A blogger wrote:
So, the Luv Guv was schtupping a subordinate behind his wife’s back. (Incidentally, Anglo men who aren’t getting any from frigid Anglo wives often resort to homosexuality in such a sexually starved society. Maybe he just needed to release some tension, and had someone willing to spread eagle for him. So…why not? … Making matters worse, he was the governor of a small, poor state in the Bible Belt which has its own twist on sexual repression – Baptist style. What this case boiled down to was another case of gotcha politics in a society obsessed with style over substance and totally taken aback by the fact people like to fuck.
Why does anybody give a damn if he was banging some chick on the side if he was doing a decent job as governor?
The blogger cited above claims that this slap on the wrist is “repression.”
For most of history, in monogamous societies, the penalty for adultery has been death. When a monogamous society stops punishing adultery harshly, it stops being a monogamous society. The USA is post-monogamous.
Getting fired is not “repression.”
When the USA starts killing adulterers within a week of discovering adultery, then we can revisit this and decide whether it constitutes “repression.”
Here’s a little exercise in the history of ideas.
Who was the first person to claim that humans have a RIGHT to LIFE?
Take a look at Ahkenaten, Buddha, the Vedas, Socrates – I don’t think you can find a source saying the life is a right until those pesky Christians started saving babies circa 33 A.D. Those Christians, by the way, believed that Jesus was coming back, and thus infanticide had to be halted so that all the babies could be baptized. That’s where humanist ethics took root; a bunch of Christians decided that there was no need for infanticide because Jesus would return in a matter of months or years. Before then, everyone had regarded infanticide as necessary and proper.
Post-Christian idiots annoy me when they pick and choose little bits of Christianity but throw the rest away.
The Christians invented our notions that human life has inherent value and that freedom from unjust execution is a right. (If you think you can point to a pre-Christian philosopher who is a counterexample, you can go ahead and argue, but you probably won’t convince me, so you probably don’t want to waste your time arguing here.) When you throw away the Christianity, you don’t have a meaningful foundation for this notion that people have a right to live without getting arbitrarily killed by their fellow humans.
If you have a robust dog-eat-dog survival-of-the-cruelest society, then you can tolerate adultery in the strong and just kill anyone who objects. If you give people the right to stay alive even when they are annoying, then you have to rein in their behavior somewhere. You can even dictate that society must give everyone the right to life and the right to sex, but your society probably won’t last very long and no one will mourn it when it dies.