OT: “Bob Rubin Just Wants to be Cuddled”

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Feel free to live the swinging lifestyle that you claim to hold so dear, but it’s a bit odd that you try to speak for and about people who are married…when you have no idea what it’s all about.[/quote]

I don’t believe I spoke for Hillary. I’m saying that we don’t know what her feelings are so we should not assume either way.

If our society were not so hypocritical, Bill Clinton would not have had to lie and we would’ve avoided a national embarrassment.

I believe that we would have been better off if Bill were allowed to say “Yes I had sex with that woman and it’s my business and hers. Next question please.”

I blame it all on the conservative bigots who are just as wicked as everybody else. But they hide their “sins” behind a holier than thou facade.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]
However, I believe that Great Men can still be great even if they cheated. What’s the big deal?

I personally don’t like the word “cheat” because it implies something bad. For all we know, Hillary couldn’t care less who Bill sleeps with. But our society is just hypocritical about such matters. The French are much more well-adjusted.

[/quote]

I was referring to your suggestion that cheating “isn’t a big deal,” and your implication that it’s “not something bad.” Just ask the spouse who was cheated on if it was “a big deal” or if it was “bad.” I have a suspicion they would disagree vehemently with your position.

You seem to think that the people who are cheating are the only ones who need to consent to the extramarital relationship. You’re forgetting about the spouse who is being cheated on, and with whom the cheater most likely has an agreement regarding fidelity. That is the only relationship that is legally recognized, and it’s the relationship where consent (to have extramarital relationships) needs to occur.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]
However, I believe that Great Men can still be great even if they cheated. What’s the big deal?

I personally don’t like the word “cheat” because it implies something bad. For all we know, Hillary couldn’t care less who Bill sleeps with. But our society is just hypocritical about such matters. The French are much more well-adjusted.

[/quote]

I was referring to your suggestion that cheating “isn’t a big deal,” and your implication that it’s “not something bad.” Just ask the spouse who was cheated on if it was “a big deal” or if it was “bad.” I have a suspicion they would disagree vehemently with your position.

You seem to think that the people who are cheating are the only ones who need to consent to the extramarital relationship. You’re forgetting about the spouse who is being cheated on, and with whom the cheater most likely has an agreement regarding fidelity. That is the only relationship that is legally recognized, and it’s the relationship where consent (to have extramarital relationships) needs to occur.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]
However, I believe that Great Men can still be great even if they cheated. What’s the big deal?

I personally don’t like the word “cheat” because it implies something bad. For all we know, Hillary couldn’t care less who Bill sleeps with. But our society is just hypocritical about such matters. The French are much more well-adjusted.

[/quote]

I was referring to your suggestion that cheating “isn’t a big deal,” and your implication that it’s “not something bad.” Just ask the spouse who was cheated on if it was “a big deal” or if it was “bad.” I have a suspicion they would disagree vehemently with your position.

You seem to think that the people who are cheating are the only ones who need to consent to the extramarital relationship. You’re forgetting about the spouse who is being cheated on, and with whom the cheater most likely has an agreement regarding fidelity. That is the only relationship that is legally recognized, and it’s the relationship where consent (to have extramarital relationships) needs to occur.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]
However, I believe that Great Men can still be great even if they cheated. What’s the big deal?

I personally don’t like the word “cheat” because it implies something bad. For all we know, Hillary couldn’t care less who Bill sleeps with. But our society is just hypocritical about such matters. The French are much more well-adjusted.

[/quote]

I was referring to your suggestion that cheating “isn’t a big deal,” and your implication that it’s “not something bad.” Just ask the spouse who was cheated on if it was “a big deal” or if it was “bad.” I have a suspicion they would disagree vehemently with your position.

You seem to think that the people who are cheating are the only ones who need to consent to the extramarital relationship. You’re forgetting about the spouse who is being cheated on, and with whom the cheater most likely has an agreement regarding fidelity. That is the only relationship that is legally recognized, and it’s the relationship where consent (to have extramarital relationships) needs to occur.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]
However, I believe that Great Men can still be great even if they cheated. What’s the big deal?

I personally don’t like the word “cheat” because it implies something bad. For all we know, Hillary couldn’t care less who Bill sleeps with. But our society is just hypocritical about such matters. The French are much more well-adjusted.

[/quote]

I was referring to your suggestion that cheating “isn’t a big deal,” and your implication that it’s “not something bad.” Just ask the spouse who was cheated on if it was “a big deal” or if it was “bad.” I have a suspicion they would disagree vehemently with your position.

You seem to think that the people who are cheating are the only ones who need to consent to the extramarital relationship. You’re forgetting about the spouse who is being cheated on, and with whom the cheater most likely has an agreement regarding fidelity. That is the only relationship that is legally recognized, and it’s the relationship where consent (to have extramarital relationships) needs to occur.

[Anonymous]

The premise of this whole discussion is discriminatory against men and
very condescending. Why are we talking only about MEN who are not
faithful?

