The Husband of the Woman the General Fucked


Glad to see that now that the election is over, Charles can go back into full blown trollbait and clickbait mode.

No substance, just words formed to engender emotional responses.
Ted, tell us what you would do.
Hey other sloggers, is Charles as terrible a person in real life as he appears to be in his posts?
Women have a longer life span than men.

So yeah. Don't cry at the deep betrayal of your lifemate. That would be just unmanly.

Don't want to mess with the longevity tables.

Another upChuck on Slog. Troll cleanup on aisle 11.
Wow, this fellow, Charles, really has no clue to the full range of human emotions.
Post another picture of a fucking building, already, Chuck. Your masochist/misogynist rants are pure garbage.
I think I get it now, Charles.

You're actually just a secret Melissa Manchester fan, trying to bring about a revival! Genius!
Or, instead of being a weepy loser about it, he can be a real American about it: sue her ass for child custody, punitive damages, and every cent of every book royalty she's received past, present, and future.
I've got to say I'm with Charles on this one. Charles, have you read Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation? I think you would like it.

But the point is, there is nothing fruitful or beautiful about the husband crying in these circumstances, at least where anyone can see him. Even if he doesn't feel like it, he must be a man. This doesn't mean going all-out Kreutzer Sonata, but it means maintaining some dignity and self-respect. You can't succumb to an animalistic hierarchy in which you are the unfuckable loser and Petraeus is the big mammal with a harem.

This is connected to the class structure of society. Just because egalitarian societies are on the decline doesn't mean we should just embrace the disgusting stratification of a Dubai-like economy. The downtrodden (cuckolded) classes must seize power and use it to build a better society, along the lines of Belgium or Japan.
Seems to me like these are the thoughts a man or woman in this situation would find themselves pondering. I can actually imagine coming to the same conclusion as Charles. And with great discipline, actually following through. But the slightest fracture in restraint would cause my entire resolution to crumble. Regardless of coming to this conclusion in my head, the reality could likely be a Strindbergian drama mixed with a crying quagmire.
To put it another way, you can't whimper for sympathy, either as a cuckolded husband or a downtrodden worker. You have to seize power and then let them ask for sympathy. There is no good equilibrium in which a husband or a worker depends on charity for his sex or his bread.
I stopped reading this trollpost when I saw who wrote it.

thanks for sharing

crying would not do.

but a couple of slugs in her fucking skull would probably convey the message.
Charles' only idea of crying is infantile, uncontrolled sobbing. What's wrong with a few silent, dignified tears? Nothing will make a woman feel shame and regret like seeing her man shed tears because of her betrayal.
she is obviously a cold psycho bitch, however.

he will be relieved to be rid of her.
Or to put it yet another way, people probably think that the cuckolded husband is in objectively bad circumstances. But the truth is that we build the world we live in, and we build ourselves, more than most people imagine. The world is plastic, you can't accept it as it is or allow other people to shape it to their own benefit.

If you want to be a hard-bitten crime reporter in Japan, you must live like a hard-bitten crime reporter in Japan. If you want to maintain your dignity despite being cuckolded, you must maintain your dignity.

To give a historical example, Harold Macmillan was a hell of a prime minister ("You've never had it so good!") despite being a long-term cuckold. Can we imagine Macmillan crying over his wife's perfidy? No we cannot. Be like Macmillan.
How is it possible that Charles sexist rants and Jen Graves hyperbolic outrage posts-existing both on the same server simultaneously-don't collide into some kind of matter/anti-matter singularity?
22, i have no idea how this post is sexist. none. put meaning in your words before you use them.
To those claiming a troll post: I'm sorry Mudede's thoughts don't match your worldview, but that on its own doesn't mean the rest of us can't have a decent discussion about it. Proof: Some of the comments on this thread (excl. trolling claims) are pretty interesting.


"Never even giving her, the one who betrayed you, the pleasure of knowing how you feel?"

Interesting you assume her actions were intended to hurt him and that she would derive pleasure from that injury. It says a lot about you as a "person". (You really are rather a melodramatic little girl at heart aren’t you?)

To paraphrase Seth Lord: What most husbands fail to realize is that their wives’ philandering has nothing to do with them.
This comes off as yet more solipsistic chauvinism or cavalier troll baiting. Stick to what you're good at, Mudede: asserting absurd Marxist undertones to every facet of the human experience.
I'm twelve and what is this?
@23: You say "I have no idea how this post is sexist."

