Suppose you worked for a company, did your job well, and in your free time had an affair or went online and sexted with someone other than your wife or husband. Your boss found out about the dalliance and fired you on the spot or demanded that you resign. Unless you're in the morals and values business - you're a church pastor for example - your response should be, "I'll see you in court." Whether you are or aren't cheating on your spouse has nothing to do with your job. It's not a criminal offense. Can you imagine if it were? We'd have to outsource our prisoners, we'd have so many of them.
People cheat. Husbands. Wives. If they didn't, damn, we wouldn't have anything to write about in novels and show on TV series. It's common. I don't think it's a good idea to cheat because I personally believe it's a hurtful thing to do to the one you love. But I understand that monogamy isn't for everyone and that especially under the influence of alcohol, it can be a very tenuous concept.
I've known lots of people who have had affairs, one-night stands, and who knows what else. If I were to use monogamy as a guide for whom I can and cannot trust in matters outside of sex, I'd have to pretty much not trust a third of the people I know fairly well and like. How did I come up with that number, one third? It's a guess, based on the number of times I've seen people I know make that certain kind of sheepish to warm "we've slept together" hello with someone else. It's a tell that I think all people have, that certain kind of hello. I can't explain what it entails, but I can identify it instantly. My guess of one-third is not that much different than polls about adultery , which if I remember correctly suggest that 30 to 60 percent of all married people cheat.
I don't think it's valid to use monogamy as a guide for trust on other issues. Sex is different. We're wired for it. Our hearts are not universally steadfast and attached to one person and one person only. Just because someone is monogamous does not indicate to me that I can trust him or her on money matters. There are no data that I know of that show that those that are monogamous are better thinkers, more creative or are more conscientious workers. It's true that they do, on the whole, make better spouses.
When it comes to marriage, give me a monogamous partner, please. But in a work or business environment I don't care whether the person I'm working with is having an affair or frequents dirty book stores at night. That's his or her private business.
This country does seem to separate people's sexual appetites (at least heterosexual ones) from the workplace. It would be a ridiculous expectation to not do so. We'd have to fire a lot of key personnel in all companies if we considered monogamy to be part of someone's work description.
But when it comes to politicians, we do get ridiculous. We expect our elected officials to not do what so many others do frequently. Politicians can't have affairs. The argument is frequently made, "If you can't trust him to honor his marriage vows, how can you trust him to do anything else?" It's an absurd if and then argument. What do attitudes toward sex have to do with someone's ability to make good laws, work well with others, and honor promises concerning legislation? Nothing. Monogamy is desirable in marriage, certainly, and its absence can create hell in someone's personal life if they get caught cheating. Beyond the issue of marriage and family, however, it's of no importance.
I'll make one concession to the "those who cheat are bad through and through" argument. There are people who sexually harass others on the job routinely, whose efforts at sexual conquest overwhelm their lives to such a degree that they can do little else but wallow in sexual desire. No, I don't trust people like that, no more than I'd trust a heroin addict with my money or laptop computer.
Your garden variety cheaters, however, are just being human. They shouldn't have to wear scarlet As on their dresses or sport jackets. They can be outstanding workers and contributors to society. That's just as true of ordinary citizens as it is for politicians.
I don't like to make assessments based on small datasets, but let's, for example, look at our last three presidents. One, Clinton, has had countless affairs. The other two, Bush and Obama, seem to be (Who knows really?) loyal and true to their spouses. Was Bush any more trustworthy than Clinton? No. Is Obama any more trustworthy? Based on issues that are important to me that I've seen him waffle on, no. Bush is likely monogamous, but an idiot. Obama is likely monogamous, but has limited leadership ability (aside from speechwriting and oratory, two big exceptions) and has little skill relating to others one on one. Based on our small sample of three, I'd say not only is monogamy overrated as an indicator of presidential capability, but cheaters make the best presidents.
As I write this, a politician, Anthony Weiner, is preparing to resign from congress for sexting with a bunch of women. Yawn. I happen to think that Weiner isn't a very good congressman. He likes to get on TV and scream and shout. He doesn't seem to work effectively with others in DC. Basically, he's a loudmouth, do-nothing. That said, his district keeps re-electing him. They apparently think that all that bluster is valuable. Whether he sexts or not, whether he exchanges bodily fluids or not with someone who isn't his wife, shouldn't matter.
We've been through this before with I don't know how many politicians, both Democratic and Republican. We keep expecting and demanding that our politicians rein in their desires when, in fact, they have rock-star like access to sex. It's an expectation and demand that makes no sense, and one that isn't present in the culture of any other Western country.
We pretend that the sexual revolution never happened and our lives are like 50s television shows. We ignore the fact that in this day and age, there is no privacy and the internet can capture and send to the world every little stupid move we make. We watch with rapt attention as the media pontificates about every sexual transgression of a politician and cynically turns these events into morality plays. I wish America could be realistic about sexual desire and politics, but I expect sanctimony to be the standard response for at least the next few decades.
2 comments:
America, the land of apostate Puritans: few of them believe anymore (if they ever did), but they like to keep up appearances.
Meanwhile, I note that David Vitter is still a Senator. So was John Ensign until last month. And (serial adulterer) Newt Gingrich is (comically) running for President. I conclude Weiner is a fool to knuckle under.
As an evolutionary biologist, I get no end of sad chuckles out of all this nonsense.
Weiner is a bit of a special case, I think, because he's such a jerk to people and apparently had few friends in Congress. It looks like the Dems were more than happy to throw him under the bus. Then you have to add the newness of sexting, which gives his dalliance a more lurid appeal than doing the standard thing of having a g/f or hiring a call-girl. Then you have to add the different images Dems - Jimmy Stewart lawyerly types - and Reps - John Wayne virile cowboy types - tend to carry, which gives the Reps a bit more of a free pass. Dems are held to a bit more of a Puritan standard when it comes to sexual behavior because of that image difference (except when they are gay; see Barney Frank).
Post a Comment