Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni "both having affairs"

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is really too ridiculous to be true, even for them. And even if it's true, who cares ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

And even if it's true, who cares ?

Yah, I'm glad to live in a country in which someone like Tiger Woods wouldn't have to have so shameful behaviors (<<< the way he apologized, not what he did before it).

I'm waiting to see which noise this fact/rumor will make here, if it makes some.

So, do French people just not care about marital fidelity?

Indeed, I don't care about the private life of a political leader. I care about what he does for his constituents and his country.
The real question is why the Amercians care so much.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The real question is why the Amercians care so much.

Seems to be a cultural thing. Anglo-Saxons are much stricter, traditional and rigorous in their way of life and their views of society. Look at the contrast between Anglophones/Germans and, say, Francophones/Italians.

Yeah, Protestant's rigor is certainly an explanation. And see, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing : the fact they can't tolerate liars and crooks is a very positive aspect. Every French President since Giscard was more tricky than Nixon, but all of them quietly ended their terms (well, not so quietly for VGE, but still, he wasn't ruined ; Mitterrand also had some critics, but he evenually kept a good image ; as for Jacquot, everybody knew he was a crook since decades). It's France, and there are pros and cons, same for America.

Why am I not surprised? It's France though, not like anyone cares.

...

John Edwards should move to France and restart his career.

Nah, he's too mild for them. If he drugged a 13 year old and sodomized her he'd be greeted with a ticker tape parade down the Champs Elysees...

[Antonio the Sixth]

The real question is why the Amercians care so much.

Seems to be a cultural thing. Anglo-Saxons are much stricter, traditional and rigorous in their way of life and their views of society. Look at the contrast between Anglophones/Germans and, say, Francophones/Italians.

Yeah, Protestant's rigor is certainly an explanation. And see, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing : the fact they can't tolerate liars and crooks is a very positive aspect. Every French President since Giscard was more tricky than Nixon, but all of them quietly ended their terms (well, not so quietly for VGE, but still, he wasn't ruined ; Mitterrand also had some critics, but he evenually kept a good image ; as for Jacquot, everybody knew he was a crook since decades). It's France, and there are pros and cons, same for America.

I'm not sure how what you do in your marital life matters in your politician one...

Indeed, what I meant is that I like Anglo-Saxon's morale when it comes to real affairs of corruption, etc. In this regard, I find Americans are more evolved than us. As regard private life, instead, I find Anglo-Saxon's behaviour rather disturbing and intrusive. I think we share this point of view, no ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how what you do in your marital life matters in your politician one...

In most cases it shouldn't (it does in the US, of course, but it shouldn't).  But as dead0man rightly pointed out, if a politician is willing to lie when giving vows at an altar and cheat on their spouses, then what kind of an indication is that about their character?

It means nothing. Why a bad husband and a bad father couldn't be a great statesman ? Such myth of a "perfect man" is senseless...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why do French people still refer to British and Americans as Anglo-Saxon so often? I mean, we don't refer to you guys as Gauls or Franks

Well, French-Italians-Spanish-Portuguese are refered as Latins as well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how what you do in your marital life matters in your politician one...

In most cases it shouldn't (it does in the US, of course, but it shouldn't).  But as dead0man rightly pointed out, if a politician is willing to lie when giving vows at an altar and cheat on their spouses, then what kind of an indication is that about their character?

It means nothing. Why a bad husband and a bad father couldn't be a great statesman ? Such myth of a "perfect man" is senseless...

Nobody is ever perfect, least of all politicians.  But one who places no value in the promises he made in his private life is probably also likely to place no value in the promises he made to his constituents either.  If a man's wife can't even trust him, why should his voters?

Or maybe he just likes changes and hot women. I'm not saying it's a good thing,  I personally find cheating disgusting : if you don't want fidelity you may simply not marry. But still, it has nothing to do with policies. Political promises ? The fact of keeping them or not have nothing to do with cheating : to know if a politician will or won't keep is promises, it's sufficient to have a look at his political history (if French had done Chirac would never have been elected) or at what is really makable. These two things are separate and should remain so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how what you do in your marital life matters in your politician one...

In most cases it shouldn't (it does in the US, of course, but it shouldn't).  But as dead0man rightly pointed out, if a politician is willing to lie when giving vows at an altar and cheat on their spouses, then what kind of an indication is that about their character?

It means nothing. Why a bad husband and a bad father couldn't be a great statesman ? Such myth of a "perfect man" is senseless...

