I am sorry that he resigned. I think he was doing a lot of good things in the house but he was SOOOO STUPID!!!!  



Cat
I agree why was he talking with other women anyway? I mean his wife is a beautiful woman.

I agree why was he talking with other women anyway? I mean his wife is a beautiful woman.

You sound like the judge in the Jeffrey Archer libel trial

I agree why was he talking with other women anyway? I mean his wife is a beautiful woman.


He was just trying to spread the wealth around.  Why be selfish?
8)

I agree why was he talking with other women anyway? I mean his wife is a beautiful woman.


The answer is both simple and complex.  Simple answer - he was flattered by the attention.  He was seduced by hubris, he thought he could get away with it.  More complex answer would have to deal with his feelings about himself, his manhood, his emotional needs, and a good deal more.  In the end, we all have clay feet, and will all return to clay

The answer is both simple and complex.  Simple answer - he was flattered by the attention.  He was seduced by hubris, he thought he could get away with it.  More complex answer would have to deal with his feelings about himself, his manhood, his emotional needs, and a good deal more.  In the end, we all have clay feet, and will all return to clay

Or wood!
:D

Or wood!
:D


In the short term. but suffering from none of the foibles I mentioned (I have others) I'll keep mine exclusive

Does anyone else here wonder whether power is so much of an aphrodisiac that politicians and those around them can't help themselves.. or do politicians fool around no more than the rest of the population, they're just that much more likely to be found out?

Does anyone else here wonder whether power is so much of an aphrodisiac that politicians and those around them can't help themselves.. or do politicians fool around no more than the rest of the population, they're just that much more likely to be found out?



Good question. I have no idea what the answer is.



Cat

Does anyone else here wonder whether power is so much of an aphrodisiac that politicians and those around them can't help themselves.. or do politicians fool around no more than the rest of the population, they're just that much more likely to be found out?


Regardless of station in life, some guys just wanna shake it all over the place for everybody to see!
::)

It really simply boils down to the character of the man in office.  Politicians aren't really that different from us...They simply make more money and have influence. But at the end of the day they're still people and I guess it boils down to whatever's in their nature. I think Weiner would've done what he did, or something like, whether or not he was a Senator or not.

He might not have been able to pull it off because without the power of a Senator, that sort of lessens his appeal to women who are turned on by powerful men. But at the same time, if he wasn't a Senator, it wouldn't be headline news. It'd just be another broken marriage.

Maybe having power does sort of feed the innate bad qualities of a person--A person who has it in them to cheat or do something sexually scandalous might feel emboldened to actually DO it by virtue of the hubris that power can bring, whereas someone without power might simply limit their lusts to fantasy and porn. But that innate desire is still there, Senator or no.

There have been plenty of powerful men who as far as everyone knows were faithful and devoted to their wives, who never cheated, who never flashed their junk at women. Look at guys even more powerful than Weiner: Nixon for all his other faults loved his wife to death and never betrayed her. Truman was utterly devoted to Bess almost to the point that he relied on her and he never cheated on her. Reagan despite being an uncaring, cold guy seems to have been devoted to Nancy and probably didn't cheat on her.

Teddy Roosevelt deplored those who would cheat on their spouses and viewed such men as morally questionable, men who might betray their country if they could betray their wives. And Teddy was for his time a "hunk", a man's man, a man of words AND action, attractive, youthful, and vital by the standards of his own time. I'm sure women of his time fawned over him, and if he so wanted, he could've had them.

These are men who simply by virtue of their positions could've had a harem of women, could've all been Jack Kennedys, but simply didn't want it, didn't do it. Why? Because that innate bad seed wasn't there to begin with, that flicker of a desire wasn't there to be stoked into a flame by the power of being powerful.

Look at LBJ. He wasn't at all the most attractive of men, nor the most attractive of US Presidents. Yet he had a bonafide harem of women, a lust for women that surpassed even JFK's--It's not as well known but his number of affairs possibly is on par with or outshines Kennedy's. Women didn't hop into bed with LBJ because he was this handsome, decent, hunky guy, but simply because he was President. As he said to one young female intern while she lay in her bed late one night, with a flashlight in hand, "Move over. This is your President." He had that seed in him, that lust for women, and the aroma and appeal of power and powerful men allowed that seed to blossom and bloom.

You sound like the judge in the Jeffrey Archer libel trial


"Remember Mary Archer in the witness-box. Your vision of her probably will never disappear. Has she elegance? Has she fragrance? Would she have, without the strain of this trial, radiance? How would she appeal? Has she had a happy married life? Has she been able to enjoy, rather than endure, her husband Jeffrey?" The judge then went on to say of Jeffrey Archer, "Is he in need of cold, unloving, rubber-insulated sex in a seedy hotel round about quarter to one on a Tuesday morning after an evening at the Caprice?"

--Mr Justice Caulfield

I notice Archer shares a hometown with John Cleese -- Weston Super-Mare.
:D

I agree why was he talking with other women anyway? I mean his wife is a beautiful woman.


You know how it is with boobs.  See one nice pair, you want to see 'em all!


Does anyone else here wonder whether power is so much of an aphrodisiac that politicians and those around them can't help themselves.. or do politicians fool around no more than the rest of the population, they're just that much more likely to be found out?


False dichotomy.  I'm going with both: slightly more than the rest of the population (due to a higher prevalence of sociopaths amongst those who seek political office relative to the general population), and are more likely to be found out (relative to the general population, whose foibles are only of interest to spouses and divorce attorneys).

You know how it is with boobs.  See one nice pair, you want to see 'em all!

False dichotomy.  I'm going with both: slightly more than the rest of the population (due to a higher prevalence of sociopaths amongst those who seek political office relative to the general population), and are more likely to be found out (relative to the general population, whose foibles are only of interest to spouses and divorce attorneys).


My argument is you don't have to be a power-hungry sociopath to want to share your junk with the rest of the world.  Ever seen Chat Roulette?
8-P

My argument is you don't have to be a power-hungry sociopath to want to share your junk with the rest of the world.  Ever seen Chat Roulette?
8-P


Chatwhut?

(SFW, well, mostly.  Yeah, what is it with the whole junk obsession?  Now, boobs I can understand (CHRISTINE O'DONNELL, WE'RE STILL WAITING!), but junk?  Seriously, are there dudes who still think that chicks - who are more readily stimulated by text vs. images - have the slightest interest in seeing junk?)

Chatwhut?

(SFW, well, mostly.  Yeah, what is it with the whole junk obsession?  Now, boobs I can understand (CHRISTINE O'DONNELL, WE'RE STILL WAITING!), but junk?  Seriously, are there dudes who still think that chicks - who are more readily stimulated by text vs. images - have the slightest interest in seeing junk?)


Guys with eczema and more cheese than a Wisconsin state fair still want to demonstrated their wares. 

Hello...mmmy name is John M-m-merrick, and I am vewy pleased to meet you!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/ninja.gif

False dichotomy.  I'm going with both: slightly more than the rest of the population (due to a higher prevalence of sociopaths amongst those who seek political office relative to the general population), and are more likely to be found out (relative to the general population, whose foibles are only of interest to spouses and divorce attorneys).

It wasn't intended as a dichotomy: obviously it's not one or the other and ne'er the twain shall meet.

I asked the question over on the BadScience forum, and some kind person did the maths (here) - the way I read that is that if MPs follow the stats of the rest of the male population, there would be more having affairs than get found out; so it is still possible that MPs actually have fewer affairs than the rest of us blokes.. or more do but not all are found out.  The reporting has to be the only reason that we get the impression that a disproportionate number of MPs have affairs - I don't know if that's the case for senators etc. over there, though.