Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, November 15, 2012

The Women in Gen. Petraeus' Life

Posted by on Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM

The look of the mistress...

The look of the wife. As you can see, they do not look at all alike. One seems strong and sexually alive, the other modest and sexually asleep. But the truth that's beginning to take shape is that the general had lost interest in his wife long ago.
“Frankly my husband wasn’t really at my dinner table much of the last ten years,” [Holly Petraeus] told the [host of Where We Live].

But one wonders why she is so surprised by the affair.


Comments (62) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Theodore Gorath 1
I am pretty sure this post has broken the Slog. Way to go Charles.

You bastard.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on November 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM · Report this
Charles, we all love you, but I think this post is misguided and unfair. Have you become a Republican politician, capable of judging other people's sex lives from thousands of miles away?
Posted by minderbender on November 15, 2012 at 12:08 PM · Report this
AmyC 4
Ugh, Charles. Ugh.
Posted by AmyC on November 15, 2012 at 12:11 PM · Report this
matt 5
Posted by matt on November 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM · Report this
This is the most offensive, disgusting, and superficial post I think I've read on the slog. Thank god I don't have to grow old with you.
Posted by Stilty on November 15, 2012 at 12:15 PM · Report this
So Charles, if some nut job prettier than your wife comes along, are you going to fuck her?
Posted by swing state voter on November 15, 2012 at 12:19 PM · Report this
Purocuyu 8
Charles, the fact that one of these women makes YOU feel "sexually alive" and the other makes YOU feel "sexually asleep" is quite different from what their sexual lives may or may not be, and by stating the article the way you do, you seem to be making excuses for a man who was the one doing the cheating. For you do throw dirt at his wife is inexcusable. This is a new low for you.
Posted by Purocuyu on November 15, 2012 at 12:22 PM · Report this
Peteykins 9
I kind of agree with the above comments, but LOL at the "at the dinner table" euphemism.
Posted by Peteykins on November 15, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
mistermix 10
@9 Was it a euphemism or was it a cliche expression? I mean, was she saying that Dave didn't want to go down on her anymore? Or is she just saying that he was mentally absent from their marriage?

I'd like to think it was the former, but I'm guessing it was the latter.
Posted by mistermix on November 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM · Report this
Charles Mudede 11
Sorry, im a human. it is a human habit to read body language and appearances. this is a very human thing to do. and yes, the dinner table comment got me thinking.
Posted by Charles Mudede on November 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM · Report this
mistermix 12
@11 Charles, your humanity seems to be most often expressed from the tip of your penis in a way calculated to piss off Slog commenters.
Posted by mistermix on November 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM · Report this
TVDinner 13
Charles, you're not reading. You're projecting. Take some fucking responsibility for your sexism.
Posted by TVDinner http:// on November 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM · Report this
Paxlotl 14
Wow. Did Charles just basically say she didn't make herself pretty enough so she deserves everything that happened to her marriage? He must be hitting the bottle pretty heavy lately.
Posted by Paxlotl on November 15, 2012 at 12:33 PM · Report this
Plenty of modest women are sexually alive, thank you very much.
Posted by shambhaladawa on November 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM · Report this
I think you're all reading a bit much into this. Pretending that people don't have varying libidos isn't helping. Besides, how could the general not be attracted to his biographer? She definitely took great strides to be that fit.

Holly Petraeus is completely innocent, it seems, so leave her alone, but its the mistress that creeps me out. Broadwell invokes her husband while remaining faithful to Petraeus confidence. Ooph.
Posted by Thunderbird on November 15, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
@3, You are wrong. Well, about the first part anyway. We do not all love Charles. Because Charles occasionally says horribly offensive, misogynistic, thoughtless things that he tries to explain away by "being human". Perhaps he also relies on the Glenn Beck defense of "hey, I'm just being honest here; you're all thinkin' it."

Charles, you can be a real ignorant pig sometimes. This post is no different than the Seattle Times column by the Mars Hill pastor who said if a husband cheats, it's the wife's fault for not pleasing him and keeping him interested. And he got fired by the Times for that column.

Does anyone remember if The Stranger agreed or disagreed with the Seattle Times' action on that one? Any reason to hope Charles will finally be fired?
Posted by CrankyBacon on November 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM · Report this
Charles Mudede 19
guys, think what the general was thinking. do not think what you think or what you feel is right to think. really, let's be honest. what was the general thinking? how was he seeing his mistres and his wife? don't play games. look at those images and be honest.

for your information: i actually don't find the mistress to be attractive.

