--Mark Sanford
Several women friends have told me that they had more sympathy with South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford than other philandering politicians because he seemed to be truly in love with the Argentinian woman. At least he wasn't using women, the argument goes. He just got hit by Cupid's arrow. It's not to be condoned but it least its better than a one night stand, a hooker or an intern.
I don't get this. For the most part, the main victim of adultery is not the mistress, it's the wife. And the wife is just as victimized if the husband is in love with another woman as when it's a "simple affair."
In fact, I would think the wife would feel more crushed by a husband developing a passionate, ongoing relationship with another woman than if he'd had superficial sex. A full relationship with a new "soul mate" -- as Sanford calls his lover -- feels like a deeper betrayal of trust, and a more profound rejection of the wife.
I'm certainly not condoning the one-night-stand for married men but I don't understand why Sanford gets extra sympathy for being in love.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Panthera, I understand where you're coming from with the abuse accusation. He is certainly mentally/emotionally abusing his children by being unfaithful to his wife and because of that, his children. They are old enough to understand what is happening and I feel for them as well as his wife. Hopefully she will start divorce proceedings and because of his neglect of the state in his job as governor, he ought to resign, and slink into the background. I expect his political career is over. He is a total jerk.
The greatest fallacy I see in the "well, he was in love" excuse is the idea that love is a random force that strikes or retreats with no human control. I wish our language said "run into love" or "walk into love" rather than "fall in love". If a married man "falls" in love with another woman, it means he took steps to follow up on an initial sexual attraction. He certainly talked to the woman, went places with her, built a relationship as part of that process. And if he "falls out of love" with his wife, similar steps of working long hours, avoiding time alone, certainly took place. These steps may be slow and gradual, and therefore be easy mistakes to make than procuring a one-night stand. The actions are not blameless, though. And their consequences are the same.
The Argentina woman Sanford was cheating with was also cheating on Sanford. She had a boyfriend the entire time. The boyfriend was probably cheating on the Argentine woman too. The only question left is whether Sanford's wife was also seeing any other men.
Maybe it's all better if they all loved each other.
Duh!
It is all about how you spin hypocrisy!
==
Jen
July 2, 2009 6:20 PM
The greatest fallacy I see in the "well, he was in love" excuse is the idea that love is a random force that strikes or retreats with no human control
==
There is no fallacy. There is no love, only lust! Love either is a random force or it is a non-existent, yet perceived to exist abstract virtue.
Anyone who has been married more than once can explain how they fall in "love" twice.
everything becomes abuse with women. at the end of the day, the fact is that it takes two to make a marriage fail. marriage vows go...till death do us part, there is also the cherish and love component to it. many women are not taking care of that part and then are surprised when the husband goes out and look for it somewhere else.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.