French kiss—and tell
It used to be that the French were said to be oh so sophisticated. So sophisticated that they shrugged their collective blasé (a French word, after all) shoulders when their leaders had affairs.
But at least their leaders could be said to have affairs, because they were cheating on their wives.
But in this brave new socialist world, French President Frané§ois Hollande doesn’t seem to have wives in the first place, he has domestic partners. His first, Ségolé¨ne Royal, is another socialist. The two lived together and had four children, but never married (too bourgeois for them; hey, that’s another French word!). They were too sophisticated even for a PACS (legal civil union), and were more or less split up during an (ulitmately lost) election in 2007 but tried to keep it quiet till afterward (I wrote about the matter here).
The split between Hollande and Royal was occasioned—or at least, brought out into the open—by Hollande’s affair with the woman who was to become his next whatchamacallit, Valérie Trierweiler, who is reportedly now broken up (and breaking things) at the revelation that—yes folks, hard to believe but oh so true—Hollande is having an affair! With another woman!
One might say, “live by the sword, die by the sword” (which is not a French expression). After all, not only was Hollande with another woman, Royal, when he and Trierweiler got together, but Trierweiler was actually married at the time (she’s just an old-fashioned gal, I guess). So she shouldn’t be altogether surprised that he might stray.
Here are the main characters in this thoroughly modern and yet timeless French drama:
Hollande (and I didn’t choose an especially unflattering photo; there are many that are a lot worse, although there are a few that are better):
Royal:
Trierweiler, the present French First Lady:
The new girl in town, French actress Julie Gayet:
One can only conclude that Henry Kissinger was a wise, wise man when he said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
Or, another explanation (also non-French): “Love is blind”
-W. Shakespeare.
If a leader cannot control themselves, why are they given power to control others and be given the ability to tell people to die on command?
From an article in a French tabloid as reported in The Malay Mail Online:
“Hollande routinely hops on a scooter to spend the night with Gayet, and has his bodyguard deliver croissants to them in the morning.”
A scooter plus fresh croissants. How can a gal resist?
A people do not demand of their leaders what they do not value themselves.
Ugh, he sounds like a creep. Why would he behave with any greater fidelity to voters’ wishes?
Slightly OT: I caught a documentary on Carla Bruni, and the part where she discussed falling in love and marrying Nicolas Sarkozy was absolutely charming. Up to that point in her life she had dismissed the concept of marriage (much like Hollande and his ladies, I assume), but finding the right person completely changed her mind. France’s loss to have replaced Sarkozy with such a sleazeball.
Hollande is doing what many young men dream of. The perpetual adolescent flitting from flower to flower. Never having to truly commit or even pretend to commit. In a state of perpetual drama as he follows his lust wherever it leads. It’s the “Playboy” philosophy. The problem with such behavior is that, when it’s the norm, society begins to crumble. The results are too many women without economic/moral support and too many children cast adrift with no compass to guide them. In other words, children growing up with no idea that their role is to become productive citizens and parents who themselves will produce heirs who do the same.
We are well on our way to that state of affairs. We can tut, tut over Hollande because he’s highly visible, but would do well to start turning a gimlet eye on the promiscuous, irresponsible behavior of our own society.
Reminds me of when I was in the Navy. When we would deploy to Vietnam some of the sailors would remove their wedding ring. The Chief warned me not to trust those sailors because if they would lie to their wife, they’ll lie to you. At least Holland doesn’t have to remove his wedding ring before he goes tomcating.
JJ – I think a lot of us have – especially since the the HHS contraceptive mandate has essentially endorsed a carefree, promiscuous lifestyle (though it’s only implied, not explicitly stated). This is what feminists like Sandra Fluke & organizations like Planned Parenthood have envisioned as “empowering women.” Hollande’s ladies certainly don’t look empowered by all of that sexual freedom, eh?
Trierweiler, the First Lady? Wrong on both counts.
Nick:
The French seem to be the ones calling her First Lady.
