A reader emails:
"The man falls in love with... himself!"
And that is at the center of what an affair is about.
Here's Shirley Glass, who before her death a few years ago was considered one of the top experts on infidelity:
There is an attraction in the affair, and I try to understand what it is. Part of it is the romantic projection: I like the way I look when I see myself in the other person’s eyes. There is positive mirroring. An affair holds up a vanity mirror, the kind with all the little bulbs around it; it gives a nice rosy glow to the way you see yourself. By contrast, the marriage offers a make-up mirror; it magnifies all your wrinkles and pores, every little flaw. When someone loves you despite the fact that they can see all your flaws, that is a reality-based love.
In the stories of what happened during the affair, people seem to take on a different persona, and one of the things they liked best about being in that relationship was the person they had become. The man who wasn’t sensitive or expressive is now in a relationship where he is expressing his feelings and is supportive.
पोस्ट्स
४८ टिप्पण्या:
From what little I could see of him, Petraeus is no preening little peacock like Edwards.
In any case, a very interesting conversation between Michael Ledeeen and James Jesus Angleton on the whole business.
Petraeus is the male of the species. We don't really get more complicated with age.
Jeez no need to over think this ladies. A simple pic of the wife and the mistress is all you need.
Affairs are merely romantic love or lust. They encourage and enlist vanity. Like any romance that leads to marriage, it can turn into mature love in time.
First love uses narcissus as a lure, later discarded by selfless love.
New Pussy. That is all ye know on earth and all ye need know.
bagoh20: He did it with the female of the species.
"bagoh20: He did it with the female of the species."
Oh, I would never try to explain one of those. On the female side I just assume it was pure evil.
Jack Welch also had an affair with biographer.
one of the top experts on infidelity
Hmmm. I guess everyone needs a niche.
And then there is the plain old sex drive. I remember the Italian guest worker in the German workers dorm giving me the wise advice to stick to prostitutes and avoid having a girlfriend. Girlfriends, he said, led to trouble. People would fall in love and have problems when they returned home to their wives.
Shirley Glass looks at an extramarital affair and sees a little self-help support group.
So - another good general gone. Remember McCrystal?
Ms. Broadwell certainly seems to have gone around the bend, for a while at least. So far, no evidence that the general "fell in love" with anyone.
My initial response was to give him the benefit of the doubt. That said, the more I think about this, and consider some of the questions being raised, I'm thinking something stinks here. (I know, big insight...)
She digs you, she has military experience, she follows you around and flatters you, she's getting a little drunk on your power and she's hotter and younger than your wife.
That's clearly a moral failure and a dangerous one for the CIA director to have. It's also a chance for some to decry "puritan" America so that the "right ideas" can finally guide us. Like Europe!
And I still don't quite trust the timing on this.
Other women will start coming forward.
Many, perhaps most, virtues are due to a lack of temptation rather than exquisite self control. The concept of a younger, attractive woman following you around, utterly mesmerized by your brilliance and leadership and jotting down your casual remarks as wise utterances for posterity is flattering and seductive. This has happened to me about a half dozen times in my life so I can see how Petraeus could be tempted.
Sure Petraeus is narcissistic, hell every big general and CEO and PRESIDENT is somewhat narcissistic.
And the president we have now us super narcissistic!
Patraeus real problem was he announced the CIA had nothing to do with the stand down order in Benghazi.
That made Obame use his dirt he had on him to shut him up and serve as an example to others what would happen if they spoke out of school.
See the president has dirt on lots of people and keeps it just in case.
What's not to understand about sports fucking, new ass is always exciting, women will do shit they never dreamed of with their husbands, they never reject you, you don't discuss bills and children in bed and there are no foundation garments soaking in the sink when you go to brush your teeth.
By the way, that "more expressive and supportive" BS is the shit rounders shovel to get laid. It's like the stranger at the bar that's "more expressive and supportive" of your problems after three Jack & waters, meaningless.
Throughout its history, the CIA has lied to the President, Congress and the American People. Why does anyone assume they've changed?
Why assume this was Petraeus's first affair? Why assume he is an honest, upright man.
My note to friends about NY & Sandy:
....On the other hand, the Two-Star head of the NYNG could’ve been having an affair with his Public Relations flack, causing him to miss the magnitude of Sandy.
I mean stranger scenarios seem true re Benghazi.
I'm still curious how it is that Petraeus and Hillary won't be testifying about Benghazi this week.
How can this be? These are the leaders for whom the buck is supposed to stop and who had no problems publicly endorsing the video cover story.
Geez, I wish I could handle the unpleasant official details of my life that way.
Reading about this Broadwell woman and she sounds like the Kelly McGillis character from Top Gun.
Maybe Obama's Hollywood friends can make a movie from this. Seems to be enough material here. Then again we know they won't do anything like it.
But I do expect some sort of movie about Mitt Romney's "electoral loss" where they cast Jim Carrey in his dumb and dumber character as Mitt and Amy Poehler as Ann Romney. And it will win all the golden globes and oscars.
