General Question

allengreen's avatar

Wouldn't we get better Presidents if we did not place such a value on monogamy?

Asked by allengreen (1618points) August 13th, 2008

Are people in open relationships are more “evolved” than those in closed ones?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

MrMeltedCrayon's avatar

I think that may be true in some cases just as often as it is wrong in others. Being in an open relationship doesn’t make you more “evolved” or more mature; it’s the person, not the relationship. I’ve seen the most stunted and self centered people in open relationships before.

trumi's avatar

While I see your point and have argued the same at times, you must remember that we are talking about disloyalty to your loved ones. In other countries it is expected and accepted because the S.O. knows about it and apparently is okay with it. If the Edwards, and other political couples, are in open relationships or are allowed to have sex with others then I completely agree with you.

But in a committed monogamous relationship, cheating says something about a person’s loyalty. I’m not going to get on a high horse and condemn all cheating as hell-worthy, but I really can’t think of a situation in which it is justified or acceptable.

When a person gets into such a high position with so much incredible pressure, there is a good chance that they will crack. That doesn’t mean it is okay.

And to answer your second question, I think it is different for every couple. I fully support open relationships if it works for that couple.

Randy's avatar

I really don’t see your point. What does being president and being more “evolved” have to do with how many sexual partners you have? Personally, I would prefer it if my girlfriend didn’t go out and have sex with other people. I think it takes a lot more restraint to keep from screwing everything you can. So maybe you should rethink the “more evloved” part of that question.

willbrawn's avatar

hell no. Some of the best people have had equally great spouses. And if our leader can’t commit to one person I don’t think they would be able to commit to something such as a presidency.

wundayatta's avatar

For better or for worse, commitment to a relationship is completely different from commitment to an organization. Many a philanderer has built a great organization, or been a great leader. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. So, yes. If voters used reasonable criteria for judging leaders, we’d get better presidents, and monogamy wouldn’t have anything to do with it.

Your subquestion is a completely different topic, and should be asked separately. But no. Relationship preference has nothing to do with comparative evolvedness. And I don’t care what you mean by “evolved.”

gooch's avatar

Animals are less evolved than humans and they have open relationships? Closed relationships are to me a sign of higher evolution….please

arnbev959's avatar

Animals are not “less evolved than humans.”

mzgator's avatar

monogamy requires that a person be faithful, honest, true and intelligent enough and loving enough to find the right person to commit a life to. These are some of the Important qualities I look for in a person running for President.
I want a person with integrity who can commit to the job at hand just as a faithful spouse commits to each other. Being able to stay faithful says something about your character , and I want a person with character as my country’s leader!

SeekerSeekiing's avatar

Other countries in which I’ve lived think American’s are a bit nuts to insist on such a high standard for our Federal Officials. They know that power attracts these things…and have no bearing on how that person does their job.

AstroChuck's avatar

I was just telling a workmate this morning that maybe we should just elect eunuchs to office.
Eunuchs and women.

augustlan's avatar

I don’t think someone who cheats on his or her spouse is the devil incarnate, or necessarily unfit for leadership. I guarantee that at least one person that you personally know and admire has cheated on a spouse at some point, for one reason or another. Does that discount every good thing you know about the individual? I do not condone cheating, I think it’s an awful thing to do to someone who loves and trusts you, I just don’t think it’s a deal breaker for political leadership. Open relationships are completely different. As with any other type of intimate relationship/contact, if both parties give consent, no harm, no foul.

cheebdragon's avatar

it’s not so much because they cheated….it’s that they got caught, lied about it and then when they had no other choice because there was way too much evidence against them, only then did they tell the truth!
If someone is going to lie about their personal life, what’s going to stop them from lying about things they do at work?

wundayatta's avatar

Well, I for one, want a politician who can lie well, especially in foreign relations. Lieing is an extremely important skill in life. Just think about it. When you negotiate. Do you march up to the table and throw out all your cards right away? If you do, please join my poker game!

All of politics is negotiation, and I maintain we need leaders who are exceptionally good at it. Getting caught and being able to talk your way out of it is also an important skill. We all get caught sometimes, and if we’re smooth, we can cover it over with a minimum of embarrassment and ill will.

Life is a series of tradeoffs. People who see everything in black and white: “a liar is worthless,” for example, get the leaders they want. Or do they? The current President, for example, promised fidelity to his wife, yet turns out to be the greatest liar of my lifetime.

I have often wondered if people feel like he fooled them and they didn’t catch on until 2 elections had passed, or if they were just blinded by their own hopes. For me, this President didn’t actually lie. He promised to steal from most of us, and give the money to his friends in the oil and defense industries. He promised to waste our money and to gut the social underpinnings of our society. He promised to put more homeless on the street, and to allow more crime.

He promised all these things, and still people voted for him. Did people see all his pretty lies, and not try to see through them? Or did they honestly want all those things I mentioned? Or are they just not very sophisticated at understanding coded messages? Or are they getting the message loud and clear, but are hiding their own prejudices and pretending they never really understood our leader?

Give me a philanderer any day over what we’ve had the last eight years!

marinelife's avatar

I think that we would get better presidents if we did not place so much emphasis on telegenic appearance and media presentation skills.

AstroChuck's avatar

Oh, get real, Marina. Next you’ll be telling us that we should elect people who talk about real issues.
How naïve are you?

MrMeltedCrayon's avatar

@Cheeb: I think their personal life is none of our damn business. Does lying suck? Of course. But the topic shouldn’t garner as much of a response as it seems to do in the first place. People cheat, especially people in power. And no one needs or deserves to have their personal business flung about like freak show entertainment for the media and the world, even the president. Hell, Roosevelt had his mistress living in the white house.

shudderbrother's avatar

Hey, why all this focus on cheating. I thought the question opened for polygamic presidents – now that´s fascinating! The first-first, second-first, third-first lady… and so on and on….

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther