I don't believe anyone is shocked that a man in a powerful position would cheat on his frumpy older wife with a young hottie.

What's shocking is that this particular man would fall for the flattery of a married, scheming sort-of-attractive media whore. The man isn't just a liar and a cheat, he has terrible taste in women.

Two marriages trashed, career ruined, CIA humiliated by ladder-climbing harridans and society suck-ups. Maybe it's time this agency turned professional.

Or maybe the CIA have just rid themselves of a DOD interloper...

"maybe the CIA have just rid themselves of a DOD interloper..."

A bit off topic, but I have wondered at this. What the devil was a general doing as head of an intelligence agency? From what I recall of his career, he wasn't a military intelligence type, but purely an operational type. Square peg, round hole.

"beauty industrial complex"

I hate that word. First off that complex has been founded by women (Chanel, Madam CJ Walker, Estee Lauder) and ran by gay men and straight women. Don't you feminists get it? It's ran and founded by other women! Straight guys have no input.

I just don't like you feminists. You have no taste. It's like those religious fanatics that make woken dress so fugly, with the long hair, the frumpy clothes, the washed out look. You know why they do it? They have this fear of sexy.

You wanna look frumpy? Go ahead but don't expect to be liked better because of it. After all you are the ones saying how you dress shouldn't matter so if a woman chooses high fashion whats it to you?

Holly Petreaus looks and dresses like a militant feminist. The fact that she works for the Obama administration is another clue to her political leanings.
She probably gave up on sex sometime during the Clinton administration.
While we will never know the inner workings of their marriage, it is entirely possible that the cheating was not an issue with her.
What may have been the issue was the public humiliation of the affair being exposed.
I don't think the affair would have been exposed if the Obama administration wasn't looking for a distrator from Benghazi.
I think Petraeus was well qualified to be the director of the CIA. Much more so, than many of the political appointees in the past. It is a managerial job, not a spook job.

But the distractor served its purpose. Here we are talking about the affair, and how frumpy Holly is, instead of how Obama apparently sat around with his thumb up his ass, while our consulate was sacked.
I am no more surprised that Petraeus is a real man, with sexual desires, than I am with the fact that he apparently, needs to eat, sleep, and puts his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us mere mortals.

a_random_guy:"What the devil was a general doing as head of an intelligence agency? ...he wasn't a military intelligence type, but purely an operational type. Square peg, round hole."

I sometimes wonder if lack of character and integrity is a desired qualification for appointment to high office by this administration (and the previous administration, and the one before that, and the one before that, etc...)

>>I sometimes wonder if lack of character and integrity is a desired qualification

If you can't lie, you're obviously not fit for government office.

I suppose someone should send this to Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Aniston, Christie Brinkley........because you know, Holly Petraeus got what she deserved. That militant feminist!!

While there is a factor of boredom and the excitement of someone new, chemistry, etc, the bottom line is when a person cheats they show a character weakness. If he was unhappy or wanted a more stylish wife, communication the the wife about what's missing would be the way to go. Pointing out that she looks like granny only justifies, even minimally, that what he did was ok.

Please let me add....had his wife been up to fashion date and looked like a million bucks, he still would have cheated. He cheated because he has a personality that likes challenge, excitement. He met someone and sparks flew. She excited him. There was nothing his wife could have done physically to prevent those sparks. Whether he chose to act on it, was up to him alone.

Brinkley was/is bat shit crazy
Bullock has shit taste in men
Aniston is the only good example from that bunch

My wife is and will always be the most beautiful woman in the world. "I only have eyes for you" -- it's not just a song, it is an inexorable, inherent quality of finding exactly the right person. Plus, dude, she had pizza waiting for me when I got home from work!

LOL. Why not put it on the book jacket? Or in ads? You know, like the quotations they use for movies?

"Showing no signs of slavery to high fashion..."

OK, so I googled some images of Meghan Daum, and it doesn't seem to me that she's taking her own advice by ignoring fashion and letting herself get old & crotchety. See here for instance:

http://www.meghandaum.com/images/stories//gallery_1/dog_is.jpg

And for the curious, here's what Hollister Knowlton looked like when she met David Petraeus at West Point 38 years ago:

http://www.fanpix.net/picture-gallery/hollister-knowlton-picture-20405359.htm

Rumor has it the general was frustrated with the lack of media attention in his new job.

David Patraeus went from a high profile job as the head general in a theater of war (think David Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, et al) to relative obscurity of Director of Central Intelligence (by definition a low-profile job).

