And this one would likely never have been discovered but for the baby, whether Edwards is the father or not.  In fact, if he's not, then it's really bad luck.  If the baby had come a year later, I'm pretty sure Edwards would never have been caught.

Isaac,

wee lamb, that you even have to ask that question - how many famous politicians are conducting affairs right now - shows that you lave led a very sheltered life...if they're men, I would say that the answer is....almost all of them. Sheesh, get real son.

Now, for a more important question: No kirchick for almost a week! Are we rid of that bacillus? Please, please say yes....

Isaac, you wonder  why  people cheat when they are so likely to get caught.  My theory is that they go into denial.  The human brain is a tricky thing.  It appears that many brains have a tendency --when they know they want something very, very much--to let the emotion of desire overcome-- even overwhelm--the intellectual ability to weigh the issues logically. There seems to be a shut-off valve on the logic side utilized by the emotional side when it  wants something really, really badly (pun intended). I always advise those who are foolish enough to consult me for advice to consider the downside rationally; if you can deal with the downside, then go ahead. If you can't, then don't.

They do it for the same reason everyone else does: they're horny. Get over it. Who cares?

I am pretty certain the Dick Cheney is Satan's boy toy, but not even the National Enquirer would want to take pictures of their trysts.

Let's be honest, all men with normal testosterone want to cheat, it is in our genetic code. I want half of the women's swimming teams on the Olympics but I have to pretend to care who wins when I watch it with my wife. Still, the reason I would never cheat is not because I am afraid of getting caught, but since I know I will never leave my wife don't want the emotional entanglements. I have no idea how most men (provided they aren't seeing hookers) deal with that aspect of it.

"Why Famous Men Keep Having Affairs."

Because they can.

There were several good articles on this topic that were written during the Elliot Spitzer debacle. The one that made the most sense to me was one I believe that was in the New Yorker which said that these highly successful men were risk takers. They thrive on risk and either consciously or sub-consciously will create situations to enhance the risk facto, thus the thrill. They need the stimulus of risk to feel alive. The simple need for sex certainly does not explain the situation because in real terms no sexual encounter or series of sexual encounters is worth the 80K that Spitzer spent, nor the consequences that fell upon him when discovered. These men are smart and are more than capable of calculating the risk/reward equation which if heeded would be a resounding "don't do this". There is definitely something going on here that is beyond sex. Undoubtedly, there will be far more in depth study and probably books written on this topic. Whether there will emerge any definitive answers to this rampant problem with our politicians that remains to be seen.

Blackie,

Excellent points...

This has been a topic that I have discussed with my closest friend for almost 25 years and we always end up acknowledging that one, men are inherently polygamous, and two, that most men are inherently dogs. Of course, 25 years ago, before I fell into my current state of disrepair, the lure of what we on the streets used to call "Strange" (sorry my sisters but I was not too evolved in my youth) was a more urgent and real dilemma for a youthful strapping cookie. These days, I think I would collapse and cry if any mildly alluring female showed any interest in my faded 20 + married years saggy ass...

still, I am if nothing else, a typical man and that is why it is always amazing to me that anyone still believes that any powerful wealthy reasonably good looking married male politician gets caught doing the nasty with at least one female who is not his wife. As elliesch alluded, the power of sex, especially Strange Sex, to a married male practically paralyzes the brain and short circuits the reasoning capacity. It is like trying to fight an f-ing tidal wave...

Having said this, I know the rules and the rules say that in almost all cases, if you get caught, you're f-ed. Edwards is f-ed. He should acknowledge that and fade away...

A few gender neutral rules can minimize the risk of "anyone would ever know about it":

1. Do not tell anyone. That means do not tell your spouse.

2. Do not choose a coworker, client, friend or anyone who will have contact with your social network-family.

3. Do not publish photographs or video of you and your friend on The Internet.

4. Do not become a parent.

5. Do not leave a financial paper trail.

6. Do not submit to extortion or blackmail.

7. Do respond when #6 is suspected. Something like, "I never understood why someone who could afford to pay hush money would chose that route rather than investing the same or less money in a permanent solution. Well, maybe more people do...but who would know?"

