Sex Life and Politics

[ruskiegirl]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/mcgreevey.resigns/index.html

It seems to me that too often politicians feel pressured to resign because of a sex scandal made public. Does one's sex life really impede one's ability to govern adequately?

Think about it.  Did the fact that Clinton got blowjobs from an intern really make him any better or worse of a president? 

I realize that politicians thrust themselves in the limelight by willingly entering the political arena, but does our voyuristically obsessed culture take it too far?

[lexylit]

Did the fact that Clinton got blowjobs from an intern really make him any better or worse of a president? 

do some allege better?? oo, interesting 

[buster]

I'm confident in saying that a politician's private, consensual sex life has no bearing on their ability to govern (except inasmuch as it affects their emotional state).

I have two big howevers:

1. There are plenty of people for whom a politician's private sexual morality is an important consideration. I'm not one of them, but I do think it's a valid position to take, within reason.
2. These things get dug up so often that the ensuing scandal does affect the politician's ability to govern. Do we as a culture take the idea of uncovering such things too far? Absolutely. But it's tough to stuff the cat back into the bag once it's had a chance to run around and chew on the sofa.

[jrhc1210]

Along the lines of what Buster said, I think there are 2 classes of people who connect sex with politics.

1) The super religious who see the politician as morally tainted and thus unfit to rule.

2) The people who think that if a pol doesn't have the discipline not to cheat on his wife, he doesn't have the discipline to run the country. I actually tend to sympathize with this camp.

In the NJ gov's case, I think bigotry would also play a factor.

[Bman]

Hmmm. I'm not religious and I didn't think Clinton deserved to be impeached. By the same token, I'm a little creeped out by people who think that when the President of the United states gets a blowjob from a twenty-something intern in the oval office and then lies about in a civil deposition and grand jury hearing, that only religious wing-nuts could possibly be outraged. Incidentally, from what little I know of this case, it did not involve "just sex" as McGreevey himself tacitly acknowledged. he's facing a likely sexual harassment lawsuit and the governor's office may have been threatened by blackmail, etc. (he acknowledged this all, it's not like I'm making it up).

Along the lines of what Buster said, I think there are 2 classes of people who connect sex with politics.

1) The super religious who see the politician as morally tainted and thus unfit to rule.

2) The people who think that if a pol doesn't have the discipline not to cheat on his wife, he doesn't have the discipline to run the country. I actually tend to sympathize with this camp.

In the NJ gov's case, I think bigotry would also play a factor.

[buster]

I have the distinct impression that even the sexual harassment suit and blackmail were not the whole story; I think there's a lot of shady money stuff hiding under the bizarre cover story.

Hmmm. I'm not religious and I didn't think Clinton deserved to be impeached. By the same token, I'm a little creeped out by people who think that when the President of the United states gets a blowjob from a twenty-something intern in the oval office and then lies about in a civil deposition and grand jury hearing, that only religious wing-nuts could possibly be outraged. Incidentally, from what little I know of this case, it did not involve "just sex" as McGreevey himself tacitly acknowledged. he's facing a likely sexual harassment lawsuit and the governor's office may have been threatened by blackmail, etc. (he acknowledged this all, it's not like I'm making it up).

[jrhc1210]

Hmmm. I'm not religious and I didn't think Clinton deserved to be impeached. By the same token, I'm a little creeped out by people who think that when the President of the United states gets a blowjob from a twenty-something intern in the oval office and then lies about in a civil deposition and grand jury hearing, that only religious wing-nuts could possibly be outraged. Incidentally, from what little I know of this case, it did not involve "just sex" as McGreevey himself tacitly acknowledged. he's facing a likely sexual harassment lawsuit and the governor's office may have been threatened by blackmail, etc. (he acknowledged this all, it's not like I'm making it up).

Along the lines of what Buster said, I think there are 2 classes of people who connect sex with politics.

1) The super religious who see the politician as morally tainted and thus unfit to rule.

2) The people who think that if a pol doesn't have the discipline not to cheat on his wife, he doesn't have the discipline to run the country. I actually tend to sympathize with this camp.

In the NJ gov's case, I think bigotry would also play a factor.

Agreed. I just didn't want to touch the Clinton matter, as I have YET to have a conversation about that that stayed on topic. I was looking more along the lines of say...what's his name, Livingston, the Republican who incredibly briefly took over as Speaker of the House in the Clinton years.

[ruskiegirl]

I agree that there was more to the Clinton matter than just the sex scandal, but the whole thing stemmed from him lying about his sexual activity under oath.  Granted, no one should lie under oath, but if I was being compelled to release intimate details of my sex life that could jeopardize my marriage, I cannot say that I would not have done the same thing.  The point is, how relevant was the sexual activity in the larger scheme of charges brought?  Not very.  But the sad thing is, most Americans were only familiar with the sex scandal portion of it.  Half the damn country thought that a president was on the verge of being impeached because he got a blowjob.  Just shows what REALLY matters in our culture.  Sad.

[Bman]

"Granted, no one should lie under oath, but if I was being compelled to release intimate details of my sex life that could jeopardize my marriage, I cannot say that I would not have done the same thing."

Fair enough. But it's not like these rules were created by Republicans for Clinton. These laws, requiring detailed probing into the sex life of anyone accused of sexual harrassment, were written, largely in the 1970s due to prodding by feminists. They remain in effect today (and, of course, anyone who thinks similar questions should be asked to those accusing men of sexual harassment or rape are, ipso facto, misogynist sexists).

[ruskiegirl]

I didn't say that what he did was ethical or legal, but I find it interesting that the sex scandal was the highlight of a long list of less spectacular alleged wrongs.