"The man who wasn’t sensitive or expressive is now in a relationship where he is expressing his feelings and is supportive."
There are lots of variations. A man (or woman) whose spouse thinks he is a dipshit (or just treats him that way) is going to be drawn to a new partner who "mirrors" quite differently. That mirroring may be an accurate reflection of who the person really is.
The roots of infidelity are complex and they range from the banal to the profound. Distant observers have little chance gaining much insight into an individual circumstance.
So many dots--so little time to connect them all.
During my military career I was acquainted with a few four star types. I would be hard pressed to see how they could make the time to have an affair--but in the hunt for pussy, anything is possible I guess.
Vince Flynn, the writer of those Mitch Rapp CIA action novels, kicked off his most recent book tour, with a 1hour local radio interview-KSTP 1500- last Fri. When asked about the Petraeus talked about a 2hr lunch he had with the general saying: "It was the wierdest lunch meeting I ever had. The guy is so full of him self. I found him to be a flat out full blown Narcisssist."
BTW I'm sure the interview can be accessed online via KTCA 1500 (Garage Logic)
Bagoh20: "On the female side I just assume it was pure evil."
On the female side, it was pure slutty, or Flukey.
Merely lust, 'twas merely merely lust,
'Twas just a little thrust, a little bit a' thrust,
Now the career is dust, dust dust dust,
Plus blue balls are the wust.
More boots are bound to drop on this Petraeus affair. First, it is not unusual for a high ranking deployment to ISAF. Mz. Broadwell was embedded (pun intended) with Petraeus in Afghanistan.
I am not going to name names, but my own Division Commander, a general, was first relieved of duty, "hospitalized," and subsequently sacked with loss of general grade. He had a fascination with the ladies that knew no bounds when deployed...discretion was dismissed. And he isn't the only one in my experience, just the most recent.
Who's mind-fucking who?
OFA has known about this affair for months, obviously.
Petraeus knows OFA knows.
And he still made a statement about Benghazi regarding the military non-response that was not good for OFA. Shifted blame.
Petraeus made an unnecessarily and uncharacteristic grovelly TMI resignation. Right after election and right before Benghazi testimony.
Was OFA holding this affair over Petraeus to keep him in place thru the election? To keep him from talking out of school about Benghazi? Both? Neither?
Or is Petraeus using the affair as an excuse to delay his own testimony until he hears what the OFA house-pets have to say? If so, Hillary's refusal to testify kind of throws a wrench in that.
So - another good general gone. Remember McCrystal?
McCrystal was canned because he wasn't running a tight ship. Everybody in the military knows you can't say that kind of stuff about the civilian leadership, especially on the record. You can only tolerate a MacArthur when there's a chance you might actually lose the war.
And as head of the CIA Petraeus was no longer acting as a general. He was a political appointee, and it's perfectly reasonable to hold him to the standards of a political appointee.
Many psychologists and neuroscientists believe that people in weighty positions, like Petraeus, often suffer from "decision fatigue" which impairs their self-regulation late in the day.
Too bad the man didn't hire a "Self-Regulation Coach".
Gotta LOVE those oddball jobs that just "pop up" in our new economy.
"I'm still curious how it is that Petraeus and Hillary won't be testifying about Benghazi this week."
We're a banana republic now. The government and media are one and utterly corrupted. The election was stolen, and now they are dropping any pretense of accountability to the citizenry. They will do whatever they want.
The most startling thing I noticed after the election was the silence of the liberals out here in the Bay Area. None of the gloating and celebrating I would have expected. Almost like a subconscious sense of shame at the dirty way they won, and a sense of foreboding...that America has indeed been fundamentally transformed to a criminal enterprise inexorably on the road to tyranny and serfdom.
None of them are conscious of this, yet they can feel it in their bones and they are strangely subdued.
The side by side pics of the spouses doesn't make Holly Petraeus look lovely, but it doesn't look Director Petraeus look good either.
Have you seen the handsome radiologist that is Mr. (Dr.) Broadwell?
Hubba fuckin' hubba.
Marrying a really handsome doctor husband wasn't good enough for her.
Ungrateful whore.
Paula Broadwell's husband
Broadwell sounds like a Bond Girl name.
Pussy Galore.
Broadwell.
So...in your mind, is Broadwell the new Lewinsky?
No sordid details...yet.....
The most startling thing I noticed after the election was the silence of the liberals out here in the Bay Area. None of the gloating and celebrating I would have expected. Almost like a subconscious sense of shame at the dirty way they won, and a sense of foreboding...that America has indeed been fundamentally transformed to a criminal enterprise inexorably on the road to tyranny and serfdom.
Paul: Wow. A friend and I were sitting this afternoon at a Berkeley cafe across the street from the University and reflected exactly on what you just wrote.
The mood in the Bay Area has been very subdued and odd during this campaign and since -- nothing like the Come-to-Jesus of the 2008 campaign which was practically a religious movement.