Unfortunately, he brought his rigid hierarchical military management style with him - lIke trying to run an ad agency with accounting firm rules. That, and he didn't go to Yale. So, he made few allies in his time at CIA.

Patraeus made few allies in politics, being registered as a Republican and working for a Democratic president.

And he blew any chance of having the president as an ally when he thwarted him from throwing the CIA under the bus.

If Patraeus was worried that his media star (and career) would die in obscurity as DCI, he should have kept in mind that George HW Bush held the same office and eventually became the vice president and then president.

Of course, Bush was solidly on political radars before becoming DCI, having already been a Congressman, Ambassador to the UN, Chairman of the Republican Party, and diplomatic envoy to China.

Bush had also made important political allies during the Watergate scandal when as Chairman of the Republican Party he defended the president and party, dropping his defense of Nixon only when the mounting evidence gave lie to Nixon's protestations of innocence. Bush was later influential in convincing Nixon to resign.

Those allies then protected Bush from any Watergate blowback with the obscure position as envoy to China and later transitioned him back to the political scene as DCI.

Still, Patraeus could have made a solid career as a public servant and statesman from the DCI job. Look at how folks like Leon Panetta, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and William Daley have all held various Cabinet-level jobs within different presidential administrations and high-level jobs in the private sector.

Remember, she was the daughter of the Superintendent at West Point. So, in many aspects, it may have been, in his part, a political marriage. Generals are by nature both social and political animals. And the top ranked cadets are steeped in haveing careers that make them generals. Having lived that life and watched the careerists pass through, I can tell you that every action is taken with only one goal: Does this help me become a general officer?

Nothing else matters. And yes, it starts as a 20something at West Point, when the opportunity to date a well connected general's daughter appears.

"The fact that she works for the Obama administration is another clue to her political leanings."

And the actual facts of her advocacy and protection of military families fly in the face of stupid partisan hyperbole. You know, the kind that just cost the GOP the White House and three more Senate seats.

"She headed the Better Business Bureau’s unit for the military, and in 2003 boldly testified before the U.S. Senate that the “unrelenting pace of deployment” was hurting military families, according to USA Today. Last year, Elizabeth Warren took notice of her advocacy and appointed Petraeus to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Office of Servicemember Affairs.

Most recently, she testified before Congress on how the housing crisis was hurting military families, according to The Washington Times."

http://www.voxxi.com/holly-petraeus-accomplished-wife/

Amy is damnably wrong about this. Come back later and see me explain why.

Meanwhile, for fuck's sake. This is kind of like how Amy wants all the women in the world to look the same.

Next thing you know, those crazy Aussies will be insisting that everyone vote. Because all opinions are the same, and none should be more appealing than any others.

Psssst... There's a reason Amy has "avoided saying it publicly -- only mentioning it to Gregg or a friend or two," but it's not the reason she thinks.

Tune in later this afternoon for the exciting climax to this internet blog comment confrontation!

Crid, I've tuned in. The suspense is killing me. Stop teasing us and just enlighten us.

Who was it that said, no matter how beautiful a woman is there's a man who is bored of sleeping with her?

"Of course, Megan Daum, like so many, has no understanding that men and women are different -- physically and psychologically -- and are judged by different standards."

"Male sexuality is highly visual in a way female sexuality is not."

"Feminism promotes the lie to women that what's inside is what really matters. And, as I wrote in my Psychology Today piece on the realities about beauty, what's inside matters a great deal. But, if you're a woman and you want a man or want to keep the one you have, you need to keep up your curb appeal."

"Ignore that or deny that at your peril, ladies."

The first sentence above, before these quotes, is of a personal impression.

Crid, I doubt you have the kind of time to study this as long as Amy has, even with whatever bias you might have about how fast a learner you are. But it will be interesting to see you try to refute the above. I just put these quotes here so nobody gets distracted about what was said.

I think one of the worst things for a marriage or any long term relationship, is when people stop thinking they need to compete for their mate.

This is true for both men and women, but I think it's particularly true for women because a man's sexual value can continue well into his 50's. As a man's position, status and wealth continue to climb, he becomes more attractive to women. This is particularly true if he manages to stay in decent shape.

Now, I'm not saying every 50 year old woman needs to look like a buxom 22 year old to keep her husband. But I completely agree with Amy that she does need to put in the effort to appear sexy in the eyes of her husband. As a man, it's hard to ignore the sexual advances of other women when you don't feel like your mate is working to connect with you on a sexual level. Especially if those other women are attractive.

