General Petraeus Affair
latinalover69
California
The problem is, that a man in that position can't slink away to some strip club to get some laps or a HJ or BJ or FS from some 22 year old stripper. He can't roll out to an AMP to get a rub an tug from some little asian cutie pie. He ain't gonna be ordering in an escort from TER and getting FS in his hotel. He's too high profile. What would happen if it came out he was out at Centcom in Florida and was photographed at Mons Venus on a Saturday night? There goes his career. I consider these places to be like a safety valve for a man. I mean I am not leaving my family for some hoor but once in awhile I need to have a hottie 22 year old sitting on my lap and pretending she likes me and then takes me back to give me a good grind. I DO NOT want a girlfriend, just a little R n R once in awhile. And I an thankful since I am not famous I can just do what I do without scrutiny. Unfortunately the good General doesn't have that option and has to actually have an affair and that dear friends, led to his downfall.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
43 comments
Latest
Regardless of his love or attraction to his wife there's also a matter of circumstance. It's not implausible to believe that there were long periods when he didn't get to be in the same room with his wife. Additionally for a couple like them, divorce is not an easy option, and even if divorced it's not like relationships are simple matters for CIA directors.
The General's situation is special given his job and power and responsibilities. But his actions in being unfaithful ended up having far reaching impact. I believe he is smart enough to know better given his position. He made a bad choice. When any of us make bad choices we usually reap bad consequences. And sometimes others are very negatively impacted too. He could have and IMO should have handled his emotional and sexual needs differently, given his position in the government.
What he did was wrong but I think it's a cheap shot to stand on a pedestal an opine about faithfulness.
And I can stand on a pedestal because I've never cheated on anyone, be it my spouse or ex boyfriends. Anytime I have acted "immorally" Lol in the club, it has been disclosed, by me, immediately. And anytime I've met anyone outside the club, I have had a prior discussion with my significant other about it.
I'd walk through fire before I intentionally hurt or mislead someone I cared about. And if I'm in a relationship with someone, whether I'm still in love with them or not, I made a commitment to that person and they are still owed respect.
I kinda get the feeling alutard didn't have much choice in the matter. So he's making a virtue out of a necessity. This ain't the only realm he does it in, either.
I'd put money on him not being allowed to smoke, drink, or do drugs due to a medical condition (CAD), not because of any superior "morality" there either.
It would interesting to see how "moral" the guy is in areas where actually has some say in the matter. Not too well, I'd bet. Hence, his need to pontificate against others, where it actually is a choice. Kind of his way of trying to kid his own brain that he is an okay fellow when he is not.
Yes monogamy can be hard, which is why it should be taken seriously. If you can't hack it, don't marry.
I challenge any honest, clear thinking and NONDELUSIONAL member to find a situation where I have tried to FORCE anyone else to attempt to live by my beliefs. Any member is free to agree or disagree and to read or not read my opinions. Think the way you wish and behave how you wish. And live with the consequences - GOOD or BAD. There are PLENTY of people in this country and in the World who are MORE than READY to try to enforce their beliefs and way of living on everyone else. And often through Violence.
Also I have never used alcohol, or smoked, or used illicit Drugs. I have NEVER felt any need &/or desire to. I know the consequences of indulging in these habits. These consequences are easy to see in the World.
I'll make the equation so simple even your pea brain can understand. LatinaLover (and others) = choice in the matter, therefore credibility. Alutard = no choice in the matter, hence no credibility. Simple, huh?
I'm not saying infidelity is acceptable, I'm just saying that it's millions of years of evolution vs a few thousand years of Judeo-Christian teachings. In the long run, who's gonna win that horse race?
The second most troubling aspect of this discussion thread are three implicit assumptions: 1) that monogamy is an essential ingredient of every marriage, presumably more important than love, respect and support 2) that adultery is OK as long as it is disclosed to your partner and 3) that anyone who is discovered to have had an extramarital affair should be automatically judged to be incapable of performing his/her job (in spite of the fact that they performed the job effectively while having the affair--but the public disclosure of the affair then disqualifies them from continuing in their job).
I don't "buy" any of these three assumptions and I'm troubled by the government intrusion into a person's private life, even if that person was a high ranking official who appeared to be performing his job with skill and dedication.
Readers of this forum are welcome to express differing opinions-- that's the function of a discussion forum.
Exactly! I wouldn't hit that with my car.