Nobody is ever perfect, least of all politicians.  But one who places no value in the promises he made in his private life is probably also likely to place no value in the promises he made to his constituents either.  If a man's wife can't even trust him, why should his voters?

Or maybe he just likes changes and hot women. I'm not saying it's a good thing,  I personally find cheating disgusting : if you don't want fidelity you may simply not marry. But still, it has nothing to do with policies. Political promises ? The fact of keeping them or not have nothing to do with cheating : to know if a politician will or won't keep is promises, it's sufficient to have a look at his political history (if French had done Chirac would never have been elected) or at what is really makable. These two things are separate and should remain so.

No. If a man is a liar, then he is a liar.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical French response. The ugly Americans just don't get it, ethics are so passe...

Did you never lie, man ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical French response. The ugly Americans just don't get it, ethics are so passe...

Did you never lie, man ?

Of course I've lied, but lying is one thing. Breaking a contract, dishonoring the most personal vow one can make, and deceiving the person you've dedicated your life to is another. Character matters, even if the elites are above such quaint heartland values...

Indeed, there are different sorts of lies. Actually, there's nearly as much sorts of lies as lies themselves. Which means that private and public lies are different. Case made.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical French response. The ugly Americans just don't get it, ethics are so passe...

Did you never lie, man ?

Of course I've lied, but lying is one thing. Breaking a contract, dishonoring the most personal vow one can make, and deceiving the person you've dedicated your life to is another. Character matters, even if the elites are above such quaint heartland values...

Indeed, there are different sorts of lies. Actually, there's nearly as much sorts of lies as lies themselves. Which means that private and public lies are different. Case made.

No. If you are willing to lie to that extent, you cannot be trusted with anything.

Stop considering "lying" as a single thing. Here is the real problem with such mentality : "lying" means nothing per se, it always depends to the context and the meaning of a lie. A personal lie is one thing, a political one is another. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I don't think this is English, but I understand the point you're trying to make, and it's retarded.

Thanks, now I just have to understand the "useful" in your username.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In more corrupt, elitist countries with a more primitive view towards men and women and marriages, I'd agree that the concept of powerful men having their private harems being less trustworthy doesn't fly.

But thinking it has anything to do with being social progressive is laughable. It was much more tolerated in older societies for men to have mistresses. Look at any king before the year 1800 or so. Hell, just look at any of the more primitive cultures we have in the world today.

France is known in Europe as one of the least progressive countries on the continent when it comes to gender issues. While this is a largely unfair stereotype today, compared to many of the other countries it helps explain why it is accepted for their political leaders to behave this way.

LOL this is pathetic. You are basically introducing an argument that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Yeah, of course those who don't care about whether or not politicians cheat are just evul sexists ! Of course ! Except that you are the only one introducing a gender discrimination in the whole reasoning. So :
-Either you assume that I accept cheating only for men but not for women. In this case you deserve just a facepalm.
-Either you think that women never cheat, so that it's irrelevant. Thus you are reversely sexist.
-Or you believe that there's no problem when women cheat, but only when men do. Same conclusion.

Which of these three ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

In more corrupt, elitist countries with a more primitive view towards men and women and marriages, I'd agree that the concept of powerful men having their private harems being less trustworthy doesn't fly.

But thinking it has anything to do with being social progressive is laughable. It was much more tolerated in older societies for men to have mistresses. Look at any king before the year 1800 or so. Hell, just look at any of the more primitive cultures we have in the world today.

France is known in Europe as one of the least progressive countries on the continent when it comes to gender issues. While this is a largely unfair stereotype today, compared to many of the other countries it helps explain why it is accepted for their political leaders to behave this way.

LOL this is pathetic. You are basically introducing an argument that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Yeah, of course those who don't care about whether or not politicians cheat are just evul sexists ! Of course ! Except that you are the only one introducing a gender discrimination in the whole reasoning. So :
-Either you assume that I accept cheating only for men but not for women. In this case you deserve just a facepalm.
-Either you think that women never cheat, so that it's irrelevant. Thus you are reversely sexist.
-Or you believe that there's no problem when women cheat, but only when men do. Same conclusion.

Which of these three ?

You don't seem to be very good with logical arguments. Your little tricothomy is false, but for one thing I do think it might be more controversial for a woman to cheat on her husband than for a man to do the same. My french teacher was an au-pair in France and the father tried to have sex with her. When she asked him what he would do if his wife had sex with another woman his immediate reply was that he would throw her out on the street.

