Fidelity or Not--Optional

With the recent revelation that John Edwards has been having an affair during the terminal illness of his wife Elizabeth, I am once again flabbergasted by women who stand by their man. This case to me is the final straw. Yes, I was patient and made excuses for President Clinton throughout the affair with Monica (my sister, however, refused to attend his church here in Little Rock when the Clintons were in the city). Yes, I was patient when New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey announced his affair with another man (after all, it sometimes takes a while to discover one's true sexual identity). And I was patient through numerous other revelations from both Democrats and Republicans of their infidelities, somewhat agreeing with the argument that "it's only sex." I have now done an about-face with the Edwards scandal. I ask myself, "Is fidelity optional in marriage now?" and "Why do these women stay, especially in the face of public humiliation?"

I know everyone has been kind in the media not to mention any collusion on the part of Elizabeth Edwards herself. After all, she was informed of the affair two years ago, yet she herself chose to sweep it under the rug and carry on as usual with her husband's political ambition. Did she really believe no one but the family had to know? I believe she is just as guilty of being a hypocrite as he.

I asked my husband yesterday afternoon once again, "Do you think I would be sitting in this room having a conversation with you if you had been unfaithful?" His answer, unlike his usual long deliberation over any issue at all, was quick and to the point, "No."

Do these political women quickly calculate their own futures in the face of their husbands' infidelity? I can see no other reason for their fidelity in light of the infidelity of their significant other.