Sex, Forgiveness and Politicians

Welcome to my head! So much more to be said and done in our world. All I say is as long as they are doing their job and happy leave them alone. There are so many that are not doing their job, lets heat their seats!

You missed the point, CCNL. I asked:

"exactly what in our past conversations leads you to believe I think you can 'cast a spell' to *coerce* someone to control *themselves?*"

You bring up something from commercial websites someone put up, probably to make money: which doesn't say anything about Wiccan ethics in these matters... If you could have, I'm sure you would have brought up something about *casting* a coercive 'love spell' to make your point, rather than the breaking of one, and wouldn't have had to resort to trying to use a 'voodoo' site to 'prove' something as well.

The reason these things are considered both no-nos and extremely stupid is very much related to my point: you can't force love with magic any more than you can force it with the mundane. Just *can't* coerce someone to *control themselves* as you seem to think we'd be somehow motivated to have done to Bill Clinton, (cause, of course, Wiccans are always peeking in the White House to watch out for violations of Christian morality in the first place,)
...Well, it wouldn't be *self-control* if someone's being 'controlled, ' is it?

As we bind, so are we bound.

Or did you mean 'self-control' as in, 'Do what I say or I'll say you have no self-control?'

What you *said,* CCNL, is a contradiction in terms on many levels. For starters, Wiccans believe in freedom, ...and though there isn't general approval of marital infidelity, we're not the ones trying to *control* other people's sex lives with mystical or political threats.

Self-control is up to the individual, ...it comes from within, not coercion by religion, or spells , or media smear machines. Self. Or it's not *real.*

While you were asleep tonight
I wanted to be there and hold you tight
But since that was not the way
I will think of you often thoughout the day
Remember that I love you dear
And hope that you will never fear
That my love for you will ever change
My love for you will always remain~

Hmmm, Wiccan spells potentially useful for "zipper down" Billy Boy and his "Monica (be)witched": http://bestwiccanspells.tripod.com/

1. "To Break Another Witches Spell by Juniper

*A length of silver cord or string

*Your Athame or a pair of scissors

Tie one knot in each end of the silver cord, as you do this visualize one knot representing you and the other person who has cast the spell or hex.

Cut the cord in the centre, chant the following, and see the spell breaking:

From you to me this spell I break,

This was not right for you to make.

Its path I will abruptly end,

And back to you the spell I send"

2. "To Reverse Any Love Spell

On a night when the Moon is in a waning phase, write your name and the name of your bewitched lover on the side of a white votive candle. Anoint the candle with myrrh oil, light it, and say:

"I Burn This Candle
As A Token Of The Spell
That Binds Our Love.
Let This Magick Now Be Broken
By The Power Of The Gods Above."

Allow the candle to burn itself out.

After the leftover wax has cooled and
hardened, wrap it in a piece of white silk, tie it tightly with a white ribbon, and then toss it into the sea or into a river."

Of course there is always the "zipper down" Billy Boy voodoo dolls one could have used!! Yes, we know Wiccans don't practice voodoo or hoodoo but there are apparently a lot of Pagans that do considering the market for voodoo dolls,

http://www.pinheadvoodoodolls.com/Product.aspx

I agree with this author, though I am not wiccan. Marriage and all that entails it, cheating included, is a private affair. I am so tired of our national politics being more about personal gossip- wether it is true or not- than about policy making. I find it so darn self righteous and patronizing on the part of the media and pundits alike. If our media paid more attention to the matters that actually have a material effect on our lives we would not be in the economical and enviromental mess we find ourselves in now. God help us all!!

When we are in our twenties we make the stupidest decision that is almost guaranteed to make us unhappy somewhere down the line. We decide at such a tender age that our romantic feelings stay the same forever and thus make the often times precipitous walk down the aisle. We do so, firmly believing what society has been drilling down our brains for so long: that we are monogamous once we find the "one" person that makes us "whole". So, contrary to human nature, we embark in a hopeless travesty of marriage and monogamy. Let's face it, when we fall in love we really believe that such a thing is possible. So did Mr. Edwards , so did Billy, and so many uncountable others. Somewhere down the road the thrill is gone and cheating becomes part of the story. People cheat because promising to feel love for one person only for the rest of our living days is just a human impossibility. Those who don't cheat physically do it emotionally, but sooner or later we all fall out of love and the only thing that keeps people together is pure commitment, convenience and most of all fear of loosing what you've got in order to start the never ending story of falling in and out of love with someone new. That is why when married people have love affairs their intentions are never to divorce but to have their cake and eat it too. Unless, of course, their present marriage is so miserable that the affair can present an opportunity to escape. People should stop being childish about the romantic notions of an eternal flame. Give the politicians a freaking break!! We all cheat!! Get REAL!!!