And Hollande can’t say, “That was no lady, that was my wife.”
France’s loss to have replaced Sarkozy with such a sleazeball.
I like Sarkozy’s politics, but he is hardly a saint with regard to marital matters. Bruni is his third wife, one of whom left her husband for him. He’s also rumored to have had extra-marital dalliances along the way.
I heard the A-Team shown almost constantly on French television, ever since then I had a hard time believing in the French being sophisticated.
J.J.:
The important thing about Hollande and his ladies—at least, in my book—is that it is a commentary on French society. It used to be that men in power had affairs and it was winked at. But what was NOT winked at was cohabitating without marriage. I’m not an expert on French politics, but I’m pretty sure it was necessary to have a wife in order to be elected (or to be a bachelor). It would not have been okay to move with your lover into wherever it is that the president lives, and have her be regarded as First Lady without benefit of marriage. I don’t mean it would have been against the law—it wasn’t—but the populace would not have voted such a person into the position.
Just as, in this country, for a long time a divorced man could not have been elected. I remember that was considered a big drawback for Nelson Rockefeller—the fact that he was divorced. Those standards, of course, have fallen by the wayside—although I believe it is still the case that Reagan (the conservative) is the only president who was divorced. However, his first marriage was early, and I believe it is the case that she left him. He wasn’t having an affair with Nancy while he was still married to his first wife, and his marriage with Nancy was long, loving, and stable.
America is probably still somewhat more puritan (and more religious) in this regard than France. However, I think at this point, if the demographics continue the way they’ve been going, we could have a situation much like France’s and people wouldn’t bat an eye.
“I heard the A-Team shown almost constantly on French television, ever since then I had a hard time believing in the French being sophisticated.”
For many years their favorite American entertainer was none other than the sophisticated Jerry Lewis.
Interestingly, the French Hollande has the Teutonic eye fold, i.e., the fold-over, or droop of the upper, outer eyelid. One of my German-ancestored friends had such feature, valued it. E.g. as I remember, photos show Erwin Rommel had the same.
Now, was there yet another Hollande-ic affair back in the 1870s, or perhaps a Napoleonic soldier brought more than golden loot back from the east?
Neo, you’re correct that a POSSLQ (Person of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters) could not be elected to national office today. That said, the public knows about the extra-marital activities of Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton and there has been scant criticism of them, especially on the left, which has the loudspeaker of the MSM. My guess is that an affair by Obama would draw scant criticism, even while he’s still in office. There would be a flurry of criticism, but then; as with the IRS, Fast and Furious, and Benghazi; it would all be forgiven and forgotten. How far is it from there to accepting someone living in a POSSLQ status? For us, it would be unacceptable. But the society is changing rapidly away from the values of the past.
Here in Washington State we are having a crisis in a Catholic school. A Vice Principal, who was gay, married his lover. The school asked him to resign. Which he did. However, the students and their parents (the vast majority of whom are Catholics) have demanded that the school rehire him. A large number of Catholics protesting the policies and values of their faith! The nun who was the head of the school has now resigned. Where are we headed when a large number of Catholics revolt against the beliefs of their faith? Is this not an example of how values are changing rather rapidly.
The story is here:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022721364_sistermaryxml.html
neo – Divorce was considered a drawback for Adlai Stevenson, too, even though his ex-wife was generally considered a most unpleasant person.
Nelson Rockefeller was in extra trouble because it was obvious to everyone that he had committed adultery with “Happy” Rockefeller, when she was married to another man. As chance would have it, their baby arrived just before the crucial California primary in 1964.
Steve Bell’s cartoon of Hollande is unflattering — and an amusing use of a famous painting. Here’s the link: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/jan/15/francois-hollande-france-privacy-cartoon-bell?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Based on a Bob Dylan song: “All the tired hamsters, in the sun. How am I supposed to get any”… thing done.
Look up “hamster” in the context of hypergame and women
JJ,
“where are we headed?” In the case of those Catholic school people, I would hope they are headed due west into the Pacific.
