Royal Spa

Why Powerful Men Can’t Keep Their Pants On

shapeup1

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2002
1,792
153
63
Canada
...check it out....long but interesting..
----------
The number of public men destroyed of late through sexual scandals is simply staggering. Within 48 hours of each other we heard that IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who many believed would be the next President of France, as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger, until a few weeks ago the Governor of the most populous state in the Union, self-destructed with sex scandals. The stories themselves are beyond belief. An IMF chief, disciplined enough to oversee one of the world’s most important banks, is alleged to have forced himself on a hotel housekeeper. Schwarzenegger, disciplined enough to rise from immigrant status with a funny accent to become of the biggest movie stars in the world and one of the most powerful men in the United States, apparently could not muster the control to prevent himself from fathering a child with a woman who worked in his home.


The biggest mistake we make in determining why powerful men cheat is to believe they’re looking for sex. If it’s sex they’re after they have wives who can cater to their needs. No, these men are looking for something else entirely: validation. Men cheat not out of a sense of entitlement but out of a sense of insecurity. And the bigger they are the harder they fall, not of arrogance but out of fear and weakness.


What makes men slowly climb the ladder of success is a desire to prove they’re a somebody. They want to be and feel important. They seek to rise from the poverty of namelessness and the penury of anonymity. It is not the promise of their potential that drives them but the fear of being a nonentity. They absorb the noxious lie of a culture bereft of values that only money and power will rescue them from being a nobody. Therefore, even as they ascend the ladder of ‘success’ they do so with a gaping hole in their center. And whatever accomplishments they will shove into that hole – money, fame, power – it goes in one end and comes out the other. They never feel good about themselves. They are never content. They are defined by insatiability and characterized by voraciousness, which explains why Wall Street bankers who were earning tens of millions of dollars a year still felt it was not enough and cut corners to make even more.


The first rule of success is that there is nothing on the outside that can compensate for a feeling of failure on the inside. External accouterments of success – from armored limousines to an army of personal bodyguards – can never protect you from the din of demons who whisper to you that for all you have achieved you are still are a big zero.


And that’s why these men turn to women to make them feel good about themselves. They want to feel desirable. They seek to silence the inner voices that taunt them as to their own insignificance. Because of its power, sex has a unique capacity to make insecure men feel – however fleetingly – like they’re special. Having women desire them makes them feel desirable.


So why can’t their wives give them this same feeling? Because the man who thinks of himself as a giant loser sees the woman dumb enough to marry him as a loser squared. She, as the woman who bears his last name and his children, is part of his entire loser package. But the woman who is not married to him, who has never aligned herself with his failures, remains eminently desirable and can thus make him feel the same.


When Tiger Woods self-destructed with an alleged fifteen mistresses I was asked to be on a TV show discussing why he did it. He had a beautiful wife. Why wasn’t that enough? The male panelist next to me said, “It’s simple. Men love sexual variety and Tiger had the money and the fame to get it.” I responded, “If it was variety he was looking for, why did he have sex with the same woman 15 times over? Every single one of the women he allegedly cheated with looked just like his wife, a blond-haired Nordic bombshell. There was no variety. No Asian woman, no African-American woman, etc.” The explanation lay elsewhere. When he was a little boy they took Tiger, put a metal stick in his hand, and told him, “If you learn to use this better than any man who preceded you and knock that little white ball farther than anyone who competes against you, you’ll be a somebody,” which was another way of saying that right now you’re a nobody, you’re nothing. Contrary to the Biblical message that every human being is born a child of god. Tiger heard the opposite. You are either the child of success are you don’t’ exist. So no matter how many tournaments he won and how much money he earned in his mind Tiger still remained a nobody with a lot of trophies and a lot of money. But none of that external success changed the original message: he was born a zero. So he tuned to an endless number of woman to make him feel desirable and special. He sought someone who wanted him for his being and not his sporting prowess. And he was stupid enough to believe that any of these women would be out with him if he weren’t’ a champion. It was his wife alone who loved him, but in his selfishness he lost her.


This also explains why so many men who cheat end up opening up emotionally to the women they cheat with. If it was just sex they were seeking they would not be sending these women texts telling them how lonely they are and how only she, the mistress, understood them.


You may ask what this has to do with a renowned banker and politician allegedly attacking a hotel housekeeper? We don’t yet know all the circumstances of the alleged assault, so I do not wish to discuss this case in particular. But I have counseled enough men in similar circumstances to know that they don’t expect the woman to resist. When you inhabit a $3000 a night hotel penthouse – yet more external accouterments of success –and the woman in question is an immigrant cleaning up, you’re convinced she’ll be as impressed with the bells and whistles of success as you are and she’ll melt like putty in your hands. Her resistance becomes a complete shock. The motivation, however, remains the same. Men who inhabit the top social sphere are usually driven to get there by a constant need to prove themselves. And in taking a woman who would otherwise have no sexual interest in you and transforming her instantly into a woman who desires you, you quiet the failure demons for even a brief moment. In this sense, Strauss-Kahn’s comment in an earlier interview with the French publication Liberation, after he had been caught having an affair with a subordinate - “Yes, I love women. So what?” – displays a stunning degree of self-ignorance. The degree to which he loves women was never the issue but rather the degree to which he hates himself.


