Jenny Sanford: Affair was like ‘punches to gut’

Foreward: DGB Editorial Remarks...From A Masculine Perspective...To The Internet Article Below...


I read the article below and had to give a 'DGB masculine (masculine-feminine egalitarian) editorial perspective' on the article.

I could feel my blood pressure start to rise on this one.

I have no problem with Jenny Sanford standing up for what she believes is right. And for not letting her husband 'off the hook' in similar cases to where other wives have tried to put on a (probably false) persona of 'nurturing support' for their husbands -- if only to protect their potentially crashing political careers.

I applaud Jenny Sanford for voicing her own opinions, feelings -- and wants.

Self-assertiveness as well as social sensitivity and empathy is imperative for any healthy, successful relationship.

I am reminded of another article I just read on Otto Rank (See my Otto Rank essay) in which it was stated:

Rank explored how human beings can learn to assert their will within relationship, and advocated a maximum degree of individuation within a maximum degree of connectedness.

The problem -- sometimes the major, divisive problem -- in a relationship becomes: What happens when 'maximum individuation' conflicts mightily with 'maximum connectedness'. In effect, we have a 'major personal and relationship conflict of interest'.

This question -- and this oftentimes major problem and/or conflict -- within a relationship, we will come back to shortly.


What I do have a problem with is any kind of 'negative stereotyping of men' and/or 'positive stereotyping of women' -- by women (either women writing an article and/or women being interviewed for an article).

And another problem that I have -- although I cannot claim to be 100 percent innocent myself -- is with both masculine and feminine hypocrisy.

Relative to the 'negative, sexist stereotyping problem', if the shoe was on the other foot, a hundred or a thousand feminist groups -- and even politically unconnected egalitarian women -- would be going ballistic over stereotyped, sexist comments made by any male writer or man being interviewed.

In this respect, I am reminded of my favorite political comment of the question this year by Lindsay Graham when he was interviewing Sotomayor for her prospective Supreme Court Judicial position. (Personally, I don't think she should have been hired because of her various reverse-disciminatory remarks in more than one speech.

Here's his quote from Graham to Sotomayor on this issue of her speeches:


"When it comes to your speeches, that is the most troubling thing to me, because that gives us an indication, when you're able to get outside the courtroom without the robe, an insight into how you think life works, and this wise Latino comment has been talked about a lot. But I can just tell you one thing: If I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over."

Back to Jenny Sanford.


Regarding the following article, I will make my editorial comments short and sweet.

The issue of 'out of relationship affairs' is not only a 'masculine problem'. Nor is it only a 'mid-life problem'.

Rather it is perhaps the biggest -- or at least one of the biggest -- threats to any ongoing marital, common-law, and/or long-term relationship romantic-sexual relationship.

Jenny Sanford is right on one thing and I will paraphrase.


'Love', 'romance', 'seduction', 'lust' and 'sex' can easily become 'obsessive-compulsive' and 'addictive' -- in or out of wedlock, for both sexes, at any time of teenage and/or adult life.

To repeat, what I am talking about here -- and I think each and everyone of you out there who have lived a substantial part of your life know exactly what I am talking about -- is that 'affairs of the heart and/or the loins' are neither a solely 'masculine problem' nor a solely 'mid-life crisis problem'.

Rather, the risk -- and the temptation -- acted upon or not -- comes with being alive. It is a lifelong problem.

So let no person who has been where I am talking about 'throw the first stone'.


It is easy to preach 'righteous, Holier Than Thou moral values, -- which often, oh, so often, turn out to be blatant hypocrisy' -- than it is to own up the whole 'monogamy vs. infidelity' dialectic as being one of the most difficult issues for any ongoing couple to deal with.

For most of us, it remains a relatively 'suppressed dialectic' -- shoved into the closet until one day the stench of dirty laundry comes tumbling out the door if either party has not exactly lived up to the other's expectations.

And then we all raise and shake our pointed fingers...

'Sex rears its ugly head again.'

And another politician bites the dust.

It is worse when there is hypocrisy involved.

Like Mark Sanford...

Mark Sanford, a conservative Republican who called President Bill Clinton’s philandering “reprehensible,” seemed an unlikely candidate for sexual scandal.

The affair came to light when Sanford, 49, could not be contacted over Father’s Day weekend. Aides initially said he had gone hiking in the Appalachians, but it soon came to light that the governor was in Argentina, visiting the woman he called his “soul mate.”

What we need here is a full 'Oxford Style Debate' on the 'potential -- and real -- humanistic-existential dichotomies in any long term relationship' between 'stable loyalty' on the one hand, and the wish for 'newness and new encounters and/or relationships' on the other hand, which romanticized and sexualized, in essence, becomes the dialectic between 'monogamy and infidelity/cheating'.

Anyone want to start this debate?

I will pass on this one...

Too hot to handle...

Easier to sit back and wave a righteous finger...

At situations and dilemmas that bring down many politicians and celebrities -- including politicians careers -- for the type of impulsive, 'non-rational', potentially self-destructive decisions that we probably all have experienced at one time or another.

'To be or not to be...that is the question...'

A wise play writer once wrote that through one of his most famous characters. (Shakespeare, Hamlet, of course)

'To be reckless or not be reckless...', I said that.

That's why our brain functions have 'safety, restraint functions'...

Dionysus vs. Apollo again...Nietzsche vs. Kant...Id vs. Superego...Persona vs. Shadow..

Out of our Shadow can come personal growth...

Out of our Shadow can come self-destruction...

Different contexts offer and/or require different choices.

Mark Sanford made his...

Ouch!

It is always the family that gets hurt...

And/or the marginalized spouse...

But eventually,

What goes around, comes around...

Who first said that?

Anaxamander, in different words, basically said that...

Some 2550 years ago...

Call it 'cosmic justice'...

What goes around, comes around...

From the limelight, we get kicked to the Shadows...

To lick our wounds, re-think things, compensate, mutate, re-energize...

And hopefully, one day rise again...

Or forever get lost in The Shadows...

The weak get lost, the strong metamorphisize...

Rise again, like The Phoenix...

Shake off their stupid mistakes...

And/or their impulsive ventures...

Into the Dark Side...

Dionysus' Den...

Who amongst us hasn't been there...

Or hasn't fantasized going there...

Worst case scenario...

You go to be a lovestruck and/or luststruck politician...

You wake up minus your family...

Ouch!

So much for 'soul mates'...


-- dgb, Aug. 19th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain,

-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations,

-- Are still in process...

.............................................................................

--


Jenny Sanford: Affair was like ‘punches to gut’
South Carolina governor’s wife pulls no punches of her own in Vogue article

Video
Gov. Sanford’s wife speaks out
Aug. 18: Jenny Sanford, the wife of the South Carolina governor who admitted an affair with a woman in Argentina, is breaking her silence. NBC’s Norah O’Donnell reports.

Today show

From the internet, Aug.18th, 2009.

Jenny Sanford moves out
Aug. 8: The wife of South Carolina governor Mark Sanford has moved out of the governor's mansion.

By Jonann Brady
TODAYShow.com contributor
updated 9:20 a.m. ET, Tues., Aug 18, 2009

Jenny Sanford, the wife of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, told Vogue magazine that finding out about her husband’s affair with an Argentine woman felt like “punches to the gut.”

Sanford, 47, has remained relatively quiet since her husband’s infidelity became public in June, but in an in-depth interview in the magazine’s latest issue, she pulls no punches of her own about her feelings.

Sanford and her four sons, ranging in age from 10 to 17, have moved out of the governor’s mansion and into the family’s home in Sullivan’s Island. She has been praised for her reaction to the affair, in contrast to other political spouses in similar situations who put on a brave front in public to stand by their men.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Roots of obsession
Sanford told Vogue that male politicians become blinded to how infidelity can poison their personal lives and political careers.

