3 Healthy Ways to Talk About Cheating

Hah, FW in my case– a lifelong lefty/social democratic from a politically active lefty family– began at least trying to cheat the second Trump was elected.

For some background, it took FW quite a long time to find someone, anyone among the usual office doorknobs and barflies who’d play side piece but it wasn’t for lack of trying. Since most FWs– being narcs– will never typically confess all the times they bat out and get rejected on the meat market before finally “scoring,” I realized I was getting a rare glimpse into that murky world and, furthermore, I thought it was extremely telling.

Forgive me if I ramble on a bit about esoteric themes because I haven’t really worked out my big philosophical take on it all. But my conclusion overall is that radical patriarchal authoritarian leaders are basically like the full moon for every freak and perv in society.

How’s that for a grand statement?

It might explain why some men from classes that may have a lot to lose from the typical policies of typical authoritarian right regimes will still blindly support those regimes. I think it’s because having a radical patriarch-in-chief is a clarion call that, at last, the freaks may be able to take their sexual aggression out of the closet and fly their freak flags high! No more hiding in the shadows! No more shame! Our day has come!!

If the leader in question is known to be rapey, the clarion call gets louder. Hitler was suspected of sexually exploiting and killing his own niece. It never hampered his ascendance. Mussolini was known as a wife-beater and whoremonger. It only brought him more power.

Not that totalitarian leftist dictators can’t be rapey freaks behind the scenes. Kim Jong Un never really bothered to conceal his exploitation of women and perversion which I think explains the fact that North Korea’s rate of rape prosecution is so low that the UN and International Court of Human Rights raised alarms over it.

But it still stands that the radical right simply has more freedom to put out this obvious clarion call to freaks because it’s mostly the right that can openly promote patriarchal values that repress women while most hypocrites on the left (save for Kim Jong Un) have to at least conceal that agenda.

I wager those freaks like your ex who, at least on the face of it, don’t initially seem to support these types of radical patriarchal regimes will start to shift their views– like growing werewolf fangs and fur– under this type of leadership. I thought it was also very interesting that the AP in my situation and her fundy family were staunch Trump supporters and, during his affair, FW’s politics began to shift enough that one of his closest friends actually reared on him in rage.

FW wasn’t even aware that he was starting to sound all Proud Boys libertarian bro or at least apologistic for it. But while it could seem that FW was– like a lot of empty Cluster B ciphers– simply “mirroring” the AP’s views to get laid, this doesn’t account for the fact that the three previous office barflies he’d unsuccessfully hit on were all right wing churchy Jesus cheaters. So my guess is that the shift happened because the political winds changed which enabled his always-underlying, secret patriarchal tendencies to come out of hiding. When the full moon came out, his patriarchal fangs began to grow.

I want to qualify the above because I’m not implying that conservatives are more “rapey” than lefties. I think the takeaway isn’t about which side of the aisle one is on but about integrity and consistency. It makes perfect sense that the politics of people who have no character will be equally vapid, shallow and inconsistent because their politics, like their characters, will always be driven by their darker predilections.

Again, there are honorable conservatives and honorable lefties and then corrupt and dangerous radicals and hypocrites on both sides as well.
And, after all, totalitarianism comes in all flavors. But, while rates of rape and domestic violence and every manner of sexual exploitation tend to skyrocket under both types of totalitarianism, this might be ever-so-slightly modified under the lefty rendition merely because the latter usually has to at least make a pretense of appointing women to public office.

For example, many people who lived under Franco’s dictatorship in Spain reported seeing women openly beaten in the street– even in wealthy enclaves– by their husbands since there were no laws against it, no recourse for victims and women could not legally divorce without losing their children. The same thing was witnessed in Cuba under Castro– the regular sight of a woman being dragged through the street by her hair by a partner. But there was one little difference. In Cuba there was a higher chance the culprit might occasionally get into legal trouble for it, plus women had the right to divorce and retain custody.

By a similar token, the Soviet system ended up with so many female judges in one region that it led the world for domestic violence prosecutions. But, in the Soviet system, in Cuba and under Franco, the overall violence of the states would still be like a “full moon” for every brand of freak so it’s like the female Soviet judges were left shoveling the walk while it was still snowing.

Anyway, sorry for all the unfinished thoughts here. In any case I’m not surprised you ended up boggled over your ex’s politics. No character = no political integrity except for the predictable leaning towards any regime that might promote the most selfish, secret aims abusers.