OK, maybe it's just me:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

But why is it that sleeping with a woman he's not married to is all it takes to get a CIA director out of office? I mean it seems a rather underwhelming offense given how many people who retain their positions in office *coughDavidVittercough* happen to have done much worse things and retain their position and shamelessly keep doing the same kind of foolishness they got in trouble for beforehand. In today's America where the self-appointed defenders of traditional marriage cheat on their cancer-stricken wives to establish the bases for their third marriages and where sexual mores have changed for the better, how is this is at all a cause to dismiss anyone or for anyone to resign?

Sure, it might be bad 'if they talk' but then again, people like J. Edgar Hoover got away with much more than this. I really don't know what to make of Petraeus's resignation, so I'm basically asking you guys:

If someone in that position is boinking someone who's not his wife, should that alone be enough to lead to his resignation? (I admit to gendered bias in the question here but there aren't too many female politicians involved in sex scandals yet so that can be excused). I don't think it should be and I find the whole reaction to have more to do with puritanical pseudo-moralism than anything inherent in the offense. What do you think?

Comments

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I thought he resigned, not that he was fired?


It's really not about where his genitalia are

Are you certain, because if he kept his penis strictly inside his wife, there would be no scandal.

This is really about who he fucked, and our assumptions about whatever that tells us stuff about his judgement vulnerability, etc.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

ealistic premises and extensive past experiences with members of the intelligence community getting into illicit sexual affairs and thereby being compromised

Penis placement police. The first half was right too.

If no one gives a shit where he put his penis, there is no "compromise".

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

That's entirely up to her. I'm not paying for them to have a consensual monogamous relationship. But, apparently, I was paying the General to have one. I know that if I were in a consensual monogamous relationship and someone had an affair, I would be upset, and I may break up/divorce.

Not sure I would want them to lose their job over it though.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

e.g. He could blackmailed into giving up secrets or performing certain actions in his role as CIA Director, in exchange for not telling his wife about his infidelity.

Not anymore. Now everyone knows and his wife goes on TV telling us all that its painful and they'll need to work it out with time.

Look, this issue is completely about our cultures puritanical sexual morality. Our penis placement, if you will. The reality of the puritanical culture we live within makes the honeypot technique you mention (thanks) so viable. The sheer power of that puritanism is on display.


Is a man who knowingly put himself in this position, the kind of person you would want being person in charge of and responsible for keeping US secrets?

James Bond wasn't married, was he?

I don't really think we can avoid it. People have affairs. The soviets chose the technique. But, the reason for the honeypot's methods effectiveness lies entirely within our morality and puritanism.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

, but the reason for this technique's effectiveness is because people want to keep knowledge of affairs from their PARTNERS.

Okay, I see the distinction, at least on the tactical level, thanks.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

Latest makes it pretty clear that he was asked to step down, and also that if it had stayed under the radar, he could have kept his job while still fucking another woman. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/petraeus-told-biographer-to-stop-harassing-family-friend-officials-say/2012/11/12/6ccb325c-2d00-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_story.html)