I had to look up PAWG, but got the “DSL” reference. I wonder what this says about me?
Prince Charles and Camilla
King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson
Depends on the context. I’m 50 and I still get young-ladied or girled occasionally.
I wished I’d get “young-ladied”. 
Straight up- banging a hooker and getting it on with someone you work with are different. Bill had feelings for Monica, real feelings. He wasn’t going to leave his wife for her but it is not the same as having sex with someone whose name you don’t and will never know. They had a lot they could relate to and talk about, a relationship which was important to them both… a connection. Way different than just getting it on with a prostitute or one night stand.
A woman wanting sex with him is a huge turn on for most men. Lewinsky wasn’t a passive participant or a victim; she actively wanted to have sex with him from the start. That no doubt made the sex far more desirable and exciting.
An incredibly good looking prostitute might have been more physically attractive, but she would have just been doing it for the money. Men aren’t so shallow that all they care about is external appearances, despite how many people push the idea.
The huge ambition, self-confidence and lust for power that make a man strive for the Presidency may make him a confident horndog as well.
BTW, if even a fraction of the stories about JFK were true, Clinton was almost a celibate in comparison.
I think it’s mostly a combination of these two things.
From the OP:
Well there you go. He was successful at everything, so he thought he’d be successful at this, too.
Plus, of course, you can’t get to any sort of super-high position without being a risk-taker.
That you’re no beta, bro. High-five!
Let’s grab a 30 of Natty Ice and go bang some ogres!
If you accept Seymour Hersh’s accounting in “The Dark Side of Camelot”, JFK made Bill Clinton look positively virtuous.
*“In private, Kennedy was consumed with almost daily sexual liaisons and libertine partying, to a degree that shocked many members of his personal Secret Service detail,” writes Hersh. “The sheer number of Kennedy’s sexual partners and the recklessness of his use of them, escalated throughout his presidency.”
Ambitious Hollywood starlets were often flown into Washington to service the president, Hersh says. The women were told their careers were at stake if they refused or if they talked about it afterwards, according to a Secret Service agent Hersh quotes. “There wasn’t a thank you–not like an affair,” the agent said. “It was just being used.”*
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-11-13/news/9711130071_1_jfk-white-house-general-dynamics
I don’t have the citations handy, but there may also be a link between the drive for power/success and the sex drive. I heard that Washington DC has the highest sexworker per capita numbers in the country. I can’t find a cite for it right now, but there is certainly no shortage of sexual services in DC.
Your understanding of human willpower seems at odds with the understanding of social scientists
In other words, Clinton was MORE likely to succumb to Lewinsky’s advances BECAUSE he was exerting his willpower on all those other fronts.
There’s another factor. Because attractiveness is so subjective, humans use proxies for evaluating it. If you’re a high status male, or part of a power couple, that may make you both more desirable to other women AND more sexually satisfying to them.
In other words, the women around him are coming on to him MORE than the average guy BECAUSE he’s a high status man. High status guys have to resist MORE temptation than “normal” guys because a lot of women are looking for that alpha male, and they don’t mind sharing.
They never went away. Sugar Babies are one aspect of the modern face of mistresses. Harems are still common outside the US and non-monogamy is still very much available to those with means in every country.
Enjoy,
Steven
Wow. I mean, it’s so cute that we can concern-troll Clinton’s affairs here in 2018, like we didn’t just elect Donald Trump president.
Also, remember back when Clinton go so much shit over admitting that he tried marijuana a time or two, but didn’t like it and didn’t inhale? Good times.
Here’s my thought experiment, humans are animals. We’re able to ponder our own existence and think our way through long-term vs short-term gains, but nonetheless we are animals. At the very root of animal behavior are the four Fs. I think you have to start looking at what are our motivations to do anything? Why do I bother going to a job? Why do I own a car or a house or a cell phone? I think that much of what we do can be boiled down to the Four Fs. I think there are people who are we’ll say ‘transcendists’ and they truly believe in some sort of non-physical outside goal, whether that embodies itself as God, or the universe, or a nebulous ‘humanity of an undetermined future.’ I think though that these people tend to be few and far between and Bill Clinton is many things, but he ain’t one of them. Hillary I think has a ‘transcendist’ attitude in some things perhaps, but not Bill. If I had to put myself in Bill Clinton’s head, I would say that he accumulated power for the express purposes of the last F and rather than asking why would he jeopardize his career for sex, I think that’s like asking why someone would spend the money that they earn at their job. The reason they have the job is to spend the money. The reason he had the job was for sex whether he consciously admitted it to himself or not. I would claim that what motivates the vast majority of people is reproductive success and for most men, that includes access to sex.
Think of it this way, people are social animals, so how do other social animals behave? A wolf doesn’t become an alpha because it desires to lead its pack to some sort of transcendent promised hunting ground. It does so because it provides access to breeding females with less risk of ejection from the pack or death at the hands of a stronger male. Humans are a bit different than wolves, but probably not by as much as our conceit leads us to believe.
Bill Clinton did have a notion of being a great leader. I think he was truly interested in bettering the world. That doesn’t mean he was perfect. No human is.
Fuck Yeah, Brocephus, but I’m fuckin’ drivin’!
He was a powerful man. And one with a propensity to wander. He was under stress. She’s was available to relieve some of it. He went for it.
Really no need to think deeper.
I’ve wondered something similar about celebrities who use illegal drugs. Why risk your body and liberty that way for thrills, when your life already has far more thrills than the average person could ever have?
Honestly, all this talk about Presidents and the like. In every society grouping there are going to be identifiable high status males, and they are going to be more successful in mating. Both because they attract mates, and if they are in a relationship already, because they calculate the risks to be immaterial.
True in the White House, also true in a homeless encampment.
That’s not how addiction works.
Also, if you’re working at a shitty job living in a shitty apartment with shitty roommates driving a shitty car and eat shitty food and no girlfriend, you know why you’re miserable. All you have to do is get a bunch of money and live in a nice house with a nice car and good food and have plenty of sex with hot girls, and you’ll be happy.
Then sometimes you get all that stuff and you’re still miserable.