Eliot & Silda Spitzer

[BayGBM]

Yes
I think it will end.

Do you still think it will end?

[Butterbean]

Do you still think it will end?

Yes.  But I may just be projecting my own feelings into the situation and could of course be wrong and they may stay together until death.

I know women who have stayed w/cheaters (one cheated more than once) and if they can work it out, that is great!  Maybe this type of thing can bring them closer together in a positive way somehow.

My friend that is married to a man that cheated on her twice (that we know of) still is tormented by the whole ordeal (last affair that we know of was about 3 years ago I think) and has said if it ever happens again, that's it, they are done.  I don't really know if she means it though.

[BayGBM]

He's baaaack.....


Spitzer Joins the Furor on Money for A.I.G.

By N. R. KLEINFIELD
Everyone seems to have a vitriolic view of the bonus-dispensing American International Group, and now so does that caustic echo of yesteryear, Eliot Spitzer.

The dethroned New York governor, a full year into the role of mere citizen, has thrust himself into the strident debate over the spending habits of the government dependent A.I.G. He wrote about it in his column on Tuesday for the online magazine Slate, then augmented that with an unusual 18-minute appearance on Wednesday morning on Brian Lehrer’s radio program.

His central point was that the millions of dollars in bonuses ought to be overshadowed by what he sees as the more flagrant offense by A.I.G., shepherding billions in bailout money to its trading partners. Despite his Democratic credentials, Mr. Spitzer in his latest views adds to criticism he has already directed at the economic policy of the Obama administration.

It might seem sensible that the man once depicted as the sheriff of Wall Street when he was the state’s hard-boiled attorney general, whose investigation of A.I.G.’s deceptive practices led to a $1.6 billion settlement, would feel motivated to say his piece. Given the untidy manner in which Mr. Spitzer left office — a prostitution scandal — is his the voice people want to hear on ethical behavior?

Indeed, Mr. Lehrer, in his radio interview, mentioned that some listeners had complained angrily on the station’s Web site about having Mr. Spitzer as a guest, wondering why the station could not find someone who did not also happen to be a humiliated New York governor.

Reached by telephone, Mr. Spitzer declined to talk about his views or motivations.

In the Lehrer interview, Mr. Spitzer said that he was not mounting some sort of comeback, saying, “I’ve apologized and in my view have acted in the past year the way I should have, which is to say I will remain quiet.” Other than, that is, to offer “a few words” from time to time on public policy issues.

He did see fit to assert that when he was attorney general he was “pursuing issues that nobody else wanted to pursue.” He added: “Now it is the flavor of the month. Everyone’s jumping up and down serving subpoenas, beating their chests trying to be tougher than the next person.”

Reaction around the blogosphere to Mr. Spitzer’s emergence ran the customary gamut, from the blasphemous to the congratulatory to the incredulous.

As one person wrote on Politico.com: “Now Spitzer has ‘chimed in?! OMG! May Day! May Day! SOS!”

Besides working in the family real estate business, Mr. Spitzer began a biweekly column for Slate last December, entitled the Best Policy: Making Government Work Better.

Columns have expressed skepticism of government assistance policies. His first column, on Dec. 3, assailed the wisdom of federal bailouts to financial institutions. A column on the auto industry suggested telling the three American auto companies that there was bailout money for — guess what — only two of them, and the two that presented the best plan would get it.

In another column, he said that the Obama stimulus package ought to be funneled to truly transformative ideas rather than simply being used to fix bridges and buildings. He has also railed against privatizing Social Security and criticized the way students pay for college.

[Butterbean]

He did see fit to assert that when he was attorney general he was “pursuing issues that nobody else wanted to pursue.” He added: “Now it is the flavor of the month. Everyone’s jumping up and down serving subpoenas, beating their chests trying to be tougher than the next person.”