Lots of men will cheat if they can. What are the statistics? Pretty high over the lifetime of a marriage, aren't they?

But also, in the case of politicians, it boils down to exactly what Edwards said: narcissism. While his self-analysis seems yucky, I think it's true.

Also, power is an aphrodisiac.

plus what r-brown said.

I think you and Maureen Dowd have the notion backward, Issac. The more famous they become, the more opportunity they have to adulterate, and the more temptations they are required to resist (or to give in to with cunning and discretion).  Wasn't it Kissenger who said power is the greaest aphodaisiac? How did he know?

You know, Michael, not bad, not bad. . . BUT!   Does anyone else recall when Edwards was first discovered in the hotel and what those first tv reports said? They said that the reporters had been there staking out someone else when someone accidentally spotted  HIM. That's when he fled to the men's room.

Now , Michael, which of your rules 1-7 would save him under these circumstances?

And by the way, how come no one is mentioning that if the affair was over years ago he was in her room recently at 3 a.m.?

Which brings me to my first point.  No matter how well these capable politicos can calculate the odds, something else is going on in their heads.  The desire short -circuits the intellectual calculation, and they skip right over the fail-safe routine:  If you can't handle the downside (i.e., you get caught, no matter how careful you were) don't do it!!!  

This is why  so many women are convinced that many men think with a portion of their anatomy far removed from their brains.  In Edward's case, that's tough to argue with.

Everything I know about this I know from the book "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright, which is fantastic and explains everything.

Cookie is definitely right about the "strange". Also the desire to cheat is somewhat tampened down in men [and in species] who have a high "MPI" - male parental investment. In our species, it does seem to vary from man to man. Charlie Watts is the only Rolling Stone to have never cheated once on his wife, and before you go ragging on his looks [and I think he's cuter than Bill Wyman who cheated the most], he was a Rolling Stone and he certainly could have, so don't even. Besides, women don't care as much about looks [The Moral Animal explains that too], as proven by the aforementioned Bill Wyman.

For an antidote to the epidemic, check out the new book "Project Everlasting"  which presents interviews of couples who have been married fro 40, 50, or 60 years on what has made the difference for them.

Just a thought:  How many men who would  cheat on their wives would --if they could--cheat on exams? On their business partners? Cheat their customers? Cheat their friends? Cheat at poker? Is there a difference? Is it all, as some posts have asserted, "no big deal" and should we all just "get over it?"

elliesch: you have a point. i think that's true of the serial cheaters, or the kind who go out calculatedly to find a mistress, but sometimes men cheat because their marriages are crappy, they're miserable, they want a little love, somebody comes along who fits the bill, and they give in. Some other guys are just impulsive and can't control their urges, physical or otherwise. Those same guys wouldn't necessarily have shoddy morals.

Narcissism got him into a potential mess but after it was over he and his wife were willing to blow up the Democrats because of their pride and arrogance. Celebrities are aware they are held to a higher standard but that is a non-negotiable bargain. There is no defense for lying to gain more power and he and his wife still seem bent on manipulating. They wish us to focus on the affair (skip the cover-up) and don't pile on.  Plenty of people out of the public eye make similar mistakes and they pay a greater price. I was willing to give him a pass until I realized he and his wife decided to gamble with more than his reputation. Better for her to know and be on his side...

His vanity may have led him to wander. Their combined sense of self-importance allowed them to put the party at risk and still seek our pity. Why? Because they're The Edwards.

"Is there a difference?"

Yes, there's a difference.  The only reason you're asking the question is because of an etymological quirk of the verb "to cheat."  Cheating on an exam and cheating on one's wife have little in common other than word that is used to denote the action.

And I second the "because they can."

