[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference quark::human_relations-v1

Title:What's all this fuss about 'sax and violins'?
Notice:Archived V1 - Current conference is QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS
Moderator:ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI
Created:Fri May 09 1986
Last Modified:Wed Jun 26 1996
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1327
Total number of notes:28298

810.0. "Just a victim of love????????" by NOETIC::KOLBE (The dilettante debutante) Wed Aug 02 1989 23:43

      I've heard it on the news again - yet another upstanding guardian
      of everybody else's morality has been busted in a sleazy love/sex
      affair. This one happened to be a South African right wing zealot
      who preached morality and apartheid (two opposite ideas in my mind)
      and got busted when the reporter he was dating (who wrote articles
      for the SA version of the Enquirer) wrote about their affair. Of
      course he was also married.

      Now personally, I think he got what he deserved, but what makes
      these people do these things? Remember Gary Hart? He dared the
      press to catch him then went out bimbo bonking and had pictures
      taken! What about our rash of TV preachers, raping secretaries and
      hiring prostitutes while they preached to the masses?

      Do they think they are immune? Are they driven by lust? Or love?
      Most of them are famous enough that they could have had adoring
      woman followers who wouldn't have blown the whistle yet they chose
      someone who was garunteed to cause a major scandal. Why?

      Cetainly we've seen even in this notesfile that the object of
      someone's love is not unlikely to be inappropriate - your
      neighbor's wife or your boss perhaps. But these, even if they blow
      up won't cause a country wide scandal. How about John Profumo back
      in the 60's or even more recently the guy with the top secret
      clearance that had an affair with a Russian and slipped her
      information. There wasn't any woman in the USA that wasn't
      appropriate, he had to love a Russian spy?

      I just don't understand it. I'm curious as to what the noters
      think. liesl
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
810.1Arrogance, stupidity - in that orderAPEHUB::RONThu Aug 03 1989 15:1316
>      Do they think they are immune? Are they driven by lust? Or love?

In my opinion, it's arrogance. It's the 'I am above it all, nothing 
can harm ME' attitude. All examples mentioned in .0 but one exhibit
the same trait. With Hart, it achieved disease proportions. 

But, 'never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by
stupidity', so there is one exception: Prefumo, the little (if 
memory serves) British Prime Minister. He apparently had no idea
Christine Keeler was ALSO seeing Ivanov from the Russian Embassy and
had no inkling of the chances he was taking. He was not arrogant,
just stupid. 

-- Ron

810.2It's not the kill, but the thrill of the chaseJACKAL::MACKENZIEFear life and live deathThu Aug 03 1989 16:0415
    Liesl:
    	
    	I think that most of the people you mention are risk driven.
    As such, they see more value in the chances they take together with
    the notoriety of their partner choice. Their lifestyle needs stimulus,
    including the means to their ends. An analogy would be driving.
    It's more fun to drive fast than slow, but more risk and you get
    to the same place. Maybe it's connected with our craving for a
    challenge. They succeeded by accepting and overcoming challenges
    in their public lives, so it follows that we should expect them
    to seek similar challenges in their private lives. Then again, it
    could be genes, hormones, or the planets.
    
    							Spuds
    
810.3'tis the nature of the beastJULIET::APODACA_KIThe Doomsday PeachThu Aug 03 1989 17:304
    No, they are just human....prominent humans, maybe, but as likely
    to do stupid things as we here in the masses.  :)
    
    kim
810.5Who is doing whatMPGS::HAMBURGERTake Back AmericaThu Aug 03 1989 17:3915
RE:0  Bimbo-bonking? a tad sexist are we?

RE:ALL every one (so far) gives the impression it is *only* the man
   who is doing something. 
Have you ever heard the term Groupie? (let's seperate Profumo, really a 
seperate issue)

WARNING NEXT LINE MAY BE OFFENSIVE


Do some Bimbos want to get bonked? :-) :-) :-)


can anyone shed light on why women might team-up with famous men?