Oh brother.  He is the coolest

Given the untidy manner in which Mr. Spitzer left office — a prostitution scandal — is his the voice people want to hear on ethical behavior?

no

[BayGBM]

Disgraced former Gov. Eliot Spitzer said this morning that the high-price hooker habit that drove him out of office was not frequent and "an egregious violation of my behavior."

In an interview that aired on NBC's "Today" show, Spitzer admitted he thought about getting caught as he frequented call girls.

"It crossed my mind, but like many things in life, you ignore the obvious at a certain moment because you simply don't want to confront it," he said.

Spitzer, 49, who is married with three daughters, resigned as governor in March 2008 after the feds busted a prostitution ring and uncovered that he was a client...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04062009/news/regionalnews/spitzer__no_excuse_for_hooker_scandal_163185.htm

[BayGBM]

ELIOT SPITZER'S WANDERING EYE ON AG

BEHIND Eliot Spitzer's flaccid attempt at re-erecting his public persona is a plan to run for state attorney general in 2010, sources told Page Six.

After launching a column on Slate.com, and giving interviews to National Public Radio and the "Today" show, the sources say, the disgraced former governor told friends: "My record as governor was disappointing, but the voters will remember my excellent two terms as attorney general."

The sources say Spitzer, forever tarnished as Client No. 9 of a prostitution agency, expects Andrew Cuomo to run for governor next year, leaving open the AG job. Several Democrats are already being mentioned as potential candidates, including Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and state Assemblymen Richard Brodsky (Westchester) and Michael Gianaris (Queens).

But Spitzer, whose resignation just 13 months ago led to the gubernatorial ascension of hapless David Paterson, might be underestimating the public's memory. Even before Spitzer went on "Today" to resurrect his image as "the sheriff of Wall Street" and discuss his "gremlins," a New York Times column recently referred to him as "that caustic echo of yesteryear."

Noted one longtime observer, "The whole idea of returning to Albany is preposterous. You can't go home again. He's a pariah. It wasn't just the prostitutes -- there was also Troopergate," the use of state troopers to spy on Republican leader Joe Bruno.

Meanwhile, Cecil Suwal, who's scheduled to serve six months in jail for helping run the notorious Emperors Club sex ring, is shopping a memoir to publishers.

In "Inside the Emperors Club: Girls, Greed and the Governor," "She will discuss the frequency with which [Spitzer] used the agency, the amounts of money he spent, and some of the details of the various encounters he had with the girls," her rep said.

[BayGBM]

New Yorkers prefer disgraced ex. Gov. Eliot Spitzer to David Paterson, Marist poll finds
BY MICHAEL SAUL, DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

A majority of New York voters would rather see Eliot Spitzer, the state's hooker-happy former governor, back in office than his beleaguered successor, Gov. Paterson, a new poll revealed Monday.

The latest poll from the Marist Institute for Public Opinion showed 51% of registered voters would rather have Spitzer in the governor's mansion right now. Spitzer resigned in March 2008 following revelations he patronized high-priced prostitutes.

Strikingly, even though Paterson is the state's first black governor, 53% of non-whites said they would prefer Spitzer as the state's chief executive.

The number of voters rating Paterson's job performance as "good" or "excellent" plummeted to 19%, marking a seven-point drop since Marist last asked the question in March.

The poll showed 37% believe Paterson is doing a fair job and 40% believe he is doing a poor job.

Paterson, who publicly declared he will ask voters in 2010 to elect him to his own four-year term as governor, gets points for his work ethic. The poll showed 66% of voters say he's working hard, but even that's a drop from 77% in March.

Exposing serious weakness in his leadership credentials, 66% of voters said Paterson does not have what it takes to lead the state and 48% said he doesn't get the critical issues facing New York.

A whopping 68% of voters said they disagreed with Paterson's handling of the economic crisis and 71% don't believe he's changing the way Albany operates for the better.

Nearly seven in 10 state voters believe the state is moving in the wrong direction, making Paterson's ambition of winning his own term very unlikely.

If former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, challenges Paterson next year, the poll shows Paterson would lose by more than 20 points. In the hypothetical match-up, Giuliani leads Paterson, 56% to 32%.

