International Nesties
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

Lessons from Newt-y

The NYT has run an article about open marriages, ostensibly inspired by Newt Gingrich:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/20/the-gingrich-question-cheating-vs-open-marriage/voters-prefer-newt-gingrichs-adultery-to-open-marriage 

I found it interesting, especially this quote: 'The lesson in Gingrich's angry denial [of asking his ex-wife for an open marriage] and the applause that greeted it: An honest open relationship is more scandalous and more politically damaging, than a dishonest adulterous relationship.' 

Quibbles about comma usage aside, WDYT?

Re: Lessons from Newt-y

  • I think that people generally believe that an open marriage means swingers clubs, sex parties and other "weird" sex stuff. A secretive adulterous relationship is more "normal and acceptable" to the general public.

    This quote made me LOL: and he will not ask any of his future ex-wives for an open marriage.

  • This all frankly makes my stomach turn. The applause from that audience smacks of the misogyny in our culture. I personally don't have a specific, one-size-fits-all opinion on adultery.

    However, I do have a huge issue with him living his life as a public figure, campaigning on a platform that includes 'family values' (as defined by the Conservatives in the US at this time) and denying rights to gay Americans and then having the gall to react to such a question like this.

    It's insane to consider that not only would Newt certainly have stood behind all the media invasion into the life of the Obamas over his birth certificate/being Muslim/whatever. And it's a fact that he is certainly proud of that he was leading the charge on the impeachment of President Clinton over his lying about an adulterous affair with a staff memeber WHILE HE WAS FARKING A WOMAN THAT WAS NOT HIS WIFE. Although presumably being quite open about it...

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
    image

    image
    My Blog
  • imageEnidFalcor:
    However, I do have a huge issue with him living his life as a public figure, campaigning on a platform that includes 'family values' (as defined by the Conservatives in the US at this time) and denying rights to gay Americans and then having the gall to react to such a question like this.

     

    I think this is most definitely the issue. 

  • It's the duplicity about it that gets me.
  • It just makes me sick to my stomach, really. The duplicity, the insincerity, the hypocrisy of it all. 

    What also gets me is that people like Newt keep boasting about the US being a free county, wanting as little government interference in peoples lives as possible, yada yada yada, and at the same time these people don't give themselves/give each other/get from their voters the freedom to actually live their lives the way they want to.

    Sure you can have all the freedom in the world, without government interference, as long as you're a heterosexual, normal, married, church going Christian that doesn't do ANYTHING that ANYONE might conceive as different.

    The only difference between that and countries like Iran is that the Newt-ies choose this lack of freedom themselves instead of having it forced upon them.

    Ugh, yuck.

    BTW: NOTHING wrong with being heterosexual, normal, married, Christian etc, it just bugs me that it really seems to be the only acceptable choice in Newt-ies. And it's sad that adultery apparently is normal, and an open marriage isn't.  

    Also nothing wrong with being  of the political persuasion that the government should interfere as little as possible. I just wonder why that's only for fiscal stuff and not for actual personal choices.  

     

    My food blog

    AlternaTickers - Cool, free Web tickers < br />

    What I'm looking forward to in 2012:

    eating our way through (northern) Italy on vacation.

    Eating our way through (northern) Italy on vacation

    <a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
  • imageNLfoodie:

    Sure you can have all the freedom in the world, without government interference, as long as you're a heterosexual, normal, married, church going Christian that doesn't do ANYTHING that ANYONE might conceive as different..  

     

    This, this and more this.

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
    image

    image
    My Blog
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards