Carpetrider Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 After reading through a great deal of threads on this forum, I feel the appropriate designated patron saint for the 'Other Man/Woman' section is JFK. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080208.KENNEDY08/TPStory/National I mean, this guy tops them all. Why would women throw themselves under his spell? Beats me. Must be for bragging rights? Perhaps some of the men and women on LS are in for the same reasons?
GreenEyedLady Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I don't consider myself the other woman anymore... But I was in it because I loved my partner, I knew we would be good together, and he is the one I saw my future with...
quankanne Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 not Bill Clinton? His excessive "lust" for life and for quick fixes outside his marriage makes him the perfect patron for that kind of thing
OWoman Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 After reading through a great deal of threads on this forum, I feel the appropriate designated patron saint for the 'Other Man/Woman' section is JFK. Why not MLK - didn't he famously "have a dream", and the commitment to live towards it?
Author Carpetrider Posted February 10, 2008 Author Posted February 10, 2008 I don't consider myself the other woman anymore... But I was in it because I loved my partner, I knew we would be good together, and he is the one I saw my future with... Good for you!
Author Carpetrider Posted February 10, 2008 Author Posted February 10, 2008 not Bill Clinton? His excessive "lust" for life and for quick fixes outside his marriage makes him the perfect patron for that kind of thing If the rumours are accurate, I think JFK's record beats Clinton's. But, with the past events of the last 8 years, Willy has been neutered by Hillary. Personally, I don't care what these guys do in the bedroom as long as it does not distract their ability to govern a country. But what I do find interesting is that people like Clinton have a known public persona for certain behaviors and yet these women still get drawn up in a relationship with him. Perhaps they are attracted to his reputation? Who knows....
nadiaj2727 Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 If the rumours are accurate, I think JFK's record beats Clinton's. But, with the past events of the last 8 years, Willy has been neutered by Hillary. Personally, I don't care what these guys do in the bedroom as long as it does not distract their ability to govern a country. But what I do find interesting is that people like Clinton have a known public persona for certain behaviors and yet these women still get drawn up in a relationship with him. Perhaps they are attracted to his reputation? Who knows.... I've wondered that too. I've thought, they must do it for a motivation other than love, because they don't have the "promises", however false, that he will leave his wife to be with them. But sometimes I wonder, DO these powerful political figures tell their OW they are unhappily married, they want to be with OW, or even if that they wish they could be with her, etc.? If they don't, the women must be attracted to his power, prestige, popularity, etc., and do it more for the thrill than for love. I can see them getting caught up in the rush of knowing that someone so important wants to be with them. I guess I wonder if any of these OW loved these presidents or if they did it to be famous, etc.
Author Carpetrider Posted February 11, 2008 Author Posted February 11, 2008 I've wondered that too. I've thought, they must do it for a motivation other than love, because they don't have the "promises", however false, that he will leave his wife to be with them. But sometimes I wonder, DO these powerful political figures tell their OW they are unhappily married, they want to be with OW, or even if that they wish they could be with her, etc.? If they don't, the women must be attracted to his power, prestige, popularity, etc., and do it more for the thrill than for love. I can see them getting caught up in the rush of knowing that someone so important wants to be with them. I guess I wonder if any of these OW loved these presidents or if they did it to be famous, etc. Personally, I think it is the trophy effect. The power, the image these famous men exude is intoxicating. To claim credit that they know an intimate side of a public figure is alluring. The associative effects can be quite a draw. These men can't use the same reasons that average MM would try to use to set up an affair, or would they succumb likewise? I think the OW have more short term motivational goals. Perhaps it is the 'groupie effect' that rock bands experience?
Author Carpetrider Posted February 13, 2008 Author Posted February 13, 2008 Hmmm...update....they published a photo of the man who claimed to be JFK's love child. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080213.wjack13/BNStory/National/home He does bear a resemblance. If he needs DNA to prove his lineage, he should be able to scrape some off the bedroom walls of any motel on the eastern seaboard of the US. I wonder if he has a propensity to drive Oldsmobiles and take left turns off bridges? All I can say is that he stay away from my daughters.
lovernotafighter Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 I hate to admit it but your post made me laugh out loud!! isn't that Ted Kennedy not john who did that? the picture really does look like JFK oh how scary!!
Owl Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 Personally, I don't care what these guys do in the bedroom as long as it does not distract their ability to govern a country. I disagree. If they're immoral in their "personal" life, then they're far, far more likely to be immoral in their "political" life as well. If he's ok with cheating on his wife, he's probably ok with being on the take for whatever things come his way too. If his moral backbone is already that flexible, its hard to conceive that he'll take the "high road" on something far less personal...like his job.
