As soon as I saw the first pics of Holly Petraeus surface, I knew someone would put it out there, the contention that, because of the way she looks, she is somehow responsible for her husband David's extremely over-publicized affair with his biographer. And sure enough, a couple of days ago I was caught in the crossfire of just such a discussion, with two people I know contending that if Mrs. Petraeus would've kept herself more attractive, maybe the General wouldn't have had to look elsewhere."I solemnly swear to serve this office to the best of my ability. Fidelity? Hmm, that's a tough one. Can I get back to you?"
Seriously? We're still vilifying victims? In this day and age? I mean, do we still think that a girl who dresses a bit skimpily deserves or is asking to be raped, too? I can't believe this attitude still exists.
Anyway, these two guys were saying things like, "How can you blame him?," and "Just look at her," making his infidelity an inevitability, the forgone conclusion of her "letting herself go." Furthermore, they went on to say that they've told their wives that they better keep themselves together, from an aesthetic standpoint, or all bets were off. The justification they provided: if they let themselves go then they would expect their wives to go get a bit on the side, too. "It's just human nature," they said.
So, that's what the bond of marriage -- 34 years in the case of the Petraeus' -- is all boiled down to? How fit you remain? How well you keep your hair and nails? How smooth your skin will be? How flat your stomach will be and
Hmmm.....I thought it was for better or for worse?
I know, I know. I'm just being naive, unrealistic. Maybe it's a sign of the times, when people are placated and placate themselves constantly, so that they never have to wait, suffer, try hard, work through things.
But I don't think so. Not when you hear stories of the the men and women out there who've helped their spouses through the worst diseases, become their caretakers, put the needs of their spouse before their own.
I'm sure the good General didn't mind his wife's big belly when she was pregnant with their two children. And, when the General was battling cancer, maybe Holly should've been given a license to cheat? I mean, she didn't sign up to be married to some sick cancer patient!
Hey, none of us know what the inner workings of the Petraeus marriage is like, which is a good thing. It's none of our collective business, as long as he didn't do anything to put the security of the nation in jeopardy. And I'm old enough to understand that things do happen between men and women that are good, not so good, and bad.
Maybe they, one or the other, fell out of love. Maybe he and Paula Broadwell, Petraeus' coital accomplice, fell in love. Maybe the General is just a weak man. Whatever way you slice it, he did break the vow of marriage.
Holly appears to be a smart, productive woman. Summa Cum Laude from Dickinson University, an impressive career, mother of two, wife of someone who's probably been away more than available for most of their marriage. Maybe that's the problem too. While the General was off playing war games with the other boy soldiers of the world, she was left holding down the fort.
Further, don't put such words into the mouth of the General. He knows why he did it; he knows what he's all about. Don't make assumptions based on your own failings.
