"Could this be why men who in the past could take time-delayed steps to conduct affairs behind closed doors now can’t resist the impulse to send a self-incriminating text message?"



A guess is not an interesting "idea", when it is not backed even with reasonable reflection on the way the guess is connected to the effect (powerful men not being discreet about their sexual voracity). Further, it is not subject for an article, especially one with such a loud title.



Even in today's world, where the scientific study of phenomena on the basis of probability is accepted as an ...approximation of truth, this level of "approximation" is nothing more than something that crossed the author's mind. It does not seem anywhere near the truth to me.



In addition, I would have something to ask the author. Why does she think that people "sexually voracious" by their nature should have to hide this fact when they get to powerful positions? Why should it be hidden from people that enjoy watching Nip/Tuck year after year? Is this just a demonstration of Naomi Wolf's conservatism? I would argue (at the same level of scholarship with the author) that the elevation of the view of the human body as a "tool" to an end, by extensive use of plastic surgery, and by serials as the one noted above, is much more relevant to her inquiry...