Lookingforward Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 Totally agree with you Owl, it's about character (old fashioned term though that may be).
OWoman Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 I disagree. If they're immoral in their "personal" life, then they're far, far more likely to be immoral in their "political" life as well. If he's ok with cheating on his wife, he's probably ok with being on the take for whatever things come his way too. If his moral backbone is already that flexible, its hard to conceive that he'll take the "high road" on something far less personal...like his job. I disagree, in turn! Differing morality is different to immorality. To repeat an example I've used before - I believe that cheating on tax returns is wrong. It's something I consider highly immoral and completely offensive and not only would I never do it, I instantly lose respect for people who do. But many people do this - they don't see anything wrong with it and consider it "smart" in fact to do so, and boast about how much they were able to get away with. Those same people (or at least some subset of them) may find my behaviour in having an A with a MM highly immoral, and stand in judgment of me for that. Different morality. Who would I rather trust as head of state - some guy who didn't believe in sexual monogamy, or some guy who stole money from state coffers that was intended to pay for kids' schooling, health care for the poor, keep the roads in good condition and the courts working? In fact, I'd be more likely to vote for the guy who was a philanderer - he's clearly driven, testosterone-enhanced, charming, a winner... rather than some grey pussy-whipped automaton whose charisma is that of a pair of worn out socks!
Owl Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 Nice to know we're back to disagreeing, Owoman! I think what everyone really wants is someone who's morals MOST CLEARLY MATCH THEIR OWN. I'm sure that's my feelings on the subject of politicians and leaders. I certainly wouldn't want to vote for EITHER candidate, choosing between someone who doesn't believe in monogamy vs. someone who lies/cheats/steals. BTW...I'm not sure that fits anyway. JFK was married...as was Clinton. If they didn't believe in monogamy, then they never would have married, right? Their own morals would have prevented that. But they WERE married...and then cheated. That doesn't make different values...that makes someone immoral. See the difference?
OWoman Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 Nice to know we're back to disagreeing, Owoman! I think what everyone really wants is someone who's morals MOST CLEARLY MATCH THEIR OWN. Agree 100%! (Sorry... broke my disagreeing streak there!) I'm sure that's my feelings on the subject of politicians and leaders. I certainly wouldn't want to vote for EITHER candidate, choosing between someone who doesn't believe in monogamy vs. someone who lies/cheats/steals. Trouble is, there's always stuff to scratch out of any candidate's history, that's what keeps the tabloids and muck-rakers in business! In the end, it does become a trade-off between going with the guy who smoked dope in college vs the guy who dumped his pregnant girlfriend and ran off with his cousin vs the guy who hired an illegal Mexican migrant to clean his house. Which can you most live with? BTW...I'm not sure that fits anyway. JFK was married...as was Clinton. If they didn't believe in monogamy, then they never would have married, right? Their own morals would have prevented that. But they WERE married...and then cheated. That doesn't make different values...that makes someone immoral. See the difference? I'm not too clued up on US politics, so don't know enough about either of them, but I'd hazard a guess that for many politicians it's like showbiz - marriages of convenience, forged to weld political empires and business interests into formidable alliances, where those vows (assuming they do the church thing with the "forsaking all others" bit and not the civil ceremony which doesn't ask that) are never really meant by either party - much like Prince Charles of England never intended giving up his lover (now wife) when he married his fiance.
Author Carpetrider Posted February 14, 2008 Author Posted February 14, 2008 I hate to admit it but your post made me laugh out loud!! isn't that Ted Kennedy not john who did that? the picture really does look like JFK oh how scary!! I am glad I wasn't Richard Nixon's love child!
Author Carpetrider Posted February 14, 2008 Author Posted February 14, 2008 I disagree. If they're immoral in their "personal" life, then they're far, far more likely to be immoral in their "political" life as well. If he's ok with cheating on his wife, he's probably ok with being on the take for whatever things come his way too. If his moral backbone is already that flexible, its hard to conceive that he'll take the "high road" on something far less personal...like his job. Nah, life ain't that black and white. It is full of shades of grey.
9Lives Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 I don't consider myself the other woman anymore... But I was in it because I loved my partner, I knew we would be good together, and he is the one I saw my future with... How long was you with him and when is the last time you talked to him?
GreenEyedLady Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 How long was you with him and when is the last time you talked to him? We have been together 3 years now and the last time I talked to him was 25 minutes ago... He left and is ending his M...
Recommended Posts