Can you name a single woman politician caught in a similar sex scandal?
If not, why not?
The answer is so simple and so obvious that there should be no need to write a column on the subject. But, thanks to feminism and academia, the obvious has been declared untrue.
Take the article on this subject by New York Times Washington correspondent Sheryl Gay Stolberg. Titled "When It Comes to Scandal, Girls Won't Be Boys," Stolberg begins her answer to the question as to why powerful men, but not powerful women, are involved in sex scandals with this disclaimer: "It would be easy to file this under the category of 'men behaving badly,' to dismiss it as a testosterone-induced, hard-wired connection between sex and power (powerful men attract women) ... ."
Of course, what Stolberg dismisses as the reason is precisely the reason. Power (and money and fame) seduces women in the same way women's bodies and faces seduce men. And, unless men exert major efforts to control their sexual nature, they will use their power (or money or fame) to obtain sex with a variety of women.
There are only two things that stop powerful and famous men from sleeping with available women. The first is a strong value system (that is, a sense of obligation to their wives and/or their religion's power over them). The second is an overwhelming fear of getting caught. In either case, these things must be coupled with powerful self-control.
Yes, Stolberg, men -- the least powerful as much as the most powerful -- are "hard-wired" to sleep with as many women as they can. The only difference between the governor of California and a male sanitation worker is that the former has far more opportunities.
But Stolberg, our well-educated New York Times correspondent, denies this basic reality about men's natures. Feminism 101 teaches the opposite of reality -- that men and women have similar, if not identical, sexual drives. And therefore she dismisses the truth of the matter at the outset of her article.
But if it isn't male sexual nature, what is the New York Times reporter's feminist explanation for why sexual scandal is virtually a monopoly of powerful men?