810.6"But Ma, Johnny did it too"IAMOK::GRAYFollow a hawk. When it circles, you ...Thu Aug 03 1989 17:5634
    0> [...] Remember Gary Hart? He dared the
    0> press to catch him then went out bimbo bonking and had pictures
    0> taken! [...]
       .
    0> Do they think they are immune?

   .1> In my opinion, it's arrogance.


         (IMO) Yes on both of the above, but there is at least one more
       piece. That "piece" is that some of the people around them are
       doing the same sort of thing.  (Ex: Meese and his legal dealings) 

         None of the people, like them, are getting caught/punished, and
       the folks around them aren't looking to hard to find anything
       unethical/illegal.  If you live with this long enough and you are
       a big risk taker anyway, then after a while the arrogance and
       feelings of immunity are so strong, that you sincerely believe
       that you can/should be able to get away with anything you want. 

         Meese is an expert in the law, who can look at the evidence,
       and with a straight face, tell you he is not guilt of anything
       unethical or illegal. 

         And this doesn't have to be at the national level.  Look at a
       bitter divorce, and watch how one person will make unconscionable
       demands of the other through the court system.  And as his/her
       lawyer addresses the judge, they sit there believing that, it
       must be OK or the lawyer would have said something, right? 


         Richard (who is amazed at what some people will do, and think
                  it's OK) 
810.7Psychic numbing and projectionHANNAH::SICHELLife on Earth, let's not blow it!Fri Aug 04 1989 04:4337
We all have a capacity for self deception.  It's a normal psychological
defense mechanism.  Psychic numbing, compartmentalization, selective
perception.  We simply don't see what we don't want to see.  For
some people, this capacity has become enormous.

Interestingly, developing this ability to shut out or not think about
things that make us uncomfortable usually occurs during adolescence.
This is one reason children are sometimes so perceptive.  They haven't
learned to shut out reality.  It has also been shown that employing this
technique (psychic numbing) alters the chemical balance in the brain,
tending to shut parts of it down (thus making it even easier to avoid
thinking).

Another interesting factor is the pschological concept of projection.
When someone has an excessive response to a minor stimulus,
it's not only the stimulus that's at work.  They're reacting to
something inside of themselves.  Often we project our own fears
onto other people.

Those who are most outspoken in condeming other peoples life styles
are often reacting out of fear toward a tendency within themselves.

This may sound hard to believe, but it's been extensively researched
and well documented.  Projection: the act of externalizing or objectifying
what is primarily subjective.  I remember a few years ago it was revealed a
strong anti-gay congressman was involved in a homosexual affair
(with a minor no less!).

Although it's hard to generalize, I think in many cases the problem is
simply failing to see (due to conditioning) rather than arrogance or contempt.

Like other bad habbits, psychic numbing can be unlearned through
a process of de-conditioning.  Something worth thinking about in
a society like ours that seems unwilling to face it's problems
(deficit spending, homelessness, drug abuse,...)

- Peter
810.8greater priviliges = greater responsibilityNOETIC::KOLBEThe dilettante debutanteFri Aug 04 1989 19:1623
<RE:ALL every one (so far) gives the impression it is *only* the man
<   who is doing something. 
<Have you ever heard the term Groupie? (let's seperate Profumo, really a 
<seperate issue)


      Just to set a parameter. I deliberately didn't mention any show
      biz types as they seem to be in a constant state of partner change
      mode. The publicity is probably welcome in their cases.

      Groupies don't count cause they aren't famous and they aren't
      telling others what sort of life to live. Politicians and
      ministers do. People with top secrect clearances have an
      obligation that exceeds what John or Jane Q Public must live up
      to. 

      My intent was not to say only men did this, they were just the
      only ones that I can remember reading about.

      Two people have mentioned that Profumo should be excused. I don't
      really remember the details. Was he just an unsuspecting pawn?
      liesl
810.9a few thoughts not argumentsMPGS::HAMBURGERTake Back AmericaFri Aug 04 1989 19:4030
>      Just to set a parameter. I deliberately didn't mention any show
>      biz types as they seem to be in a constant state of partner change
>      mode. The publicity is probably welcome in their cases.

>      Groupies don't count cause they aren't famous and they aren't

*EVERY* famous type has it's "groupie" following. there are police groupies,
congressional groupies(does a certain party with Joanne Kopechne ring a bell)
not only show-biz groupies. and IMHO TV evangelists are Show-biz folks.


>      Two people have mentioned that Profumo should be excused. I don't
>      really remember the details. Was he just an unsuspecting pawn?
>      liesl

I was not excusing him I merely meant that seemed like a more "traditional"
spy ploy, ie he *may* have been seduced *BECAUSE* of his position.
  please note-> ^^^^^
*ALL* governments use whatever method works to obtain information about
"the other guy". that is why most Americans are caught taking money, money
is "worshipped" in this country. in Europe SEX is often the lure as
that seems to (IMHO) work better there.  


BTW I am not fighting with you Liesl, I agree public figures should be
squeeky-clean as an example to us mere mortals. I am only stating that
you may have to look at the motives all-around. there is far more money
to be made from a kiss-and-tell book than there is just at the-end of an affair.


810.10Psychic numbing- good, bad or ugly?ASABET::ROBINSONbrash boy wonderFri Aug 04 1989 20:4023
    RE .7
    
    Jerry,
    
    You've got me thinking about the concept of psychic numbing. I can't
    say that I totally believe that it is all bad. In some instances,
    it is in fact necessary to block out certain events just in order
    to keep moving on with life. An example would be a war veteran who
    is constantly bothered by memories of the war. The ability to
    compartmentalize for that person would be a benefit.
    
    I knew a guy in college who was unable to compartmentalize, and
    was also a manic depressive. I think that the two conditions were
    interrelated.
    
    I am in complete agreement that people like to forget about things
    that they wish did not exist. War, poverty, crime, pollution, personal
    & family problems, and ex-lovers immediately come to mind. Sometimes
    it is good to think about these things in an attempt to resolve them.
    Other times we cannot change things and should try to put them out
    of our minds in order to get on with things. 
    
    Jeff
810.11Good or bad are value judgements. Choices have consequences.HANNAH::SICHELLife on Earth, let's not blow it!Fri Aug 04 1989 21:4519
re .10

I agree.  Psychic numbing is not all bad.  It's a psychological defense
mechanism.  There are cases where it is necessary to be able to shut out
particularly painful thoughts to get on with one's life.

But realize you pay a high psychological price for this.  You might
say such a person is mentally scarred by their experience.  Psychic
injuries can be just as devastating and hard to get over as physical
ones.  Some people never recover.

I think this explains why long time enemies are sometimes unable to
see peaceful solutions to their conflict.  They're too scarred by all
the pain they've experienced.

The problems facing our planet today are so serious we can no longer
afford to ignore them.  All life is in danger.  Time is short.

- Peter
810.12Self deception = Psychic numbing? I don't know...ASABET::ROBINSONbrash boy wonderMon Aug 07 1989 13:5332
    re .11
    
    Hi Jerry,
    
    I hear ya when your talking about the environment but I have some
    questions about your analysis of self deception and psychic numbing.
    
    .7 > We all have a capacity for self deception. It is a normal
       > psychological defense mechanism. Psychic numbing,
       > compartmentalization, selective perception. We simply don't
       > see what we don't want to see. For some people this capacity
       > has become enormous.
    
    I have a hard time establishing an absolute relation between psychic 
    numbing and self deception. I think that people who choose to forget
    past experiences, for whatever reasons, can still look at the world
    perceptively, with open eyes. 
    
    .11> But realize that you pay a high price for this (psychic numbing).
    
    .7 > Employing this technique (psychic numbing) alters the chemical
       > balance in the brain, tending to shut parts of it down (thus
       > making it even easier to avoid thinking).
    
    I would be really interested in learning about the studies which
    arrive at this conclusion. Was the control group people who never
    forgot painful experiences? How would they select that group? It
    has been over a year since my last neuro class, but the idea that
    forgetting something about the past scars your future just doesn't
    sit well with me.  
    