I think Michelle Obama is a great example. She knows how to keep herself looking good. Barrack could sleep with almost any woman on the planet and I have no doubt Michelle knows this. That's probably one reason she makes sure she looks beautiful and probably one reason that Barrack isn't (presumably) Clinton-esque.

Anyway, it's unfair to speculate on other people's marriages so I'm not saying that it's his wife's fault.

All I'm saying is that anytime you get too comfortable in your relationship and stop competing for your mates sexual attention, it' s bad news. No one (not even your husband or wife of 50 years) wants to fuck you out of a sense of obligation. They want to fuck you because they're attracted to you.

I've been chewing on this a while also without bringing it up (among my friends). I didn't want to kick a girl while she's down, and more significantly, I'm not convinced of the causation. It makes logical sense to me, but I'm not convinced.

My mother and grandmother drilled into me that I must maintain my appearance and figure as I aged, so I've always been afraid (basically) to do otherwise. My personal upkeep is considerable. I'm proud of the results. But I can't swear it's conferred any major benefits on me. Yes, I have been very happy in love, but so have my frumpy, fat girlfriends with their silver streaks.

Holly Petraeus doesn't look like a "militant feminist" to me; she looks like a woman whose affectionate husband has told her over and over again that she looks great, that he loves her just the way she is, that he LIKES her grey hair, and so on. I know plenty of couples like this, where the woman looks so awful I want to pull her aside and "help" before her marriage suffers, but she seems content, and the husband clearly is enabling.

Maybe it's genuine. Maybe it's a way of making sure she has no other prospects. Maybe these men believe they're saying what a good guy is supposed to say. I would LOVE to know.

I think Petraeus cheated because a wide-eyed, glamorous woman with the career chops to truly appreciate his accomplishments (and therefore convincingly idolize him) came along and pursued him. She had ongoing access to him and a believable cover. And he trusted her because she was married and had plenty to lose. I don't know that a Stepford Mrs. Petraeus at home could have steered him away.

"Brinkley was/is bat shit crazy
Bullock has shit taste in men
Aniston is the only good example from that bunch"

Luj, your absolutely correct. Bullock tended to gravitate towards men who were players. Brinkley doesn't have the greatest tract record and probably is bat shit crazy (my favorite expression) but also picked womanizers.
Aniston seemed to have gotten engaged to every man she dated so some desperation may be present.

That is not the point. All of these women take care of themselves. All are beautiful. Yet their men still cheated. My point isn't that it isn't a good idea to take care of yourself but that that in itself is not always the best protection to avoid being cheated on.

Someone in Petraeus' position sought thrills. I wouldn't be surprised if there had been other affairs. He could have been been married to Barbie herself and more than likely would have cheated. This is not an instance of a man cheating because wifey let herself go no matter how many times Amy wants to tell us that men are hardwired differently. Yes. They are. But let's expand on that and give them credit for having control over their behavior too.

"...and hasn't cut her hair into some granny helmet."

Granny helmet! That's funny! And why do some middle age women choose hair styles that look so much like pubic hair?

While I now believe Barbie exists I never expect to meet her.

In my past I had the opportunity to cheat. But my lady was always willing to work with me to make me happy. As I was with her.

> Who was it that said, no matter how
> beautiful a woman is there's a man
> who is bored of sleeping with her?

Me. I said that, and I thank you for bringing it up. It's a compelling, penetrating piece of intuition about human nature, and I'm never given enough credit for it.

You guys are spazzing.

What's great about blogs like this is that sometimes you can lift whole paragraphs from your earlier comments, demonstrating a continuing clarity of meaning and certainty of insight, as I do for you now. With a tip of the hat to my own incredibly perceptive, expressive and yes, attractive self of 2007, I beseech you... Enjoy!:

In the 90's, HBO used to do these vaguely risque documentaries about sex, maybe they still do. One of them was about the sex lives of the crippled and deformed. They interviewed one guy (quad) in his late 30's who was wonderfully forthcoming about how things had worked and not worked in his life. He said "When ever I see someone new, I put them into one of two categories, whether I would or would not have sex with them." This was from a guy who had not had a lot of sex. Ever since then I've walked through banks, grocery stores, jury duty and every setting saying to myself, "Yes, no, no, no, no, yes, no, yes, yes...."

Specifically, you guys saw a single photograph of an entirely unremarkable middle-aged woman and spazzed yourselves into certain belief that you knew what was going on with these people and their marriage.

> she does need to put in the effort
> to appear sexy in the eyes of
> her husband.

