This sex scandal involving Petraeus / Broadwell / Kelley / Allen etc. has such a huge web of involvement that I don't think most of us have time to keep up with the growing body of detail. With that said I'll dive in with my views based on what I've learned so far:
I had the impression that Petraeus was a general that liberals like. He didn't seem to carry himself with any swagger or arrogance. He seemed to present the image a man who despite being no stranger to war appears to have a healthy respect for peace and a sensible wariness to all out aggression. If not exactly physically intimidating, at least he comes across as fit and competent. He manages to lead the US to some kind of semi-honorable exit from Afghanistan and he is widely praised for his skill, diplomacy and good sense. He leaves his position as a four star general for head of the CIA on a high of career respect and accomplishment. By having a female writer "in-bed" with him during his clean up job in Iraq/Afghanistan, to get the scoop for his biography, the more progressive female friendly image of Petraeus and the military is burnished. But biology rears its head and ends up undermining the sterling PR.
I think Petraeus and Broadwell both come across as quite human in all of this. In Broadwell's case - the many months away from spouse and kids while in a dangerous environment surrounded by members of the opposite sex would test the faithfulness of most relationships. For Petraeus - to suddenly have an attractive woman 20 years your younger spending lots of time with you and becoming close in an environment where females are very few in number would be a tremendous temptation. While Petraeus was certainly in a superior social position to Broadwell, his behavior cannot in this case be likened to an employer who promises a promotion to a female staff member in exchange for sex. No one is claiming Petraeus forced himself on Broadwell. She was in every way a willing participant in the affair.
Our society is too uptight about sex. I have no problem separating the sex life of a public figure from my opinion of them in their public role. Lewinsky was a problem for the Clinton's relationship - not for my view of Bill Clinton's competence as president. But there's talk of Petraeus testimony on the attack in Benghazi and whether his affair had an impact on what happened there. Was Broadwell distracting him from his duties. It's possible. In his later role as CIA director was it a problem for national security that he had an affair? Was it a problem for the military? The military and CIA clearly think it was. It's not like Broadwell or Kelley were secret agents of Iran or North Korea. I still tend to think its all a little bit overblown. I guess I agree Petraeus needed to resign - but more because of the damage caused by Kelley than because of his actions with Broadwell.
Stepping back from the details for a moment, this case clearly displays the mating interests of females. Maybe some men cheat because they're drunk on their power, but I think most men just want to have sex whenever they can. But for most men, getting casual sex doesn't come as easy as it does for women. It's only the men who stand out for what they do and have achieved in life, who get to enjoy the same kind of sexual access that an attractive woman does from age 18. There's a reason that rock stars can get sex with tons of groupies every night if they want. It's because they have a high status as successful musicians. Women desire them for their status as rock stars. They have risen far above the status of the average male. That is what makes so many women desire them. To be sure, there are plenty of males who lust after female rock stars. But in these cases, their success level as musicians matters far less to how much they are esteemed by men.
Getting back to the case, Petraeus doesn't come across like a sleeze bag womanizer. I think he comes off like more of a goody too shoes goofball. I suspect Broadwell came onto him and he couldn't resist her charms. I think even the females of this forum would have to admit that his wife has very mediocre looks. I read somewhere that she was the daughter of a former president of West Point military academy. So this reveals to me the careerism of Petraeus. I doubt that his wife was ever very hot - even when young. But it's not like he was James Bond or something. He probably thought at the time her looks aren't that great but marrying her will be great for his career. Herein we see the differential timing of the rewards of marriage for men and women. A beautiful woman can often improve her status by marrying an older more successful male. But a man who marries young often has no way of know how successful he will later be. Petraeus is a classic case of a male whose breeding prospects have grown in the opposite direction from those of his wife. What's at issue isn't so much that an older woman is by definition unattractive to men, but rather that it usually takes a man who is highly desirable to women - decades to achieve that status as an adult. He could easily be married to a MILF but in his case he clearly chose a rather homely woman when he was young. His moral failure was to not consciously realize that given his new found erotic capital he was now dissatisfied with his marriage compared to his other options. He should have divorced his wife. But he was probably too concerned about how this would look for his career image. His choice to have an affair obviously proved more damaging.