Posted by Charles Mudede on November 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM · Report this
Charles isn't saying anyone deserved anything. He's saying "look at how good-looking and energetic this one lady is vs. his elementary-school-librarian-looking wife" and asking why this is so shocking. It's not like these are three hot people inexplicably engaging in infidelity. There's a pretty obvious difference here and the "WHERE DID THIS COME FROM???" sentiment some are expressing is pretty ridiculous considering it.
Posted by The CHZA on November 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM · Report this
The General hasn't said what he was thinking. You're inferring it from a set of images, and the "brain" in your pants.

If you want us to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, shouldn't it be Holly Petraeus'? She's fighting for veterans financial rights while her husband is out snogging a reservist. Blerg.
Posted by fuddy on November 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM · Report this
So how much a husband loves his wife and is faithful to her is entirely dependant on how she looks? Especially after decades of being together? Nothing else makes a woman attractive to a husband?
You are a sorry fuck.
Posted by swing state voter on November 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM · Report this
This post is horrible. If I were with someone for 37 years and they cheated on me and it came out in the most public manner, of course I would be surprised. Or at least I would pretend to be surprised. What should she have said? "Yeah, I saw it coming because I'm a dump truck?"
Posted by EmilySavesTheDay on November 15, 2012 at 1:23 PM · Report this
The general is a douchebag who cheated and lied. The mistress is a bitch for cheating and lying to HER husband and family. What they were thinking is irrelevant to the fact that they were WRONG.

(Unrelated: Am I the only one who takes the dinner table comment totally literally? He wasn't at the dinner table because he wasn't home. Because his job kind of requires travel).
Posted by J from Oregon on November 15, 2012 at 1:25 PM · Report this
merry 28
Yup. I see the bait.

Ain't gonna take it. Nope.
Posted by merry on November 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM · Report this
Jesus, I think a lot of the posters here are being dishonest (or at least dishonest with themselves). Arguably it was crass to make the post, but a lot of us were thinking it (I know I was). And for all the "enlightenment" Dan Savage has brought to these pages, you'd think some of it would surface in these comments. I'm not saying the cheating was justified, but at least lets ask some questions before throwing the guy off a cliff.

What if she stopped giving him blowjobs 10 years ago? What if she constantly refuses sex, and refuses to talk about the problem? And yes, what if she let her looks completely go? As for that last one, I'm not saying we all have a duty to look like porn stars, but you should want to keep up appearances for your significant other....and she looks like she just doesn't give a shit anymore.

Or maybe she was awesome and he was just a huge dick...but again, let's not jump to conclusions.
Posted by dave1976 on November 15, 2012 at 1:45 PM · Report this
Keekee 30
WoW! Some folks is really uptight.
Posted by Keekee on November 15, 2012 at 1:49 PM · Report this
Keekee 31
I guarantee you that every straight man in America that has paid attention to this story, has already reached the same conclusion that Charles has expressed here.
Posted by Keekee on November 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM · Report this
breadandcirce 32
I'm kind of surprised no one has connected this to the comments Mark Driscoll made about Ted Haggard's wife and a woman's responsibility to remain desirable to her husband.
Posted by breadandcirce on November 15, 2012 at 1:54 PM · Report this
breadandcirce 33
My skimming powers are horrible - a couple of people mentioned it. Still, it was fucking disgusting then, and it is fucking disgusting now.
Posted by breadandcirce on November 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM · Report this
quix 34
@29: She looks like most other women her age. How does that constitute looking like she doesn't give a shit anymore?
Posted by quix on November 15, 2012 at 2:26 PM · Report this
TL,DR: Petraus banged her because she is younger and hotter than his wife. No shit.
Posted by matt! on November 15, 2012 at 2:34 PM · Report this
@34, look, I feel uncomfortable criticizing other people's looks (lord knows I don't have a lot to brag about)...and maybe I shouldn't have said what I said. Also, criticizing a woman's looks gets into some especially dicey territory. I don't want to get into the paternalistic/chauvinistic zone; and I do think the duty of appearance flows both ways. I guess I'll leave it at that.
Posted by dave1976 on November 15, 2012 at 2:37 PM · Report this
Charles Mudede, you are excellent at trolling.
Posted by crater on November 15, 2012 at 3:13 PM · Report this
Or maybe he "wasn't at the dinner table" very often because for the past 10 years he's been all over the world serving in the Army, and not able to get back to dinner every night. Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever...many spouses of people in the military don't have dinner together for months and sometimes years on end. Maybe she wasn't saying anything more than "my husband is rarely around"...
Posted by Sterno on November 15, 2012 at 3:21 PM · Report this
This is definitely not worthy of Slog.
Posted by Alice Dreger on November 15, 2012 at 3:25 PM · Report this
Charles I'm generally a fan of yours, but this is just gross and incredibly shitty to an ostensibly good lady who's probably going through one of the very worst times of her life.
Posted by crabflex on November 15, 2012 at 3:33 PM · Report this
The really gross thing about this is not Charles. It's the publisher and editor who repeatedly allow this type of disgusting content. If they didn't approve of it, it wouldn't be on Slog. Don't blame Charles.
Posted by ian on November 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM · Report this
This, and a whole bunch of other conversations I've heard about the various women in this story (the Mrs. Petraeus, Broadwell and Kelley) just reeks of woman-hating. Enough, please?
Posted by jhops on November 15, 2012 at 3:58 PM · Report this
wth? wow. the last thing I expected from the slog...
Posted by slainte on November 15, 2012 at 4:06 PM · Report this
To weigh in with an "expert" opinion--I've talked to a lot of female sexual dysfunction doctors over the years for a book I published on the female libido. The odds are that overweight women have higher sex drives and more sexual pleasure, unless they have PCOS. Regular overweight helps with libido. It is the tofu-eating skinny ones who most often complain of lack of libido and inability to orgasm, and who often overcompensate by focusing all their energy on their appearance. The female equivalent of a little red sports car for men with ED.