This eerie indifference to Obama 2012 here in one of the bluest areas of America was one reason why I figured Obama to lose.
All the conspiracy theorists should read this:
"Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) confirmed Sunday he first learned of the affair several months ago from a friend who knows Kelley. Reichert told House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who put Kelley in touch with FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Cantor’s staff didn’t immediately tell the House Intelligence Committee or other House leaders because they didn’t know whether the information was credible, Fox News reported."
So it turns out that the republicans knew about the affair long before Obama and his people. If there is any conspiracy here it is on the part of the republican leadership for keeping it quiet for so long. Unbelievable hypocrisy.
So it turns out that the republicans knew about the affair long before Obama and his people. If there is any conspiracy here it is on the part of the republican leadership for keeping it quiet for so long. Unbelievable hypocrisy.
Or not. They heard a rumor and did what they're supposed to do. Would you rather that they started spreading unsubstantiated rumors?
The question is whether the matter should have become public once there was evidence.
"This eerie indifference to Obama 2012 here in one of the bluest areas of America was one reason why I figured Obama to lose."
He did lose, but the fix was in.
As I've said before, Nov 6, 2012 was the day we fell inside the event horizon of the socialist black hole.
Eric said...
So it turns out that the republicans knew about the affair long before Obama and his people. If there is any conspiracy here it is on the part of the republican leadership for keeping it quiet for so long. Unbelievable hypocrisy.
Or not. They heard a rumor and did what they're supposed to do. Would you rather that they started spreading unsubstantiated rumors?
They have been spreading unsubstantiated rumors, just listen to that fuckwit Steve King, or Drudge. This has to be one of the most blatant pieces of hypocrisy I have come across.
The whole thing actually reminds me of the episode from West Wing where the actor who played Chandler Bing on Friends brings down the Vice President of the United States on his first day at work.
There's a wife (possibly with grown children) and a husband with two very young sons. I have no problem with rumors of the affair not being made public for perceived partisian gain.
My main problem with the Obama Administration remains. When something happens, they continually claim that they have been kept in the dark. From major events to weekly job numbers there is one common thread - that bad news is "unexpected".
"The buck stops with no one" is not comforting in the slightest.
Personally, I see Obama as pretty much like Nixon at the start of his second term. If the media was in the tank for him (and I believe they were), it was for his relection. He is reelected. They are looking out for their own careers now and the lure of a Pulitzer for finding out what really happened in Benghazi is to good to resist. We saw some of that with Woodward. His "take" on Obama was more negative than I would have otherwise expected of someone in the media. Not "very" negative mind you - just more than expected.
His second term could get interesting.
Unknown said...
My main problem with the Obama Administration remains. When something happens, they continually claim that they have been kept in the dark
Bullshit. Dave Reichert and Eric Cantor knew about this from the start. They could have spoken up at any point. The only conspiracy here is the republicans protecting their guy Petraeus.
AReasonableMan
Nice try! Even the JournaList and Andrea Mitchell on Mourning Joe couldn't explain how The Black Nixon was in the dark till after the election. It was comedy gold, they needed you, but then they all have their heads so far up The Black Nixon's ass their chins rest on his prostrate. "Reasonable" might not mean what you think it means, most likely everyone from the FBI office in Florida, FBI HQ, DOJ, Eric Holder and some congressmen knew about this, but The Black Nixon was clueless till after the election.
As I've said before, Nov 6, 2012 was the day we fell inside the event horizon of the socialist black hole.
Paul: Possibly. I don't believe it's over yet.
The next four years are going to be horrific to preside over, as the Blue state entitlement model collapses here and in Europe, and as all the hard bits that Obama backloaded until after the 2012 come due.
It would be nasty no matter who had won. This way, though, Obama and the Dems will become firmly identified with the pain, and that will make a difference in 2014 and 2016.
McTriumph said...
AReasonableMan
Nice try! Even the JournaList and Andrea Mitchell on Mourning Joe couldn't explain how The Black Nixon was in the dark till after the election. It was comedy gold, they needed you, but then they all have their heads so far up The Black Nixon's ass their chins rest on his prostrate. "Reasonable" might not mean what you think it means, most likely everyone from the FBI office in Florida, FBI HQ, DOJ, Eric Holder and some congressmen knew about this, but The Black Nixon was clueless till after the election.
You don't even try to address the point that the republicans were the first to know about this. If there was a conspiracy, a very big if, they were in on it from the start.
They have been spreading unsubstantiated rumors, just listen to that fuckwit Steve King, or Drudge. This has to be one of the most blatant pieces of hypocrisy I have come across.
Oh? Is that a pseudonym of Eric Cantor's? I'm still not seeing the hypocrisy on the part of the Republican leadership. What I'm seeing is a guy pretending to be outraged because he's got nothing else to defend his president.
By the way, how do you explain the administration not mentioning Iran fired on one of our drones a few days before the election? Did nobody tell Obama about that either? How effective could this guy possibly be if nobody tells him anything?
I wonder if he has a stamp that says "pretend you didn't tell me about this".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा