Sunday, August 10, 2008

Loyalty, Infidelity, Integrity.

With John Edwards' admission of his infidelity claiming large chunks of news and blogosphere, I've been pondering just two matters from what is a multi-multi-faceted subject with many grey areas:
#1 Does infidelity to a spouse automatically mean lack of integrity in other areas - in one's career/professional life, for example ?
#2 Is there an astrological signature which would be likely to produce a marital infidel ?

#1 My own opinion is that it's impossible to generalise. Individual circumstances have to be taken into account, but if asked for a blanket answer I'd have to say: yes. Disloyalty in one area of life shows character weakness, which could spill into other areas. This doesn't, though, have any bearing on skills, talent or competence in the professional sphere. A person can be a cheating spouse but still be a brilliant architect, teacher, politician, plumber, builder, farmer........the crunch might come if an issue of loyalty were to arise in the workplace - to an employer or client, then the weakness might come to the fore. My reply, by the way, is steered by my own Fixed Sun/Cardinal Moon and ascendant, and a modality balance which is just about equal, but with Fixed slightly ahead.

#2 I'm no expert, as I often point out, but I do have books. One I turn to first in matters such as this is "Encyclopedia of Astrological Psychology" by C.E.O. Carter. It's and oldie but goodie. There's no section on marital infidelity as such, but under "Loyalty" the astrologer says, among other things, that "the very mental horoscope is probably the least loyal by nature, and where the synthesis also shows much mutability.....we get something of a time-server and turncoat". So the "mental horoscope" must refer to the Air signs, Gemini, Aquarius and Libra. Mutability = the mutable signs: Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius, Pisces. The sign found under both headings is our communicative, flexible, Mercurial friend Gemini.

Of note here: John Edwards has Sun, Moon, Jupiter and Mars all in Gemini. Chart can be seen here. Now that's a really simple example. In the charts of other politicians caught with their proverbial pants down, Bill Clinton and JFK spring to mind, or, for a British counterpart, John Profumo, the planetary mix could well be far more complex.

Two other personality traits could feed in and support any potentiality to unfaithfulness: narcissism - love of oneself to the detriment of others, and a hankering for power. Astrological signatures for these have to be factored in too. There's also another very big ingredient: opportunity. Why do we hear of so many pop stars, movie stars and famous politicians being unfaithful to their spouses? Opportunity. Adoring throngs are drawn to these people, it's human nature.

I ought to add here, that not every person, male or female, with a surfeit of Gemini in their natal chart is going to be a bad bet on the marriage front. I suspect mutability will always play a part though. Additionally environment, family background, and the traits mentioned above need to be considered: whether the person in question is narcissitic, a power seeker, and whether they have many opportunities for infidelity.

The compounding of a wrong by lying about infidelity, once found out, adds another layer. Not all who stray lie about it when discovered, which doesn't excuse them but it does hint at a tad more integrity and strength of character.

"We are all in the same boat in a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty." ( G. K. Chesterton )

10 comments:

R J Adams said...

Ah, the reasoning of a woman! It tickles me how the focus of condemnation is aimed squarely on Edwards. No-one points accusingly at the woman who (maybe) enticed him to her bed.
The truth is these liaisons occur constantly, particularly when men and women are away from their home environment for prolonged periods and thrown together in unusual intimacy. In France it would scarcely raise a whisper. In the great moralistic hypocrite that is America, the media blossoms into yet another cracked and tuneless aria.
This is a sad matter to be worked out between Mr and Mrs. None of the rest of us should be involved. I believe it has more to do with hormones than character defects.

Wisewebwoman said...

T:
I think it all boils down to respect, T. Did he respect his wife? Not to judge anyone else (for Maude knows I've succumbed to temptation myself)but it appears not. I bring this up because of her cancer.
Would he respect the electorate? Hard to say.
It takes 2 to tango for sure. And wily, wilful paramours capitalize on their sexual prowess.
He succumbed to his primeval desires.
What drives me consistently MAD in all of this hypocritcal posturing is the fact that most of these affairs never come to light. I am reminded of Bush-the-Brighter and his long term mistress. Winston Churchill too, etc.
XO
WWW

Twilight said...

"The reasoning of a woman", you say, condemnation aimed squarely on Edwards? Not here.