If state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo were the Democratic nominee for governor, the poll shows he would blow away the competition. Cuomo leads Giuliani, 55% to 38%.

The poll also showed Paterson's controversial appointee to the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, losing ground in her bid to retain her seat in 2010. Paterson appointed Gillibrand to fill the seat vacated by Secretary of State Clinton.

In a hypothetical matchup against former Gov. George Pataki, Gillibrand trails Pataki, 38% to 46%. In March, Gillibrand led Pataki, 45% to 41%.

Paterson's free-fall appears tied to his messy handling of the choice to replace Clinton in the U.S. Senate, particularly the treatment of onetime contender Caroline Kennedy. Many New Yorkers believe the negative info leaked about Kennedy was unfair, and a significant swath of the electorate directly blame Paterson.

Paterson has been criticized and mocked from coast to coast for his dithering on the Senate choice and has been the target of stinging "Saturday Night Live" impersonations.

In recent months, the governor has also come under fire for his handling of the state budget process, the turmoil in his cabinet and the gridlock surrounding a bailout package for the cash-strapped Metropolitan Transit Authority.

Marist surveyed 1,029 registered voters statewide on Tuesday and Wednesday of last week. The poll has an error margin of plus or minus three points.

[BayGBM]

Disgraced ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer to lecture at ethics center; Madam says it's dumb move by Harvard U.
BY Beverly Ford In Cambridge, Mass. and Corky Siemaszko DAILY NEWS WRITERS

Hooker-loving ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer is set to deliver a lecture Thursday at - of all places - a center for ethics at Harvard University.

And the madam who supplied Spitzer's high-priced escorts said she can't imagine a less qualified speaker.

"I am greatly intrigued as to what Mr. Spitzer could contribute to an ethical discussion when, as [governor], he broke numerous laws for which he has yet to be punished," Kristin Davis wrote in a protest letter to Prof. Lawrence Lessig at The Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics.

"As attorney general, he went around arresting and making examples out of the same escort agencies he was frequenting."

Calling Spitzer a "man without ethics," Davis listed seven reasons why Harvard should reconsider.

Among other things, she asked if it was "ethical" to hire a hooker using a fake name or lie about shady campaign loans.

Lessig said Spitzer is not giving "a lecture on ethics." "He has instead been invited to speak as part of a series on the topic of 'institutional corruption'," the professor said.

Spitzer, who was forced to resign after his kinky romps with prostitutes were revealed, has been trying to remake himself.

The so-called "Sheriff of Wall Street" has been lecturing on law and public policy at City College and has opined about the economy on TV.

[BayGBM]

Madam Rips Spitzer for Ethics Lecture
Hooker booker throws stones at Love Gov from her glass house
By MELISSA RUSSO

Disgraced ex-Governor Eliot Spitzer should be the last person lecturing about ethics, according to the madam who hooked him up with pricey call girls.

Kristin Davis is outraged that Spitzer is scheduled to deliver a lecture on ethics Thursday at Harvard University.

Davis fired off an angry letter to the university, saying:

 "I am greatly intrigued as to what Mr. Spitzer could contribute to an ethical discussion when as Chief Executive Law Enforcement Officer of NY he broke numerous laws for which he has yet to be punished.

“For nearly 5 years, I supplied Mr. Spitzer with high priced escorts while he was both Attorney General and Governor.  For this crime, I served four months on Rikers Island, had all of my assets confiscated and am now considered a sex offender on 5 years probation. Mr. Spitzer broke both state and federal laws and walked away free.

“I believe strongly in the legalization of prostitution and have no issue with his choice to use call girls. However, I deplore hypocrisy and abhor public officials who use their power to commit and cover up their own crimes and to lie and deceive the same public they have promised to protect.”

So far we have been unable to reach a spokesperson from Harvard for comment.




Does the disparity in the treatment of Spitzor and the madam, by the law and society, reflect some sexism?  

[ToxicAvenger]

call me a sap..romantic..blah...

i'd never ever ever cheat on my girl....

the thought of it wouldn't even occur...

there r plenty of other ways of having fun...


if u cheat...u have serious selfesteem issues

[BayGBM]

call me a sap..romantic..blah...

i'd never ever ever cheat on my girl....

the thought of it wouldn't even occur...

there r plenty of other ways of having fun...


if u cheat...u have serious selfesteem issues

I disagree.  The idea of a man marrying one woman and remaining monogamous with her for the rest of his life is a relatively new idea in the span of human history.  I am not judging it as right or wrong; I am simply pointing out that people didn’t always think this was the ideal when it came to relationships.  Given how frequently men, in every walk of life, engage in adultery, there is an argument to be made that monogamy is the exception—not the rule.

In many animal species, males are encouraged to spread their seed widely to ensure propagation of the species.  It is not a coincidence that (if we wanted to) men are able to ejaculate several times a day, every day, for years on end.

The reality is not everyone (male or female) wants to be married or in a “traditional” marriage with the rules we all assume go with marriage, but our society hasn’t made much room for this population of people—and it is a huge population.  Similarly, not every woman, for example, wants to have kids, but women who do not are made to feel like they are some kind of failure in life or not real women.

Are there men who cheat out of poor self-esteem?  Probably, but I don’t think it is reasonable to assign that same cause to all men who are unfaithful to their wives.  If a woman stays with her cheating husband is that due to poor self-esteem as well?

[ToxicAvenger]

In many animal species,

i'm not an animal...i consider myself to be more evolved...( i am MUCH smarter and capable of denying instincts....which makes me human)

you might consider yourself to be such as or not...

that is your choice...

PLEASE...from now on DO NOT compare me to animals...



i consider myself to be MUCH MUCH better...

even if you dont

thanx

[BayGBM]

i'm not an animal...i consider myself to be more evolved...( i am MUCH smarter and capable of denying instincts....which makes me human)

you might consider yourself to be such as or not...

that is your choice...

PLEASE...from now on DO NOT compare me to animals...



i consider myself to be MUCH MUCH better...

even if you dont

thanx

That sounds nice and self-serving, but biology and other branches of science have learned, and continue to learn, a great deal about human behavior, health, and social dynamics from observing animals.  Virtually every medical and health treatment humans enjoy today from pills, to dyes, to surgery was made possible by first using it on animals.  Why are mice used in research laboratories all across the world?  Because we have learned that the correspondence between mice and human anatomy and physiology is so close as to be very effective in transposing experiments and their results from mice to humans.

We are now at point where we have organs being transplanted from pigs into human beings.  Would you accept a pig organ transplant if doctors told you that was the best way to save your life or are you too good to consider accepting an organ from a mere animal?

If bragging that you are so much better than animals makes you feel better about yourself so be it, but virtually any scientist in any of the life sciences recognizes humans as animals.  I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but practically speaking I do consider you an animal and so does most of the rest of the world.

In any case, my larger point remains: one on one monogamy is a relatively recent invention.  Had you been born in a different country or in a different time your attitudes about it would be consistent with the environment you were raised in and thus very different from the high horse perch on which you apparently now sit.

[24KT]

"Escort Ashley Youmans (aka Ashley Alexandre Dupre as she liked to call herself), the woman at the center of the Eliot Spitzer sex for hire scandal, obviously spent some of her earnings from the Emperor’s Club on rhinoplasty and the results are not good. Too much was carved off her nose. The doctor should have good for a more natural look. She looks obviously surgeried and that is not attractive"

Seriously Bay... she's an escort. Do you think she cares what a gay man thinks about her attractiveness?
Does your opinion on this really matter? Does her appearance affect you or your life in any way?
I mean... it's not like you were in the market, ...and if her nose wasn't so unrealistic, you'd consider her services?

