TV and lie to the American public.
One other thing that comes to mind. Since Bill Clinton occupied the White House, I will never again look at a cigar the same as I did before his presidency. I always thought a cigar's primary purpose was for smoking. I had always thought oral sex was still a form of sex, but according to Bill Clinton we should place about the same importance on oral sex as we do a hand shake. Craezy, is the word you think of...
One other thing that comes to mind. Since Bill Clinton occupied the White House, I will never again look at a cigar the same as I did before his presidency. I always thought a cigar's primary purpose was for smoking. I had always thought oral sex was still a form of sex, but according to Bill Clinton we should place about the same importance on oral sex as we do a hand shake. Craezy, is the word you think of...
Well, first of all Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy were horrible presidents, and did much to destroy America. Clinton only looks good because of the creatures who followed him.
That said, the French have had extramarital affairs, forever, and it seems to work for them. They see their marriages as partnerships and alliances, and are far less idealistic than are Americans.
DH and I are both extremely fit, and have been hit-on by some extremely desirable people over the years. But our marriage is too important to us, and too thrilling for us, to risk messing things up. In the final analysis, what we mean to each other, and what we want out of life (ever-upward mobility) for ourselves and our children, are more important than thrills with hardbodies from the gym. So, we just weave those people into our very rich shared sexual fantasy life.
But that's easy for me, since DH is tall, lean, hairy as a Werewolf, and packin' like a Clydesdale. With a lesser man at home, I might be tempted to carry on with some twentysomething who's pulling up his shirt to let me see his rippling abs.
At this point, though, if DH turned out to be having an affair, I'd take it in stride. The marriage has given me everything. I'd be a pitiful Troll...single...alone...broke... working in some office for ten dollars an hour, somewhere, if he hadn't come along when we were seventeen. So how could I be so petty as to resent any adventures at this point?
(besides, I'm still getting it twice a day, and last month he left a new Ghost in the bay of our garage where I was expecting to find my Cayenne...so why should I worry?)
Back to the French, though: They live in a dying nation. They have nothing to look forward to, but the darkness descending over Europe. Free speech is dead there. Sexual expression is about all they have left. I sincerely wish them all the pleasures and thrills they can have, in the few good years that remain to them. And again: affairs have long been an expectation in their culture. They handle it differently than we do here (they also traditionally handled food, decoration, fashion, and architecture better than anyone else in the world....turning what would otherwise be ugly into things of beauty and joy....so why wouldn't they be the world's best at handling extramarital affairs?).
Bill Clinton a role model? Yeah if getting it one with a nasty intern is a role model build to it.
I don't see how an affair could be helpful to any relationship. Besides its the french... In the last 80 years they have been more wrong than right about anything based on any sort of reality.
Wonder how you came to that conclusion? Could have sworn the more reserved and puritan Anglos had a far higher divorce rate.
In France sensuality is fun.....
Get your standards from God and his Word (The Bible) , and not from Men/Women who are narcisstic , dont care about morality or personal integrity, and view other human beings as a means for a temporary copulation then disposing of them. And dont listen to French Psychologists who want to gain popularity for financial gain by giving the Masses a license to take sexual hedonism deeper. Stand on godly values and youll never be sorry you did --- listen to the latest whimsical abberrant philosophy to come down the pike , and youll be like a ship without a rudder navigating your way thru 33 current STD's of which most are permanent / two being fatal ...shared amongst over 40,000,000 adult Americans . Theres no better time in history than to live for God .
Get some help on the matter from the Catholic preists whom after all have plenty in their flock who have rather a lot of experience on the matter of things sexual.
at least the French are not hypo critical when it comes to sex.
Wonder how you came to that conclusion? Could have sworn the more reserved and puritan Anglos had a far higher divorce rate.
In France sensuality is fun.....
Well in the pasts france has made several contributions to the world. They were known for their art and literature, their architecture, science - metric system. They made contributions to culinary arts... The perfected it.
However since Word war one they haven't had much to offer in any of the above mentioned areas and perhaps even regressed some.
You can't base your argument or "logic" on divorce rates alone. Nor religious views. One must also consider culture of the county you are comparing to figure in your divorce factors. Also if you want to use divorce as the basis of the argument you should also methodologically figure cause for divorce. How often is infidelity a factor? How often is finical issues or abuse or boredom a factor?
Again infidelity is not the sole cause for divorce...
