FamilyLife Forums

spare_parts:

Well, if she takes her clothes off for him, knowing he's married, she owns a good part of the scenario.

I'm not, nor would I ever say she forced him, he can't help himself.

But the same applies for her. 

They both have the same ability to say NO.

 

She owns nothing.

Thats like someone tempted YOU to cheat on YOUR taxes so you did.

And she is equally liable for the fines and penalties you will have to pay when you are caught.

Keep blaming Eve honey..Its going to get you nowhere.

Love

Dallas

dallasapple:

spare_parts:

Well, if she takes her clothes off for him, knowing he's married, she owns a good part of the scenario.

I'm not, nor would I ever say she forced him, he can't help himself.

But the same applies for her. 

They both have the same ability to say NO.

 

She owns nothing.

Thats like someone tempted YOU to cheat on YOUR taxes so you did.

And she is equally liable for the fines and penalties you will have to pay when you are caught.

Keep blaming Eve honey..Its going to get you nowhere.

Love

Dallas

Bullhockey, it takes 2 to tango. She owns half

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!

dallasapple:

spare_parts:

Well, if she takes her clothes off for him, knowing he's married, she owns a good part of the scenario.

I'm not, nor would I ever say she forced him, he can't help himself.

But the same applies for her. 

They both have the same ability to say NO.

 

She owns nothing.

Thats like someone tempted YOU to cheat on YOUR taxes so you did.

And she is equally liable for the fines and penalties you will have to pay when you are caught.

Keep blaming Eve honey..Its going to get you nowhere.

Love

Dallas

Well, if you say she owns nothing you are basically saying she has no say, no voice, and no responsibility for her actions.

I.E. they both had sex, but he MADE her do it.

That's not right Dallas.  Both were willing volunteers.  They each own their own actions.  He cheated on his wife, she voluntarily slept with a man she knew wasn't her husband at the very least.  At the most, she knew he was married and volunteered for the sin anyway.

Either way, she owns her behavior.

I'm shocked you would claim someone doesn't own his or her own behavior.

---

It is illogical to argue logic with someone unwilling to examine more than his/her feelings on a matter.

divorce in church:

spare_parts:

I think she is missing the boat if she is claiming women have some sort of ethical superiority.

I sense that in this question she poses,

Is more estrogen is the answer to an ethically ailing, morally
decaying body politic?

Estrogen has nothing to do with ethics.  Neither does gender.  What is missed again is that I believe all those men were having affairs with women, not other men.  (There may be exceptions, I didn't look that closely at the list.  Some may have included homosexual trysts, but I suspect 90% of them included a woman, if not more than one woman.

So again, I don't believe there is any evidence to claim that estrogen or gender makes for moral superiority as it appears she would have us believe.

You make this point repeatedly, I agree with it. I suspect for some reason people consider it more immoral that the married man sleeps with the single woman.....not that they are all single...but frankly its irrelevant. Its just as appalling that a woman, single or otherwise violates the sanctity of his marriage as it is that he violates his vows. But I think some may agree textually, but react otherwise.

The same argument is always posed again and again by spare. But it doesn't respond directly to what is being said in the article and it seems there is an inability to do so. The comments are not about everything and everyone. The focus points are about leadership and the different handling by men and women in authority.

Men in leadership are more apt to have an affairs and committ adultery whereas a women leaders may become more bossy or thicked skin.

So, the question is do men in leadership have more affairs and committ adultery? The answer is yes! Do women in leadership become more bossy and thicked skinned? The answer is yes.

The article nor the topic itself nowhere addresses who the men in leadership had sex with and whether the other person was married or not. The point made addressed married men in leadership are more apt to have affairs then women in leadership.

---

I Love My Husband!
Go Gators!!!

Was the "hiding the cigars" remark sexual innuendo about Bill Clinton, or an allusion to Obama's tobacco smoking habit?

What the female author of the OP article  doesn't admit is that in matters sexual it takes two to tango.

She says, "Men are genetically engineered to think about sex more than women."  
What she fails to acknowledge is that, " Women are genetically engineered to help keep men thinking about sex."  
 It's like trying to claim that one wheel on a bicycle is more significant  than the other. To borrow from her spiel, "You don't need a scientific background to figure that one out."

Why does she boldly imply that it was all the idea of the men? I could post stuff to show that it is an accepted given that some women find power the ultimate aphrodisiac. i.e., those women are drawn inexorably to men who wield power, as  moths to a flame.
That is why it is men in power who are more likely to have affairs. It does not work in reverse, because women in power are not an aphrodisiac for men.  Look at the number of young women who clamor around male sports stars, musicians etc., willing to sleep with them at a moments notice. It's been Big news in Australia recently.