Davelj, I’m surprised that you would frame the question the
way you did. If memory serves me well, you have had many useful
and insightful comments about gender relations before, but on this one
the setup missed the mark.

But let’s back up a little bit:

For every unfaithful man, there is a woman he is being unfaithful
with. It does not matter that she may not be married, or that she is a
tramp, slut or ho. She is just as guilty as he is. In fact, the odds are
that the wife of the currently unfaithful husband used to be one of the
cheaters herself when she was young, pretty and angling for the most
powerful man she could have. Not only that, but she cheated her current
husband of her best years by giving them to someone else. And then she
and all of society creates a big stink about the husband who is finally
getting some of what he deserved.

This is anything but fair and balanced.

It is very symptomatic of the political/societal climate over the last
maybe 50 years that the discussion is only about MEN who do wrong,
whereas women can do no wrong. It is just written off as “sluts will be
sluts” (the equivalent of “boys will be boys”). And the same sluts then
later in life get high up on a pedestal and complains about the cheating
husbands.

By the way, if some public figure (male) has an unfaithful wife, do you
think he will get a lot of symphaty plastered all over the cover of
People magazine? Or will he just be ridiculed as some putz who could
not keep his bitch in check? Could the answer be one of the reason why
you never hear too much abut this? And by the way, the same women
ridicule a man for not keeping his bitch in check would be up in arms
about domestic violence if he tried to do it.

The double standard is alive and well. It is just that it works the
oppsite way of what is generally portrayed to do (in the media and
popular culture).

[Anonymous]

The premise of this whole discussion is discriminatory against men and
very condescending. Why are we talking only about MEN who are not
faithful?

Davelj, I’m surprised that you would frame the question the
way you did. If memory serves me well, you have had many useful
and insightful comments about gender relations before, but on this one
the setup missed the mark.

But let’s back up a little bit:

For every unfaithful man, there is a woman he is being unfaithful
with. It does not matter that she may not be married, or that she is a
tramp, slut or ho. She is just as guilty as he is. In fact, the odds are
that the wife of the currently unfaithful husband used to be one of the
cheaters herself when she was young, pretty and angling for the most
powerful man she could have. Not only that, but she cheated her current
husband of her best years by giving them to someone else. And then she
and all of society creates a big stink about the husband who is finally
getting some of what he deserved.

This is anything but fair and balanced.

It is very symptomatic of the political/societal climate over the last
maybe 50 years that the discussion is only about MEN who do wrong,
whereas women can do no wrong. It is just written off as “sluts will be
sluts” (the equivalent of “boys will be boys”). And the same sluts then
later in life get high up on a pedestal and complains about the cheating
husbands.

By the way, if some public figure (male) has an unfaithful wife, do you
think he will get a lot of symphaty plastered all over the cover of
People magazine? Or will he just be ridiculed as some putz who could
not keep his bitch in check? Could the answer be one of the reason why
you never hear too much abut this? And by the way, the same women
ridicule a man for not keeping his bitch in check would be up in arms
about domestic violence if he tried to do it.

The double standard is alive and well. It is just that it works the
oppsite way of what is generally portrayed to do (in the media and
popular culture).

[Anonymous]

The premise of this whole discussion is discriminatory against men and
very condescending. Why are we talking only about MEN who are not
faithful?

Davelj, I’m surprised that you would frame the question the
way you did. If memory serves me well, you have had many useful
and insightful comments about gender relations before, but on this one
the setup missed the mark.

But let’s back up a little bit:

For every unfaithful man, there is a woman he is being unfaithful
with. It does not matter that she may not be married, or that she is a
tramp, slut or ho. She is just as guilty as he is. In fact, the odds are
that the wife of the currently unfaithful husband used to be one of the
cheaters herself when she was young, pretty and angling for the most
powerful man she could have. Not only that, but she cheated her current
husband of her best years by giving them to someone else. And then she
and all of society creates a big stink about the husband who is finally
getting some of what he deserved.

This is anything but fair and balanced.

It is very symptomatic of the political/societal climate over the last
maybe 50 years that the discussion is only about MEN who do wrong,
whereas women can do no wrong. It is just written off as “sluts will be
sluts” (the equivalent of “boys will be boys”). And the same sluts then
later in life get high up on a pedestal and complains about the cheating
husbands.

By the way, if some public figure (male) has an unfaithful wife, do you
think he will get a lot of symphaty plastered all over the cover of
People magazine? Or will he just be ridiculed as some putz who could
not keep his bitch in check? Could the answer be one of the reason why
you never hear too much abut this? And by the way, the same women
ridicule a man for not keeping his bitch in check would be up in arms
about domestic violence if he tried to do it.

The double standard is alive and well. It is just that it works the
oppsite way of what is generally portrayed to do (in the media and
popular culture).

[Anonymous]

The premise of this whole discussion is discriminatory against men and
very condescending. Why are we talking only about MEN who are not
faithful?