Well, let me ask you: would you ever write the sentence "Can you imagine the wife, a grown woman, crying in front of her husband after learning of the affair?"

If the answer to that is "No," then the sexism of this post becomes pretty fucking apparent.
"Walk it off."
Charles, any time you say that a sex should or shouldn't do something, you are being sexist. Give me fucking break.

What if I were to say black men shouldn't X. DAS RACIST,.

@23, come on, Charles, you're telling this man, this stranger, how he is supposed to feel, how he is supposed to react, to a deeply personal trauma. And your advice is "Be a man. Show no emotion. Emotions are womanly, unbefitting a man." You're dictating gender roles, and saying that emotional weakness is not the appropriate response for a man, heavily implying that emotional weakness (a negative trait, in your mind), might be the appropriate response for a woman.
charles, get a cause. seriously, you have too much time on your hands.
Fact Checking

In Michelle Alexander’s wonderful writing and talks she recounts a moment of skepticism when a young man, whom she believed to be “legitimate,” explains how he was framed by a crooked LA cop. Later, she would read the news stories of how that specific LA policeman was convicted of framing suspects, or random arrested individuals, thus damning those innocent individuals forever.

Fact checking is a never ending process; we learn that something, once presented as fact, turns out to be fiction and then, upon further historical examination, much of the surrounding circumstances were also fictionalized.

The first superficial stories the corporate media presented on CIA Director Petraeus sound somewhat different after more and more data surfaces.

Jill Kelley’s sizable debt, and her sister’s custody battles, makes them both highly vulnerable to external pressure.

Add to that the flakey-sounding FBI agent, his shirtless (topless) emails to Ms. Kelley, while he ardently pursues an investigation on her behalf. Then, the suggestion by others that the emails in question to Ms. Kelley weren’t really of a threatening nature to begin with, and Paula Broadwell’s status as a reserve officer in the military, yet another point of vulnerability.

We know the record of FBI flimsiness where evidence is concerned: from FBI employees, upon retirement (and safely receiving their pensions now), who then blasted the FBI’s handling of DNA evidence in the FBI labs --- to the flimsy and highly suspect “evidence” presented as fact to identify a scientist at Ft. Detrick, after his death, as the Anthrax assassin (said evidence attacked and disputed by highly reputable scientists).

We’ve seen that whether under Bush or Obama, the FBI still appears to be illegally running their COINTELPRO operation, a situation which renders everything originating from the FBI highly, highly suspect!

When doing an historical analysis of the backgrounds of those LA police involved with the investigation of the assassination of Bobby Kennedy back in 1968, we find that almost every single copper turns out to be dirty --- some were later implicated and convicted of various crimes (Rampart Division) --- one was even implicated in torture-murders in South America, while involved in a CIA international police training program.

In fact, turns out the majority of those police involved in RFK’s assassination investigation were on the CIA’s payroll through the aforementioned international police training program!

There was a police chief in Seattle some years back, named Fitzsimons, who established an unethical record, publicly damning victims of homicides by suggesting they were involved with illegal drugs, when it later turned out --- after the standard police investigation --- that they were simply innocent homicide victims.

Fitzsimons would later be appointed to the board of the FBI Academy at Quantico --- a definite continuation line of unethical possibilities. (Fitzsimons was appointed by the then Seattle Mayor Norm “there are no gangs in Seattle” Rice.)

An excellent research method to better understand the back story, the underlying agenda, is to closely follow the travel records of individuals like Karl Rove and Richard Perle.

The operational fellows usually exhibit interesting travel itineraries; Rove’s trips to Sweden at the beginning of the actions taken to extradite Wikileaks’ Julian Assange to Sweden, Rove’s trip to Crimea prior to problems erupting in Georgia (the one in Eastern Europe), etc.

It can be difficult as they frequently fly on private jets, registered out of the British Virgin Islands, but well worth the effort.

The FBI has incredible power, but little accountability. The DOJ’s Lanny Breuer and his weasel words to excuse the perfidy of BP does little to instill confidence in the citizenry; it will be interesting to see if Breuer seriously pursues TransOcean and Halliburton for their culpability as well?