Because the female counterparts of the 11 named men are less well known, the role they played in driving those dalliances is out of sight of the public. But, lets face it,  extra marital affairs boost the readership and ratings only when it involves public figures. That is why the partners of these men are of less interest.   Just note the covers of the newstand magazines - they all have celebs  of one hue or another. Unknowns don't command the same level of interest. So scandals by the rich and the famous are a godsend for them, their bread and butter.

Did these men seek after something extra, or were they also encountering women who made a play for them, who may have even thrown themselves at them? She dosen't tell us. It's of little interest to her at this point.  She has her audience. Unless it can be utilized to keep the story on the front page for a little longer.

pooh girl:

divorce in church:

spare_parts:

I think she is missing the boat if she is claiming women have some sort of ethical superiority.

I sense that in this question she poses,

Is more estrogen is the answer to an ethically ailing, morally decaying body politic?

Estrogen has nothing to do with ethics.  Neither does gender.  What is missed again is that I believe all those men were having affairs with women, not other men.  (There may be exceptions, I didn't look that closely at the list.  Some may have included homosexual trysts, but I suspect 90% of them included a woman, if not more than one woman.

So again, I don't believe there is any evidence to claim that estrogen or gender makes for moral superiority as it appears she would have us believe.

You make this point repeatedly, I agree with it. I suspect for some reason people consider it more immoral that the married man sleeps with the single woman.....not that they are all single...but frankly its irrelevant. Its just as appalling that a woman, single or otherwise violates the sanctity of his marriage as it is that he violates his vows. But I think some may agree textually, but react otherwise.

The same argument is always posed again and again by spare. But it doesn't respond directly to what is being said in the article and it seems there is an inability to do so. The comments are not about everything and everyone. The focus points are about leadership and the different handling by men and women in authority. Men in leadership are more apt to have an affairs and committ adultery whereas a women leaders may become more bossy or thicked skin. So, the question is do men in leadership have more affairs and committ adultery? The answer is yes! Do women in leadership become more bossy and thicked skinned? The answer is yes. The article nor the topic itself nowhere addresses who the men in leadership had sex with and whether the other person was married or not. The point made addressed married men in leadership are more apt to have affairs then women in leadership.

How do you know it's an inability to say no.  And then of course, why is it just HIS inability.  Isn't the woman he is with just as unable to say no to a man she knows is not her husband?

It's not a gender issue, it's a character issue. One is going to see more instances of men displaying poor character because there are more men in power.  So it's not that men are worse. It's merely that men are more prominent in positions of power.

I heard on NPR earlier this week that men hold 84% of elected positions and women hold 16%.  So there are just over five men for every woman in office.  So it will be far easier to find instances of bad character by men just because of the sheer numbers.

But again, it's not a gender issue, it's a character issue.  Now it may be manifested in different ways.  You may have unfaithful powerful men.  But then you have women who are the Leona Helmsley's and Imelda Marcos types.  So the abuse of power likely does manifest itself differently in men than it does women.

---

It is illogical to argue logic with someone unwilling to examine more than his/her feelings on a matter.

I think a man is by far more likely to use a positin of power and authority to get more sex than a woman is.Period end of story.

Most women only have to be willing to have sex in order to get it.They dont need power and authority.The power and authority they have is men want to have sex with them.I dont think women reach the top..and think of how easy its going to be to get sex from now on.

Love

Dallas

dallasapple:

I think a man is by far more likely to use a positin of power and authority to get more sex than a woman is.Period end of story.

Most women only have to be willing to have sex in order to get it.They dont need power and authority.The power and authority they have is men want to have sex with them.I dont think women reach the top..and think of how easy its going to be to get sex from now on.

Love

Dallas

True, a man is more likely to use power and position to get sex.  At the other end of the gender spectrum, a woman is more likely to use sex to get more power and authority.

Not saying all will.  Just different manifestations of the character issues I believe are equally present in men and women.

If you think I'm saying men are better or women are worse, you are ignoring all the times I've said men and women are equally sinful.

---

It is illogical to argue logic with someone unwilling to examine more than his/her feelings on a matter.

spare_parts:

dallasapple:

I think a man is by far more likely to use a positin of power and authority to get more sex than a woman is.Period end of story.

Most women only have to be willing to have sex in order to get it.They dont need power and authority.The power and authority they have is men want to have sex with them.I dont think women reach the top..and think of how easy its going to be to get sex from now on.

Love

Dallas

True, a man is more likely to use power and position to get sex.  At the other end of the gender spectrum, a woman is more likely to use sex to get more power and authority.

Not saying all will.  Just different manifestations of the character issues I believe are equally present in men and women.

If you think I'm saying men are better or women are worse, you are ignoring all the times I've said men and women are equally sinful.

 

We arent talking about  that.At least Im not..Women in power arent going to be running around being distracted with all the opportunity for sex.They might even breath a sigh of relief ..and they can focus on business at hand rather than a cheap roll in the hay.She isnt going to fall for the "banana in the tail pipe" she is going to be focussed on the position of priveledge she has been put in.Not her groin.

