[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dazed and Confused:<BR>[B]Hey, Beaut --<P>Just went back and did a search on the entire forum archive, and came up with TWO threads containing the name "Gingrich". The one we're currently in, and this one:<P> <A HREF="http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/010029.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/010029.html</A> <P>hey Dazed I see you were all excited to seeing NEWT being exposed.... Why dont you feel the same about Condit being exposed? I want them all EXPOSED for their misdeeds...D or R just dont matter when it comes to public trust.

Did I ever say I didn't want Condit exposed? It seems to me I used the word "cad." However, right now the only thing he should be exposed as is just another cheap philanderer, which he has; perhaps one with some rather kinky tastes, which is a) more than I need to know; b) none of my business, and c) irrelevant to the missing persons case at hand.<P>But back to the original post: Making parallels between Condit and Clinton (other than the hairsplitting about what "sex" is) is kind of off-base. Read this about Condit's background and voting record; he's hardly a "Godless liberal", unlike me. <P> <A HREF="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/iprs/20010711/cm/ten_commandments_sponsor_finds_demons_chasing_him_1.html" TARGET=_blank>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/iprs/20010711/cm/ten_commandments_sponsor_finds_demons_chasing_him_1.html</A>

Read your link above...<P><BR>Lets agree on one thing...Plenty of hypocrites go to church....

<B>D&C - </B> I tried to stay away, but there is another aspect that hasn't been presented here. Let's take a look at what each of those philanderers that were mentioned in this thread did after exposure:<P>Henry Hyde - one-time affair, <B>didn't resign</B>(Dem pols like and respect him too and this happened before he was in office..not one respected Dem demanded Henry's resignation)<BR>Newt Gingrich - one-at-a-time affairs(two that we know of), lied, <B>resigned</B><BR>Bob Livingston - one-time affair, didn't have time to lie, <B>resigned</B><P>Bill Clinton - serial adulterer, lied to everyone, lied under oath, conducted character assassinations, <B>didn't resign</B> <BR>Gary Condit - serial adulterer, lied to everyone, lied during two police interviews, <B>didn't resign</B><P>Was going to mention Ted Kennedy, but that would be a low blow....<P>Everyone of these guys did something reprehensible, but notice the last action for each that I listed....see any trends????<P>--DeWayne--<p>[This message has been edited by Heartpain (edited July 13, 2001).]

Are you saying that every man who is a philanderer should quit his job? <P>Just kidding.<P>I do see your point, and I also think that Condit will in all likelihood resign.<P>In deference to WAT, however, I am not going to start going into the minutiae of whether the Starr investigation turned into a witch hunt, because THAT is off-topic.<P>I fail to understand why the notion that neither end of the political spectrum has a patent on infidelity is getting people here so upset. My point is that infidelity is not a "Democrat" thing, a "Republican" thing, a "Jewish" thing, and "atheist" thing, a "Christian" thing, or a "Buddhist" thing. It's a HUMAN thing. <P>Trying to find answers to the issue by attempting to fit those who stray into neat categories does nothing to further the healing of marriages.

D&C - ONE MORE TIME<P>We all agree with you!!<P>The issue here is not about adultery. It's about YOU drawing inferences and provoking generalizations where none existed. Admit it! YOU made this into a politically partisan issue. My argument with you has been over this alone. You obviously manufactured a political issue where none existed. In Beautiful's post, it started as a comment on adultery within prominent circles. You politizied it.<P>Please keep your political sarcasism off this forum. As you argue, political affiliation is not a discriminator when it comes to human frailty.<P>WAT

[QUOTE]Originally posted by worthatry:<BR>[B]D&C - ONE MORE TIME<P>I was wondering what you all think about this:<P>From what we know of the OW from these boards...what are the odds of the other woman just stopping all contact and never contacting her married man again?<P>I really think from what I know from Marriage Builders that she would be unable to NOT contact him, her emotions would force her to do so. All the phone calls the final day and then she is gone never to be heard of again from anyone.<P>We are talking the fog here. <P>I believe the young lady is dead.<BR>