“Politicians become disconnected from the way everyone else lives in the world. I saw that from the very beginning,” said Sanford, who helped run her husband’s Senate and gubernatorial campaigns. “They’ll say they need something, and 10 people want to give it to them. It’s an ego boost, and it’s easy to drink your own Kool-Aid. As a wife, you do your best to keep them grounded, but it’s a real challenge.”

Sanford, who found out about the affair in January, said her husband was “obsessed” with visiting the Argentine divorcee Maria Belen Chapur.

“I have learned that these affairs are almost like an addiction to alcohol or pornography. They just can’t break away from them,” Sanford told Vogue.

Mark Sanford, a conservative Republican who called President Bill Clinton’s philandering “reprehensible,” seemed an unlikely candidate for sexual scandal.

The affair came to light when Sanford, 49, could not be contacted over Father’s Day weekend. Aides initially said he had gone hiking in the Appalachians, but it soon came to light that the governor was in Argentina, visiting the woman he called his “soul mate.”

More humiliating still were the e-mails between Sanford and the woman then known only as “Maria,” in which the governor waxed poetic about his lover’s body and her “magnificently gentle kisses.”

Men and midlife
Despite those embarrassing e-mails, Jenny Sanford remained stoic in public and philosophical in her interview with Vogue.

Image: Friend helps Jenny Sanford moves out of home
Mary Ann Chastain / AP
Jenny Sanford (right) and a friend move clothing and boxes from the South Carolina governor’s mansion in Columbia, S.C. Sanford and her sons have moved to the family home on Sullivan's Island.

“I think my husband has got some issues that he needs to work on, about happiness and what happiness means,” she says. “I think when a lot of men get to this midpoint in life, they start asking questions that they probably should have asked a long time ago.”

Sanford said that men going through a midlife crisis react differently than women do. Especially with his political future unclear, Sanford said her husband is questioning his legacy and what comes next in his life.

“I know my legacy is my children, so I don’t worry about that,” Sanford said.

Jenny Sanford has not ruled out the possibility of reconciliation with her husband, but she makes it clear her husband has to decide what he wants.

“If you don’t forgive, you become angry and bitter. I don't want to become that,” she said. “Now I think it’s up to my husband to do the soul-searching to see if he wants to stay married. The ball is in his court.”

More about Jenny and Mark Sanford

* S.C. first lady, sons move out of state residence
* Spiritual adviser: ‘Darkness’ gripped Sanford
* Does ‘love’ make governor more sympathetic?

...................................................................................

An Introduction to 'The American Poltics and Economics' Blog Site: Words From The Author -- DGB

Words From The Author

Good day!

My name is David Gordon Bain. I publish a network of different but interconnected blogs and blog sites that address different areas of knowledge, different areas of living, and different current and past issues.

All together, these blogs and blog sites can be referred to as my 'philosophical treatise' or 'philosophical journal'. It is all published online in this collection and network of blogs and blog sites. The work or treatise as a whole is called: Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology For the Layperson, the Academic, and the Professional.

I also sometimes refer to my work as 'DGBN Philosophy-Psychology' and/or 'GAP-DGB Philosophy-Psychology'.

The premise here is that life -- and all aspects of human living -- consists of countless 'dialectic splits' between 'polar opposites'. This idea goes back to the very beginning of Western Philosophy. Anaxamander (611BC-547BC), the second oldest Western (Greek) philosopher described a type of philosophy that I translate some 2550 years later as 'power-dialectics' (or in politics, 'power-politics'). This is a type of human relationship (interaction, encounter) where one person or one side of the dialectic split or disagreement tries successfully or unsuccessfully to basically 'dominate' or 'overpower' the other person or side, leaving the other side at least temporarily 'marginalized' unless or until this latter side can in turn dominate or overpower the first side.

Much later than Anaxamander, Thomas Hobbes described this same basic idea as did other philosophers in similar and/or different ways. This type of philosophy and/or politics can best be summarized as either: 1. the 'Master/Slave' relationship; and/or 2. 'Might is right.' One of the other ideas that Anaxamander expressed (in my words) is that 'power is never permanent: the 'opposite polarities' will always take turns 'dominating' and 'being suppressed, oppressed, and marginalized' by the other. In other words, power is never permanent but always 'subject to time and change'.