Well, golly, I guess we'll never know for sure... And that's cool, because we'll never deeply care, either. But I'd wager green money that the problem with the Petraeus marriage was not that she didn't "put in the effort to appear sexy in the eyes of her husband."

I think it's much more likely that this was a typical marriage of its kind between conventionally attractive white people, with the usual array of fulfillments and disappointments... And that having successfully slithered, like a worm, through a thicket of cancerous political, professional and media allegiances to a position of some importance in national affairs, the semi-cunning little goofball Petraeus decided to cheat on his loving wife for the usual (trivial, or at least ill-composed and indefensible) 'reasons'... That was the problem with the Petraeus marriage.

And if these reasons were —as in some daydream of psychotherapy or daytime talk show television— offered to you in a list, you'd find them reprehensible. In the light of day, men sneaking for strange nooky on the side is never as understandable as it is during blogtime coffebreak reveries.

The woman Petraus cheated with is twenty years younger than his wife. Got that? His wife is half-again his mistress' age. This is not about fitness... Indeed, the woman's machine-gun arms remind me mostly of Madonna: She too decided in middle age that way to maintain youthful feminine allure was to lift weights for an hour a day. How's that working out for you folks?

(more)

Amy is not demonstrating some handsomely-crafted insight about the human heart here... I'm not sure what she's doing. 'Wake up, girlfriend!' is not the appropriate response to this news story.

Furthermore, given the national security implications and the coarseness of the personalities involved, faulting Holly Petraeus seems inappropriate indeed.

Quadriplegic. Sorry.

Also, Insuf Poison is right on. Probably others too, but I'm going to eat now... I'll only read the other comments if someone promises that they're interesting.

OK, also Gog. He was right too. But that's the last I'm gonna read before dinner.

The assumption being made here is that all marriages are about sex, and sexual fidelity.
Is there anyone here that believes this is what Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage is based on?
So, why do you assume that sex, and fidelity, is what the Petraeus marriage is about?
Military life is very tough on marriages for a lot of reasons. The hours are very long, and the actual seperations can be for months or years. A woman who needs a man with his feet under the dinner table every night is not going to find that with a high ranking officer.
This is why the divorce rate in the military is so freakin high.

Also for those like Conan who think the military is rigid and hierarchial, it is pretty clear you havent been in it. A good commander is one of the most flexible and adaptable leaders you will ever meet. He has to be because his "plan" rarely survives the first contact with the enemy, and the penalty for poor decision making on the fly, is not a few dollars here and there. It can be death to people who have trusted you with their lives.

OK, selected reviews:

> Of course, Megan Daum, like so many, has no
> understanding that men and women are
> different --

Score: 2.1 out of 10.

+

Score:  9.8 out of 10.

Score:  9.4 out of 10.

Score:  9.6 out of 10.

Score:  6.6 out of 10.

Score:  0.6 out of 10.

> I doubt you have the kind of time to study
> this as long as Amy has

Score:  -3.6 out of 10.

GD formatting.

Suit aside, is this a frump?

Answer carefully... There aren't many spring chickens in this forum.

> A good commander is one of the most flexible
> and adaptable leaders you will ever meet.

Okay, but people aren't saying this guy was (even) a good commander. I especially like this column for recognizing the importance of mannish arms in our narrative:

His greatest accomplishment was merely personal: he transformed himself from an intellectual nerd into a rock star military man. The problem was that he got so lost among his hangers-on and handlers and roadies and groupies that he finally had his head turned by a West Point babe in a sleeveless top.

And...

> So, why do you assume that sex, and fidelity,
> is what the Petraeus marriage is about?

Because it was a marriage.

Yes yes yes, Americans are terribly prudish and naive about these things, while you and I are so much more erotically and emotionally sophisticated... Right?

But political couples get a lot of mileage from the caricature of the loving wife doing social work in uncomfortable, sexless tweed clothes. See Gogs comments, above, and then Flighty's —

> I think Michelle Obama is a great example.

'Flighty,' she calls herself.

Kaus is as sophisticated about these things as anyone, and he smells the stink; The tang of that odor is hypocrisy. All those (in Europe and elsewhere) who'd mock the electorate for their sensitivity to these scandals ought to recognize the special resentment Americans carry for that particular sin; that resentment carries a lot of grace. For all the weird clothes and pinched manners and fast reflexes this couple might've honed in conveying an appearance of a loving marriage, they've obviously missed some important fundamentals. If they thought the morality of marriage should include patience with sex outside marriage, they should have said so, explicitly and long ago.