Love

Dallas

divorce in church:

dallasapple:

spare_parts:

Well, if she takes her clothes off for him, knowing he's married, she owns a good part of the scenario.

I'm not, nor would I ever say she forced him, he can't help himself.

But the same applies for her. 

They both have the same ability to say NO.

 

She owns nothing.

Thats like someone tempted YOU to cheat on YOUR taxes so you did.

And she is equally liable for the fines and penalties you will have to pay when you are caught.

Keep blaming Eve honey..Its going to get you nowhere.

Love

Dallas

Bullhockey, it takes 2 to tango. She owns half

 

Oh and by the way.. she didnt own half to me when my husband slept with her.He didnt get "half off" because a girl was willing to sleep with him.

Love

Dalals

Why do these men give in to temptation?

---

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground...

BcauseHeLives:

Why do these men give in to temptation?

There is no excuse for powerful or any man to give in. There is one factor that may make it more likely for the powerful, and alpha touched it. They tend to get more opportunity...tempted more often as it were...the whole groupie thing. Im not sure why that looks like an excuse to some here being so defensive about this. its most certainly not.
All Im saying, is take two men equally resilient in resisting temptation, afford one a hundred events of temptation, and the other 5 events of temptation. The one with a hundred is more likely to experience that temptation in a moment of weakness.
Lest anyone feel they'd never do it....man or woman....that's a very very dangerous attitude to carry. One needn't have the attitude that they WOULD do it...but doggedly insisting "I'd never do that" is a fast way to get ones self into temptations.
Ask anyone who is a real Christian, but has fallen, if they ever imagined falling. I happen to know one very very well as you all know. Its amazing and in my case it was my wife. Absolutely the last person those who know her would imagine would do these things.

We all, men and women, have buttons that can be pushed that make the temptation harder to resist...of course not impossible...but the enemy can present JUST the physical temptation.....OR he can winnow in the side door, and chip away at the ability to reason and resist. The higher the rise, the harder they fall. And then the consequences. No matter how it happened, no matter that it took (in this Governors case) 7 years to get physical, he let his guard down a little at a time...first breaking the rule about sharing youself with another..."friendship" is how its rationmalized...meanwhile all the great chemicals are getting released even vis emails...."feels" good.
Then there is the point of, "well, Ive already done massive wrong, may as well do the ultimate massive wrong"....and bam.
Sanfords case is a great example. The women was married/separated too and knew very well who he was, that he was married, that he had 4 kids....all of it.
So it boggles my mind that some seem to think they both didnt "commit" to the sin, that they both didnt weigh the wrongness, and choose to go ahead anyway. Its absurd.
Its inappropriate for him to blame her, and vice versa....but we arent players in theor game, so its fine for us to see the wrongness of both. Yet some people think that by saying they both sinned we are letting him off the hook. Gosh its not a zero sum game when two people sin together. they are both 100% wrong....but like so many things there seems to be a defensiveness or something that suggests its not politically correct or something to even acknowledge it takes two.

I am sure God sees two sinners in each case of infidelity....so why would we not?

The rest of the story is details....but two folks made bad choices in every case. There are reasons, but never excuses. Reasons help us understand how folks do the inexcusable.

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!

BcauseHeLives:

Why do these men give in to temptation?

Probably for the same reasons SOME women sleep their way to the top.  It's a character issue.

---

It is illogical to argue logic with someone unwilling to examine more than his/her feelings on a matter.

dallasapple:

spare_parts:

Well, if she takes her clothes off for him, knowing he's married, she owns a good part of the scenario.

I'm not, nor would I ever say she forced him, he can't help himself.

But the same applies for her. 

They both have the same ability to say NO.

 

Shes not married.He is.He had to know other women existed.now didnt he?

Love

Dallas

THEY knew that OTHER PEOPLE existed.  And they are both going to be responsible before God for knowingly lending themselves to sin.

 

dallasapple:

spare_parts:

Well, if she takes her clothes off for him, knowing he's married, she owns a good part of the scenario.

I'm not, nor would I ever say she forced him, he can't help himself.

But the same applies for her. 

They both have the same ability to say NO.

 

She owns nothing.

If we are talking about the "owning" that takes place in the will, the part of us that takes our responsibility for wrongdoing, it's at least possible that "she" owns nothing.  There is NO WAY, however, that anyone can say that either party in any adultery OWES nothing.

dallasapple:

Thats like someone tempted YOU to cheat on YOUR taxes so you did.

And she is equally liable for the fines and penalties you will have to pay when you are caught.

That's not even close to saying that.  To tempt someone to cheat on their taxes doesn't require me to be involved in the action.  Commiting adulterywith someone DOES.  We are all 100% responsible for tempting someone to commit a sinful action--We are all 100% responsible for any sinful action of which we took a tangible part--We are all 100% responsible for every bit of influence on believers and unbelievers that EITHER of those types of sin produces.