gungasnake wrote:
Sex on your own time and your own dime is one thing. Sex with a teenage intern on government property during government working hours is something altogether different.
You see, right there is where you are wrong.
Among men, any attention any male pays to how much action another guy gets on the side is automatic grounds to suspect that the guy is a homosexual who wants the male in question.
All this fuming about Clinton's sex life. All this fussing about Clinton's sex life. If there were a co-worker on the job named Bill and you did one tenth of much crying about his sex life as you do about Clinton's, the other guys would have all sorts of jokes about you.
Anytime anyone announced he was going to the bathroom, somebody would crack about you hanging out there looking for action. What would be written on the bathroom walls about you would not bear repeating here, but I think most men have an idea.
When it comes to how much action other men are getting, most guys
A) Don't care
B) Want to make sure that nobody is paying attention to
their own sex lives.
Even among the men who are entirely faithful to their wives, what you are doing here would be considered contemptible. So contemptible, for instance, that a good percentage of men-even those with nothing to worry about-would march in and demand a transfer into some department away from you. The principle would be that if you would stoop so low as to stick your nose into another guy's business, they don't trust you in any shape, size or form.
They wouldn't want you anywhere around them. And that's the truth.
That is what would happen to you on any job I have worked, if you paid one tenth as much attention to a co-worker's sex life as you do to Clinton's.
I really should increase the font size on this monitor. Sometimes it hard to tell you and McG apart from the posts :-)