"Had you only applied a Wiccan self-control spell or chant upon Billy before the event occurred!!!"

CCNL. Far be it from me at this point to ask you to recognize a contradiction in terms, but exactly what in our past conversations leads you to believe I think you can 'cast a spell' to *coerce* someone to control *themselves?*

Paganplace, Paganplace, Paganplace,

The adultery and infidelity of "zipper-down" Billy Boy indeed ruined both Gore and Hillary's chance of the presidency. His choice of "fun time" location did not help the situation. It forever stained the Oval Office with the yuck and ooze of sexual stupidity.

Had you only applied a Wiccan self-control spell or chant upon Billy before the event occurred!!!

Or, not to put to fine a point on it, most of Western monotheist societ's ideas of 'propriety' are fundamentally based on the notion that men are *out of control,* require *external control,* and then gets indignant when so many *do* in fact live down to it.

We talk a lot about the Goddess here.

Don't talk so much about The God, ...cause frankly, it scares the *paste* out of people taught to see men as society these days has tried to make it.

In our spiritual parlance, masculine divinity also takes many aspects. These are not all on these uncomfortably-monolithic models that become psychodrama for the masses whenever the media decides to scandalize and moralize... to displace the inherent discomfort they portray as 'fallen human nature' to live down to.

They involve *respect.* For self and others.

A lady might like the young bucks, or the 'King Stags,' ...if there's anything profane about that, someone profaned it.

Anyway, Daniel:

"My point was that in general young women (in their early 20's) are not interested in men over 50.

"I think most men over 50 can verify that. (I just used the occuupation of janitor to contrast it with the President, but any occupation would do)."

Just to clarify something, here: *most* men over 50, if you like that as a dividing line... Are either married or still thinking of women as they did when they were eighteen. Maybe a bit more cynically.

Older men I've dated were never exactly 'waiting for the right girl' all that time, let's say.

Usually widowers or divorced, no more interested in drama or complications than I was, (Or on ill-advised occasions, in the process of such divorces, what am I, stupid? :)) There's a million 'Fifty-year-old boys' out there, with a frustrated sort of lechery going on, and that's exactly what I'm *not* talking about. :)

Yeah, *most* men go from would-be sports heroes to Homer Simpson or something. Find it very easy to still think in the same terms as they did in high school or college or whatever, and figure that anyone that might like them must be a 'w-word.' Makes it easy to not grow a social skill, blame their age, and go ahead and treat women as 'w-words' Safe. But distinctly unattractive.

Sour grapes and all. That's exactly what I'm *not* talking about. I'm talking about gents who have something *going on.* Together. Unconflicted. :) Not so common, that, but maybe that's why I keep ending up with women. I'm not someone who's exactly been running around looking for breeding stock, here. :)

So, yeah, it's a prejudice. A convenient one. Often an operative one. But still a prejudice. Best not to base political analysis on it, Daniel. :)

"If you don't intend to be monogamous, don't promise it. Let the other person know up front that you intend to have other partners, and let him/her decide if s/he wishes to continue the relationship on those terms."

And, just so, Lepi. Maybe these political circuses would be a little more justified if a pose of certain kind of marriage wasn't essentially *mandatory* to hold any kind of high office at *all.*

One of the realities is that the appearance of not 'living in sin' is *mandatory* there, ...so folks can *then* get indignant about broken promises. It's about control, by certain agendas, really.

" What happened?

"Billy Boy's fifteen minutes of zipper-down fun and Hillary's acceptance of such activity!!!! Had she divorced the womanizer, she would be giving the acceptance speech!! No guts, no glory!!!"

No, if she'd divorced him, she'd be called 'against the sanctity of marriage' and accused of being an opportunist trying to distance herself from a peccadillo at national expense when she 'couldn't even keep her husband in line.' 'Divorce is a *sin* (for women) !!!'