Get some help on the matter from the Catholic preists whom after all have plenty in their flock who have rather a lot of experience on the matter of things sexual.
at least the French are not hypo critical when it comes to sex.
I haven't been able to find a serious and comprehensive review of this book -- and to that extent wish to qualify my comment -- but based on that article and the measly two reviews that are up on the French Amazon, it is this book that's hypocritical.
After all, it is a well-known fact by now that women enjoy sex as much as men, and are just as "naturally" inclined to getting sexually bored in long-term relationships, cheating and having multiple sex partners. Both men and women equally desire faithfulness in their spouses. And yet, this book argues (again, according to the article) that it is men -- not women -- who should be left alone to do whatever the hell they want because they want to do it. The unspoken premise on which the author bases this argument is that men are entitled to follow their desires and urges, whereas women are obligated to suppress theirs; and that men's desire for faithful wives has legitimacy and value, whereas women's desire for faithful husbands is just some controlling, b/tchy foolishness. This is a blast from the past -- it's not something new or controversial; just annoying.
Not only is this book profoundly sexist -- it seems, not surprisingly, profoundly stupid. The author makes an extraordinary claim: that men's affairs aren't merely to be tolerated, but are actually good for marriage. And yet, as far as can be gleaned from the article, she doesn't explain how that's so; instead, she calls upon women to just suck it up. That kind of crazy logic, however, can be applied to any other kind of misconduct. Not happy your husband slaps you around? If you just accept it as something inevitable, instead of whimpering and complaining, your marriage will feel a lot happier -- to your abuser, that is. Physical abuse is good for marriage that way!
The book also seems like a typical exercise in denial. We frequently hear, even on this board, that infidelity on the part of men is supposedly less serious because men just do it for sex, and still love their wives. But we also frequently hear -- at least I do, with some regularity -- that men and women express love in different ways: women by talking and men by doing. And this begs the question: what actions by men who habitually cheat on their wives demonstrate that they in fact love the women they are married to? What does their "love" actually consist of? Not leaving? Sorry: merely being attached to the comforts of married life doesn't amount to love, or even loyalty. Buying their wives chocolates and jewelry? That doesn't cut it either, since those men probably do the same for their mistresses, often more so than for their wives. Having sex with their wives? Again, they do the same with their mistresses.
I don't know whether the author of this book explains what she understands "love" to be. But it seems to me, there is no more convincing way to show love than to forsake all others, completely, and to put that love above one's sexual urges, opportunity or personal sense of entitlement -- at least most of the time. In the immortal words of Choderlos de Laclos (A Frenchman! AND a devoted family man, from what I can tell): "Love and vanity don't mix." What is to be said of love in the author's world, when she argues, essentially, that it is unthinkable to expect a man to give something up -- anything -- for the sake of the woman he claims to love? "Love" that can't withstand the idea of restraint, "love" that's so feeble, it takes a back seat to one's sense of entitlement or desire for fleeting, superfluous gratification -- it isn't love at all; it's a sham, an illusion.
I have often gotten into arguments on this board over the mainstream American view of infidelity, which is in many ways disingenuous, myopic and rigid to the point of absurdity. But this book represents the other extreme -- the traditional, patriarchal view of the genders, which is curious in the fundamental contradictions implicit in its view of men: the portrayal of men is simultaneously extremely negative (they are presented as consummate liars, incapable of loyalty to women, and thus -- the inference is unspoken, but it's certainly very much a part of the patriarchal culture -- a woman would be foolish to EVER trust a man, ANY man, even a husband) and at the same time nonsensical (the argument is that men can engage in bad behavior without being bad, so it's okay for them).
Lastly: I speak French, I studied in France, I've read tons of French books, and I think I'm well-familiar with French culture. And I have to say, from my perspective, when French politicians or other public figures get mistresses, it's not really about sex. Rather, they fulfill their egos, bloated by social expectation. To them, having a string of mistresses is pretty much like owning a luxury car: you should have those things to show people what a big shot you are. This has little to do with "Puritanism" and more to do with the differences between American and French political cultures. In America, it's being (or pretending to be) "one of the people" that makes a politician attractive to voters; in France, it's pursuing a high-falutin' lifestyle fitting for an Ancien Regime aristocrat. And what about the mass of ordinary French people? As far as I can tell, though infidelity is often portrayed in a dismissive and light-hearted fashion in French cinema, in real life, it's taken very seriously -- and once found out, almost always leads to a complete breakdown of the relationship.