The Condit story is all over the media right now, point A. The young lady is missing and presumed dead, point B. The Gingrich story is old, old news AND there is no missing and presumed dead young woman. If Newt all the sudden came up as being involved with a missing woman 30 years younger than him, I'm sure everyone would be discussing it and it would be all over the news. <P>Why is it necessary to somehow justify Condit by drawing Republican parallels? Why can't the issue at hand simply be discussed without hysterical partisan responses? Also, it is hardly surprising that there would be more posts regarding Clinton than Gingrich. I think we'd all have to agree that the Clinton story was more unique (President fornicating in the Oval Office with a near teenager?). Also, again, it was much more recent. I mean, for goodness sake, we could all dicuss Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, but how relevant would that be? Condit is here and now, so it gets discussed. I get so tired of the right, left, whatever-wing conspiricists. <P>I think we can all agree that Condit is a reptile and Chandra was an idiot to believe whatever bill of goods he was selling. But, she is also a daugher, and anyone here who is a parent knows their children are not perfect but we love them nonetheless. My heart breaks for her parents. And Condit is truly a snake to not have told all he knew as soon as he could when her very life might have been at stake.<P>JAL

Family, in this case, stands for Fog Always Makes It Look cheerY ...<P>Spin control obviously makes politicians dizzy ... pretty bad when it makes us dizzy too.<P>Godspeed,<BR>STL

STL,<P>I find it particularly repugnant when, once these politicians get caught, the use their families to try to avoid the consequences of their actions a la Clinton and now Condit. All of the sudden, they are true family men, protecting their family from the dreadful media. It truly illustrates what users they are. Reptiles.<P>JAL

There may be "some" value in the comment that the news media is covering this story based somewhat on the "D" after his name, however, I don't know that most of the public is viewing it with the "D" in the forefront.<P>You know what, I did not even know he was a "D", for that part of the story had ZERO relevance to me.<P>My interest in this particular story (and I hazard a guess that I speak for many here) is that it is a story of adultery...the ONE thing that all of us on this board have in common, and that we are dealing with currently.<P>So, I don't know why there was an immediate assumption when there was criticism of Condit, that it followed any party lines. My guess in that Clinton/Lewinsky et all also garnered much discussion on this board.<P>Nuf said!

and furthermore....<P>...duh, in the heat of the discussion I brought up another "D". Don't know if this means I'm stupid, or that it merely means that I am NOT thinking "party".<P>Still stick to my guns though, if a Republican was also involved in the same situation (young intern/paramour of elected official missing, and possibly murdered) it would get the headlines. The story has all the earmarks on a newspaper seller, no matter which party.<P>Geesh!

There is an ancient Greek axiom:<P>Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.<P>As for party affiliation, it would not matter if they were from the Alien Abduction Party as far as the media is concerned. Scandal sells newspapers, boosts Nielsen ratings, etc. Add the disappearance and probable murder of a beautiful young lady into the equation and now you have media frenzy. Having been a journalist, realize it is nothing personal ... they are doing a job: they have column-inches and air time to fill.<P>Is having an affair despicable conduct? It certainly is. And if the percentages quoted for extra-marital affairs is accurate, why should that percentage be different among public officials? Add in the power (and those who are attracted to it), and the percentage may even be higher.<P>A headline that reads:<BR>Joe Citizen Commits Adultery, May Have Killed Lover<BR>does not garner the interest that the same does when the person named is in a position of power.<P>So, like WAT said: we here on MB understand that affairs are destructive processes, and WSs have done harm to their marriage. For politics, though, do a search for Web forums geared to that venue. Hope the spin control doesn't make you dizzy.<P>Godspeed,<BR>STL

<<<You know what, I did not even know he was a "D", for that part of the story had ZERO relevance to me. My interest in this particular story (and I hazard a guess that I speak for many here) is that it is a story of adultery...the ONE thing that all of us on this board have in common, and that we are dealing with currently.>>><P>I feel exactly the same way.<P>It's extremely depressing to turn on the tv and see so many people refusing to come out and say that what Condit and Levy did was just flat-out wrong. It's always "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, boys will be boys, hey, who's it gonna hurt?"<P>Even the FEMINISTS, for pete's sake, refuse to condemn this behavior - "well, we don't want to tell women they can't be free to conduct their sex lives however they want......." And to think I consider myself a feminist! <P>I thought a "feminist" was someone concerned with the rights and well-being of women. How is it helping any women to tell her it's ok to put her 24-year-old life on hold so that she can sexually service some man whenver he snaps his fingers?? How is it that women in the year 2001 still believe this is ok???<P>Adultery is the filthiest little secret in our culture today. "Everybody" does it because "everybody" tolerates it, whether you are a SAHM or the President of the U.S.<P>The sad part is that women hold the control here, but just don't realize it. Wives could refuse to look the other way, and women in a position to be OW could refuse to be treated like part-time doormats. *Then* it would stop.<P>

