I concern myself with. Mine, and my partner's. What other people do with theirs (so long as there is mutual consent), is really of no interest to me.
So, I engage in schadenfreude when the undoings of the Larry Craigs and Elliot Spitzers come to light. Because, you know, it's just so STUPID.
We're in the post Gary Hart era here.
So, why DO they do it? Follow me below the waist, errrr, fold.
For mostly mentally healthy people, their basic personalities and character are a puree of various traits.
It's kind of obvious, that if your ego has allowed you to think you somehow deserve to be, or are qualified to be POTUS, you have an extraordinarily robust ego.
So, going back to the puree visual, where does that ego stop?
Is it compartmentalized and only comes out for politics? Does it stop at a feeling that you deserve post presidential wealth? Does it stop .... you get the picture. The ego is there, and it fans out just like a quart of milk spilled on the floor throughout all the aspects of the politician's personality.
So, why do people think, that the substantial egos of persons who seek, and serve in elevated political office, stop at the threshold of their sexuality? That kind of thinking is ridiculous. Now, it may be, that a person's moral code inhibits his ego from acting in certain ways but, that doesn't mean it's disappeared.
John Edwards said it pretty well, he started feeling 'special'. Special enough to amass a major fortune, Special enough to run for president. Twice. Special enough to get whatever he wanted including, yeah. That. And most of all, special enough to get away with it.
I suspect, that in the relatively small club which comprises persons elected to national office, there are a LOT who feel 'special'.
And, let's face it. Although 'monogamous' is the culturally talked about norm, vast majorities of men and women are not monogamous with their partners. Vast majorities. The accepted norm, and reality are widely divergent. And, the other thing? We don't really know what agreements two people in an intimate relationship have with one another regarding extramarital activities. Assuming it's the same one you or I might have is just naive. But then, just imagine the news conference: "while we understand this isn't exactly usual, Jezebel and I have an agreement which allows each of us to have additional sex partners, so long as the liaisons are not kept secret. So, because sex is a private thing, I wished to keep my relationship with Bathsheba private, but I was not cheating on Jezebel." Yeah. That'll happen soon.
So, I don't really care if a politician's sexual ego is not in very good check. I don't assume it means s/he has 'cheated', I don't assume s/he is of weak moral character. I don't assume s/he is unfit to serve in office. I didn't vote for him/her to be pope, I voted for them to govern.
But given that we live in the land of the descendants of puritanism, what constantly makes me slap my forehead is the unanswerable question: "What the HELL were they thinking about?"