    Jeff
810.13The Profumo/Keeler storyAPEHUB::RONMon Aug 07 1989 16:0255
RE: .8

>      Two people have mentioned that Profumo should be excused. I don't
>      really remember the details. Was he just an unsuspecting pawn?

All from vague memories: Profumo was the British Prime Minister who
use to frequent a house of ill repute, run by Dr. Ward (a bone
doctor, who also saw patients, as a side line, but used his
profession to solicit customers for his more lucrative enterprise).
This was a high class place, with prices to match, frequented by 
nothing but high class people.

The two girls in that establishment were Christine Keeler and
Mandy Rhys-Davis, both dramatically beautiful women, well educated
and well bred.

Another customer was Ivanov (??), of the Russian Embassy. This was in
the Cold War era. When the press got hold of this, a public scandal
ensued, since everyone knows that, in addition to other endeavours
undertaken in bed, people are also prone to freely talk there. There
was speculation as to how much, if any, information was Ivanov able
to amass through the two pros... er... call girls. 

Prefumo panicked and made a false statement to Parliament, denying
everything. That was a fatal mistake. 

Had all this occurred in France, the Prime minister would have
intimated, with a twinkle in his eye, that not only does he have a
Christine 'on the side', but (occasionally), a Francois as well.
Everyone would have laughed heartily and envied him. But in prim and
proper (not to say prude) British society, Profumo could not do
that, so he was forced to lie. 

That finished him off. In the raging scandal, Prefumo was forced to
resign (they don't impeach people out there). 

Dr. Ward, I think, was found guilty of whatever he was charged with
and wound up in prison. 

Mandy Rhys-Davis immigrated to Israel (she was not Jewish) and
married Raffi Shauly, an airline flight attendant. They went into the
restaurant business and did quite well. Last I heard, they eventually
divorced, but she still owned 'Mandy's' in Tel-Aviv (I have no idea
whether this is true). 

Christine married a nondescript person and moved to some God
forsaken village in England. Several years later, I saw a picture of
her in some magazine. She was no longer beautiful, although,
presumably, she was still well bred. 

I have no idea what happened to Profumo. 

-- Ron 

810.14not the PMWITNES::WEBBMon Aug 07 1989 16:3430
    Didn't Christine die... I had heard that they found her body bobbing
    under a peer...
    
    (no hitting!!!!!)
    
    Seriously, I think Profumo was the Defense Minister, but definitely
    not the PM.
    
    Lastly, I wonder if it really is a good thing to expect our politicians
    to be Simon Pure... there have been some pretty good ones who wouldn't
    have passed the test... Kennedy, FDR,....  It seems hypocritical
    to me that the media can crucify a Gary Hart for his behavior and
    not be subject to the same scrutiny (remember Jessica Savage...
    she was pretty fouled up and a part of her problem was the affair
    she was having with another prominent newstype).  It's the same
    kind of standard setting that gets the press whipping up a full
    outcry when there is a hint that a candidate might have seen a
    therapist.
    
    Lincoln was a manic depressive, Grover Cleveland had supposedly
    fathered and illigitimate child, Jefferson made a mistress of one
    of his slaves,...
    
    Not that I don't object to misuse of power and of arrogance... whether
    its an evangelical preacher who does what he condemns in others,
    or a shrink who seduces a patient, or a parent who abuses a child.
    
    R.
    
    
810.15Alive and Well -- According to the PRess.JAIMES::GODINThis is the only world we haveMon Aug 07 1989 17:1011
    Re. -.14:
    
    Unless I'm hallucinating, I saw a picture of Cristine Keeler and
    her son as they attended the premier showing of a movie just out
    that dramatizes the scandal.  Sorry, don't know the name of the
    movie -- I don't follow these things that closely.
    
    If it was her, I'd guess she's not dead.
    