These scandals of decent men ruining themselves either through affairs or, much more seriously, through allegedly illegally and outrageously forcing themselves on women, should server as a wakeup call to a society that continues to have a single definition of success for men. It’s not your gentlemanly behavior, sense of personal honor, or your devotion to your wife and kids that makes you special. Noone really cares a hoot for all that. It’s rather the level of name recognition and money you attain that really makes you hot.



Shmuley Boteach, ‘America’s Rabbi,’ is a renowned relationships expert and broadcaster whose books on love and marriage have been translated into 17 languages, with the most recent being, “The Kosher Sutra: Eight Sacred Secrets of Erotic Desire.” Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.
 

yard

New member
Jan 17, 2004
223
0
0
Likely this has been going on for eons with rich powerful, mostly men....difference is now there are cell phone cameras all over, the internet, 24hr cable and online news blogs plus TMZ. They just can't pay-off or buy-off all those people anymore who would yak public about it and the news scribes all want to make a career story for themselves so they won't nudge, nudge, wink, wink anymore. Basically they can't get away with it as easily anymore.

Or the easier answer is they are horny with too much money and time on their side and lots of opportunities to score so they drill away and they feel they are gods gift so no one can resist or should resist their advances or needs.
 

afterhours

New member
Jul 14, 2009
6,319
4
0
Islam is better organized for needs of rich polygamous men
 

MrBruce

Member
Sep 13, 2007
81
0
6
This has to be the worst article I've ever read on the topic. I can't believe how out to lunch this guy is! You really think a guy like Tiger Woods or Arnold view themselves as a nobody?! You don't have the success these people have had without a tremendous amount of self confidence and a touch of arrogance. They are having affairs because they can...and they have opportunities few people on this Earth have, especially Rabbi clueless. I think this guy is just jealous and it seems like he's trying to come off as a sympathizer of all the wronged women out there.

Thanks for the read though...that was hilarious!
 

GG2

Mr. Debonair
Apr 8, 2011
3,183
0
0
Vacuous trash.

Powerful men cheat because they have dicks and are horny and love to fuck women. They cheat because they can. And because for every powerful man ready to cheat, there are scores of hoes ready to be the one he cheats with.

Pretty simple huh.
 
Last edited:

wet_suit_one

New member
Aug 6, 2005
2,059
0
0
This explanation assumes that monogamy is the norm. I rather doubt it. There was a time that men could not be "destroyed" or "undone" by their sexual activities. At that time the above explanation holds no water.

Merely the making of a certain morality does nothing to relieve the evolutionary traits that made humans what they are today.

A better explanation of why men "cheat" is in the article found here:

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

The key paragraph section of that article (in my view) is the following:

"The Most Underappreciated Fact

The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?

It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

Right now our field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained by evolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explains things related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of natural selection. Basically, the traits that were most effective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology. It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences.

For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).

The huge difference in reproductive success very likely contributed to some personality differences, because different traits pointed the way to success. Women did best by minimizing risks, whereas the successful men were the ones who took chances. Ambition and competitive striving probably mattered more to male success (measured in offspring) than female. Creativity was probably more necessary, to help the individual man stand out in some way. Even the sex drive difference was relevant: For many men, there would be few chances to reproduce and so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said “not today, I have a headache,” he might miss his only chance.

Another crucial point. The danger of having no children is only one side of the male coin. Every child has a biological mother and father, and so if there were only half as many fathers as mothers among our ancestors, then some of those fathers had lots of children.

Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids.

In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.

To put this in more subjective terms: When I walk around and try to look at men and women as if seeing them for the first time, it’s hard to escape the impression (sorry, guys!) that women are simply more likeable and lovable than men. (This I think explains the “WAW effect” mentioned earlier.) Men might wish to be lovable, and men can and do manage to get women to love them (so the ability is there), but men have other priorities, other motivations. For women, being lovable was the key to attracting the best mate. For men, however, it was more a matter of beating out lots of other men even to have a chance for a mate.

Tradeoffs again: perhaps nature designed women to seek to be lovable, whereas men were designed to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness.

And it was worth it, even despite the “mostly unsuccessfully” part. Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. He took big risks and eventually conquered most of the known world. For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children. Striving for greatness in that sense offered the human female no such biological payoff. For the man, the possibility was there, and so the blood of Genghis Khan runs through a large segment of today’s human population. By definition, only a few men can achieve greatness, but for the few men who do, the gains have been real. And we are descended from those great men much more than from other men. Remember, most of the mediocre men left no descendants at all."