The *preoccupation* with Bill Clinton's peccadillo, (which hadn't actually happened when Republicans who were themselves cheating on their wives initiated the 'scandal,' to gridlock as much government as they could and get an eedjit elected (within cheating range) next time around.

It's not about the bj, it's about certain *obsessions with sex* that have messed up the country.

It wasn't Bill Clinton that ruined Hillary's prospects, it was ...people that don't find it politically- convenient to stick to the issues and mind their own business.

MM, Athena, (and all.) :)

"What I am upset about is that he used campaign money as hush money to his mistress. That's the disappointing thing."

*cynically.*

Sounds like a campaign issue to *me.*

But who made it that way?

" The fact that he thinks with his gonads is less troubling to me."

I have to admit that this may be less about Edwards 'thinking with his gonads' than looking for some comfort in a difficult situation. (Then maybe that other brain got involved) It really doesn't seem like his motive was to forsake his wife for some sexual gratification... and he did *deal* with it, and reconcile with his wife, (before getting caught) rather than abandoning her.

Not to excuse it or anything, just... it's on a 'sad shake of the head' level rather than any being scandalized.

Still, Daniel, the implications that 'Nah, younger women aren't meaningfully interested in older men, it must be something else,' ...just isn't true.

And you have to admit the prejudice exists. Frankly, to avoid being accused of 'sleeping your way to a better station in life,' women as political life and modern 'family values' say, are supposed to go to college, get educated, have a career, and then toss that away to have kids so we can't be accused of some manipulation or being ...you know the w word, or something.

There's still an inherent disrespect for women there, the old Catholic school thing about your academics and college and any career and all being about *marrying into the right social class and then putting that nonsense aside as much as you can afford to. Even, of course, if your folks work for the town and you'd always be a pretender there, anyway.*

There are complications, of course... in fact, a lot of 'older men' (I'm starting to get on a bit, myself, and I suppose many in my preferred age bracket no longer count as 'older,' but it's been some years since I've been in my current relationship, so I still tend to think of these things in terms of being a young-looking thirtysomething :) ) ...are insecure about 'only being wanted for their money,' ...and usually tend to overcompensate for that, if anything.

But, you see, Daniel, what *men* tell each other women find attractive when they're competing against *each other* isn't necessarily what women actually find attractive. (Great way to be thought a queer, that, not dutifully-responding to all that nonsense, anyway. The only guy that got a glimmer of interest from me was someone who didn't play those games and was really already moved on to adult life and waiting for things to be made official. But there was competition and I was sort of 'one of the boys' anyway. :) )

Now, I don't know what's with politicians, (Could you picture that, me and some politician? Said politician would be walking away like, 'I didn't get anything, but I *do* feel like I could be in a West Wing subplot,' :) ) ...but my understanding is that, say, Bill Clinton is actually a very magnetic individual in person. Whatever.

It's people.

I still think you voice a prejudice, there, Daniel, that women are either interested in some 'fallen' sex appeal or some 'fallen' lust for indirect power.... that's kind of your religious narrative.

Even the question of 'Should Mrs Edwards forgive the guy for something she forgave him for before we even dragged this stuff out for political titillation?' Again, trying to fit reality into some other ideas about what reality is 'supposed' to be.

Guess who ends up with the scorn, somehow.

As in so many other cases, is there a 'right' call to make, that we can see on TV and judge, or do some folks just enjoy the process, and use *that* to political advantage?

And, Daniel, your points about the 'simpler life' making monogamy easier, ...fairly well taken.

Though sometimes when life gets *too* 'simple,' sometimes polyamory makes some sense just cause it's hard to promise stability when no one has the resources to stay together if fragile economic situations change. There's a terrible rootlessness at the other end of the economic scale, too, and sometimes non-monogamy helps spread the risk a bit, for all the problems there.

Hillary is going to make a speech instead of delivering an acceptance speech. What happened?

Billy Boy's fifteen minutes of zipper-down fun and Hillary's acceptance of such activity!!!! Had she divorced the womanizer, she would be giving the acceptance speech!! No guts, no glory!!!

Lepi:

Merry Meet!

I am with you 100%!!! And that is the standard I have taught to my daughters!