As regards an Obama affair, I’m not so sure. Michelle has a lot of admirers, especially among Blacks, and I bet she would make things hell for him. Besides, I doubt that he could find anyone worthy of him.
There may not be any truer signifier of character than absolute fidelity to one’s spouse.
Tonawanda:
I’ve never seen fidelity exactly that way. Granted, in general, I would be less likely to trust a person who had cheated on a spouse. But I know otherwise trustworthy people who did just that. And I know very untrustworthy people who just aren’t tempted to cheat sexually, but nevertheless are not trustworthy in other ways.
Isn’t it funny that the more “liberated” women get, the more feudal society looks?
What’s next, harems?
Power is not only a sex boost…
It also increases general body health.
I give you Golda Meir… who had no end of aches and pains — and infirmities — right up until she was elevated to the top slot.
Literally over night, all of Golda’s health issues evaporated — much to the astonishment of her doctor.
The typical national politician has a sex drive — both sexes, BTW, that would make a porn star blush.
VP Nelson Rockefeller died, reportedly, in the arms of three top-of-the-line professionals.
The sexual attraction of a nationally ranked politician is beyond that of rock stars. This normally takes level headed women entirely by surprise – – when it hits them.
The impact goes directly to the ID.
So much for the super ego.
Most people, including women, are not conditioned from birth to be resistant to interrogation, mind control, psychological warfare/manipulation, or authority.
It’s natural that they would be hypnotized while awake and talking, it is natural that they would see a benefit in a relationship or business deal with the powerful.
Human society is corrupt generally speaking because leaders are given the power to control the human resource, but it’s no longer the case that human leaders are required to first control themselves. At least in the ancient days, the tribal leader and elder was open to being challenged and replaced. That set a hard limit on how hard they could push people. Now a days, democracy is said to be the replacement policy, but it works about as well as North Korea’s replacement policy for leaders.
And I know very untrustworthy people who just aren’t tempted to cheat sexually, but nevertheless are not trustworthy in other ways.
Some people are satisfied with control over other people. Others go beyond that into sexual control as well.
But it is precisely because normal people Obey social authority and morals, that they become tempted to stray and rebel. If a person has only ever been obedience to social morality because they feared social repercussions, then when they Fall to their own individual desires it is because they think society isn’t looking. They hide it from their wife.
If they had been raised or conditioned to come up with their own personal virtues and habits, which society could not affect, their behavior would be more… consistent.
The thing about sociopaths and other people like Obama is that they are ALREADY free of social morality. They’re just evil because of it, not good.
neo:
What you say at 9:42 PM is undoubtedly true, but maybe not mutually exclusive with the sentiment expressed at 9:30 PM, given the necessarily provisional aspect of the sentiment (“any” and “truer”).
But the discussion is interesting and important (at least to me) even if rarely had.
Of all the suffering in the world, where would infidelity as a cause rank in terms of breadth and intensity?
My guess is pretty high, and that indifference to suffering is a good reflection of character.
Rockefeller had a single lover, not three, and it’s been speculated that he might have survived the heart attack if his lover hadn’t panicked about the publicity.
I’m afraid the French president just makes me laugh as I picture him on his scooter, zooming towards his morning pick-me-up (pun intended). Americans are prudish or Puritan; they’re more practical about the care of their families.
I may have mentioned this before, but when I was quite young, I overheard relatives talking about my grandfather’s cousin. She was born in the US but had married an immigrant. When she was pregnant with their first child, he decided to get himself a mistress in his old country. At that time, a wealthy man could have a mistress because he could afford to pay for her lodging, board, etc. in return for her exclusive services.
His wife’s brother and male cousins took him aside and explained the American view of it: Any money or time he spent on his mistress was stolen from his wife and child. He changed his mind either because their arguments were sound or because he didn’t like the idea of his widow raising a fatherless son. 🙂
Every time I read about a woman or women throwing themselves at a wealthy and/or powerful man whom they would probably ignore otherwise I want to search out some ’70s-style feminist and ask her to explain again to me how much more intrisinically noble, spiritual, generous, and unacquisitive women are than men.