[BayGBM]

Seriously Bay... she's an escort. Do you think she cares what a gay man thinks about her attractiveness?
Does your opinion on this really matter? Does her appearance affect you or your life in any way?
I mean... it's not like you were in the market, ...and if her nose wasn't so unrealistic, you'd consider her services?

If it makes you feel better, that quote was taken from www.awfulplasticsurgery. com/ (notice the quotation marks).  I have no opinion on Ashley’s looks one way or another.  Though I do think it is sad that so many women (and now men) feel the need to try to alter/improve their looks via cosmetic surgery.  As we have all seen time and again, low self esteem cannot be cured via cosmetic surgery. 

[24KT]

If it makes you feel better, that quote was taken from www.awfulplasticsurgery. com/ (notice the quotation marks).  I have no opinion on Ashley’s looks one way or another.  Though I do think it is sad that so many women (and now men) feel the need to try to alter/improve their looks via cosmetic surgery.  As we have all seen time and again, low self esteem cannot be cured via cosmetic surgery. 

{blush}    mea culpa.

No it doesn't make me feel better. it makes me feel silly.
I should have known you were above such pettiness and was merely quoting someone else.

And yes, low self-esteem cannot be cured by plastic surgery, ...but physical imperfections can be improved upon.
I don't hold it against people who have had plastic surgery to enhance their appearances, ...but they have to have a healthy self-esteem to begin with. There is no doubt that plastic surgery can go a long way to enhancing one's physique and income (depending on their profession), but it's like anything else, you have to have a good self esteem to begin with. I see it no differently than enhancing your physique through bodybuilding. The only thing is, there are some parts (structural and otherwise) that simply cannot be altered by hard work in the gym, so why not go under the knife?

[Migs]

ELIOT SPITZER'S WANDERING EYE ON AG

BEHIND Eliot Spitzer's flaccid attempt at re-erecting

ROFL!

I need to see pics of the chick after surgery.  She looked good on the last page.

[BayGBM]

{blush}    mea culpa.

No it doesn't make me feel better. it makes me feel silly.
I should have known you were above such pettiness and was merely quoting someone else.

And yes, low self-esteem cannot be cured by plastic surgery, ...but physical imperfections can be improved upon.
I don't hold it against people who have had plastic surgery to enhance their appearances, ...but they have to have a healthy self-esteem to begin with. There is no doubt that plastic surgery can go a long way to enhancing one's physique and income (depending on their profession), but it's like anything else, you have to have a good self esteem to begin with. I see it no differently than enhancing your physique through bodybuilding. The only thing is, there are some parts (structural and otherwise) that simply cannot be altered by hard work in the gym, so why not go under the knife?

Were you so eager to criticize me that you couldn’t take the time to read the text of that post and notice that it wasn’t authored by me?  Did that even sound like something I would write?  Obviously, you can recover from this self owning… but do yourself a favor and learn from it.  You could have saved yourself this unnecessary embarrassment if you had simply said nothing.  

Maybe this is easy for me to say because I am basically happy with the way I look, but I think running off to have unnecessary cosmetic surgery perpetuates the very problem that people are trying to escape by having it—that there is a narrow definition of beauty we all must adhere to and if you don’t look that way then your features are unwelcome.  When people have cosmetic surgery they calcify and perpetuate that ethos.  In words and actions, I prefer to perpetuate the belief that beauty can come in many physical forms.

Don’t get me wrong, I think cosmetic surgery has its place.  It was originally invented/implemented to repair the features of people were injured/scarred in accidents—particularly soldiers during war.  If my features were marred in an accident, I would definitely want surgery to repair my face, but that is not the use of cosmetic surgery we are seeing today.

[24KT]

Were you so eager to criticize me that you couldn’t take the time to read the text of that post and notice that it wasn’t authored by me?