There is a whole lot more explanatory power in the above noted observations about why "powerful men" "cheat" than all the drivel that spouted in this day and age in a "monogamous" society. A sort of society that has only existed for about 1,000 years or so in some parts of the world. We are not monogamous by nature and no matter how "normal" our society seems, our species was never designed for monogamy.
 

wet_suit_one

New member
Aug 6, 2005
2,059
0
0
Just imagine, only 40% of males reproduced. Therefore, every male, to enjoy reproductive success is, by nature, inclined to fuck everything they can. No one disagrees with this in general as it is universally observed and naturally expected. Why is everyone so "surprised" when men with more access to pussy (i.e. high status, successful males) actually put their pricks into willing poon? What the fuck else do people "expect" them to do? Engage in retarded dances of idiotic social norms or do what enhances survival, namely hit that pussy all night long?

If we were a monogamous species by nature rather than by norms, (some of which norms can be pretty fucking strange, just look at how some people dress or what they eat all over this strange world of ours), everyone would be rightly surprised by "powerful" men going outside of their monogamous relationship. The fact that they do, and that they always have because that what was successful for our species should be a surprise to no one. Kings have always had many lovers. It has ever been thus, and, puritans notwithstanding, will likely ever be thus until our mating strategies change.

All monogamy did was let the 60% of males who used to not reproduce have a decent chance at reproducing. Funny, monogamy is actually to the benefit of MEN not women in aggregate. How weird is that?
 

GG2

Mr. Debonair
Apr 8, 2011
3,183
0
0
^^^

Thanks for your posts. I've read similar analysis before and I believe it's a solid theory.
 

Swede

New member
Jan 18, 2010
722
0
0
Nonsense. All men can't keep their pants on. You don't need to be "Powerful" to want to bang a gorgeous chick. Rich and Powerful guys just have more access to hot pussy. Celebrities are just more newsworthy and the stories become sensationalized. Men cheat on women every single day all over the world. Leaders are just held to a higher standard by society so when they fuck up we all gasp and say "Shame". Its not about having a hole inside your life or feeling like you are a loser. Its about having a dick.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
The FSU article is very interesting. However one should be aware that the value and function of sexual reproduction is one of the most hotly contested areas in evolutionary biology today.

As well evolutionary pyschology or sociology are often reverse engineers solutions not at all properly supported by proper scientific technique.

One should approach these theories very carefully. The book this section is taken from has been poorly reviewed, I understand is poorly sourced and methodlogically flawed.
 

Twister

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2002
4,696
441
83
GTA
Vacuous trash.

Powerful men cheat because they have dicks and are horny and love to fuck women. They cheat because they can. Pretty simple huh.
I think you didn't see the pic of the women he fucked. I really doubt he fucked her because he could or because of her looks.
 

IRIS

Supporting Member
Feb 18, 2010
5,490
356
83
iris4men.escortbook.com
When they got a boner, they forget who they are.
The erection and the brain functions are not working together at the same time usually. Too much blood in your penis, then not enough blood in your brain...lol :)
 

Geokath

New member
Mar 24, 2011
22
0
0
Nonsense. All men can't keep their pants on. You don't need to be "Powerful" to want to bang a gorgeous chick. Rich and Powerful guys just have more access to hot pussy. Celebrities are just more newsworthy and the stories become sensationalized. Men cheat on women every single day all over the world. Leaders are just held to a higher standard by society so when they fuck up we all gasp and say "Shame". Its not about having a hole inside your life or feeling like you are a loser. Its about having a dick.
AMEN! Men (and women for that matter) from all walks of life fuck inside and outside of relationships every day...the reaction and analysis the "newsworthy" get is more shocking than the act itself...

Seriously, wouldn't it be more shocking and a bigger surprise if the priests, politicians, and athletes we put on a pedestal and held to a "higher standard" actually lived up to that standard???

I'm afraid it's just the human condition...the fucking around and the fascination....
 

krayjee

Banned
Jan 4, 2009
3,887
2
0
Another simple reason is ... there might be lots of other guys who did these sort of things quite often just for excitement but they got away easily by either buying out or most ladies just didn't bother reporting to avoid embarrassment or some had fun themselves as well and making good tips. Who knows?. This guy just ran into the wrong woman this time. From his back ground history who knows how many other ladies he might havd tried from other hotels or work places before this one? He just found out a hard way he can't win all the time if this one is a legit case.
 

zxxxmelaniexxxz

New member
May 10, 2011
15
0
0
Sounds like a load of bull shit to me. I don't think they did these things because they thought little of themselves and what their parents told them as a child.. Famous or not, Everyone does things they are not supposed to do. Wants, desires. It is what it is, and really its nobody's bisness but the faimilies of those involved.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,067
3,959
113
When they got a boner, they forget who they are.
The erection and the brain functions are not working together at the same time usually. Too much blood in your penis, then not enough blood in your brain...lol :)
Yeah, but how do you explain all the women who are spreading for us?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts