Some Thoughts on Bill Clinton
As the Democratic Convention convened this week in Boston, I got to thinking about Bill Clinton, one of at least two libertine American presidents. The other was, of course, John F. Kennedy, whose appetite for sexual variety has been documented back to his early adulthood. Despite many similarities between these two presidents, one big difference was that JFK's privacy in his personal relationships was largely respected by the media of the time, being rightly considered irrelevant and inappropriate for public discussion.
Unfortunately, this courtesy was never extended to Bill Clinton, whose sex life has long been considered by the media to be everyone's business, simply for the fact of his libertinism. The media attention to Clinton's sex life was stepped up during his campaign for president and was whipped into a frenzy during the Lewinsky affair. Kenneth Starr and his allies in the Monogamous Majority wasted taxpayer money and the time of our elected representatives simply because Clinton had stepped off the fidelity bandwagon yet again.
It has always boggled my mind that there was not widespread protest at this colossal waste of time and money for something that wasn't anyone's business in the first place. Clinton wasn't elected to uphold the sacred cow of monogamy. He was elected to be President and as long as he was carrying out the duties of his office, it didn't matter whether he screwed every woman from here to Timbuktu, Indeed, if the worst thing his political enemies could find was to nail him with the fact that he strayed from the sexual straight and narrow, he couldn't have been doing that bad of a job. Nowadays, the country has much more serious things to worry about than peeking in Bush's bedroom.
Some will be quick to jump in and say that Starr was right because Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky. It is unfortunate, but it's reality that every politician who ever hopes to be elected to office must at least give lip service to the sacred cow of monogamy, despite the fact that most of our presidents probably strayed at one time or another. A politician may not openly admit that he is not monogamous or believes in nontradtional relationships. In recent years, gay and lesbian politicians have been able to come out of the closet, but they, too, must get on the monogamy bandwagon.
In a world more accepting of non traditional relationships, Clinton would not have had to perform these mental contortions and moral gymnastics in the first place. The inquiries into his sex life would never have happened, because it would be considered irrelevant and his own private business. In such a world, Clinton would not have felt the need to lie.
It's time for nonmonogamous people of all varieties to come out of the closet, and stand up be proud of who we are.
"sacred cow of monogamy"...ROFLMAO..holding that up, eh? sorry, mental
image is just too funny. got to be a political cartoon in there somewhere.
as for clinton and his escapades....obviously if it didn't have hillary
running for divorce court...it ain't nobody else's business. its the whole
underlying attitude of duplicity in regards anything sexual in this
culture. bunch of damned over grown teenagers run amok on hormones with not
the slightest idea of how to comport themselves. a lotta giggling and
sniggling behind their hands about who's doing what to whom. as if anything
is anyone else's business. this is not high school! but sure does seem like
it when this culture gets into sexuality issues. and of course sex sells!
newspapers, news media etc etc etc. we just need to grow up and leave the
bedroom to the bedroom, the boardroom to the boardroom and the freaking
floor of the house and senate to the freaking floor of the house and
senate! *hops off
soapbox*...er...sorry...sigh.
cyn [cynter56@gmail.com]
I always wondered if a president wasn't married - would there be such an
interest in his/her sex life? From some of the stories I've read about
"Polite" society in the early 1800's The "well to do" people were not
always monogamis because marriages were not for "love" but to gain
status.--- Do you think those presidentes were monogomis?
Lisa,
I'm betting that very few were strictly monogamous. Some were more faithful than others, but I'd wager that most strayed a time or two. In the 20th century, for example, in addition to the two I mentioned above, the indiscretions of FDR and Eisenhower are well documented. In France, it was discovered at former President Mitterand's funeral that he'd discreetly maintained two families over the years, as both "widows" showed up at his funeral.
And you are correct in that early 19th -- and 18th century society had a more realistic attitude toward monogamy, regardless of why a particular marriage was entered into. Many prominent people of the time were non-monogamous, for example, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom sired and acknowleged "by-blows", as children conceived outside of wedlock were referred to then.
W
Problem with your theory: he was sexually active with an intern under his
employ, and when deposed by a grand jury, he lied to it.
