Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (16478)	1/23/1998 11:44:00 AM
From: j g cordes	Respond to of 108807

Penni, go get your car inspected, I can't take the moral and ethical responsibility any more!... go go... tarry not another breath.. turn off the tube.. bring a lunch, the line will be long.

To: Rambi who wrote (16478)	1/23/1998 12:00:00 PM
From: Frank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi all, New lurker here, and I hope I don't interrupt the flow here, however. To me this is really and simply about "five minutes of fame"! Bring this story to its roots (dyed?). I certainly don't advocate sexual harrasment, however, why didn't Jones have a problem with all this when the allegations were happening? Why did she not walk out immidiatley. Unclear of what was going on, you say? She seems pretty clear about it now, and trying to entrap her friends to support her. (Good friend indeed). Also remember the slogan,"in the eye of the beholder". When a guy smiles at a gal, is that a pass? leud? harassment? misconduct? or just friendly? Does the answer to that change as your stature in life progresses? Or, your the president? Gimmee a break! Don't forget, the guy is human, not the Virgin Mary's brother! Where else in the world would a head of state be put to such scrutiny on such drivel of allegations, if at all? To put the welfare of such a great country in precarious position on these basis is unfathomable! Is the president above the law? No way! But if you're going to weaken the hand of the leader of the strongest country in the world, you better have undeniable facts to support you! I don't understand the American preoccupation with everyone else's sex life anyhow. Gawd in Canada our Head of state gets a divorce, and later impregnates a woman as a favour, and it doesn't make page 2 of the papers. The debate goes on.....Sorry to intrude.....excuse the spelling....and may everyone's rights be guarded,including Jones's. (just one more guy's opinion to fuel the debate) A proud neighbor to the north. Frank M

To: Rambi who wrote (16478)	1/23/1998 1:23:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

<Clinton's behavior is hardly an example of the ideal way to address these questions. More than a year ago here at Feelings, these questions were raised and addressed in some provocative posts--Christine, do you remember when?> Gee, Penni, I think this discussion was over a fairly long period of time, probably August to December, 1996 if my memory serves me at all, and moved from whether it was morally more justifiable to leave a dead marriage or stay and try to make it at least okay, to serious love relationships which were not exclusive, but nonetheless committed, and whether this was necessarily immoral. I think at the center of these discussions was a lot of agony about hurting people to whom a serious commitment has been made. There was also a lot of hand-wringing about whether personal happiness is selfish, and whether it should always be secondary to family stability. I wouldn't even know where to put Billy in reference to these discussions. Everyone who was talking at length was certainly trying to cause as little pain as possible in their lives, and I don't see the president really being very aware of that as an issue. Ethics doesn't seem to be his strong suit (this is a moral judgment, I fully admit). There is definitely an argument to be made that life-long monogamy is difficult in an age where we just live so much longer. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to make different levels of commitment, and we can see this already in the 'covenant' marriages being offered in at least one state. I don't personally think this society, which is fairly religious, will ever get to the point where it will be socially generally acceptable for married people to have sex with multiple other partners in relationships which seem to have an element of using the other women for gratification and not much else, unless both partners in the marriage agree that they have this sort of open marriage. Of course, some women are so enchanted by being close to power, or have such low self-esteem (sorry!), that it will always be possible for selfish, amoral men to get their needs met. But I was really struck by the pictures a few years ago of Jerry Hall dragging Mick Jagger to marriage counseling, and him reading books about sexual addiction. Even though women are available to very powerful men, it still really is destructive behavior.