We haven't heard nearly as much about the marriage of Broadwell as we have about the poor finances and extravagance of the Kelley's marriage. Whether Broadwell is happily married or not, her choice of Petraeus for having an affair with is a clear indication that what gets many women's panties in a bunch is getting access to a high status male. The average woman is less tempted by the average man than vice versa. This is because women know how easy the average man is. And what is easily obtainable is a bore. At a deep reptilian level, Broadwell's brain and ovaries are telling her that if she get impregnated by Petraeus, her child will be the son or daughter of a 4-star general. This means not just resources, but status. The power of these instincts made the affair for Broadwell - not just fun, but potentially wise from a reproductive standpoint.
This case is yet another example of a high status male who has his career ended by having an affair with a female from a lower social position. These cases say as much about the hypergamous motivations of women as they do about the sexual appetites of men. But as a culture, we tend to focus on the male in these cases because he is the one who is the public figure and so therefore the one who is ripe for a fall. But I've already commented extensively on this subject in this thread Titled "Why Don't Powerful Women Have Sex Scandals:
http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=44929, where I touch on the affairs of Spitzer, Letterman, Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods, and Anthony Weiner.
I think when Kelley told the FBI about Broadwell's threats, she knew she would be jeopardizing Petraeus's career. Given her deteriorating finances I think her actions show a desire for malice against both Broadwell and Petraeus as much as they do an actual desire for protection from Broadwell. Though to be honest, we haven't heard any concrete details on the substance of Broadwell's threats. How do you wind up with millions of debt when you're married to a surgeon? Whether Kelley had an affair with Petraeus or not, both she and her husband seem like disgusting examples of material excess, narcissism and pathological social climbing.
Nothing is really tragic here. There's no evidence that Petraeus jeopardized US national security to some evil empire. He's 60 and I'm sure he's earned plenty of money to feel comfortable for the rest of his life. What happens to his marriage with his wife is their problem. Broadwell has a husband and two kids of her own. That situation has to be a mess. But I wonder how sales of Broadwell's book are doing. I'll bet the scandal has been good for it. I think Kelley is looking for any kind of attention she can get to raise some money and get herself out of the financial pit she and her husband have dug for themselves.
Stories like these prove irresistibly salacious because on some level all of us struggle with our desires and loyalties. The case arouses a mixture of scorn and envy. You just don't hear about examples of single men having affairs with married women in much higher social positions. Usually such women don't date or desire men far beneath their station. But another reason you don't hear about high status women having affairs is because the men with whom they would cheat have far less to gain by making their affair public. Men wield no reproductive threat against women, so you don't hear about the Carly Fiorina's, Martha Stewarts and Oprah Winfrey's of the world having affairs. But I do think that as increasing numbers of women out-earn their husbands, there are increasing temptations for them to cheat - especially when their work takes them away on long business trips.
For the most part in life, the perpetual sexual desire of men is balanced by the pickiness of women. And the ease of sexual access that the average woman can enjoy is balanced by the extreme scarcity of men that they find truly remarkable and irresistible. Society is full of pressures to restrict our sexual urges. The desire of society to control population, prevent unknown paternity, and keep us producing goods and services is always conspiring to repress what we would really like to be doing - *ucking like animals. So we labor on in our gender assigned outfits fulfilling our roles as breadwinners and nurturers. Society tries it's best to keep the blinders on so we don't stray from the path of a clear lineage for the creation and passage of wealth from one generation to the next and perpetuation of the social classes of society that maintain the barriers between us which confer or restrict our privileges accordingly. We strive on as sniveling beasts always on the lookout for an unclaimed booty of material or reproductive resources that we can claim for ourselves unbeknownst to others. We are in fact animals.
Originally posted by imaplanner