If you'd like to keep deflecting the fact that you think its okay to go outside your marriage because " youre a man"....well Im sorry for you. But where would I have gotten that idea dear. Silly me!!
- I am married, recognized by the states of NY, where I was married, NC, MO and KY, where I've resided and paid taxes, and by the US Federal Government, for whom I worked and to whom I paid taxes.
- I have sex with women other than the one to whom I am married.
- I am not acting immorally with regard to sex outside my marriage.
If you are married, and have sex with other women besides your wife, how is that not being unfaithful/ immoral/ cheating?
Should you cheat on your spouse? No. Is this particular situation vastly more complex than usual? Yes.
Bottom line I think a certain sanctimonious ass who clearly avoids being in a situation where they have to practice fidelity, shouldn't lecture others about it.
@stileto, maybe you have more of a leg to stand on but I think the peculiarities of this instance make saying "just get a divorce" a little simplistic.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. Check your premises.
:)
“Exactly! I wouldn't hit that with my car.â€
Big time LOL – I’ve never heard put that way – will have to remember than one!!!
Often times when studies are done w.r.t. male/female sexuality, more often than nor “sex†is at the top of the list for men where it is often much further down the list for women.
It is also peculiar that the guys on this thread strongly advocating the concept of fidelity are the ones that are not, or never been, married – not passing judgment – just an observation.
Furthermore, it can be argued that if one has sex or visit SCs, that in itself can be considered morally objectionable, married or not?
To further piggyback on the sexual differences b/w men and women – perhaps the numbers speak for themselves – what would one say is the ratio of female-dancer SCs to male-dancer SCs – 1000 to 1 – maybe greater?
I agree with Stilleto as well.
The U.S. military believes that senior officers moving towards "flag" rank must demonstrate an ability to keep their lives, marriages and finances under control so that they can focus on their assignments and avoid any situation that could be a distraction. It is assumed that heavy drinking, drug use, financial difficulties or "fooling around" will expose a senior officer to blackmail, the temptation of bribery, accidential security breaches or lapses that could threaten the mission and get people killed. We can argue that this policy is an overreach and not realistic, but that is the way the U.S. military establishment sees things. Thus, adultery is a violation of the UCMJ because it might lead to divorce and emotional burdens that distract from the assigned mission.
Consider: (1) Lt.Col. does not make it to the B.G. list (candidates for future Brigader General) because of a spouse's heavy drinking. Risk of repeating something that was discussed at home; (2) filing bankruptcy shows financial weakness making bribery possible; (3)divorce because of adultery destroys a general's emotional stability.
This week a four star general was demoted to three stars because he misused government funds with excessive travel, luxury suites and personal purchases. It appears that he did these things to keep his wife entertained. A "pussy whipped" general misappropriated government funds to give his wife what she wanted or both of them lacked discipline and judgment.
The Defense Investigative Service of the Department of Defense deals with these issues. They clear candidates for promotion to "flag" rank.
Yet, if you can keep it quiet, maybe nothing happens. Biographers have revealed the Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was involved with his London driver, Kay Summersby. She revealed the affair in her book "Past Forgetting" after his death. William Manchester's excellent biography of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, "American Caesar," discloses that "Dugout Doug" had a 25 year long relationship with a Phillipino mistress. In neither case was the ability to focus on the command ever compromised. (One biographer has claimed that Gen. George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, threated to bust Ike down one star and order him home if he divorced Mamie and married Kay in the middle of the war while everyone else was slugging through the mud across Europe.)
The military is a separate world with it's own set of rules and reasons for maintaining order and discipline. Generals have heavy responsibilities in the defense of this great and good land. They accept those limitations and we rely on their dedication.
@Papi_Chulo: Please explain why you think "it can be argued that if one has sex or visit SCs, that in itself can be considered morally objectionable, married or not". In and of themselves, I don't see how either of this is morally objectionable, even if done at the same time.
John Edwards, Tiger Woods, Ah-Nold Schwaznagger, Mark Hurd (HP guy), Tony Parker (spurs), Petraeus - all gone
... and big-daddy clinton's still smiling.
TUSCL founder should extend "distinguished member" invitation to the fellas listed above.
Within a week all will cry out loud:
"Dang, fuck, shit - why didn't anybody tell me 'bout this???"
Final question: What would you rate (fuck factor) mistresses of the above mongers? collectively?
I'd rate a 2 (being generous)