And if Holly's experiencing surprise and distress at this affair, then the sin, howsoever mutual, is deeper still... Even if we as distant taxpayers don't need to know about it. I see no reason to think otherwise; nor any reason to forgive them if their example of marriage was a careerist sham.

(Yes; see also The Clintons.)

So, no refutation yet...

"While I now believe Barbie exists I never expect to meet her."

Well, then. Here you go.

Where is the promised refutation, or is it still coming?

The bottom line is that if you make some effort for your spouse in the attractiveness / sexiness department - no matter your age or looks - then your spouse will be less likely to cheat on you than if not. It. Really. Is. That. Simple.

Is it a guarantee, of course not, but there are MASSIVE probability differences here --- to assume that someone will either "definitely cheat, or not", regardless of what their partner does, is silly ... lots of things you do affect the probability. (Like having home security systems makes you less likely to be a victim of crime, but doesn't guarantee it.)

As for me, if I'm happy at home, and my wife is making a modicum of effort, I won't even think of cheating, and would feel very guilty if I did. If my partner refuses to make any effort, then my mind starts wondering, and the feelings of guilt are less strong, as I think a reasonably decent sex life should be part of the average marriage.

And it's not even about 'being hot' or 'having plastic surgery' and it's not about looking slutty, it's not even about your age ... many women seem to give up and think "oh, that's not me, I'm just not naturally good-looking" - that is so wrong - on the contrary, it's more about just being quietly aware of, internalizing, and being confident in, and enjoying (guilt-free), the sexual side of your human nature, whether male or female. This is something that (with the exception of the UK - urg), as Amy correctly pointed out, European women seem to have a better understanding of (actually I found the women outside of Paris even more beautiful - e.g. Belgian women, or many of the German women), and it's really a case of "vive la différence!" - I think one almost needs to see it with one's own eyes before dismissing this point.

(I'm not sure how to explain, but it's almost as if American women (I'll admit this is a massive generalization) seem to be generally more apt to 'compartmentalize' their sexual nature .. instead of seeing it as an integral part of their nature to be enjoyed, they seem to be more likely to dissociate it from their 'sense of self' (which exhibits visibly - e.g. plain baggy clothes etc., posture) or they exhibit it only as a compartmentalized 'persona', as if just playing a role when they engage in sexual behavior, but keeping it mentally apart from their sense of self.)

"The bottom line is that if you make some effort for your spouse in the attractiveness / sexiness department - no matter your age or looks - then your spouse will be less likely to cheat on you than if not. It. Really. Is. That. Simple."

Lobster, again: It makes logical sense, but I'm not convinced that this plays out in real life. I realize it would be hard to find data on this, but in my personal experience (military, college, academia, the theater, manager in a Fortune 500 company who travels for business with other executives)there is no correlation. I've watched for it all my life.

> It. Really. Is. That. Simple.

That. Really. Is. Silliness.

> I'm not convinced that this plays out in
> real life.

We shouldn't doubt that in some cases it does. But the proportions of your intuition, Insuf, are much closer to the truth. The weirdness of this blog post, and of some of these comments —the instantaneous ferocity of presumption that "frump" is the "factor" of this scandal— deserves explication.

A few people in this space (and throughout our once-proud nation) seem to have glanced a picture of Holly Petraeus only find their hearts overflowing with revulsion at the sight of an attractive woman getting old. (Or even merely older.) Because gross, right?

This distaste instantly morphs into resentment. Why must she —on the cusp of her seventh decade on our planet— soil the life of this Man of Achievement™ with her leathery, withering flesh? He's in GPS! (Good Physical Shape!) How dare she fail to sexually enthrall the man who gave her two children, now fully grown?

...As if there were any evidence, AT ALL, that she had.

It's a spooky eagerness to think of lifelong romance in terms of teenage flashpoint attraction, as if everyone could be, or aspires to be, a seventh-grader across their whole lifetime... This thinking is weird. And it's naive, erotically and otherwise.

MILFs, y'know?

You fuckers can be cray sometimes. Props to Insuf & Co. for maintaining sanity in this outbreak of zombie-gossip mortification. (Don't forget the double-tap, kids.)

I'd have to agree w/ IP. There is just too much evidence that it does not work like that. It could work, but it depends on the individual.

I know plenty of couples like this, where the woman looks so awful I want to pull her aside and "help" before her marriage suffers, but she seems content, and the husband clearly is enabling.