Famous men are probably more likely to cheat than other men for the following two reasons, reason two being far more important than reason one:

1) They're often away from their wives, jet-setting around the world

2) Because of their fame, women make themselves available to them

I like to think that I'd remain faithful to my wife no matter what, but then I've never really been tested, nor do I think I'm likely to be.  How would I respond if while waiting out an overnight flight delay in an airport bar I was propositioned by an attractive stranger?  Hard to say.

elliesch, my rules could be summarized into don't get caught, don't confess and make sure you have the leverage so exposure will cost the partner more than it will cost you. I wouldn't be surprised if  plenty of powerful people escape from messes unscathed because they are both careful and use their power to their advantage. By violating all of the rules I tossed out, he was begging to be taken down. Any advantage he might have had was used against him. Most people do not want to take on the powerful let alone try and take them down. For good reason...

aeromonas...

alas, I am in the same boat as you. I love my wife, I love and adore my boys...what would I do if I were a Senator or VIP with lots of money and Strange Opportunity?  

Hee, hee, well, since that will never happen, I will never know if I could pass. I do know that given my faded looks - like a dissipated Desi Arnaz circa 1965 or Elvis circa 1976 - the chances of me ever knowing are getting more laughable every year...

So far I tend to put a lot of stock in the risk-taker analysis r-brown mentioned, if only because I'm the opposite type--highly risk-averse--and I can't for the life of me imagine being so blitheringly stupid as to do a thing like this.  Then again, being a happily married mid-forties professor schlub and about as sexy as a traffic accident, I'm not exactly a likely target or lure either.  As such I suppose I shouldn't be so judgmental about these fools, but frankly I can't help it, and still think these guys should be subject to the public flogging they get, just for the sheer stupidity of it.

I don't have to ponder theories of evolutionary psychology for explanations of famous-horny-guys' (and my own) behavior-I just watch the National Geographic Channel and smirk at the Hippos constantly vying to boff as many females as possible. Same with the Lions. Its just natural. Now there are the birds that mate for life-now that's "strange."

One other thing about that Maureen Dowd column on Edwards that Isaac mentions below . Dowd writes: Back

I believe Chris Rock once said, "Men are only as loyal as their options."

"Yes, there's a difference, " you say, Aeromonas.  " The only reason you're asking the question" you told me, " is because of an etymological quirk of the verb 'to cheat.' " While you go on to say that "Cheating on an exam and cheating on one's wife have little in common other than word that is used to denote the action,"  you keep me in suspense by failing to explain further.  I wallow in my own  elaborate ignorance here.  

Couldn't you elaborate on how you see the difference? I'm going to postulate that we're talking about the kind of marriage where fidelity is a given at the outset.  Obviously if it isn't--if the couple are open to an open marriage on both sides--then that is a different game.

The reason some of us would not  agree that the word "to cheat" is  an etymological quirk is obviously because of the assumption and implied promise of fidelty that goes along with traditional marriage. If one partner breaks that promise -- which traditionally causes an enormous amount of grief and unhappiness, and is often the source of marital break-ups precisely because it is viewed as a serious breach of trust  -- that partner is not playing by the rules. Isn't that what cheating on an exam is? Or cheating one's business partner? Aren't all of them a breach of trust? Marriage, and business, and exams, etc., --indeed, one could argue all of western society-- are based upon trust.  

cspencef, hah, you are my double. I for the life of me can't imagine any co-eds falling for me. I would think they were either deranged or grade grubbing. It is just being rational, if they didn't fall for me when I was young and thin, why would they fall for me when I am middle aged and heavy.

Scire, you have it in a nutshell when you say that  "sometimes men cheat because their marriages are crappy, they're miserable, they want a little love, somebody comes along who fits the bill, and they give in. " All too true.

Well, sometimes students just didn't have time to complete the coursework before the exam, they want a good grade--perhaps they are counting on getting into graduate school (or merely graduating), a crib sheet comes along, and they give in.