psycho_b,<P>Oh you are so very right… women have so much power available to them but most women don’t even see that.<P>How on earth can the feminist movement condone, or look the other way, when the young lady was being used and his wife is being hurt? How is that in the interest of women?<P>Adulterous behavior is nothing new. Shoot my XH told me “all men do it”. His mother told me the same thing.<P>And when there is a man in power, there will always be some silly woman who thinks she is different from all the other women the man is using. Somehow SHE is going to be the one he really loves. Nonsense. This seldom happens… well except for Gingrich. But he just likes trading in wives every few years. So I guess when he gets too old to care about trading in for a newer model he will have found his TRUE LOVE? Yea right.<P>One thing the woman’s movement has done is to make it easier for women to cheat. Now the percentage of women who cheat is about equal to the percentage of men. Wow, we have won equality somewhere. But at what cost? And it’s done is a way that does not use the power women have, instead it just keeps repeating old tired patterns. <P>We have come so far, yet have to far to go. <P>Z<BR><P>------------------<BR>He loves not who does not show love.<BR>----William Shakespeare

zorweb, I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Mona Charen even a little bit, but now that I have, I guess it's another sign the Apocalypse is coming. <P>She did a piece that I read on Yahoo! news about the lack of self-respect that young women who go to Washington (or Hollywood, for that matter) looking for powerful men to align with in order to make boost their egos. <P>She wrote:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The saddest part of this story is that Levy is missing -- and may be dead. But the second saddest part is what has emerged about their relationship and what it says about young, "liberated" women these days. <P>Levy is, or was, a well-educated young lady from an upper-middle-class family. Ambitious, well-organized and careful (her friends say she was very security conscious and used to beg one friend to carry "pepper spray"), Levy had a master's degree and high hopes for a career in law enforcement.<P>She was off to a good start with an internship with the Bureau of Prisons.<P>And yet she became, if her aunt is to be believed, utterly smitten by Gary Condit. She agreed to the secretive terms of a relationship with him, sneaking about incognito, meeting only late in the evening and agreeing never to discuss the relationship with anyone. (Memo to philanderers: No young woman will keep this promise.) Levy, according to the aunt in whom she confided, was deeply in love and believed she had a future with Condit. She discussed keeping their relationship a secret for about five years, and then marrying him and having a baby. <P>As the relationship progressed, Levy became more and more subservient. At one point, Condit suggested that she date other men, but she declined, saying that she "wanted to keep the relationship monogamous." That would be funny if it weren't so sad. <P>This high-achieving young woman then apparently took to waiting in his apartment every night, just in case he wanted her. She declined outings with friends just to be at his beck and call, and wound up spending some evenings organizing his closet and fantasizing about their future together.<P>What is with these young women? Bright, attractive, on the ball and yet doormats for men who offer them nothing beyond the thrill of the illicit. <P>Perhaps what we really need is a new feminism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Where I disagree with Mona Charen is in the idea that Levy's behavior is somehow "feminist." Believe me, being a doormat for a man is absolutely NOT what feminism was ever about. However, points she makes later on in the article alluding to a lack of dignity, honor, and self-respect as being feminist fallout DO have some validity, though not necessarily in the context of this case (because we don't know if Levy has any "feminist sensibilities", or even what her own sociopolitical leanings are, given that her paramour, albeit a Democrat, votes with Republicans all the time). <P>Women have been making themselves doormats for men for eons. The abused wife. The wife who looks the other way while the man cheats. This is nothing new, and it all pre-dates feminism. What is discouraging, though, is that somewhere along the line, the "empowerment" part of feminism became limited only to sexual behavior, not emotional state. Perhaps the fault is in ignoring that there may be something in women's nature that drives us to bond with another, and the net result of melding these two forces is a young career woman reorganizing a married congressman's closet.<P>Or the gal in the office who is working her way through all the married men.<P>Or the gal at the bar who seduced your husband for one night.<P>The flip side of the "Gary Condit is a scumbag" question (and he is one), is this: What makes an otherwise capable woman become a doormat like this? What makes her think she doesn't deserve better?<P>

Dazed and Confused:<P>I would like to add two things:<P>1. [The article states: 'But the second saddest part is what has emerged about their relationship and what it says about young, "liberated" women these days.'] This is not a new factor (as you mention): there are, and historically have been, women--and men, too, by the way--that are attracted to fame, power and/or money. In pursuit of these sorts of goals as guiding criteria in a relationship, one sells a piece of themselves: just as Levy did. For every Levy there is a predator like Condit.<P>2. In selling out a part of themselves, people become addicted to the power/fame/money. Like any junkie or alcoholic. Those sorts of addicts have no self-esteem, no morals, no values. Only their addiction. You cannot look externally and apply logic to those in any kind of fog.<P>Godspeed,<BR>STL