Maybe it's genuine. Maybe it's a way of making sure she has no other prospects. Maybe these men believe they're saying what a good guy is supposed to say. I would LOVE to know.

You'd love to know? Well due to the state of divorce laws in most states anything less than total agreement with anything your wife says/does is defacto abuse.

I'm sure your friends husbands would rather have hotter looking wives, but if they were to suggest it they be called assholes and shallow and possibly abusive, and you should get a divorce and take half his stuff - that'll show 'im

Personally I dont give a fuck who he was fucking or why. Morality is a slippery subjective son of a bitch and everybody has their own private definition of what is moral and what is not and out of the 9 billion deffinitions on this planet no two are exactly the same

Also for some guys attractivness isnt really a consideration when it comes to getting some. Afterall from what I can gather from sardonic 'The Soup' clips someone has fucked Honey Boo Boos mother multipule times

"There is just too much evidence that it does not work like that. It could work, but it depends on the individual."

Of course to some extent it depends on the individual, but how do you know if your partner is one of those or not, and what can you do about that anyway? --- you can either do something about the side of things you CAN control and acknowledge that you can't do much more than that, or you can do nothing, and definitely for 100% fact increase your statistical probability of being cheated on. One of these options is rational and potentially beneficial.

That's exactly the point I was saying, you haven't contradicted me either ... it's like the 'home security' analogy I used --- sure you cannot tell IN INDIVIDUAL CASES if a particular criminal is going to decide to rob your particular house --- but does that mean that there is no point in having security systems, that they do nothing? No, the more security you install, the less likely you are to be robbed - fact. (Actually scarily, a lot of people also do think that.)

Nobody here on this thread knows if David Petraeus is one of those men who definitely would have cheated anyway. Any claims to 'know' are total speculation. But the fact will still remain, in general, the happier a man is at home, the less likely he is to cheat, and vice versa for women too. So the fact will still remain, that if you want to reduce the odds that it happens to you, then make some effort.

As for Crid, I mean this really respectfully, but you seem to be losing it a bit here .. you're all over the place .. I'm actually concerned.

Clintonian political marriage.

Ken asks:

Granny helmet! That's funny! And why do some middle age women choose hair styles that look so much like pubic hair?

***

Because those were popular when they were young. I'm reminded of the movie "The Parent Trap" where the mother has a sleek, sophisticated chignon. She is chastised by her father who implies it is out of fashion, "Aren't they wearing it more fluffy now" he asks. So she gets a makeover do that is granny helmet hair.

To my 2012 eyes her first hairdo looks great and the second one looks old-lady-ish, but to 1961 a long, straight updo looked granny-ish and helmet hair looked sexy.

A lot of old society ladies I know (particularly French ones, I don't agree that the French are especially good-looking) do the super sprayed, shoulder-length hair that flips up at the bottom thing. I call it rich grandmother hair.

Interesting new salon article.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/18/expert_guys_dont_want_casual_sex/

Yes, I see a lot of rich grandmother hair as I now live near mine and pick her up at her home once a week. So I see a lot of old lady 'dos. Although, these are more rich great-grandmothers so the 'dos are actually a bit different than the rich grandmothers.

The mom-do around here is chopped butch short. I keep mine at butt-length hippy myself. Maybe I'll chop it when I go grey. Or I'll get blond highlights at that point. Who knows. I'm told you're supposed to dye it a lighter color than your natural color, because as you age your skin gets paler.

> You cannot get lazy in a relationship and
> not expect the relationship to get lazy on you.

This is so fucking strange... you can't read your own words. There's just no reason to think your comment is relevant. A self-aggrandizing, opportunist bureaucrat cheats with a manly, similarly-conniving woman, and the twenty-first century coastal working woman can only assume the wife 'isn't trying.'

Bizarre... Bizarre.

The Frump Factor

I've avoided saying it publicly -- only mentioning it to Gregg or a friend or two -- but I found the image of David Petraeus next to his wife rather shocking.

> I referenced older French women

Ah, that golden paradise of erotic sophistication and class....

Okay, it's all coming into focus now...

Listen, everybody understands for whom the clock is ticking, right?

Gosh... No matter how old I get, I love being a vigorous, attractive man....

Who was it that said, no matter how beautiful a woman is there's a man who is bored of sleeping with her?

Posted by: NicoleK at November 17, 2012 12:25 PM
___________________________________

It's "Show me the most beautiful woman in the world and I'll show you a man who's tired of sleeping with her."

One person who said that was the Mayflower Madam.

