There is a miniature tape recorder inside every female brain that loops a continuous message, implanted at our Mother’s breast.

‘Little princess, you will grow up to be beautiful and make some man very happy’

Some women manage to drown out the message by force of their attraction to other women. Some women are forced to dispute the message as they look in the mirror. I dare say there are women who ignore the message by force of character, certain that they can achieve more in life than merely being beautiful and keeping some man happy.

None of the above changes the fact that the message has been implanted. All Mother’s do it.

There are other subliminal messages we take on board as we grow towards adulthood. ‘He met the right woman and settled down’. Note the focus of that message. The ‘right’ woman, the woman who grew up to be beautiful, and made him happy, achieved this positive outcome, and tamed the wild beast.

All other outcomes are considered to be ‘outside the norm’ – perhaps acceptable in this supposedly non-judgemental age, but outside the norm.

It is a harsh fact of life that when a man continues to sow his wild oats, or turn outside his marriage in any form whatsoever, for sexual satisfaction, it is his wife who bears the burden of opprobrium  – from the majority of other women. I cannot speak for men; I do not know their minds. I only know my female brain, and have a slight understanding, gained over years of different conversations, of how female brains generally view the question of where the blame lies.

The Princess failed in her task.

We can, and many feminists do, intellectualise how wrong this message is. How ridiculous it is. Absorbing blame for someone else’s actions is ridiculous. We are all supposedly free agents, free to choose our path in life.

None of the above changes the fact that the message plays on. We torture ourselves listening to it in the small hours of the night.

The blogosphere this morning is consumed by recrimination and sanctimonious justification for yet another outing of allegedly sexual shenanigans amongst the political elite.  Should Guido have raised the issue of the possible reasons lying behind Hague’s appointment of his young advisor? Was it even Guido who first named him, or Sunder Katwala on Liberal Conspriacy in his first flush of blogging before caution urged him towards the edit button? Is Iain Dale defending Hague because he is a Conservative, or miffed that Hague is not one of his own? Dale offers penance for his role in outing John Prescott and his affairs. Hague jumps out of the Cabinet and denies he is in the Closet by citing his Princess’s failure to hold fast to a newly germinated Hague, as evidence of his true blue masculinity.

Poor Ffion; as I said poor Mrs Blunt, not a few days ago.

I can put up an argument defending Guido’s actions. A logical argument based on the fact that we tax payers were funding Christopher Myers. We were entitled to ask what his qualifications were for the job. That answer should have been instantly forthcoming – a second class degree from Durham didn’t seem much of an initial answer, though no degree would reflect the political antennae that the position probably required.

I can put up an argument defending Dale’s actions regarding Prescott. A logical argument based on the fact that we tax payers were funding the admiralty apartment, paying for that desk expecting work to be done on it.

I cannot, however, escape from the primal idea that every time there is some public question of sexual shenanigans, of exposure, there is a partner somewhere, a person who has not chosen public office, who must bear the pain in private of having been exposed to public view as lacking in some quality essential to keep their partner at home and satisfied.

Every time I have seen a blog post expressing disgust at the notion of that ‘fat bastard’ Prescott salivating over young Tracey, I have thought of Pauline Prescott and the effect it must have on her when she reads these things.

When I read of Crispin Blunt, my first thought was for Victoria Blunt and her humiliation.

Spare a thought today for Ffion. She is the latest casualty.

Not of Guido, nor Iain Dale, nor her husband, nor even the media.

She is a casualty of the fact that our legislature has taken it upon itself for centuries to legislate our sexual behaviour, and we have allowed it to do so. In return we demand the right to investigate their sexual behaviour. Tit for Tat.

It is way past time that we both stopped this war. They have no business in our sex life; we have no business in theirs.

Unfortunately for Ffion, her self respect and privacy is the forgotten collateral damage.

Jonathan September 3, 2010 at 18:13

I’m not surprised by Hague sharing a room with another bloke, he’s a
Yorkshireman, therefore a tightfisted cheapskate. However, I have been
disappointed by his drift leftwards over the last few years.

Sunder Katwala
September 2, 2010 at 22:19

I looked at the chronology – the press actually driving this rather more
than Guido or other blogs – in this post today. To some extent, Guido’s notoreity may be
providing convenient cover for the source of the allegations to both press and
blogs.

Sunder Katwala
September 2, 2010 at 22:17

My post on Next Left noted on Saturday that the Minister reported as
telling newspapers not to follow up untrue blog reports was William Hague. The
context was that the post noted that the Telegraph appeared to think it was
withholding the name, at the end of a week when the newspapers had run pieces
about what was pretty obviously the same story, while naming Hague, twice.

So I don’t think the blogpost was breaking any new ground in pointing that
out, asking whether the distinction between blogs and press would hold, and
wondering what Guido was up to anyway.

Guido had written about it several times across the previous five days
(since the Tuesday before), though the Mail on Sunday first published the
Hague photos and Myers’ appointment on the Sunday.