DITLD:
What I mean is this: monogamy is easier to manage and maintain when people lead simple lives, and have limited resources. But when their resources become vast, and practically unlimited, and when the husband and wife are off on different schedules engaged in many complex things, then the whole proposition of monogamy becomes more of an intellectual choice, and people must really think it through more carefully, just how much do they love each other, and do they really want to stay together, or might they be able to find a better partner elsewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll grant you the first part of that statement - monogamy is easier when you spend more time together in the first place.

I don't have a problem with multiple partners if EVERYONE involved is on board with that arrangement. But if you've made an oath, a vow, a promise, a trust with someone else to be monogamous for the duration of your relationship, then keep your word.

If you don't intend to be monogamous, don't promise it. Let the other person know up front that you intend to have other partners, and let him/her decide if s/he wishes to continue the relationship on those terms.

If you have a monogamous arrangement and are no longer satisfied with it, have the common decency to tell your spouse/partner/significant other that you're opting out BEFORE you take another partner. Don't sneak around, lie about it, and then act all contrite when you get caught. THAT'S the part of the whole bit that makes you appear untrustworthy - not that you found someone else, but that you were deliberately deceitful about it.

(and of course, I use "you" generically, not personally).

The mundanes might think that Paganism is one big orgy, but the truth is far from it. Yes, we have a much more enlightened view of sexuality than monotheists do. Some Pagans have multiple partners, and some do not. As long as all parties are consenting adults, we tend not to worry about it. But, like the mundane world, we have our dramas about who's sleeping with whom, which person has a habit of going after significant others, etc. But we don't view sex as dirty unless done within the confines of marriage. Sexuality is sacred. Our Goddess says that "all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals."

That being said, I think that John Edwards was a fool. I don't know the whole story behind his affair, and it's none of my business. What I am upset about is that he used campaign money as hush money to his mistress. That's the disappointing thing. The fact that he thinks with his gonads is less troubling to me.

Dear Pagan Place

Perhaps I did not make my point correctly. I was agreeing with the esssayest.

My point was that in general young women (in their early 20's) are not interested in men over 50.

I think most men over 50 can verify that. (I just used the occuupation of janitor to contrast it with the President, but any occupation would do).

But that wasn't my main point; my main point was that fidelity in marrigage is easier when people live simple lives and more difficult when people lead complex lives.

And in saying this, I was not condemning the Edwards's for having complex lives; I was trying to understand the additional problesm that an increasingly complex life brings.

And having written all of this stuff, basically about nothing, I have to sigh again, that this question is practically worthless.

I think this site may be melting down.

" Daniel in the Lion's Den:

"Power is sexy." That is a good point. Most young women are not interested in middle aged men, that's a fact. If Presiedent Clinton had been the White House janitor, you can bet that Monica Lewinsky would not have snapped her thong at him. (Yes, I blame her, a little)"

Well, yes, Daniel, power is sexy. But it's a prejudice of our youth-obsessed society that any woman interested in an older man is a gold-digger or otherwise has ulterior, even sinister motives.

I guess your Bible's just that full of characters like that.

Not that age necessarily brings *maturity* in the male half of the species, but plenty of us actually *like* older men.

Less strutting and drama and posturing and insecurity is often to be found, there. It often comes with confidence that I find very attractive, (even if that's maybe less-often found in the janitors of this world, older men I've been with were hardly who you'd call 'the powerful.' )

But some folks just aren't looking for youth. Some actually like people for who they are, not youthful attractiveness, (though some men are sure pretty to look at, there's that) Someone you can connect with, have a conversation with, that's maybe seen enough of life to know what not to worry about. :)

It's ironic that so many Christians seem to presume a relationship is 'dirty' if it's *not* all about superficial attractiveness.

And of course, who gets blamed for *that?* The woman, of course.

To say that it's necessarily insincere really probably overlooks that mature men are fairly often voted 'Sexiest Man Alive' or whatever.

" R.S.Newark:

"What the Wiccans don't understand is that perhaps three quarters of the people in the United States are "pagan".... they simply don't know it."

Ah, how very convenient that notion is, for some... If we want equal rights, we're a fringe group too small to worry about... but if a 'Christian Nation' wants someone to blame for its own little hypocrisies, all of a sudden our influence stretches far and wide.