I haven't been able to find a serious and comprehensive review of this book -- and to that extent wish to qualify my comment -- but based on that article and the measly two reviews that are up on the French Amazon, it is this book that's hypocritical.
After all, it is a well-known fact by now that women enjoy sex as much as men, and are just as "naturally" inclined to getting sexually bored in long-term relationships, cheating and having multiple sex partners. Both men and women equally desire faithfulness in their spouses. And yet, this book argues (again, according to the article) that it is men -- not women -- who should be left alone to do whatever the hell they want because they want to do it. The unspoken premise on which the author bases this argument is that men are entitled to follow their desires and urges, whereas women are obligated to suppress theirs; and that men's desire for faithful wives has legitimacy and value, whereas women's desire for faithful husbands is just some controlling, b/tchy foolishness. This is a blast from the past -- it's not something new or controversial; just annoying.
Not only is this book profoundly sexist -- it seems, not surprisingly, profoundly stupid. The author makes an extraordinary claim: that men's affairs aren't merely to be tolerated, but are actually good for marriage. And yet, as far as can be gleaned from the article, she doesn't explain how that's so; instead, she calls upon women to just suck it up. That kind of crazy logic, however, can be applied to any other kind of misconduct. Not happy your husband slaps you around? If you just accept it as something inevitable, instead of whimpering and complaining, your marriage will feel a lot happier -- to your abuser, that is. Physical abuse is good for marriage that way!
The book also seems like a typical exercise in denial. We frequently hear, even on this board, that infidelity on the part of men is supposedly less serious because men just do it for sex, and still love their wives. But we also frequently hear -- at least I do, with some regularity -- that men and women express love in different ways: women by talking and men by doing. And this begs the question: what actions by men who habitually cheat on their wives demonstrate that they in fact love the women they are married to? What does their "love" actually consist of? Not leaving? Sorry: merely being attached to the comforts of married life doesn't amount to love, or even loyalty. Buying their wives chocolates and jewelry? That doesn't cut it either, since those men probably do the same for their mistresses, often more so than for their wives. Having sex with their wives? Again, they do the same with their mistresses.
I don't know whether the author of this book explains what she understands "love" to be. But it seems to me, there is no more convincing way to show love than to forsake all others, completely, and to put that love above one's sexual urges, opportunity or personal sense of entitlement -- at least most of the time. In the immortal words of Choderlos de Laclos (A Frenchman! AND a devoted family man, from what I can tell): "Love and vanity don't mix." What is to be said of love in the author's world, when she argues, essentially, that it is unthinkable to expect a man to give something up -- anything -- for the sake of the woman he claims to love? "Love" that can't withstand the idea of restraint, "love" that's so feeble, it takes a back seat to one's sense of entitlement or desire for fleeting, superfluous gratification -- it isn't love at all; it's a sham, an illusion.
I have often gotten into arguments on this board over the mainstream American view of infidelity, which is in many ways disingenuous, myopic and rigid to the point of absurdity. But this book represents the other extreme -- the traditional, patriarchal view of the genders, which is curious in the fundamental contradictions implicit in its view of men: the portrayal of men is simultaneously extremely negative (they are presented as consummate liars, incapable of loyalty to women, and thus -- the inference is unspoken, but it's certainly very much a part of the patriarchal culture -- a woman would be foolish to EVER trust a man, ANY man, even a husband) and at the same time nonsensical (the argument is that men can engage in bad behavior without being bad, so it's okay for them).
Lastly: I speak French, I studied in France, I've read tons of French books, and I think I'm well-familiar with French culture. And I have to say, from my perspective, when French politicians or other public figures get mistresses, it's not really about sex. Rather, they fulfill their egos, bloated by social expectation. To them, having a string of mistresses is pretty much like owning a luxury car: you should have those things to show people what a big shot you are. This has little to do with "Puritanism" and more to do with the differences between American and French political cultures. In America, it's being (or pretending to be) "one of the people" that makes a politician attractive to voters; in France, it's pursuing a high-falutin' lifestyle fitting for an Ancien Regime aristocrat. And what about the mass of ordinary French people? As far as I can tell, though infidelity is often portrayed in a dismissive and light-hearted fashion in French cinema, in real life, it's taken very seriously -- and once found out, almost always leads to a complete breakdown of the relationship.
You so totally rawk that after reading that I can't even walk in public for the sake of decency! I want to lick your brain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