Not that I have a lot of respect for her - when asked why she was never a call girl, she didn't even have the grace to say "it wasn't my style." No. She said: "Does Lee Iacocca work on the assembly line?"

Also, she wrote: "It's one thing to discover that your husband or lover has a girlfriend on the side, but if he's enjoying the occasional one-night stand when he's away from home, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you. It's just something that men enjoy every now and then."

Which made me think: "Oh, so if there IS something wrong with the marriage, she's saying it's the wife's fault?"

I mean, why would she phrase it that way when she could easily have said instead "it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your relationship"?

Well, this has turned, as has so many things Cridian, into a screed of disappointment that the story was incomplete in his view, not that anything could actually be refuted.

It might be golden straw, but straw it is.

Please, Mark. Start your own blog. Then you can be sure to start the subject in the way you wish, rather than start out with someone else's ideas and waste all this time about things they didn't say this time.

You could put your profile on your blog page, too, and that way I'd have an idea of what you do other than tell people they don't know their own job, make stuff up, etc.

> asked why she was never a call girl, she
> didn't even have the grace to say "it
> wasn't my style."

Effective management isn't about coddled feelings. This is why I dislike prostitution. Of course it's stupid to approach fucking as an industrial enterprise.

> She said: "Does Lee Iacocca work on the
> assembly line?"

Many years ago, in a roundabout way, the Doonesbury cartoon put it like this: 'Sensitivity' to the working class is how labor leaders avoid becoming part of it. This is something to keep in mind now that the majority of unionized workers are employed by our government.

> not that anything could
> actually be refuted.

I said the things I wanted to say about the opinions expressed here. Problem?

> and waste all this time.

Time is a theme for you. Wanna save time, Raddy? Don't read my comments!

Now, the release you're looking for won't come to you overnight, OK? It'll take a awhile, probably several weeks, maybe a few months... But soon enough, you'll find that this whole 'wounded puppy' mentality will have evaporated from your consciousness, much like the lyrics to a popular song of yesteryear that you never liked.

And it will require discipline, because you're enchanted. (I can tell.) But that's how it's done... Cold turkey. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd....

Begin!

Its a little eery when Crid and I are on the same page.

And while Amy is right, this isn't just about the General's wife, she was the inspiration behind it. Again, you can talk about men and women being made differently but the hard wire explanation needs to be expanded. Men may think differently than women but they do have control over their actions. I would put money on the fact that he would have cheated no matter how well kept you considered his wife.

> I would put money on the fact that he would
> have cheated no matter how well kept you
> considered his wife.

Yes, we agree. I said that same thing earlier.

I just think there's no need to be so gracious about the wording.

Petraeus' bimbo is two thirds his age, yet (and thus) no schoolgirl herself. People who regard this scandal first as an opportunity to chatter about the importance of sexual allure in long-term marriages need to reflect on the arithmetic. Even if this were about Holly's allure, even-if-it-were-and-it's-not, is anyone sincerely attracted to a women of sixty who pretend to be younger?

Listen, I live near Beverly Hills. The desperation of those who struggle to feign youth –rather than living comfortably and wisely in their own skin— doesn't inspire boners. Aren't the Madonna man-biceps more pathetic than attractive?

While not speaking for anyone, I think those outside the Gog/Insuf/Kristen/me continuum on this issue have lost sight of important principles... Virtues common to both feminism and decency... Quite literally, motherfucking decency.

As for Crid, I mean this really respectfully, but you seem to be losing it a bit here .. you're all over the place .. I'm actually concerned.

...and you just noticed?? Although, in all fairness, he is sort of right this time. A Crid blog should be interesting: no linear thought, subject matter not related to comments...

Crid's right about this. I have noticed a lot of people who post out here equate fuckability with actual love. The thing is, for men they are too different things. Just because some guy wants to screw you doesn't mean he wants to married to you. There is big difference. The general could have dumped his wife and taken up with the new one if he had really want to, but he didn't.

For those wondering how a man could stay with a woman who is less than a perfect physical specimen, well how about love and respect. In long term, commitmented relationships the nature of love changes and deepens. Crid is right, you don't go through like a randy 16 year old. Even men slow down. I am guessing that the people who think this is her fault haven't actually been in a long term marriage and therefore cannot relate.

I can only imagine the pain and self doubt this poor woman has experienced over the last two weeks. For you all to come out here and say bitch had it coming bc she was lazy is really disgusting. Life isn't perfect and neither are people...any of us. I happen to know plenty of older couples who are still in love despite their physical changes. If you can't understand how that happens, you probably have never really loved anyone besides yourself.