[Disclaimer: I am a neutral observer with regard to Gen. Petraeus, whom I have little regard for and agree with Col. MacGregor’s assessment in the article link below. Also, I have no regard for Ms. Broadwell, nor anyone else affiliated with the Aspen Institute, another faux outfit of the plutocracy, but I do believe that their adultery is simply the cover story for some deeper, behind-the-scenes machinations occurring.]……

Private Flight Tracking Aids:………
you sir are an idiot
this post is so police-beat-ian in its tone. loved that movie, charles.
People this is good. This is very, very good. All we have to do is find a way for Slog to cheat on Charles. Think about it.

He will NEVER speak to Slog again, he will never let let a word out.
Charles, I know you are trolling for hits, but is being a total asshole the only way you can do it?
Charles is right.

However, if the husband is the one caught cheating, I'd say that's a great time for him to cry.
Not only is it obviously sexist... if this is how Charles' brain actually works, then he has the traits of psychopathy.
Dear Charles, let it go already. There is no shame in crying over loss, or love. Your pathologizing a basic human emotion shows more about your own rigid upbringing than it does about any philosophy you espouse. Here's hoping your own children don't take on this trait and "hold it all in."
The Charles Mudede marriage counseling model:…

(minus the slap, I guess)…

plus pretty much every other scene from the end of that movie.


You are better than this. Your brain is better than this.

Are you going to stubbornly persist in your chauvinistic out-moded notions, or are you going to attempt to pry open that wonderful mind of yours, and try to look at this from another, more human, perspective? That's the only real question here.

A long, long time ago, I heard an interview with a private investigator on NPR. (It might have been on This American Life, but I'm not sure.) The PI said that men almost always cried when they found out their wives were cheating, while women were almost always furious when making that discovery.

Anyway, Charles, your fight against biology is funny. You should change your last name to Quixote.
More than anything I'm embarrassed by the fact that I've defended Charles over the years. It's obvious now that he's nothing more than a sexist hillbilly. He is not "way better than this:" This is who he is: a neanderthal (that or a truly demented troll, like that Redditt guy in Dallas). I apologize for ever sticking up for him.

Broadwell is sounding more like a Dahlia.

If I understand Charles - not sure if I do, but I'm pretty certain none of you do - his objection to crying has nothing to do with masculine roles and much more to do with a general hatred for blindly performance in a bestial melodrama.

Say what you will about his fight against biology; I find it strangely noble. If probably futile.
"blindly performance" = "blind performance"
@44 it took you this long to realize you hate me? i think this is not true. what's true is you never really liked me.

calling me hillbilly stung, but a neanderthal did not. they had bigger brains than us.
I can't even.
If your behavioral norms are defined by the sex of the person in question, then you are being sexist, no?
Sometimes you're really fucking sociopathic, Charles.
@49 Charles, haven't you heard? It's not size that matters. It's what you do with it that counts.

I assure you, I do not hate you. I'm not a hater. I'm just embarrassed I defended you in the past. Sexism is no different from racism. It's the lowest form of intelligence. This post proves you're no brighter (or classier) than a common redneck.
Crying is not about showing emotions. It's about comforting oneself. Crying is the first part of healing, actually. Being ashamed of being seen crying is futile.

I think M. Broadwell is well rid of his wife. Someone going apeshit-crazy with jealousy over a married man she's having an affair with is missing some parts of her brain.

Morality : jealousy is stupid, and destroy careers and families.
Dear Charles, social psychology experiments have shown that the very first thing one person notices about another is gender. The priority given to this aspect of humanity is probably related to instincts developed by evolution. After all, evolution is dependent (supposedly) on the consequences of who gets to reproduce and who does not. Since this aspect of being human is so hard-wired into the brain, it makes a certain amount of sense that your post (that does just a bit of gender questioning and bending and stretching) would illicit a strong response. Reminds me of an awesome french film I once saw (wish I could remember the name of it... long ago in black and white film) where a normal rom-com plot switched the genders of every single character and which audiences found incomprehensible. What I want to say is to not be discouraged in your efforts to expand folks minds because this subject is a tough one.
It is only by reading that I learn that there exist people in the world whose lives are very different from mine.
I have never read you closely enough to know why people think you're a total shit. Now I know.
If anything as fucked up as Charles' posts were in the Seattle Times, everyone here would be calling for the paper's demise and cursing about Frank Blethen. But when the Stranger repeatedly publishes offensive crap on here, it's just Charles. Even though the Slog is giving him this forum and is clearly OK with it, nobody blames Tim Keck or Dan Savage or anybody but Charles. Funny double standard Slog readers have.