From Gawker, a simplified explanation of the relationships in the Petraeus Affair:
Again, I want to reiterate that the sexual aspects of this whole farrago are both boringly commonplace AND really not within our competence to discuss. We have no, absolutely no, idea what the personal emotional and sexual compact between the principals is or has been. To assume that it was monogamous fidelity is statistically likely but not in any way definitive.
The sad reality is that if the Petraeuses had an "open marriage", were polyamorous, or that Dave had the green light from Holly to get some specific freak on with someone else (crossdressing? spanking? Who the hell knows - only Dave, Paula, and Holly and they're not talking...) he would have been in just as hot if not hotter hot-seat right now.
The man's adultery or infidelity - if that is in fact what it was - is of concern to him, his wife, and those who know them personally. The fact that We the People seem to feel entitled to judge them is a public issue, and one that we should be ashamed of. Other people's private lives - even the private lives of public people - are and should be of issue and interest only to the people involved.
What does disturb me, and disturbs me quite a bit, is the way this scandal exposes the web of obvious nepotism and the flexibility of the supposedly-inflexible systems of the Army, the FBI, and the CIA, to personal caprice, egotism, corruption, and influence.
Surprised? No. We've been down this road long before, during our previous Gilded Age.
To me, the take-home lesson of this dismal little farrago is that we are not and we should not. We have been presented with another reminder that for all our pretensions we are as human and fallable as the principals in the Petraeus Affair, and should be careful in our haste to impress others not to fool ourselves.