In Chapter 4: "The Origins of Human Nature" of David Livingstone Smith's The Most Dangerous Animal, Smith discusses how human nature is disturbingly similar to that of Chimpanzees:

"Chimpanzees are intensely status conscious, and live in communities bounded by high-powered alpha males at the top of the social ladder; low-prestige nobodies at the bottom, and everyone else occupying some intermediate rung. Dominant individuals get more food, more space, and more s ex with the more desirable partners than lower-ranking individuals. They are also, like big shots in the world of human politics, subject to the greatest amount of stress. Since dominance is usually established through victory in aggressive displays, dominant chimpanzees are often the brawniest and most intimidating members of their community. However, some dominants are hereditary aristocrats, whose status come from being the son or daughter of a high-prestige individual, and others get there by wheeling and dealing. These are the upwardly mobile schemers, who use their wits and social skills to get ahead." (p75)

Smith's analysis of Chimpanzee social working has me wondering whether it is simply "natural" for men of power to have access to more desirable females. It is not difficult to see how "human" it is for higher status Chimpanzees to have more access to women then the "lower status nobodies" who can barely afford to provide for themselves. Not only are higher status males typically more sexually attractive to women, they have the resources to provide for many women at the same time (something a less successful male does not).

Looking at our modern culture, we see that those who are successful are almost always seen as more sexually desirable and have many young, attractive, high-status mates. Movie and TV heroes like James Bond, Tony Stark from "Iron Man", and the mafia men from "The Sopranos" are just a few examples of the thousands of other profligate womanizers portrayed by Hollywood. Rappers and rock stars are frequently portrayed in their music videos as being surrounded by a plenitude of young, desirable females (who it is implied they have access to). Clearly, in every realm except for politics, it is acceptable (and even downright reinforced) that a financially successful and/or famous man will have more sexual opportunities than lower status men. Even PEOPLE magazine doesn't look down on this kind of sexual success; indeed, it is the natural order of things.

However, there is one peculiar exception to this norm in American society: politics. While it is okay for American business tycoons, rap artists, and movie stars to be very public in expressing the sexual success that comes from being on top of the social hierarchy--politicians are not given the same green light.

Indeed, American politics is very puritanical compared to most other countries in the world. That is, we expect our politicians to be good family men (and women) who are loyal to their spouses and behave as good examples to the community at large. Most other countries do not hold their politicians to this kind of scrutiny (in fact, neither did the US until after Watergate). In Europe the sex lives of politicians is generally seen as "not the public's business" with the presence of mistresses being generally ignored if not accepted. In less developed, democratic, and less media friendly countries, the most powerful political males will be less shameful of their sexual flagrance. Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, for instance, has 4 wives (and many more unofficial consorts) and 22 children.

Below is a list of all the political sex scandals that have occurred in just the last three decades. These of course, are only the ones that have been reported, meaning that there likely hundreds more than we even realize.


POLITICAL SEX SCANDALS
(Wikipedia provides a detailed listing of scandals involving politicians)