No, no, RJ. I was trying to approach this from a wider angle with a broad brush - the issue of loyalty, rather than speaking about an individual case, which as it happens is currently in the news, and happens to be a good example, astrologically.

You say these liaisons occur constantly. Maybe so, but not among those with loyalty etched deep into their psyche I'd wager!

France does not impress me much, whatever they whisper about.

The Edwards affair is indeed a sad matter, but he is a public figure, discussion is inevitable.

Hormones schmormones! If everyone is led by hormones alone the rest of our grey matter turns out to be superfluous then?

LOL! Your earlier comment (to the 1066 /Good President thing) arrived first, in an e-mail alert. I glanced at it quickly assuming it referred to this post - LOL! Read it again! It had me spluttering into my morning coffee. ;-)

Twilight said...

WWW~~~ This is such a complex subject. I deleted a paragraph in my post where I'd said I felt as though I was skating rather badly over thin ice beneath which lay fathoms of stinky murky stuff.

It's hard not to be judgmental of those in public life when things like the Edwards affair arise. We ought not to be, but on the other hand, if they rise to great power, they have potential to be subject to blackmail, as well as further scandals, which do the country's reputation no good at all.

Politicians (of either sex) know that they skate on thin ice if they engage in affairs - one would expect them to be aware of it 24/7, but many seem to ignore the fact. I suspect that their vision of their own powerfulness blinds them to the dangers.

Wisewebwoman said...

Maybe I wasn't clear on what I was trying to say, T.
Men in power of all stripes have always had affairs, it appears to be part of the perks.
Very few have been exposed. And when they are,(Ken Starr & Clinton) the ravening frenzy of media hypocrisy takes over while they turn a blind eye to the peccadilloes of the others in power, Eisenhower, John Major, the Kennedys, Roosevelt, etc. to add a few more. I have always been puzzled by this and wonder about the back scratching between politicians and the press.
XO
WWW
PS And I've seen some rather nasty pics of Edwards which show a completely different kind of hee-haw side to the man than what his previous persona appeared to be.

anthonynorth said...

Often it is the lying that is the end of a marriage rather than the infidelity, I think.
As to the general level of infidelity among politicians, etc, I feel it is often the desire to live on the edge that leads them to politics. If so, can this desire be kept in just one area of life?
I don't think so.
I keep remembering John Major, the most boring politician of the age, always getting himself into difficulties - and his four year affair with Edwina Currie.
Masochism in all walks of life ;-)

Twilight said...

WWW ~~~~ your first comment was clear, but I managed to waffle in response...lol!

Yes, in a way infidelities can be seen as a perk of the job, as you say. It's a similar situation to when The Lord of the Manor, in centuries past had his pick of the serving wenches whenever the urge took him - often by all accounts!
UGH!!!! That thought pains my socialist soul no end.

There are so many examples of the
baddies in this respect, some surprising one such as John Major,
there surely have been some good boys too. I'm not well enough informed to know who they are/were.

If someone tells me Dennis Kucinich cheated on his wife, I think I'll lose all faith! And my all-time hero in Britian, Tony Benn - never, never, never! :-)

Twilight said...

Hi AN ~~~ Yes, this is true. There must be a kink in the personality of leading politicians. That hankering after power, which is, after all what drives them beyond simply serving their community in smaller ways, must also have the side-effect you mention - a continuing need to live on the edge. I'd thought that it could be a continuing need for control, not just of the country, but of individuals, but that doesn't really work because in the end the tables are turned and it's the other party who gains control - sells their story to the press, or it leaks out, and poooof - one career ruined, so who had control?

Infidelity happens in all walks of life, but in this particular area, of high politics, it is especially interesting. The very people in whom we put our trust are, it seems, some of the most likely to be disloyal - the last kind of flaw needed in their positions. Sigh. I'm feeling very disillusioned now. ;-(

anthonynorth said...

I must comment on your comment about Tony Benn. I don't think he has had a single policy that I would support. But on saying this, he is the only politician in my political memory who I would trust.
That man is as straight and uncorruptable as they come. An absolute diamond.

Twilight said...

Oh good! Glad you see it too, AN.
I was half expecting someone to say "Tony Benn? That nutcase?"
(Which has often been the response when I've mentioned his name in conversation).

Whether one agrees with his political leanings or not, it would be hard to fault him on his integrity. As you say, a diamond.
Would that there were more of his ilk.