In fact, it is common knowledge that promiscuity is much more accepted for men than for women.

What you "accept" or not does not really enter into my thinking at all, since I don't particularly care.

Ok, so my trichotomy is false, but you won't tell me what would be the fourth option. I probably have no reason to try to understand the sense of what you said, since you probably don't know it yourself. You introduced the argument of sexism in the discussion even though it had absolutely nothing to do with that, so I assume that making such pointless attacks was your only argument. And yeah, guy, keep thinking that France is THE evil country where everybody is sexist and hypocrit, if it comforts your vision of humanity...

[Antonio the Sixth]

In more corrupt, elitist countries with a more primitive view towards men and women and marriages, I'd agree that the concept of powerful men having their private harems being less trustworthy doesn't fly.

But thinking it has anything to do with being social progressive is laughable. It was much more tolerated in older societies for men to have mistresses. Look at any king before the year 1800 or so. Hell, just look at any of the more primitive cultures we have in the world today.

France is known in Europe as one of the least progressive countries on the continent when it comes to gender issues. While this is a largely unfair stereotype today, compared to many of the other countries it helps explain why it is accepted for their political leaders to behave this way.

LOL this is pathetic. You are basically introducing an argument that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Yeah, of course those who don't care about whether or not politicians cheat are just evul sexists ! Of course ! Except that you are the only one introducing a gender discrimination in the whole reasoning. So :
-Either you assume that I accept cheating only for men but not for women. In this case you deserve just a facepalm.
-Either you think that women never cheat, so that it's irrelevant. Thus you are reversely sexist.
-Or you believe that there's no problem when women cheat, but only when men do. Same conclusion.

Which of these three ?

You don't seem to be very good with logical arguments. Your little tricothomy is false, but for one thing I do think it might be more controversial for a woman to cheat on her husband than for a man to do the same. My french teacher was an au-pair in France and the father tried to have sex with her. When she asked him what he would do if his wife had sex with another woman his immediate reply was that he would throw her out on the street.

In fact, it is common knowledge that promiscuity is much more accepted for men than for women.

What you "accept" or not does not really enter into my thinking at all, since I don't particularly care.

Ok, so my trichotomy is false, but you won't tell me what would be the fourth option. I probably have no reason to try to understand the sense of what you said, since you probably don't know it yourself. You introduced the argument of sexism in the discussion even though it had absolutely nothing to do with that, so I assume that making such pointless attacks was your only argument. And yeah, guy, keep thinking that France is THE evil country where everybody is sexist and hypocrit, if it comforts your vision of humanity...

What the hell is your problem? I even mentioned how it was an unfair stereotype. I mean, I even mentioned a possible fourth option. Read my post next time.

I noted that acceptance of infidelity is linked to sexism which differs across cultures. Given that you were discussing how acceptance of infidelity differs across cultures, it is highly relevant.

You may disagree but you cannot claim it as irrelevant. Now, to give YOU a little dichothomy. You can back up your claim in two ways:

1. You can claim that sexism is not linked with acceptance of infidelity at all.
2. You can claim that sexism does not differ across cultures.
(3. accept that you were spouting nonsense when you called my point irrelevant)

Gully: I never said we were super-enlighted today. But I do believe that we are more enlightened than before. Having dismantled things like slavery, absolute monarchy, introducing freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc counts for something in my book.   

No, sexism is not linked with acceptance of infidelity indeed, not in my view at least. If the title of the thread were "Angela Merkel having an affair", my reaction would have been the same : don't care. The question of whether or not most people tolerate infidelity more when it regards a man than when it regards a woman is irrelevant, since it's not my case neither yours. Basically, your initial argument was that those who tolerate infidelity used to be sexist (and of course, France was the perfect example). But I doubt this argument could affect me or those who agree with me. So yes, your point was irrelevant.

And BTW, I'm among the firsts to admit that my country is pretty sh*tty on several domains, and among others about gender equality. But when people like "useful idiot" and you start using the "france sukz" argument in a discussion I really feel depressed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, just to know, who exactly were you arguing against ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, just to know, who exactly were you arguing against ?

I wasn't really arguing "against" anyone. I was making a comment on an aspect of cultural attitudes towards infidelity, pointing out that it isn't as simple as conservative versus progressive or prudish versus open but that there are other factors at play as well.

I don't know if you realized that nobody has ever said the contrary. You were the only one arguing that there was a "progressive" and a "primitive" side.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, as you prefer...