The offensive thing about this article isn't saying that General Petraeus was no longer attracted to his wife, and very attracted to a woman twenty years younger than him. That's a blindingly obvious thing to say and also perfectly explains why the general wasn't at his wife's dinner table. And it's not offensive to speculate on the private lives of these people, well, not any more than speculating on any one else's private life.

The breathtakingly offensive thing about the post was saying that just because a woman is overweight and middle-aged, that she is no longer interested in sex or does not have a libido. That may be the case due to menopause and a drop in hormones, but plenty of women her age and with her general appearance are VERY interested in sex and sexually alive. And even those women would find it a hundred times easier than General Petraeus to hook up with a casual sex partner. Mudede conflated a woman's visible hotness with her libido, when all too often there is an inverse relationship.
Posted by Marrena on November 15, 2012 at 4:12 PM · Report this
For example, Marilyn Monroe and Kate Moss were anorgasmic for most of their lives.
Posted by Marrena on November 15, 2012 at 4:15 PM · Report this
#45 did Kate Moss die?!
Posted by avocado on November 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM · Report this
she's not dead, I just checked. I guess there's still hope for her to achieve orgasm.
Posted by avocado on November 15, 2012 at 4:54 PM · Report this
Charles Mudede 48
44, i agree with you. i really do. but this is not what, im sad to say, the general was thinking. you need more cruelty, more meanness in the heart to accept the raw facts (or raw appearance) of this situation.
Posted by Charles Mudede on November 15, 2012 at 5:25 PM · Report this
I think a lot of people misinterpreted Charles in this post.
Posted by sall on November 15, 2012 at 5:37 PM · Report this
#48 How the hell do you know what the general was thinking? Incredible. When you write something, you're speaking for yourself, and your publication. How can you not know that?
Posted by avocado on November 15, 2012 at 5:51 PM · Report this
We "need more cruelty/meanness" in our hearts toward a totally innocent woman who's already living an absolute nightmare, publicly humiliated, and losing her husband & the father of her children? Fucking seriously??
Posted by crabflex on November 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM · Report this
@19 please stop. You sound like a teenage hillbilly. Just apologize, back away from the computer and pop a Wellbutrin.
Posted by mitten on November 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM · Report this
wockyjockey 53
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that:

- The General *probably* thought what Charles said. I'm a man and I know I thought it.
- Charles is *probably* technically correct in pointing out something that was plainfully obvious.
- Charles is morally corrupt for saying "this is the way it just is!", and not offering any remorse/apology on how un-evolved this male behavior is and expressing a judgement that man ought to do better than that
Posted by wockyjockey on November 15, 2012 at 7:38 PM · Report this
LEE. 54
not taking the bait, just reiterating this truism...…
Posted by LEE. on November 15, 2012 at 7:42 PM · Report this
LEE. 55

because it's not his place to apologize. whether or not Petraeus was right or wrong (hint: he was wrong), doesn't change the fact the he alone is responsible for his choices in succumbing to the first two points you made. Muedede's job, if you've been paying attention to this blog or paper, isn't to cast judgement, but put the infuriating truths behind these matters into the most infuriating terms possible. and now he has you and I commenting about it.
Posted by LEE. on November 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM · Report this
mattluby 56
If I wanted to explain Seattle with one website, I'd probably just print out this comments thread. What a bunch of butthurt whiners Seattleites can be!

