What To Do With A Cheating Husband
We've got a far more creative idea than "standing by your man."
It's a humdinger all right. After all, our day jobs exist because we know relationships are complicated.
Take this week: Just when you think you've deep-sixed one seriously depraved New York politician, accusations arise that another was not only secretly gay, but, oh by the way, he and his wife were having threesomes with his driver long before he ever came out. (Not that that in itself is necessarily depraved.) Hmm.
Like we said, love rarely resembles a 50's sitcom. And we don't pretend to know what Silda should do with her Eliot, which is why we put the question to you:
49% of you said Silda should divorce her philandering hubby faster than bunnies attempt to make little bunnies.
25% of you were in favor of Silda hiring her own boy toy (hmm....wonder if McGreevey's driver is still available.)
13% believe she should stand by her man.
7% said she should tell all on Oprah.
And 6% were fans of her taking up pole-dancing.
Personally, I'm in favor of the alternative alternet.org offered up today: For starters, let him stand at the podium all by his lonesome while you fly off to Paris.
And if you were to engage in a little financial infidelity while away, we're pro-that, too.
Discussion
I believe most of these women know/knew and maybe even encouraged. The only thing I have is that these people do the mea Culpa two step rather than saying yes I have a Gf /mistress/etc.
I like to see more men be men and not offer "bad me and own up to their feelings. Many women who have lovers are put into this mix also. Not everyone has any idea of ideal because the social signal is hypocritical from the beginning.
Call girls have a lot to lose. They offer a service that by it's nature is to be kept on the "down low".
Publicity outside her circle is verboten as she then become a liability.
Never gamble with someone who has nothing to lose.
If a person (man or woman) wants to cheat, then they should do it with someone who has at least what they have. Spitzer spent money on hookers (they had nothing to lose). Clinton messed around with an intern (nothing to lose). See where this is leading?
Not that I condone cheating, but if you're going to do it, then do it with someone who is equal to you, or has almost as much to lose as you do.
If the young woman at the center of the latest sex-ca-pade had worked for herself and not pimped out by men for men, the story would be interesting. A woman in charge of herself.
Why the pimps? Can't women be in charge of this business? They have the resources, the talent, the moxie--but they depend on pimps? Then how is this young woman perceived as so powerful?
Political wives know that they have power in these situations. The other woman isn't so much of an issue other than she had so little to offer and took so much away. But isn't it really about how much he threw away and left a trail of sad women in his wake.
If women want to stay married they can if there is any reason to do so. Hookers are different than an affair--a woman that a man has an affair with is a threat, an adversary. A hooker is just ridiculous. And it isn't about the married couple's sex life, it is about his inability to understand how he is hurting his wife, his children and taking advantage of a woman who is no where is equal, his wife's equal or a woman with whom he would have children.
If he doesn't want those things, he shouldn't have those things. And women shouldn't risk their lives with pimps, either.
