I'm just trying to keep my blog relevant & up to date. So since it's all over the news, I have a desire to jot down some thoughts on John Edwards and Rielle Hunter. I realize that a blog post about a political affair - or an affair in general (of which I'm not involved) - can end up being accusatory, and can show some serious naivete on the writer's behalf (since, as said, it's an affair with which I'm not involved [thank goodness!]).
But, as a wife, I form these opinions about the situation I see in the news - that is, these opinions come from a woman who has agreed to become part of a union that lasts "until death do us part." This is a pretty difficult union, when you think about it. We could be (and hopefully will be) looking at 50+ years together; and I imagine as a whole, those 50+ years will be filled with happiness and sadness, good times and bad times, agreement and disagreement - but generally, will be flippin hard. Rewarding, certainly; fulfilling, absolutely; filled with love, abundantly. But H-A-R-D. And so, even if you aren't married (or anywhere close to being so), I think you can see how my role as "wife" now seriously shapes my worldview (since it is such a constant, demanding part of my life).
So while the feminist in me doesn't want to blame Rielle - reeeeeeally doesn't want to blame Rielle - the wife in me resonates louder: when I've been married to my husband for 30 years (and I've been with him through all the good and bad times), do I want him to start an affair (that ends in a child's birth, no less) with a ten-year-his-junior woman who's pickup line is "you are so hot?" Um, no.
So even though I know it takes two to tango (wink wink-yaknowwhatImean??), come on, Rielle! Don't even try to come out ahead in this situation - or even try to: villainize Elizabeth, claim that God wants you to be with John, discuss your conflicted "belief systems," or be upset about your sexy pics in the magazine.
1) All I can say about Elizabeth is that I don't know anything about her in real life (although she did seem sweet, composed, and classy when Oprah interviewed her [and yes - I did watch that]). But she could very well be horrible, mean, "emasculating," nagging, demanding, etc. But here's the fact, Rielle - it doesn't matter! John was (is still) married to her. And you KNEW that - and yet, you still told him how hot you thought he was. You still went to his hotel room. His relationship with his wife (no matter how good or bad), is not of your concern. Even if he explains to you how he doesn't love her, hasn't in 15 years, hates to be around her - it doesn't matter. He's married - back off!
2) By bringing up what you told John (that is, "try to tell God your plan and He'll laugh at you") in your interview with GQ, you are suggesting that God has a plan in which we Earthlings have no involvement. Thus, in a weirdly twisted way, you're justifying your behavior as God's will. In one word, no. In two words, no way. Maybe double check your sources, Rielle, but last I checked, marriage is both a holy sacrament and a gift from God. I'd say it's generally not "God's plan" to disrupt a sacrament.
3) Rielle says in her interview that her "belief system" was torn apart when John's assistant decided to claim paternity of Rielle's baby. Hmm. On the other hand, things that did not disrupt her belief system include: hitting on a married man, sleeping with a married man within hours of meeting him, becoming employed by a married man with whom you have a sexual relationship, continuing the affair after the married man's wife finds out, continuing the affair after the married man's wife (who knows about you) finds out she has terminal cancer, conceiving a child with the married man who's wife has terminal cancer, posing sexy for a national magazine that your new baby with the married man will one day see.
And finally, 4) Rielle is very upset about the pictures that were chosen for her magazine spread. If you go to cnn.com you can see video footage of the photo shoot. Funny how Rielle's angry about the sexy nature of the photos, yet in 2 different sets of takes (two different outfits and locations), she's not wearing pants. In most photos, she's doing a sexy pout of her lips. She's in an oversized shirt that's been pinned in the back to show her body. Even if she did have some level of trust that the photographer would shoot her well, they don't take sexy pictures of you without you knowing. Like, I'm sure if Elizabeth Edwards were doing a photo shoot, she wouldn't end up with a final product in which she has no pants and a sexy pout ("where'd my pants go?? I swear I had some on!"). And so, we can assume Rielle wanted to look at least a little sexy in the photos; but I mean, really, is that the printed legacy you want to leave for your daughter? She already has newspapers and magazines full of her parent's affair, you really want to top that off, Rielle, with some sexy pics of you and a ridiculous article?
I don't know - it's just such a fascinatingly horrible situation. I hope that the adorable little girl can come out of this with the least amount of therapy possible when she's older. What do y'all think? (And in writing this blog post, I'm from the school of thought that John Edwards is Sleezy McSleezikins, no doubt.)