Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Infidelity & Integrity, Personal & Political.

During the 2008 election-go-round Democrat and presidential candidate John Edwards' infidelity had news media and blogosphere all agog. The 2012 campaign cycle started early. Long before the primaries we have been reading of the misadventures of (now former) Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.

As history appears to be rhyming yet again, I decided to bring forward part of a post from 2008 on the topic of fidelity and integrity.

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 ?
Re: 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, or to a constituent or constituency - then his/her weakness could well come to the fore.

Re: #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". 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.
John Edwards has Sun, Moon, Jupiter and Mars all in Gemini. Chart can be seen here. Now that's a really simple, clear example. The planetary configuration of an unfathful partner could easily be far more complex.

Herman Cain has Sun, Mercury and Venus all in mutable Sagittarius, with Uranus in Gemini opposing the Sagittarius cluster. Moon's Nodal axis = Sagittarius/Gemini too - which all adds up to a goodly dose of mutability.

In some of the most famous instances of politicians being caught with their proverbial pants down, Bill Clinton and JFK for example, or, for a British counterpart, John Profumo, chart indications are certainly more complex than a simple mutable majority.

Two other personality traits 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.

Another important ingredient shouldn't be overlooked: 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 seemingly an inbuilt trait of human nature.

I ought to add that not every person, male or female, with a surfeit of Gemini or any other mutable sign, in their natal chart is going to be a bad bet on the marriage front. As lawyers say, "all the circumstances of the case" must be taken into consideration.

The compounding of infidelity by lying about it, once found out, means the infidel's general integrity is also in doubt. Not all who stray lie about it when discovered, which doesn't excuse them, but it does hint at a tad more 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 )

From my 2008 post I'm copying a few comments from my then, and happily still, blog-buddies: Wisewebwoman and R.J. Adams, which I think add a certain something to the post's content, I've copied my responses also. There are a few more comments at the original post.

RJ Adams~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.

Twilight~"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?

Wisewebwoman ~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

Twilight ~ 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 ~ 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.

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.

Twilight ~ 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 ones 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 that Dennis Kucinich cheated on his wife, I think I'll lose all faith! And my all-time hero in Britain, Tony Benn - never, never, never! :-)


Wisewebwoman said...

Ah the bedfellows past and present of the American Political Scene!

I've always loved what our late, great Pierre Elliot Trudeau, prime minister of Canada, had to say about all of this:
"The government should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation."
The press would be wise to do likewise.

And what are those stats I read years ago about the percentage of men who would succumb if an attractive woman threw herself at them? 80%.

No stats on the other gender.



Wisewebwoman said...

And *giggle* after I posted this.

The three most important questions to ask an American politician:

(1) Who have you slept with?
(2) Who are you NOW sleeping with?
(3) Who do you intend to sleep with?



Twilight said...

WWW ~~ :-D

Yes - well the "other party" has to accept some blame of course. But we need to be able to trust politicians in high office - what if the female throwing themselves were an underground "spy" or suchlike. Getting into James Bond territory here - but it could happen, in times of international conflict. This is why it DOES matter, it's not just a matter of being judgmental or strait-laced.

LOL - good 3 questions !