How nominal Christians deal with the problems inherent to their own ideals, that's part of your own culture, how it deals, and doesn't deal, with one of the inherent challenges of exclusive monogamy. (which mostly involves, apparently, an attitude of helplessness toward the much-scorned sex drive, and then public excoriation of those caught cheating and those 'cuckolded,' ...not cause there's anything all that unusual about it, but because it's a *game* of some kind. And getting caught is a humiliating 'loss' in that media game.)

Pagans tend to see oaths as very serious matters, indeed, (and weddings do tend to be bound with oaths, or even *seen* as oaths, rather than the 'vows,' common to civil and Christian marriage.)

To us, marriage isn't a hoop you need to jump through for permission to have sex at *all,* or to be respectable, so we definitely do take care what we swear to. And marriage is *marriage.* Not a substitute for self-restraint.

So don't look at us if 'Christian society' and so many others can't keep it in their pants cause they can't own their own sexuality, and so instead try to own others'.

Still, there's a point. How *we* see these things really isn't necessarily so far off from ...what most figure is the reality of things.

Too bad the media is playing another game.

One which involves 'It's OK if a Republican Does It,' ...cause they're the ones mostly trying to *use* these things in people's private lives to win elections and divert attention from what they're actually *doing.*

// Men Know Power is Sexy //

Especially when Erica is around !

Especially when Erica is around !

What the Wiccans don't understand is that perhaps three quarters of the people in the United States are "pagan".... they simply don't know it.

"Power is sexy." That is a good point. Most young women are not interested in middle aged men, that's a fact. If Presiedent Clinton had been the White House janitor, you can bet that Monica Lewinsky would not have snapped her thong at him. (Yes, I blame her, a little).

But here is another point, too:

When people have limited resources and simple lives, monogamy is a desirable necesity of life. But when people develope their own resourses and can sustain themselves, and do whatever they want to do, and when their lives evolve into complex schedules, then monogamy is not as necessary, and maybe it may even become a little troublesome.

What I mean is this: monogamy is easier to manage and maintain when people lead simple lives, and have limited resources. But when their resources become vast, and practically unlimited, and when the husband and wife are off on different schedules engaged in many complex things, then the whole proposition of monogamy becomes more of an intellectual choice, and people must really think it through more carefully, just how much do they love each other, and do they really want to stay together, or might they be able to find a better partner elsewhere.

Many couples start off in simple circumstance, living happily with limited resources, poor, but then evolve to greater and greater affluence and complexity of life, without giving any of this much thought, and then end up, to their unhappy surprize, distant and estranged.

In general, I don't trust politicians who can't keep their pants on or politicians who stay with spouses who can't keep their pants on, regardless of gender.

In my own life, I can forgive a lot of things, but marital infidelity is not one of them. Breaking a trust so deeply held as a marriage vow is a deliberate act of deception and betrayal, not something you can do accidentally. "I never meant for it to happen" doesn't fly - there are any number of places between "Hello," "Can I buy you a drink?" "Your place or mine?" and "Was it good for you?" where the progression of events can be stopped.

But sexual issues are not the most important issues on my mind when I go into the voting booth. Hypothetical situation - if I have to choose between a guy who would cheat on his wife and bring the troops home, or a guy who would never cheat on his wife and extend tours of duty, I'll take the guy who will bring the troops home.

Ok as a Wiccan the big thing for me in my life is to live as simply and as careing as I can. Lieing and cheating is a heavy bag that has to be carried and hidden..it's too heavy a thing to carry for such a messy, meaningless thing.It will corrupt everything in our lives...and I would rather breathe free.

Oaths are to be made seldom but once spoken held to like iron. It has to do with honor..and if you do not have honor with your own words, your words have no worth. This I teach my students as a basic of our faith...to live thoughtfully of the consequences.

John Edwards is a man with much to give, he has passion for life and for helping others...I was never going to vote for him, because I am for Obama...but I liked him. I am dissappointed in his failing, but it is a human failing.No lieing us into war, or causing the pain of torture and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.No shredding our constitution and no fear mongerings...these are not human failings, these are evil.

But all the talking heads can talk about is someone's sex life.

Elizabeth Efwards has been through hell. She is again fighting for her life with two young children to care about...and now she is put under this stress. She and her husband have come to grips with this...they have 30 years together, time that gives understanding and compassion. I really wish people would care more about their own failings and relationships, they would not have the time to worry about anyone elses.

Goddess and Her Consort hold them...