Davelj, I’m surprised that you would frame the question the
way you did. If memory serves me well, you have had many useful
and insightful comments about gender relations before, but on this one
the setup missed the mark.

But let’s back up a little bit:

For every unfaithful man, there is a woman he is being unfaithful
with. It does not matter that she may not be married, or that she is a
tramp, slut or ho. She is just as guilty as he is. In fact, the odds are
that the wife of the currently unfaithful husband used to be one of the
cheaters herself when she was young, pretty and angling for the most
powerful man she could have. Not only that, but she cheated her current
husband of her best years by giving them to someone else. And then she
and all of society creates a big stink about the husband who is finally
getting some of what he deserved.

This is anything but fair and balanced.

It is very symptomatic of the political/societal climate over the last
maybe 50 years that the discussion is only about MEN who do wrong,
whereas women can do no wrong. It is just written off as “sluts will be
sluts” (the equivalent of “boys will be boys”). And the same sluts then
later in life get high up on a pedestal and complains about the cheating
husbands.

By the way, if some public figure (male) has an unfaithful wife, do you
think he will get a lot of symphaty plastered all over the cover of
People magazine? Or will he just be ridiculed as some putz who could
not keep his bitch in check? Could the answer be one of the reason why
you never hear too much abut this? And by the way, the same women
ridicule a man for not keeping his bitch in check would be up in arms
about domestic violence if he tried to do it.

The double standard is alive and well. It is just that it works the
oppsite way of what is generally portrayed to do (in the media and
popular culture).

[Anonymous]

The premise of this whole discussion is discriminatory against men and
very condescending. Why are we talking only about MEN who are not
faithful?

Davelj, I’m surprised that you would frame the question the
way you did. If memory serves me well, you have had many useful
and insightful comments about gender relations before, but on this one
the setup missed the mark.

But let’s back up a little bit:

For every unfaithful man, there is a woman he is being unfaithful
with. It does not matter that she may not be married, or that she is a
tramp, slut or ho. She is just as guilty as he is. In fact, the odds are
that the wife of the currently unfaithful husband used to be one of the
cheaters herself when she was young, pretty and angling for the most
powerful man she could have. Not only that, but she cheated her current
husband of her best years by giving them to someone else. And then she
and all of society creates a big stink about the husband who is finally
getting some of what he deserved.

This is anything but fair and balanced.

It is very symptomatic of the political/societal climate over the last
maybe 50 years that the discussion is only about MEN who do wrong,
whereas women can do no wrong. It is just written off as “sluts will be
sluts” (the equivalent of “boys will be boys”). And the same sluts then
later in life get high up on a pedestal and complains about the cheating
husbands.

By the way, if some public figure (male) has an unfaithful wife, do you
think he will get a lot of symphaty plastered all over the cover of
People magazine? Or will he just be ridiculed as some putz who could
not keep his bitch in check? Could the answer be one of the reason why
you never hear too much abut this? And by the way, the same women
ridicule a man for not keeping his bitch in check would be up in arms
about domestic violence if he tried to do it.

The double standard is alive and well. It is just that it works the
oppsite way of what is generally portrayed to do (in the media and
popular culture).

[Anonymous]

You make a good point, babu. I know quite a few former ‘sluts’ who have since settled down. And they would be pissed and ‘divorcing for half’ if there husbands ever cheated on them. In most cases, their husbands met them later in life and don’t know anything about their younger, wilder days.

I actually met my wife after we had both graduated from college. I never ask her about what she was like before she met me because I don’t want to know. I prefer to keep the little fantasy in my head that she was a little angel before she met me.

[Anonymous]

You make a good point, babu. I know quite a few former ‘sluts’ who have since settled down. And they would be pissed and ‘divorcing for half’ if there husbands ever cheated on them. In most cases, their husbands met them later in life and don’t know anything about their younger, wilder days.

I actually met my wife after we had both graduated from college. I never ask her about what she was like before she met me because I don’t want to know. I prefer to keep the little fantasy in my head that she was a little angel before she met me.

[Anonymous]

You make a good point, babu. I know quite a few former ‘sluts’ who have since settled down. And they would be pissed and ‘divorcing for half’ if there husbands ever cheated on them. In most cases, their husbands met them later in life and don’t know anything about their younger, wilder days.

I actually met my wife after we had both graduated from college. I never ask her about what she was like before she met me because I don’t want to know. I prefer to keep the little fantasy in my head that she was a little angel before she met me.

[Anonymous]

You make a good point, babu. I know quite a few former ‘sluts’ who have since settled down. And they would be pissed and ‘divorcing for half’ if there husbands ever cheated on them. In most cases, their husbands met them later in life and don’t know anything about their younger, wilder days.

I actually met my wife after we had both graduated from college. I never ask her about what she was like before she met me because I don’t want to know. I prefer to keep the little fantasy in my head that she was a little angel before she met me.

[Author]

Posts