I love Charles for posts like this one. He is a radical truthteller with a strong, consistent point of view. You can't like him when he is incessantly making fun of "Rmoney" and talking about the diversity of South Seattle and then despise him when he writes a post like this. They are all products of the same consistent mind.
Posted by mattluby on November 15, 2012 at 8:13 PM · Report this
Charles, how dare you point out that a man might have been more attracted to a more attractive woman than he was married to in the first place? Dick.
Posted by Vitriolforbreakfast on November 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM · Report this
56/57 yeah, it takes a radical truth teller to say that the old man dumped his old wife for a hot young chick. that is something that REALLY needed to be said. and of course, what makes Charles really extra awesome is that he also pointed out the radical truth that the old woman is sexually dead -- not that he knows anything about her other than that she's an old, but that's enough. she is old so she's gotta be a dried up hag, right guys? Charles fucking RULES and so do you two dudes.
Posted by flan on November 15, 2012 at 9:21 PM · Report this
Keekee 59
WoW! Some of youse are in real denial about how the male brain works.
Posted by Keekee on November 15, 2012 at 9:46 PM · Report this
When I saw this article, i knew it had to be Charles...
Posted by BallardBoy on November 15, 2012 at 11:55 PM · Report this
Charles Mudede 62
Old does not mean sexually dead. Helen mirrin is by no means alone in proving the truth of this.
Posted by Charles Mudede on November 16, 2012 at 5:53 AM · Report this
NotSean 63
This thread is so very, very uptight.

Seriously, we need a group rectum inspection to see if those giant sticks cen be dislodged.

Charles' post:

The wife says he was rarely home.
The temptress is much hotter than wife.

It's not such a deep thought, nor an especially offensive one.

And, tonight, when I'm role-playing with my spouse, she's not gonna be in the Holly role. Nope. She'll be the jogger lady who wants to write my great big biography, if you catch my drift.

Posted by NotSean on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 64
@59: The funny thing about comments like yours, is that you claim that all men are completely guided by their dicks, but if someone said that women are only attrcted to money/power/one superficial thing, you would probably be one of the first yelling about sexism.

Why so many people think sexism is ok if it is only directed towards one sex baffles me. Are that many people really so sophomoric and philosophically bankrupt? Do you really not see how your sexism directed towards men helps create an atmosphere where all sexism is tolerated?
Posted by Theodore Gorath on November 16, 2012 at 6:34 AM · Report this
The only thing I can say for Mrs. Petraeus is that if she is sexually dead, it would be because she has been faithful to a husband who is no longer intimate with her. Not her fault at all.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on November 16, 2012 at 7:48 AM · Report this
@19/44 aka Charles. You are so insincere. First off, I'll echo what others say, that if someone makes a life commitment, they should stick to it, and the fact that you meet a younger, more fit woman late in life isn't a free pass for treating your spouse like shit.

Secondly, despite your claims in the comments you are NOT simply asking us to look at what the General was thinking. You are asking us to amaze at the wife's sock--she should have known by looking in the mirror! From the post itself: "But one wonders why she is so surprised by the affair."

That is a shitty, cruel statement.

Charles, let's hope your wife doesn't have the same morals as the General, cause in your pictures you look short, overweight, shabbily dressed, and rather homely. You better get to the gym or you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Posted by CrankyBacon on November 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM · Report this
@21 "and it's a fact, someone looking like ms. petraes does not have the option of cheating as being not attractive, most men wouldn't want her."

Completely false. Look at the picture of her again, and imagine her with a big cock in her mouth and happiness in her eyes. That's what men would imagine if they saw her picture on OK Cupid. She's not smiling in the pictures we see these days--because, hey, her personal business is on the national news-- but really, a healthy woman willing to smile at guys is not going to have much trouble getting casual sex.

Marrena @44 is right: "And even those women would find it a hundred times easier than General Petraeus to hook up with a casual sex partner."

The truth is that we have no idea what her sex life is like. She may have dealt with his years of travel by taking her own lover -- and how would we know, since no one has been reading through her emails?

Also, let's stop claiming that if his sex life was good he wouldn't cheat. That's just a lie that cheaters tell their mistresses. They may have had great sex every time he was home, but unless she was able to travel with him and fuck him twice a day, he'd be just as likely to cheat with his flirtatious biographer.
Posted by EricaP on November 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM · Report this
Also, what makes any of us think that she's surprised at the affair? The fact that she's reportedly "furious" doesn't mean that she's surprised; she could just as easily be furious he destroyed his career by not using VPN or an anonymizing browser to mask his cheating.
Posted by EricaP on November 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy