Posted on 04/07/2014 5:52:39 PM PDT by mandaladon
Freshman GOP Rep. Vance McAllister (La.) - who ran as conservative Christian - has been caught on video in a romantic encounter with a woman believed to be on his congressional staff just before Christmas. The Ouachita Citizen, a newspaper based in West Monroe, La., posted a Dec. 23 surveillance video purportedly from inside McAllister’s district office in Monroe.
The video shows McAllister kissing a woman identified by the newspaper as a congressional staffer for the first-term lawmaker. Federal payroll records show she is a part-time aide who began working for McAllister the day after he won his seat last year.
McAllister won the special election on Nov. 16 to replace Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.). McAllister won in the heavily Republican district by playing up his conservative credentials, including his Christian faith and his 16-year marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Exactly.....
Essentially, the wife needs to make her husband a priority. This is especially true if he is the bread-winner and enables her to focus on the kids. I’ve seen too many SAHM’s end up back in the work force because their husband left. They go from SAHM doing the sandwiches and school pickup to being a single mom with a FT job and the kids in day care. The wives were so focused on the kids, they didn’t notice the husband looking for a wife. And he ended up finding one.
There is nothing French about his district. Its more an extension of Arkansas.
Thank you for the kind reply.
Far be it for me to go up against those 2 you cited,
it must hang with a ‘wild’ crowd!
I honestly do not know any of those women, maybe I just have great friends and family :)
Huh? So Ashley Madison collects slime balls and somehow that voids my point that women over 40 aren’t all frigid?
What did I miss?
Or are you attempting to show that they are and that is why AM is so popular? They have to be doing it with someone and unless they keep records and show that all the women going for the dog married man are under 40, I just can’t see where you are heading.
That’s funny, I was rereading your original post and the second one about Ashley Madison and I thought you were going to be one of those to talk about the wild sex lives of middle-aged women.
Be thankful you have great friends who love their husbands. Better that than a friend who has a secret life and forces you to listen about it.
And I would've agreed with you entirely on this point until the last 10 years, when all of our friends, and we, have entered middle age (40+).
I have personal friends and family members who have, on the surface, good marriages that fit the "sexless marriage" definition. Basically, the wife has a lofty college degree and doesn't feel she needs to give in if she is not in the mood. The husband is dedicated to her and the marriage, and tired of being turned down, he stops asking. One husband confided to me that his wife hadn't touched him in a year.
Flangan's article is entitled "The Wifely Duty" and it is meant to provoke and cause howls among women, especially feminists. But it is meant to highlight what these gals did not learn in college or their marriage classes, that men have different sex needs and are actually quite simple. You can spend thousands of dollars in therapy working out issues with anger, frustration, work-home balance, etc., but if the wife just engages in "the act" on a regular basis then all of a sudden good things happen. Roses are delivered to the home on a Thursday. He takes the kids to the park without asking. He actually picks up after himself in the bedroom and makes the bed. He agrees with nary a comment to get the new refrigerator and let her spend money on new clothes. All because she decided ("Flanagan's words") to put out for his sake, not hers. As Flanagan quoted, some of these married gals are giddy with their newfound power over their husbands, and all they had to do was act a little frisky.
Christian organizations have classes about this for women, and my wife went to one with friends. They all came out shaking their heads saying, "I never knew" or "this really bothers me." That's because of messages in college and the media that if she isn't in the mood, then by God he's not going to get anything. Especially if she's been ticked off for months about the garbage, his moodiness, his spending too much time watching ESPN, hanging out with his buddies.
Our grandmothers would have viewed this as common sense. But then again, they weren't filled with education and media that is saturated with messages like "all sex is rape" and "all men are rapists."
So we're in agreement but for the fact that Baby Boomers, at least the younger Boomers, live with the echo of the feminist movement.
Yes, I agree that not all marital problems will be solved by a frisky wife. But if she's wondering why they just don't get along, and she realizes that they have basically a sex-free marriage, she should at least try fixing that part first.
Well, that might be evidence that they were doing the nasty in the office after everyone else had left.
McAllister was locking up for the day, so obviously no one else was there when they had their goodnight kiss.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Not to counter completely your point, but I have no desire to have sex with a woman who is doing it as a sacrifice...if she doesn’t want to be having sex with me (unless there is a legitimate physical or emotional reason) any longer, I will find it elsewhere, as will nearly every other person on the planet.
I don’t condone cheating, but it is absolutely unrealistic for any woman to deny her husband sex routinely and then be upset when he goes elsewhere for it. Same would be true if the roles were reversed.
But getting back to my point, if a woman doesn’t want to have sex with me, but is just doing it out of sacrifice and duty, then it sure wouldn’t keep me from straying... if you treat sex like a chore your partner will stray, its only a matter of time.
As to the specifics of this case, who knows why this guy was fooling around, but the fact he was doing it so flagrantly just shows stupidity.
Did he lie under Oath? I must have missed that.
Oh never mind, he’s a Republican.
The reality is both men and women cheat, and they do so for all sorts of reasons, always have, always will. There is no magic silver bullet that will always keep someone from cheating, but I can tell you this much.... sexual frustration sure doesn’t help folks stay on the reservation.
Some cheat just because they can, some because they are bored, some because they are lone, some because they are sexually unsatisfied, some just for the thrill of it.... There is no one size fits all to it, but sexual frustration for either party certainly will not help the long term relationship.
Well,
If he hasn’t had sex with his wife in over a year, then he’s going to find it elsewhere if he hasn’t already... Its possible he may not, but odds are definitely likely on this. A woman or man who values their relationship with their partner would never do that.... Honestly, I think women who want that approach should just tell their husbands go elsewhere but be discrete. (or wives, if the roles are reversed) Instead when the person finally being denied cracks the other person acts affronted and all hell breaks lose.
I get that, and it's good to read your male perspective. I don't think the argument of "why men stray" applies here, however. This is about politicians who campaign on their conservative family and social values when it's just not so. In those cases, we get an elected official who was probably lying about everything else just to get elected. A real constitutional conservative, pro family, could've won those elections.
As far as who to forgive? Sanford handled things well, and now he's in the HOR. And I think Petreus could've worked past his affair; the issue there was as much that the CIA chief was really dumb to have that stuff online.
I want my elected officials to be role models, and if it's part of their campaign, that's what they should be.
He won his seat, she won his ass, and his wife will have his heiny.
I suspect that in many of these cases, the women are not only bringing in their share of the income, they're doing the bulk of the child rearing. It may not seem like much to you to keep track of the homework, practice schedule and orthodontist appointments, but I know being home for most of my grandchildren that it is. Way back when dinos roamed the earth, my wife stayed home and handled everything on the home front, while all I did was I bring in the money and repair appliances when necessary. It worked great for us and we've had over half a century of happiness. Today, I see women not only earning money but also keeping on top of things with the kids and the extended family business. Today's fathers do more than I did, for sure, but I could see where womenfolk might resent the increased burden sometimes. Granted, many of them have likely brought it on themselves, but how many husbands these days are really capable of earning enough to allow their wives to stay home?
Sounds to me like you’re single and still fairly young, maybe under 35.
If you do marry someday, and hit 50, and still love your wife, you’ll have a different opinion.
You’ll also learn that sex with the one you love changes as well.
All the best -
There is another option, not topical here, called addiction to pornography. A basically decent fellow who loves his wife often takes on a fantasy life, which has other impacts on the marriage. Google "addiction to pornography" and you'll find this is epidemic.
"Honestly, I think women who want that approach should just tell their husbands go elsewhere but be discrete."
Yes, the French were especially good at this, especially when they still believed in marriage. Now that marriage is optional in France, there is no need to even be discreet anymore. There is no vow to break.
Unfortunately, the notion of having both a wife and a mistress is not culturally acceptable in the USA.
Reminds me of that old toast, given among men:
"A toast -- to our wives and mistresses. May they never meet!"
For both of these very public affairs I think both men were attracted by the possibility of sexual excitement in their romantic lives. And either they couldn't get it our of their wives, and then strayed, or they didn't even bother asking.
If I recall correctly, the "other woman" in both cases was very sensual and took each man on a erotic voyage of discovery. Something to consider. Also, both Sanford and Petreus were both men of enormous power (in contrast to the weenie Congressman from Louisiana) so the mere fact that they walked the corridors of power meant that women would come on to them.
All men are tempted. The issue is not straying. You can bet that my wife of 25 years and I have had many talks on this topic so that she can understand my very male point of view. She gets it and our marriage is far stronger because of it. And I love her more deeply for "understanding" me.
"I want my elected officials to be role models, and if it's part of their campaign, that's what they should be."
Ahh, here is where we must agree to disagree. I will never worship any politician. I will never expect them to be role models. Because the very nature of the job attracts men and women who are seeking power and prone to influence by money.
The good news is that the future politician who runs on morals will not be able to live a different life once in Washington. The media will not protect a straying politician anymore. An aggrieved mistress can find 1,000 ways to tell her story, and might even get a book deal. You can prove intercourse using a DNA test. Security cameras will record dalliances at the office or secret dinners at hideaway cafes in Georgetown. An iPhone will record the video and audio of the dalliance as future "insurance" for a young gal who is boffing a Congressman.
So I'm hoping that future politicians who run as conservative men of faith just -- might just -- be better able to live how they campaigned. I have a strong sense that Mitt Romney was one of them. I still shake my head thinking how close we were to having such a decent, level-headed, principled man as our nation's leader; and Ann Romney as a lovely, intelligent, capable First Lady. If only, if only.
I can confirm that this is exactly the case for about 1/2 of our friends. But in literally all of the cases the intimacy spigot has shut off. So, yes, working women are tired but their lack of desire is not less than the homemaker's.
Caitlin Flanagan's point is to make time, regardless of how busy the woman is. If you're raised children and are watching grandchildren, then you know darned well that today's parents are too obsessed with children, and don't spend enough time with each other. Our favorite child-rearing author, John Rosemond, tries to steer parents away from the child-centered household and toward the parent-centered household. This means dropping the kid off at the soccer game and, rather than feeling obliged to watch every minute, running off with the spouse for a romantic lunch or a picnic. It means getting a babysitter on EVERY Saturday night and having time for each other. It might mean getting a housesitter on a weeknight so the two of you can slip away for a quick dinner at a cafe and a walk on the beach. This is certainly possible for a working woman, but she has to view herself as a wife first and a mother second.
"How many husbands these days are really capable of earning enough to allow their wives to stay home?"
As a boomer myself, I can say categorically that most women can't afford to stay at home. My wife did but I am highly educated and was holding management positions before I was 30 years old. {She's working again since our oldest was ready to enter college, four years ago.] It's really unfortunate that women can't make staying at home a choice anymore, unless her husband is a high wage earner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.