In contrast, Heraclitus (540BC?-480BC?), said something significantly different about 'polar opposites and splits' than Anaxamander. Specifically, he argued (and I am translating again) that the polar opposites -- black and white, men and women, up and down, high and low, Spartans and Athenians -- are attracted to, and need each other in order to function in 'ideal, harmonious, wholistic dialectic balance'.

Thus, for Heraclitus, the aim of the 'dialectic split' is 'dialectic negotiation and union' -- compromising, 'splitting differences', and out of this negotiation, essentially finding a way to come to a 'dialectic, wholistic, harmonious homeostatic balance' that basically works for both opposing parties...

To this, DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...gives the name 'democratic-dialectics' or 'dialectic-democratics' in contrast to Anaxamander's idea of power-dialectics. The Eastern (Chinese) equivalent to democratic-dialectic comes probably from Lao Tse, the Han Philosophers, and the beginning of Daoism. This evolving Eastern philosophy is best captured in the dialectic-democratic harmony of 'yin' (feminine energy, estrogen, soothing, compassionate, settling, rootedness, groundedness, security, family, caring, loving, empathic...) and 'yang' (masculine energy, testosterone, self-assertion, boldness, risk-taking, flying high, courage, confronting...)

This language is not designed to be 'sexist' and 'stereotyping' but rather to highlight the opposite characteristics and qualities that we all need in our lives to different degrees in order to live a 'balanced, dialectic-democratic' life.

Let us say that an integration of stereotyped masculine and feminine qualities and energy ideally creates the potential of living dialectically and democratically with a combined and entwined 'more balanced masculine-feminine energy'.

This goes back to an old Platonic myth that asserts that (some Greek) 'God' basically took a 'man-woman' (a 'hermaphrodite' consisting of both sexes encaptured together in one body), 'split them in two' (the dialectic split), and then basically said: 'There you go, ladies and gentlemen (Adam and Eve, if you are biblically minded). You both need each other to complete your other opposite, missing half -- I have separated you; now it is up to you two to go out and find each other again, integrate your opposing polarities, and find a way to be happy again. If you can, you can; if you can't, you can't. It is your problem, not mine.'

In the perspective of DGB Philosophy, Anaxamander and Heraclitus -- taken together -- are just as important, if not more important, to a basic understanding of human evolution and history -- i.e. 'the dialectic history of man' -- as their much more famous later Greek philosophers -- Plato and Aristotle -- were/are.

My (Post-Hegelian) thesis is that the evolution of life as captured in either: 1. the Hegelian formula of a) 'thesis'; b) 'anti-thesis'; and c) 'synthesis'; and/or the Darwinian (or the 'Adam and Eve biblical) genetic formula of a) 'thesis-genetics' (male sperm); b) 'anti-thesis-genetics' (female egg); and c) 'male-female-synthesis-integration' (united sperm-egg) is captured in the fomula of 'dialectic evolution'. Dialectic evolution involves a multitude of similar and different 'individuating or splitting' and 'synthesizing, integrating or unionizing' forces that both come together and split apart with the regularity of day and night, and of high and low tides. In one of my essays, I have called this 'The Dialectic Force of God'.

Man is caught between a 'will to dialectically have power over' (DGB's version of Anaxamander's 'power-dialectics and power-politics') and a 'will to negotiate, compromise, integrate, synthesize, unionize...(DGB's version of Heraclitus' 'democratic-dialectics').

The evolution and the history of man can very appropriately be described as a struggle between man's 'will to power over' vs. man's 'will to negotiate, compromise, integrate, synthesize, unionize' -- i.e. a struggle between power-politics and democratic politics.

In 'The American Politics and Economics' blog site, I simply aim to trace and develop -- both realistically and idealistically -- the essence of this struggle in the ongoing history and evolution of the American people.

-- dgb, Aug. 12th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain,

-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,

-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations,

-- Are still in process...