Frankly, I believe there are few women who don’t at least understand the attraction. On some deep genetic level it probably has to do with providing for and protecting offspring, even if there is no conscious thought of same. Likewise, there are few men who don’t at least understand the attraction of a good-looking woman in a bikini, even if their heads tell them she’s probably an airhead or a bitch.
Tonawanda:
Infidelity ordinarily causes enormous suffering in the cheated-on partner. That’s what so many of the sad songs are about.
But some people have marriages which have broken down in that sense and there’s an agreement (sometimes explicit) that it’s okay to go elsewhere, as long as the appearance of a marriage is preserved.
However, the people I was thinking of were in unhappy marriages but without that sort of agreement. They then met a person they considered the love of their life. They were torn up about the infidelity and realized it was wrong and that it would hurt their spouse, and they had pangs of conscience, but did it anyway, divorced, married their lover, and have remained married into old age (they’re all still alive, but I assume they will remain married till death).
In some cases the spouse who was left behind rebounded after a while, remarried, and seems fine. In other cases that person never found anyone else to love and marry and has remained bitter.
“Love is blind”
True. But power and influence is a powerful aphrodisiac, and women seem to be drawn to it.
As for the unfortunate Ms. Trierweiler, I have this bit of wisdom: show me a man you can steal away from his current love, and I’ll show you a man that can be stolen away from you.
show me a man you can steal away from his current love, and I’ll show you a man that can be stolen away from you.
That’s why women normally get angry with other women, because they are primarily in competition with women, not men, for resources.
The sense of betrayal that comes from a male straying may sometimes trump that. Only sometimes.
In Japan, they are crazy. They do things like have home cooking contests to see how feminine a single woman is in drawing the interest of one man, in competition with other females. They have things like art contests to see who can manifest more womanly virtues and skills.
To a Western mind, that is without doubt or appeal: insane.
In harem societies, generally the first woman is allowed the social status and power of selecting her husband’s concubines. Nobody gets near him without her approval.
By involving a partner in having a harem or filming porn for profit, the emotional dynamic changes. And it becomes less about betrayal, because a single individual is actively participating. They get used to it. It becomes normalized.
The Japanese also have iron hard social rules. Once a boy and a girl becomes a couple, even for high school, they are considered a single unit, almost as if they were already married. Other women may still vie for the attention of the male, but that is considered sort of treacherous or dangerous. A single couple isn’t iron set, they may break up, so the competition hasn’t concluded. Generally once marriage is proposed, the game is more or less over.
In the ancient days of America, the power a woman had over her man (and vice a versa) was due to a partnership, like a spiritual or business partnership. They had power and leverage over each other that had little to nothing to do with society, the children, or divorce enforcement. If a woman disagreed with her husband’s policy, she was free to withdraw her services and devotion, by moving to her family’s home or stop doing the housework.
It wasn’t taking a resource of the man’s via laws or the children. The man can withdraw his protection and life shield. The woman can withdraw her presence and support. If the disagreement and conflict is of such intensity that it cannot be resolved and overcomes the value of the things they can offer each, permanent divorce is then initiated. Even if it is just unofficial.
In the modern day, this recognition is absent. So a woman can fail in the competition and holding of a male due to a number of miscalculations, bad advice, or sheer ignorance. The reverse is also true, as the communications and 1 on 1 divide increases.
Western society doesn’t reinforce it or condition it, so a man or woman has to figure out what to do by themselves. I think, on average, human individual liberty absent social enforcement is ideal. But while Japan is too authoritarian and values individual liberty more as a result, those in the US with more personal liberty values social reinforcement more. But once the Left destroys the social wisdom, there is no reinforcement other than the Leftist morality. Minor problem.
It is very difficult for someone in the West to use individual judgment and liberty to come to wisdom, if they have never seen traditional or natural gender roles played out in a society dedicated to it. Even if they do, they will find it too alien to adapt to Western social morality. It is easier to default to lust, power, and obedience to authority. But what was the point of giving Americans liberty if they were just going to default to that.
Re 2:08 PM:
“Infidelity ordinarily causes enormous suffering in the cheated-on partner. That’s what so many of the sad songs are about.”
I ask genuinely because I don’t know, is there any objective measure of these things out there?
My guess (and it is only that) is that children and other family members suffer tremendously and long-lastingly. Maybe I am too influenced by Anna Karenina, but by the time I was old enough to really understand the novel, I understood it because it seemed to conform to what life had presented.
We hear from the immediate wronged but not often from the collaterally harmed, not the least of whom are harmed by deep wounds of mistrust.
“But some people have marriages which have broken down in that sense and there’s an agreement (sometimes explicit) that it’s okay to go elsewhere, as long as the appearance of a marriage is preserved.”
That’s ok and you would have to be a pharisee to think otherwise (IMO).
“However, the people I was thinking of were in unhappy marriages but without that sort of agreement. They then met a person they considered the love of their life. They were torn up about the infidelity and realized it was wrong and that it would hurt their spouse, and they had pangs of conscience, but did it anyway, divorced, married their lover, and have remained married into old age (they’re all still alive, but I assume they will remain married till death).”
Yes, this is the crux of the matter, at least to the extent it does not consider collateral damage.
“In some cases the spouse who was left behind rebounded after a while, remarried, and seems fine. In other cases that person never found anyone else to love and marry and has remained bitter.”
There is a lot of suffering even by those who do not become permanently bitter. Suffering does not go on for mere weeks, and it affects many persons in the life the the harmed, including children and people who have reliance upon the notion that family is important to them (not everybody).
The infidelity rarely but definitely causes violence, but when it does not, it causes the constant thoughts of violence, a form of suffering not often considered by anyone.
But going back to my original statement, I now read it as being sort of a fast not well thought out comment.
What I really had in mind (now that I think about it) is that a man does not attach the same importance to infidelity as a woman does, and a man who refrains from infidelity is demonstrating a good aspect of character, thoughtfully not causing suffering to his spouse.
Lust is always a prelude to the extraordinary and immediately following experience of love. Not pretty, but the way it seems to have been made, probably for guys to get into love.
The experience of “falling in love” is so extraordinary and wonderful, it is natural for people to want to do it repeatedly.
As for bad marriages, the thoughtful and proper way to handle is to get divorced with the observance of all protocol. But the excitement is too much to bear, which is where character comes in.
Tonawanda:
Actually, when you write ” a man does not attach the same importance to infidelity as a woman does,” my response would be, “whose infidelity?” Many people (men AND woman) attach more importance to infidelity when it’s the woman who’s being unfaithful, and are more likely to wink or shrug at, or excuse, a man’s infidelity.
I agree, though, that most people believe it’s harder for a man to remain faithful, because of the general differences on average between men and women regarding sexuality. But there’s a lot of individual variation on that score, too.
Hollande is likely a sociopath. Sociopaths are normally successful professionally, including but not limited to politics, and in sex.
The French are protesting Hollande, though not for his infidelity…
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/26/thousands-march-through-paris-to-criticize-french-leader-hollande/?intcmp=latestnews
Some men naturally like watching other men sleeping with
women. Before both the relationships are started in a marriage, both the parties have to agree.
However, if you are deeply intrigued in the cuckolding lifestyle and not sure whether your husband or boyfriend would be a
participant of it, this article will be of great help.
Vi erbjuder dig kontakter med tusentals sexiga singlar och
Ïar. Sé¶k efter medlemmar fré¥n din stad och Ôu kommer
med all sannolighet att hitta né¥gon Ñ– din né¤rhet. Vare sig du behé¶Ñµer en hett
dejt infé¶r helgen eller en sexig knullkompis sé¥
é¤r detta det ré¤tta sté¤llet fé¶r dig.