    Or was your comment strictly for the pun value?
                                                      
810.16my personal opinion....APEHUB::STHILAIREFood, Shelter &amp; DiamondsMon Aug 07 1989 18:3736
    Re .8, re .15, the movie is called "Scandal."  Although, it received
    mixed reviews I enjoyed it a lot.  Peter Fonda's daughter is excellent
    as Mandy Rice-Davies, John Hurt does an excellent job as the famous
    doctor who becomes a scapegoat for the British gov't (according
    to the movie) and some unknown actress also does a very good job
    of playing Christine.  I had read an interview with the real Christine
    Keeler during the past year.  She was alive during the past year,
    so if she is dead it must have happened very recently and I don't
    recall hearing about it.  I think she's alive.  According to the
    interview she's been living an ordinary working class life in England,
    not very well off financially.  Mandy Rice-Davies is supposed to
    have done very well with her restaurant, and, of course, the poor
    doctor committed suicide.  Profumo was never prime minister of England,
    although I forget who was at the time.  (Harold McMillan?  I can
    picture a middle-aged man with a moustache and hat...ha-ha)
    
    As far as the illicit loves of famous men go.  I do find it disgusting
    when people, such as TV evangelists, who have done so much preaching
    to others (to us!) about how we should live and what our morals
    should be, turn out to have sleazy little personal lives of their
    own.  However, I really am sick of having people put down politicians
    for their sex lives.  I don't recall ever hearing Gary Hart say
    that he didn't think married people should have affairs, so it's
    not like he was doing one thing and preaching another.  For that
    matter, Ted Kennedy's problem was his poor driving, and not the
    fact that he was cheating on his wife (whom he was unhappy with
    anyway).  I would rather have a president whose political views
    I agree with, who had a girlfriend on the side (FDR did, Eisenhower
    did), than a president whose views I disagree with, but has never
    cheated on his wife.  (What woman in her right mind would want George
    Bush anyway! ick!)  I think Americans and the American press are
    all too ready to crucify politicians for their sex lives.  I don't,
    however, feel sorry for TV evangelists.  I think they're slime anyway.
    
    Lorna
    
810.17GOLETA::BROWN_ROremote nude is not currently reachableMon Aug 07 1989 21:3310
    To me, it is those who chose to instruct us on morality, while
    literally not practicing what they preached. The evangelsists are
    one example; Reagan's infamous non-negotiating stance with Iranian
    terrorists, while negotiating on the side; Newt Gingrich getting
    subjected to the ethics roasting that he gave to Jim Wright. It
    is someone making a specific stand, on which they themselves
    would fail.
    
    -roger
    
810.18different view of psychic numbingHANNAH::SICHELLife on Earth, let's not blow it!Tue Aug 08 1989 03:0632
re .12

>    I have a hard time establishing an absolute relation between psychic
>    numbing and self deception. I think that people who choose to forget
>    past experiences, for whatever reasons, can still look at the world
>    perceptively, with open eyes.

I don't have an opinion on this.  I see now psychic numbing can have two
slightly different meanings.  It can mean choosing to forget a past
experience, but it can also mean choosing to ignore information in the 
environment.  I was thinking in terms of the second meaning (not dealing
with stress you are presently experiencing).

We're exposed almost daily to a stream of potentially stressful information.
Information that may directly conflict with our existing beliefs about
ourselves and the world.  How do we deal with this?

(1)  Push it back and not think about it.  Emotional dullness (numbing).
(2)  Openly engage it, talk to other people, try to reach some understanding
     of what it means and how to respond.
(3)  Become excessively excited, emotionalized.

 
>   I would be really interested in learning about the studies which
>   arrive at this conclusion...

I read about this in a paper by a Soviet Author.  She described work
which involved measuring electrical potentials in discrete zones of the brain.
If you'd like more information, perhaps we could continue this discussion
by mail.

- Peter
810.19I read it slightly differently?TLE::RANDALLliving on another planetTue Aug 08 1989 12:1512
    I was under the impression that psychic numbing was not a choice?
    It happens when you've experienced more than you can handle, so
    rather than crack up, your mind refuses to process any more
    information related to that experience.  It won't let you be
    subjected to any more pain.
    
    But I didn't think it was a choice, and that treating it and
    restoring responsiveness without destroying the person's psyche
    involved long and difficult therapy.
    
    --bonnie