primitives tolerate infidelity

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3757072

Oh my.

What a stupid question.

The underlined part below, in bold too, is a real rip-snorter.

WildEyedLiberal  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 08:18 PM
Original message

Why do some people think that because we're liberals we have to tolerate infidelity?
   
I just found out about the whole Edwards fiasco, and I'm very, very disappointed in him, and feel truly awful for Elizabeth and their kids. Perusing the DU threads, I can't count the number of comments in the vein of "well, I don't care where politicians put their penis" and "why can't we be more like Europe and not care about this" and "men like to have sex with lots of women, it's stupid to get outraged by this" etc.

Excuse me, but since when did being liberal mean condoning infidelity? I do not have a partner, but when I do, I will expect nothing short of absolute monogamy - and would never consider straying myself. If I were in a committed relationship and felt compelled, for whatever reason, to cheat, I would end my relationship first. It's really not that hard. It's amazing that so many people on DU typically like to think of themselves as enlightened progressives who have transcended their baser animal natures, scoffing at war, aggression, and tribalism, but yet when it comes to sex, suddenly it's not only acceptable, but somehow "liberating" to embrace our animal instincts.

Most people here would say that rape is heinous, and rightly so; but is it not, on some level, "instinctive" as well, driven by a Cro-Magnon desire to assert power and authority and to demonstrate dominance and spread one's potential genes. Yet we have no problem correctly assessing that it is a deplorable and evil act. However, anyone who expresses disapproval of infidelity is a puritan adhering to "Christian fundamentalist Taliban" morals. I strongly suspect that these people have never been cheated on, or, perhaps more likely, are cheaters themselves desperately attempting to rationalize their betrayal. Because that's what infidelity is. It is a BETRAYAL. A betrayal of trust, loyalty, and honor. Why should anyone ever take a cheater as his/her word again, if they've demonstrated that they cannot keep one of the most important promises they've ever made to one of the most important people in their lives?

But it's "human nature," the apologists argue. Big ****ing deal. Lots of things are "human nature." Racism/ethnocentrism/tribalism is "human nature." Aggressive territorialism is "human nature." Conformity is "human nature." Violence is "human nature." We don't tolerate or make excuses for those things, so I utterly fail to see why infidelity should be given a pass.

Obviously monogamy isn't for everyone. That's fine. But people who cannot or do not wish to be monogamous should not LIE and enter into a monogamous contract like marriage if they have no intention or desire or willpower to uphold the vows they made to their spouse. I don't have a problem with people who are HONEST and UP FRONT about their sexual practices.

So yes, I "care" when a politician, or anyone, is unfaithful. It speaks a great deal to their character that they would lie and deceive and hurt the person they profess to love most. That doesn't mean they aren't good public servants or that we shouldn't vote for them. But let's stop making excuses or pretending that it's okay or that only conservatives have a moral problem with dishonest sexual promiscuity.

The one thing I do agree with is that it's absolutely not our business. But unfortunately, the media circus and the ensuing DU frenzy have rather made it our business, and it bothers me to see so much flippant dismissal of a seriously terrible act here.

It's the usual primitive blather, nothing new, and no primitive gets around to answering the question, but the non-primitive Lisa's there:

liberalhistorian  (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 08:23 PM
Response to Original message

1. I don't know, but it drives me crazy.
   
It's as if people think that if we condemn one of our own for it then that automatically means we must not be condemning those on the other side who do the same thing, and that's just not the case at all. McCain was worse than Edwards in regards to what he did to his first wife, especially marrying the rich nutball Cindy barely a month after dumping Carol, who'd stood by him all the years he was a POW, for having the gall to be seriously injured in a car accident and thus losing her "willowy" figure that he liked.

Yet you never hear a word about that on the MSM, even when he's yammering on and on about "family" values. But that doesn't mean Edwards doesn't deserve shit, either. What a slimeball, especially with his wife being sick at the time.

[USA4ME]

Reading the thread, it seems the official "Here's what to say to get people to shut up and get in lockstep" line is that it's nobody's business and should be ignored.

.

[BannedFromDU]

Reading the thread, it seems the official "Here's what to say to get people to shut up and get in lockstep" line is that it's nobody's business and should be ignored.

.

EVERYTHING with them is parsing the truth, spinning it, and ultimately denying it. Wonder what Skinner will tell them to think about it all?

[Lord Undies]

littlegoonhistorian  (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 08:23 PM
Response to Original message

1. I don't know, but it drives me crazy.
   
It's as if people think that if we condemn one of our own for it then that automatically means we must not be condemning those on the other side who do the same thing, and that's just not the case at all. McCain was worse than Edwards in regards to what he did to his first wife, especially marrying the rich nutball Cindy barely a month after dumping Carol, who'd stood by him all the years he was a POW, for having the gall to be seriously injured in a car accident and thus losing her "willowy" figure that he liked.

Yet you never hear a word about that on the MSM, even when he's yammering on and on about "family" values. But that doesn't mean Edwards doesn't deserve shit, either. What a slimeball, especially with his wife being sick at the time.

Well, DUmmie, your little rant would make sense if it were not for the inconvenient fact that John McCain is a Republican.  That means his life has already been sliced and diced.  Everything about John McCain is old news and it has already been dissected under the press-0-scope or smoothed over because John was a Maverick and the press loved him.

There isn't anything new about John McCain.  He is an open book.  Old news is no news.  If the press went by your standards Bill Clinton would have to be called an immoral husband who is a perjurer and obstructor of justice everytime he is mentioned in the press.  See?  It's old news.

And when, pray tell, WHEN has John McCain yammered on and on about "family values"?