Or, sometimes a businessman can't pay his kids' college tuition, he wants the best for his kids, he's miserable that he is failing his familiy;  he wants his family's love, an opportunity comes along that fits the bill, and he gives in and cheats his business partners, and/or his his customers or suppliers--or all of them, if necessary.  

Why doesn't the guy in the miserable marriage try talking to his wife and working it out? How about marriage counseling?  Maybe he should get a divorce if none of that works.  Or maybe he should cheat to solve his problem.  I dunno!  But I still submit that it is all cut from the same cloth: breach of faith. It involves a decision to (pardon the pun) screw someone else.  Once you have shown yourself capable of that, I submit, you have shown yourself capable of all of it.  Such actions speak about what people used to refer to as one's character.

Which is  precisely why,  I think, the public claims a right to know about a candidate or elected official. The public thinks: hmmm; he cheats on his wife; he could very well cheat on me, or my city, or my state, or even the U.S.A. -- sell it down the drain if his personal  need is great enough and the price is right.

Uh, professor dudes, don't think you're so very safe. Women care less about looks than men do, they like brains, and a lot of them have daddy fixations. Still: DON'T DO IT. It's not only a breach of your marital vows, it's also a breach of professional duty to your students.

elliesch, you make a very good point. Unless it's an open marriage, then cheating is cheating, and a betrayal of trust. There are, of course, gradations. I betrayed my big brother's trust when I was staying with him during high school, and I let him believe a misconception he had formed about where the all-ages club my friends and I were going to was. He wouldn't have let me go where we went because he thought it was in a bad neighborhood. I thought he was nuts and overly, uh, racist. When he found out, months later, he brayed on and on about how he couldn't trust me, I was a liar, blah blah blah. Ok. True. But there are different forms of trust, and lots of things he really could have trusted me to do - I wasn't all completely evil, and his efforts to make me feel like some kind of amoral changeling were met with stony contempt. Had he not shot the outrage dial to 11 he might have succeeded in making me feel more ashamed.

Likewise, I think some people can be trusted for some stuff, not trusted for other stuff. Ted Kennedy may be an alcoholic womanizer, but for some reason I just don't see him embezzling. It's really hard to tell, is the problem. Edwards lied about the affair, so why should we believe [or even care whether] the baby is his? Maybe it isn't, and maybe he's also trustworthy on non-sexual stuff, but how can you tell? This is why, fairly or not, when Clinton lies about sniper fire [silently backed up by her campaigning daughter] people instantly give more credence to the Vince Foster theory. People murder people all the time - why not the Clintons? They seem to think they can get away with anything...

Moreover, when the stakes of being found out are so high, the pressure to lie is stronger, and the pressure to do things you may not have ever wanted to - beyond the original thing - comes into play. Many horrible horrible things have been done in order to save face. So we're much better off electing people who are as clean as possible - nothing to cover up, and no track record of giving in to cheating in any form.

I hear you, blackton.  

psantillana, right now it's everything I can do to get tenure at this point.  That risk-averse part applies both to my marriage and my career, which again is why I can't imagine somebody being as breathtakingly stupid and reckless as Edwards has been.  I really, really regret supporting him (for only about a week, mind you) before he dropped out; at least I didn't caucus for him, thank heavens.

Not all "cheating" is equal.  There is a difference between "cheating" a business partner versus cheating on a spouse.  First of all, at least as to men, there is a huge biological component to consider whereas there is little-to-no biological component in business dealings.  Politicians being men of power and fame will attract women who for various reasons will want to sleep with them.  The women will have the desire (and perhaps other non-biological motives) and the men will have the opportunity and the natural desire.  Add to that other factors and it's bound to happen.

Our species tends not to act rationally when it comes matters concerning sex and/or romance.  However, in other "cheating" situations, there will typically be far more deliberation.  

Bound to happen. Not equal. Different. Biologically driven.

OK, everyone is different. We have serial killers, too. Remember "the devil made me do it?"