I don't know what led you to interpret this as "we French are good, other people are stupid", but thanks for proving how stupid your point is. If you read the post you quoted, you will notice that it was Joe who started this depressing France vs. USA discussion. I just snapped back to him, and it wasn't supposed to go further. But the ones who started making retarded moral judgements about how American mentality is superior to French are Useful Idiot and you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Did I mention American mentality anywhere in my posts? I'm not even American, why the hell would I want to prove them superior?

Well, not American mentality. Your post was mainly aimed to bash the French mentality by explaining how sexist it was in your opinion. This remains a moral judgement,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is your point now ? Joe asked, in a reply to my comment, whether "French people don't care about marital fidelity". Basically, my reply was constructed exactly as his. But you still pretend that "I started all this".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

before you strated posting, I was discussing with useful idiot, who had started all this bashing against France. Since your post basically explained why the acceptance of infidelity was linked to sexism, I assumed that this was adressed to me. And thus I had to make clear that what you said was irrelevant for me, and probably with those who agree with me. Sorry if I misunderstood, but what you said is offensive anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, really ? Maybe some quotes would be useful to illustrate your point.
So, the first page is full of "French posters talking about how superior France is", eh ? Let's see it :

The first "french poster", myself :

This is really too ridiculous to be true, even for them. And even if it's true, who cares ?

Basically expressing my opinion. The issue of cultural differences between countries didn't even come to my mind at the time;

Then Fab :

The words "established news sites" for Le Post, agoravox, yahoo France, etc is so fun in this article...

Nothing to do with french superiority.

Now, maybe Benoît's post is what led you to this conclusion :

So, I've to come on an American forum of politics/history junkies to learn what the hell Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy do of their intimacy.

Yah, I'm glad to live in a country in which someone like Tiger Woods wouldn't have to have so shameful behaviors (<<< the way he apologized, not what he did before it).

I'm waiting to see which noise this fact/rumor will make here, if it makes some.

Yeah, this one is more polemic than the preceding. Still, I didn't find any declaration of a "french superiority" in this post. Ben said that he's glad to live in a country which doesn't see infidelity as an horrendous sin; Which just means that he agrees with French's moral code, but not that this moral code is superior.

then hashemite said :

And even if it's true, who cares ?

Yah, I'm glad to live in a country in which someone like Tiger Woods wouldn't have to have so shameful behaviors (<<< the way he apologized, not what he did before it).

I'm waiting to see which noise this fact/rumor will make here, if it makes some.

So, do French people just not care about marital fidelity?

I've always assumed that to be a generally common trait with all Latin-culture people.

It looks like a merely descriptive comment.

Then Fab again :

Not only French people don't care about sex affairs, but it may be a positive point for some...

I'm not very French in many respects, but I indeed think that marital fidelity is the basis for everything.
Who can't see that many human problems result from unhappy childhoods due to divorce or parents' fights or lies or treacheries ?

But, I'm very, very pessimistic:

- this is heavily link to human nature itself; a liberal society just validates and makes this heavy trend open; who can say "I don't cheat to my partner" ? 10% of people, at most ?

- even if marital infidelity is taken into account in the political debate or in votes, I very well know that the French medias would pick only the ones they intend to transform in a "story": a Rocard, a Barre or a Juppé will always be more attacked than a Besancenot, a Bayrou or a Villepin... Or may be manipulated by opponents or followers (as a sex affair can be positive...) of the politician.

Whatever the solution (US or French), everything is treacherous and distorted in the media... And even when it's not distorted, on obscure fiscal subjects or on Laos or on Saturn's satellites, those who watch, listen, read medias just watch, listen, read what they want, what they wish to watch, listen, read...

And he indeed explains that he does care about marital fidelity.

Then comes my "infamous" post, which you already quoted. And finally Ben :

Also, seems to me that in America it's a kind of so importance thing because you're very touchy about both fidelity, and lie. Well, maybe you have to be more realistic about human beings, less pressure on them, more peaceful society, you can surely find force somewhere else...

So, I assume it's this last post that you saw as a declaration of a french superiority. Fair enough. it's still one out of eight posts. Congratulations !

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, it's not retarded. It's still an extremely nasty comment, demonizing those who disagree with you and trying to prove how "primitive" "french mentality" is.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, thank you. Especially for how I'm "too bad at English" (sure, since I'm French !). This is the first time that I get bashed in this forum because of my nationality, by posters usually considered as intelligent. So yeah, it seems you all get mad as soon as it comes to fidelity. I'll try to avoid this argument next times, because I fear to be disappointed by more people.