{gulp}  uh-huh. {blush}    not to criticize YOU per se, ...just the knee-jerk assumption that ALL cosmetic surgery is based upon low self esteem, ...or that we can take someone who is in essence a complete stranger to us, and easily assume their reasons for doing something. We know OF her, ...but we don't know HER

Did that even sound like something I would write?

no {blush}  

Obviously, you can recover from this self owning… but do yourself a favor and learn from it.  You could have saved yourself this unnecessary embarrassment if you had simply said nothing.  

I may recover from the self owning, ...but I don't know if I can recover from this royal reaming you've just delivered, but I guess you've had plenty of practice in that area. lol. Cripes. I don't know whether I need some of Princess L's raw beef bandages for the black eye you just gave me, ...or a donut cushion for my sore bottom?  

Maybe this is easy for me to say because I am basically happy with the way I look, but I think running off to have unnecessary cosmetic surgery perpetuates the very problem that people are trying to escape by having it—that there is a narrow definition of beauty we all must adhere to and if you don’t look that way then your features are unwelcome.  When people have cosmetic surgery they calcify and perpetuate that ethos.  In words and actions, I prefer to perpetuate the belief that beauty can come in many physical forms.

Don’t get me wrong, I think cosmetic surgery has its place.  It was originally invented/implemented to repair the features of people were injured/scarred in accidents—particularly soldiers during war.  If my features were marred in an accident, I would definitely want surgery to repair my face, but that is not the use of cosmetic surgery we are seeing today.

I agree with what you said in the 1^st paragraph in some cases, ...but I wonder whether or not your statements in the 2^nd paragraph aren't somehow contradicting yourself? After all, ...we don't know why she had the nose job to begin with. Perhaps the nose we saw in the before picture was the result of a previously broken nose? In which case, her surgery could have been more than merely cosmetic, but repairative, ...and would therefore meet with your approval?

{climbing into my asbestos suit and running away very quickly}  

[BayGBM]

The reflections on Ashley are hardly knee-jerk.  She was covered extensively in the press and even sat for interviews detailing her side of the story.  Young whores (I don’t use that term lightly; in this case it is most fitting) are not exactly known for having high self-esteem. 

Maybe she had cosmetic surgery to fix a broken nose.  Maybe this… maybe that… maybe a lot of things...  It makes little sense for us to bend over backwards concocting ameliorating circumstances that would put a positive light on Ashley’s dark choices.  Barring specific information to the contrary, concluding that she used proceeds from her work as a whore to indulge in gratuitous cosmetic surgery is an entirely reasonable supposition.

Several years ago, it was trendy to have a nose job and claim the surgery was necessary to fix a deviated septum.  No one buys that line anymore.

[24KT]

The reflections on Ashley are hardly knee-jerk.  She was covered extensively in the press and even sat for interviews detailing her side of the story.  Young whores (I don’t use that term lightly; in this case it is most fitting) are not exactly known for having high self-esteem.

In agreement with you there about the epidemic of low self-esteem among many who do that line of work, but do we really KNOW someone from their interviews? We may get a handle on many things about a person, but do we really truly KNOW them? Apparently there were things about Eliot his wife didn't know.  

Maybe she had cosmetic surgery to fix a broken nose.  Maybe this… maybe that… maybe a lot of things...  It makes little sense for us to bend over backwards concocting ameliorating circumstances that would put a positive light on Ashley’s dark choices.  Barring specific information to the contrary, concluding that she used proceeds from her work as a whore to indulge in gratuitous cosmetic surgery is an entirely reasonable supposition.

Several years ago, it was trendy to have a nose job and claim the surgery was necessary to fix a deviated septum.  No one buys that line anymore.

Of course it's reasonable, and I'm not saying my speculative scenario was in any way accurate, ...just trying to illustrate a point that there are other possibilities. And ya, ...I was thinking of the deviated septum angle.  

[BayGBM]

If we adhere to the argument you put forth here, we would all be precluded from ever commenting on anyone or anything in the public sphere because we don’t really KNOW them.  That is silly.  I (and other observers) never claimed to have deep insight into Ashley’s (or anyone else’s) soul.  Often, we know what we need to know about people by their actions.  The actions here are not exactly opaque.  In fact, they are painfully transparent: young woman becomes a call girl (carrying all the baggage that goes with it) and runs off to have a nose job (it could just as easily have been a boob job) with the proceeds.  

