And sometimes what they say about assumptions is to attack the messenger to detract from the message.
We see it all the time as a favorite MO of the Democratic Party, CAIR, ACLU, etc, etc.
You made the argument that a man might be essentially driven into the arms of another woman by a distasteful wife.
The Clinton scenario fits your criteria for justifying adultery, hence the assumption holds water.
"The fact that Sanford is vulnerable to thinking with his penis is not surprising of (sic) unusual."
I gave an alternate scenario as to the reason he sought love and comfort in another woman's arms.
You then went on to use that as to attack me for justifying Bill Clinton's behavior.
"The Clinton scenario fits your criteria for justifying adultery, hence the assumption holds water."
I, in no way "justified" anybody's behavior, be it Clinton or Sanford or any of my neighbors or associates. You make that leap on your own. I suggested an alternate scenario as to the reason this happened, not as an excuse for it happening.
And to my original point, there is another, and perhaps stronger organ that could be just as guilty of causing people, be it men or women, not to think clearly. And that is the heart.