Whatever the reason or the rationalization, I still say, if you are going to be ruled by nature and not by yourself, then don't drag other people into trusting you when you know perfectly well you are not worthy of it.

Maybe the initial crime is right there.  Its getting married when you intend to cheat, but you don't make that part of the deal. Or the businessman  who signs on the dotted line, but he knows if things don't go right, he's willing to change the deal.  Might as well break into the guy's house. Oh, no, maybe that's "different." Certainly, it is  not equal.  

It is  very like people saying, well, yes, I killed that family because I was driving the wrong way on the highway, but, hey, it isn't like I wanted to kill them.  I was drunk.

And that makes it OK, or different, or not equal, 'cause I got an excuse!

I say, your crime was in drinking so much you got drunk, and then you got behind the wheel.  There was a point when you should not have had any more to drink.  All adults can be the same  irresponsible two year olds if they choose to, and they can find excuses for all their untrustworthy behavior even better than two-year old can. Don't get drunk if you have the car keys in your pocket. Don't get married if you're planning to have someone else's keys in your pocket.

We all should put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are harmed by our breaches of trust, and not go around pretending that our victims don't exist, that their hurt doesn't matter, that their losses don't matter, that our crib sheet didn't keep someone else out of the college who should have been there instead of us.

Psantillana, you made for me the point I should have been making all along when you said:  "When he found out, months later, he brayed on and on about how he couldn't trust me, I was a liar, blah blah blah. Ok. True. But there are different forms of trust, and lots of things he really could have trusted me to do - I wasn't all completely evil,  j. . .and his efforts to make me feel like some kind of amoral changeling were met with stony contempt."  Well, of course you weren't completely evil; you weren't evil at all. But,

Your story  raises the  key question I've been overlooking:  Does it really matter that there are lots of other things he really could have trusted you to do, or which ones? Once he finds out he can't trust your word, what happens in the future to his trust and all your other words?  Its like a bridge: once you break it, even if you try to rebuild it, the other guy always worries as he's going across: will it hold this time? THAT  is the main trouble with not keeping one's trust, one's bond, one's contract and one's word.

And this isn't really the main point, but your story was such a good one I have to comment on it:  I think his "over-reaction" from your perspective may simply have been an indication of his hurt and disbelief that you, of all people, were someone whose veracity he could not always rely on. His reaction was as much about what happened to him, inside, as it was about what you did--probably much more so. He was crushed. (so he crushed you right back).

elliesch, there's no taking away your rightness, and I think I also made your point for you in the paragraphs following my story, by pointing out that one breach of trust tends to erode trust in other areas. Whether it's deserved or not.

It's all so very unfortunate that we're all not completely perfect. I say that half sarcastically and half seriously. People should tell the truth, and certainly respect contracts they've made [I never signed onto the do-whatever-my-brother-says contract, btw]. But people - a lot of them - tend to be mixtures of good and bad, with strengths and weaknesses. You have to make your decisions on a case-by-case basis, on the circumstances of the lie, how probative it is of general untrustworthiness, and of the good that the person has done that may or may not outweigh the transgression.

Example we have before us - I lied about the location of the club because my brother wouldn't let me go and I thought he was nuts. Does that mean I'm going to cheat on a test, my taxes, or my husband? I've never done any of that, so anyone who would jump to such a conclusion would be making a mistake. I don't believe that I should be dropped through some trap door and never hired, issued a driver's license, or allowed to adopt a cat. Why? I'll tell you why: because society would benefit more from my gainful employment than it would from supporting me or killing me, and there are too many homeless cats. And the risk of trusting me with a job or a cat, based on the lie I told was when I was 16 to my brother about the club, is relatively small.

See: risk/benefit. Both are variable, so decisions should be made on a case by case basis, with whatever information is at hand. If I ran around with a fur stole that had a cat's head at the end of it, The shelter might rethink the trusting-me-with-a-cat bit, because that would be probative info, more so than the lie I told to my brother when I was 16. I think this is where people are going when they say "not equal".