It's not that complicated.

As you note, there are always “other possibilities” but proffering fanciful alternatives in an effort to escape an obvious conclusion just makes you look silly.

[24KT]

If we adhere to the argument you put forth here, we would all be precluded from ever commenting on anyone or anything in the public sphere because we don’t really KNOW them.  That is silly.  I (and other observers) never claimed to have deep insight into Ashley’s (or anyone else’s) soul.  Often, we know what we need to know about people by their actions.  The actions here are not exactly opaque.  In fact, they are painfully transparent: young woman becomes a call girl (carrying all the baggage that goes with it) and runs off to have a nose job (it could just as easily have been a boob job) with the proceeds.  

It's not that complicated.

As you note, there are always “other possibilities” but proffering fanciful alternatives in an effort to escape an obvious conclusion just makes you look silly.

You're right. I guess I'm just overly sensitive as a result of tabloid journalism, gossip mags, and the rampant speculation they perpetuate about people caught in the cross-hairs. I've seen too many people who through no fault of their own have had their lives devastated, and intruded upon in ways we wouldn't want to visit upon our worst enemies. I've seen the damage it does up close, and the pain it causes to real people, so I do have a tendency to try to avoid doing it myself to those who find themselves caught up in something or experiencing extra attention they did not themselves court.

[ToxicAvenger]

That sounds nice and self-serving, but biology and other branches of science have learned, and continue to learn, a great deal about human behavior, health, and social dynamics from observing animals.  Virtually every medical and health treatment humans enjoy today from pills, to dyes, to surgery was made possible by first using it on animals.  Why are mice used in research laboratories all across the world?  Because we have learned that the correspondence between mice and human anatomy and physiology is so close as to be very effective in transposing experiments and their results from mice to humans.

We are now at point where we have organs being transplanted from pigs into human beings.  Would you accept a pig organ transplant if doctors told you that was the best way to save your life or are you too good to consider accepting an organ from a mere animal?

If bragging that you are so much better than animals makes you feel better about yourself so be it, but virtually any scientist in any of the life sciences recognizes humans as animals.  I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but practically speaking I do consider you an animal and so does most of the rest of the world.

In any case, my larger point remains: one on one monogamy is a relatively recent invention.  Had you been born in a different country or in a different time your attitudes about it would be consistent with the environment you were raised in and thus very different from the high horse perch on which you apparently now sit.

explaination meltdown....its ok BGM...i dont expect ANYONE to be as honest as i am while being this good looking  i dont expect the general population to live up to my moral standards....i just expected better cause you happen to be a college prof...meh..watcha gonna do..live learn..blah...

PS...i ws born in a muslim country where 4 marriages r A-ok by men

btw..you can continue staying an animal...but miiight wanna look into
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
http://www.consciousentities.com/penrose.htm

[Samourai Pizzacat]

There's a big difference between behavioral intent and actual behavior, and that is exactly what seperates humans from other animals. By far the biggest difference between humans and other animals is our cognitive abilitie: We can empathise, plan and understand consequences of our actions.  
Yes, a lot of physical processes are pretty much analogous to human processes, not always the same. This is of course mirrored in research, where animal research is just the stepping stone towards studies on humans. This is especially poignant in psychological research, animal studies were mostly the domain of the behaviourists, a largely outdated school of thought on human behaviour.  
 
I agree with the notion that life-long monogamy is an unrealistic notion. However, this does not move us in the direction of polygamy per sé. Relationships and feelings evolve, often at different speeds and directions. People get bored with each other, love wanes. We can opt to end the relationship and become available for a new relationship. Infidelity is the easy way out: I don't care what my primal instincts tells me, I can still control my actions. You can also choose to enter an open relationship, where both or more partners put their cards on the table at the start.