I’m going to make a couple of assumptions here: married women don’t like being cheated on, women don’t like being sex slaves, and there’s more to life than screwing around.
Wintery Knight opines that women allow men to cheat: we simply do not hold men to high standards. (Little Miss Attila and her commentariat have more.) He’s largely correct: women who stay with their husbands for power (e.g. Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Shriver) condone their husbands’ infidelity. Likewise, it’s impossible to commit adultery without another willing partner (absent rape), and the women who sleep with married men are making his infidelity possible. My disagreements with him are limited: I don’t hold much against women like Jenny Sanford and Elin Nordegen, who were devoted, caring wives who kicked their cheating husbands to the curb. If a man cannot be compelled to stay faithful for the sake of his own wedding vows, he may stay faithful because of fear that his wife will find out and leave him.
It is not just women who have personal relations with men who encourage cheating and infidelity. In Kuwait, a woman activist suggested that adultery could be eliminated by the legalisation of sex slavery:
We want our youth to be protected from adultery,” said Al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.
This is not religiously forbidden,” she added, indicating that Caliph Haroun Al-Rashid (766-809 AD) was married to one woman but possessed 200 concubines.
(Hat tip: Michael Graham.) Rather than putting female prisoners of war in, say, a female prison until the end of the war, or given asylum in a different country, we should take these poverty-stricken, suffering women and sell them into rape. That way, a powerful man doesn’t have to worry about having a stain on his immortal soul; the only cost to this is the sanity, health, dignity, and integrity of a poor woman from a war-torn nation. Note to Al-Mutairi: perhaps the prohibitions on adultery are there because otherwise, men would feel free to abuse their positions to take advantage of women who do not have their advantages in society.
Obviously, America is no better: liberal “feminists” support Anthony Weiner, just as they supported Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Ted Kennedy, with nary a thought for their wives (even when pregnant or cancer-stricken) nor the young women these powerful men preyed on (and, on one occasion, killed). Amanda Marcotte thinks that the prominent Congressman who sent sexually explicit photos to women more than two decades his junior is the real victim in all this. (Hat tip: Little Miss Attila.) As Patterico details, Weiner’s discussions with young women were numerous, dirty, and debasing.
Columbia University professor David Epstein pleaded guilty to attempted incest – to silence from the lefty blogosphere, probably because he’s a HuffPo blogger. Yes, a HuffPo blogger: the same group that has the time to sift through Sarah Palin’s emails can’t give the boot to Epstein. The liberals, the feminists, and the progressives, who claim to be on the side of the rights of women, are silent; as Ace says,
As McCain gets at, isn’t the claim to be a “feminist” — all concerned about women’s welfare and their treatment as equals rather than objects — serve as a powerful predicate for laying the “hypocrisy” charge at the feet of liberal fallen angels?How many coeds do you have to dick-dial behind the back of your pregnant wife before someone notices that maybe that’s not exactly congruent with the teachings of Gloria Steinem?
But Weiner wanted The Triumph of Civic Virtue taken down, so under the bus you go, Mrs. Weiner!
These people are schizophrenic in the extreme. They can call Laura Ingraham a slut but organise an international “SlutWalk” movement around being offended over being told to dress sensibly. Feminists like Marcotte will support Clinton, Weiner, Edwards, and every woman-abusing, sexually-harassing, adulterous male politician out there, because Democrats put forth policies which are good for women (i.e. pro-abortion).
Beyond that, “feminists” do not understand that in their rush to decouple sex from its role as a tool of patriarchal domination (read at your own risk), they leave society without any values upon which to condemn a man who cheats on his pregnant wife, cheats on his cancer-ridden wife, uses campaign funds to cover up the birth of his love child, sexually harasses and sexually abuses his subordinates, buys sex slaves so as to not stain his soul with adultery, or leaves a woman to drown in Chappaquiddick. When Jessica Valenti writes in “The Purity Myth” that
“…the burgeoning feminist who knew that something was wrong with a world that could label me as a bad person for sleeping with a high-school boyfriend [she was 14, he was 16] while ignoring my good heart, sense of humor, and intelligence,”
(pp. 11-12) she gives license to abusers, rapists, and harassers to say that one’s sexual appetites and how one fulfills them bear no relation to one’s judgement, good heart, or wisdom. For if sex is not a moral act, and if judgement and sexual decision-making are unrelated, then there are no grounds upon which to complain about a 46-year-old man who tweets his junk to young women, a President who sleeps with his interns, or a man who cheats on his pregnant wife.