Ugh...sorry about typos...I hate typing on the iPad...should be two, be married, and committed, and life like a randy...

I love being right about everything, including this here matter under discussion.

Dear Haters: My city is moar prettier than yorz.

Seriously....

My city is just more attractive. (View full size.)

It's more exotic than your city.

Blade Runner is 8 years away.

Twitter

OK, let's throw a bone to the cluckers... There are some excellent points in there.

Nonetheless:

The general held himself up as a paragon of self-discipline and model family man. In Iraq and then Afghanistan, he rigorously enforced “General Order No. 1,” which prohibits our troops from fraternization, all sex, alcohol consumption, the possession of pornography and, generally, from any activity that might make the boredom and terror of this kind of war more bearable. When our troops screwed up, they got hammered.

If you make a career punishing others for impropriety, no fair saying 'just kidding!'

Amy, so true.

I mean. come ON. This isn't about the fact that she's not a raving beauty. She doesn't even try. This, of course, does not excuses Patraues's behavior,however, his wife is BLIND if she didn't see this coming. Before the leftist haters start in, you can argue all you want. Standards for men and women are different, and, no matter how much your leftist hearts want to believe it, you cannot and will never ever, ever, ever be able to legislate away biology. Also, again, before you go on, yes Mrs. General P. could have been gorgeous and the same thing could have happened, no , its not fair, but see liberal moth frothing manual 1.0 --Life isn't fair: and never was, as much as you all want it to be by fiat, it never will be. Attractive people have it easier, thats a fact. I accept it, why can't you?
Bottom Line: it was the perfect storm, created by both of their respective behaviors.

And the mistress? Dont even get me started....

I mean. come ON. This isn't about the fact that she's not a raving beauty. She doesn't even try.

She is a woman in her 60s who dresses neatly, is clean and tidy, styles her hair, and wears professional, if frumpy, attire. She is not a slob or a slattern -- she most certainly tries.

And the mistress? Dont even get me started....

I've noticed that "trying" has not saved the mistress or that lady in Florida from having their looks and style relentlessly criticized too.

I gotta say, though, if you're 60 and some 20 or 30 something is hitting on you, she is by definition trying to get something from you.

She's not hitting on you because of your hotness or your steller personality.

So if your power (mainstream or subculture) and wealth gets you laid, cool for you, but don't be an idiot about it and don't be naive.

Mmhm. And loving behavior also includes not shitting all over your 30+ year marriage, then using biology as an excuse. Her appearance may or may not have contributed to their marital problems; his affair undoubtedly has.

"Loving, as Erich Fromm pointed out, is something you do. It's reflected in how you bring your partner a cup of coffee at a party so they don't have to get up when you know they're a little tired or in taking care of your appearance so they feel proud to have you on their arm, and so they like what they see."

I don't think anything about her appearance signifies a lack of love on her part. She got older. She didn't die her hair. She dresses more the part of many women her age. She's not wearing sweatpants and a baggy tee with no make up on and her hair pulled back in a pony tail. She's older. Where does that signify a lack of love?

If you want to talk about loving being something you do, how bout loving means only putting your penis in the person you are married to and supposed to love, not the hot woman you meet during a speaking engagement. Love as something you do means remaining faithful or having a talk with said partner to find out if there is enough love to put the required work in to mean there is no accidentally falling into another's vagina so that the world can say its because your wife doesn't take care of herself.

> She doesn't even try.

This is so fucked up.

1. Do you seriously think she's an unattractive sixtyish mother-of-two?

You're welcome to think that. But if you do, you've got such a horribly foreshortened perspective of allure that no regimen of diets, exercise and social climbing is ever going to being you to a place where you enjoy the company of a warm beauty who chooses to appeal to you.

(She may be a shitty human being; I've little in common with people of her background who wear her kinds of suits... But it's beside the point.)

2. How the fuck could you know she doesn't "try"? For all you know, in the first minutes out of bed, she looks like a russet potato from last autumn.

3. You've badly confused....

Oh, fuck it. This is just insane. Your comments are from the soul of a fucked-up slaveholder in the 17th century. They're not the thoughts of people who're grateful for the company of modern, accomplished women... This is just fucking primitive.

Props Astra, mse, Kristen.

Put another way, the women of my acquaintance who're HP's age but feigning youthful allure are among the least happy I know.

Those who look like that and aren't married to cunning assholes are among the happiest.