Reply #77: yeah, but.

[LinuxInsurgent]

If you want me, I can dissect Clinton's statements all you'd like...and not touch the personal. but, in the case of Monica Lewinsky, it's kind of hard to ignore the personal reasons for Clinton's infidelity. Hannity and the right-wingers attack on a personal level, even when the issue is purely political or non-personal. That's the difference. When it comes to Bill and Hillary's marriage...i'm not gonna put on a veil and say "it must have been politics that made Clinton get his dick sucked by another woman". No...I'm a human being...i understand human relationships, desires (passing or permanent), frustrations in sexuality, and frustrations in other aspects. I venture the guess that Clinton was with Monica Lewinsky, not because of professional reasons, but because of personal frustrations with his marriage. And...I said that Hillary has part to blame on that...Bill gets most of it...but she also wasn't the wife Bill wanted her to be.

Now on her being a DLC Centrist...hey...i laid out what I believed on this aspect of her. You can assume all the assumptions about why I thought of this second, as much as you like. Enjoy wasting your time.

oh my god...and the clincher...that he must be satisified with her, so that's why he is still married? Please don't tell me you are that naive...Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are still married to preserve the social, political, and economic benefits of their "marriage" that it gives them. The Clintons is now an institution, not of love, but of convenience, power, and status. They realized that, in their age, it's unlikely that either of them is going to find a partner of equal social status and power than each other. Sure, they could go single...but what would that give them? Hillary enjoys being able to be a "Clinton" at the end (and the INSTANT status it gives her, as an upper-class woman), and Bill Clinton is an old dog that is more interested in preserving his legacy as a President of the United States, than carousing the city streets looking for young women to seduce (and he easily could). It has NOTHING to do with love...and on that aspect, the marriage has failed. That's obvious to anyone who researches Bill and Hillary's marriage. That's what I pointed out...their marriage, as it should be failed. It's now no better than an arranged marriage...a marriage of planning, convenience, and other factors. They might yet share love for their daughter...but, I find it highly unlikely that their marriage is still "lovey-dovey".

You can believe what you wish about who is to blame for this....I don't let the woman off the hook. If Clinton was beating the crap out of his daughter, yeah, I'd try to find out what were his issues, but that doesn't rule out the investigation of what part (if any) did his wife had to play in his issues becoming severe. The difference between you and I is that you ascribe FULL BLAME on Bill...while I ascribe MOST BLAME on Bill, but also some on Hillary. Each to their own opinion.

"Nothing you've described mirrors "modern relationships", but just the opposite. What you said - in your original post - speaks back to a time when a woman was responsible for her husbands happiness. If he drank, it's cause she nagged him. If he strayed, she didn't keep herself in shape. If he wasn't well, she wasn't a good cook. If he didn't get the promotion at the office, it's cause she didn't get along with the other wives. If he beat her, it's cause she was mouthing off."

Wait a minute...I didn't say that the woman should be the man's plaything at all times, and at his beckon. But you must be really naive if you think modern relationships can work with a woman that is so intoxicated with her feminist precepts, that she won't bring pleasure, whether it be physical, emotional, or intellectual, to her partner. Her partner is with her because he made a choice to be with her, because she complements him in some way. And that aspect of relationships NEVER goes the way of history...if she's not the partner that Bill wants her (because she's a liberated feminist woman), than Bill has the right to say, "you know what...this is not what I want...find a man that will play this game".

I personally am a male feminist...I believe in the equal rights of women, and in destroying patriarchal relationships all throughout society..but that doesn't mean that the logic of relationships (what makes humans come together, what attracts them) changes. I happen to believe that when it comes to sexual attraction...there's no ideology in the world that can explain it or regulate it. People don't shape their sexual attractions based on what Marx said...or what some feminist said. I think that's where a lot of feminists move on to the stage of being "femi-nazis". When they try to move from the correction of patriarchal attitudes in society and equalizing relations, to regulating the behavior of a romantic relationships on terms acceptable to the woman, but unacceptable to the man. It doesn't work that way...a relationship is a balance and give and take of both of the desires of the woman and the man. If either upsets the balance, the relationship is over. A man need not relinquish his desires of what he wants in a woman...because the woman holds modernized feminist precepts that bar her from "pleasuring her man", nor should he have the right to beat her "if she mouthed off". There's a balance to relationships...as with anything else...and when that balance is upset, one or both of the partners begin to stray. There's more than 50% of American marriages to prove this.

"
Bill did what Bill was going to do because Bill had issues. It was about his lack of self-control and his need to push limits. Not because Hillary was a "sexual failure". Again, shame on you."

You believe that...and I believe that Bill Clinton was frustrated with the sexual aspect of his life. He didn't wake up one morning and say "boy...how can I push the limits, provoke the Republicans, and screw my wife's reputation". He was a man with a sexual libido...he saw Monica, became friendly with her, was horny one night, she was around...he proposed the idea to her, she got star-strucked that the President was asking HER to suck his dick...and she did it. Both of them had their reasons for doing it. The question is...why did he not ask Hillary to do it? Here is where the terrain becomes "guessing". I guess that Hillary, in the analogy of Asian marriage relationships, is the First Wife...the status woman, the bearer of the children, the equal (unequal?) partner of the marriage institution...she is no longer the sexual pleasurer...for that, Bill resorts to "second wife", Monica Lewinsky, and third and fourth (Paula Jones, the others, etc.).

We don't have to agree with the concept of multiple wives (I don't). But, I can understand the mentality that governed Bill's relationship with Hillary, and his relationship with Monica...it's too simplistic to just say, "he's a man...got a dick...they're all cheats...women are totally innocent". I happen to believe that it's more complex.