(Liberal Conspiracy cross-posted this, and they then later decided to take
the name out. That was Sunny Hundal’s editorial decision; I didn’t remove the
name on next left. His reason was not wanting to attract search traffic, and
Hague’s name was in the discussion thread).

Ed P September 2, 2010 at 21:49

There seems to be a general assumption that the alleged bond between Hague
& Myers must be sexual. Considering the lack of previous evidence and the
strong denials, this seems unlikely.
Might it instead be a shared drug
habit, e.g., cocaine?
Just asking.

PT Barnum September 2, 2010 at 19:28

I do not understand why Hague did not run the defence of ‘You thinking such
things tells me a lot more about you than it does about me.’ If Hague sacked
Myers because of some bending or breaking of Parliamentary rules about SPADs,
that would be a story. This twin beds smoke-and-fire, however, is wholly
irrelevant to anyone other than the three people implicated in it. And why on
earth would one partner’s extracurricula activites be a reason to fling away a
long, solid marriage? (But that’s just me. I don’t believe in owning another
person, only in mutual honesty and negotiation.)

permanentexpat
September 2, 2010 at 17:19

Old joke, guys…..(Admin: Joke….really; even if in questionable taste.)

Q…Which food has the biggest sexual turn-off in the
World?
A…Wedding-cake.

Joe Public September 2, 2010 at 16:36

Sadly, I think that Hague’s statement including such tragic personal
details was a massive error of judgement.

1. Those ‘personal’ details affecting Ffion, were a red-herring in the
context of the issue being defended.

2. Because of the above, the cynic in me thinks someone was trying for the
‘sympathy vote’.

Biffo September 2, 2010 at 14:50

My sympathy is with Mrs Hague too. I think Mr Hague showed the same lack of
judgement that he showed by hireing Mr Myers & sharing a room with him
when he then went on to discuss the details of his marriage – ‘way too much
information & very reminiscent of Gordon Brown & Sarah going for the
sympathy vote when they cried on the Piers Morgan Show.
Obviously yet
another politician who will do anything to stay in power.

Brian September 2, 2010 at 14:09

If professional gayers like Mrs Dale hadn’t made such a fuss about gayers’
rights to share a hotel room trumping the rights of hotel or B&B owners to
refuse to accommodate them then it’s unlikely that anybody would have presumed
that two men sharing a room would do so for the purpose of homosexualism.
People are often lonely when away from home and appreciate a friend to talk to
or to work on a speech or plan the next day’s programme into the early hours.
Professional gayers have already sullied the platonic friendship of Holmes and
Watson with innuendo; when will grow up and accept that not everything is
about sex?

Woman on a Raft
September 3, 2010 at 14:05

They would have assumed so in the case of Hague, as he well knows and has
done since 2001.

There’s an entertaining story about how Hague hosted a drinks party at
the Welsh Office before their relationship was public knowledge. At the end
of it, Ffion was naturally keen to find out what friends of hers attending
the party thought of him. They told her they liked him very much,
particularly one gay friend, who confided: “He’s obviously batting from my
side.” Shortly afterwards, the engagement was announced, much to the
friend’s embarrassment.

Source: Bitchy Guardian article 31 March 2001.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/mar/31/redbox.sallyweale

Hague has behaved like Hadrian going goofy over Antonius and is now
complaining that people are calling him gay. Perhaps he should have employed
someone with something to offer in this field e.g three European languages
plus Pashtun and three years in the forces, military intelligence or some
such.

Instead, he’s hired a pretty boy with a degree in history, some voluntary
party work, a GDL, and intellectual capacity such that when he was offered a
legal training contract (and they are valuable) he turned it down in favour
of driving Will about. How bright is that?

When challenged Hague completely failed to say why he had employed this
young man on our dollar (he’s got plenty of dosh of his own if he just wants
a boyfriend) and resorted to waving dead babies around as a diversionary
tactic, thus making himself look like a spiteful manipulative queen and
dragging poor Ffion in to the cart, as if any of this is her fault.

All he had to do was employ competent people and use that political
antenna he’s supposed to have. He’s Foreign Secretary, he’s a historian,
he’s wealthy. He’s supposed to have a bit of sense about him.

If that’s not enough, he’s from Yorkshire and should start bloody acting
like it, instead of prancing about like some daft southern bastard. If he
could start behaving like a Conservative and not Europe’s poodle, that would
be good, too.

Hysteria
September 3, 2010 at 20:12

but – like – apart from that he’s ok – right?

Jeremy Poynton
September 2, 2010 at 13:14

It would seem to me that a large part of the problem is 24 hour news
coverage and the abasement and infantilisation of politics by the MSM. Once
upon a long ago time, there were few articles about politics in the papers,
next to nothing on the news unless something of note had happened – now the
converse is true, and politicians have to react to events in a totally
different way.

Not good for the well-being of the country, or of the body politic.

Ancient and Tattered
Airman September 2, 2010 at 19:25

Absolutely right and I totally agree. The MSM are at their happiest
during a feeding frenzy. Whatever happened to the ideals of objective,
unbiased reporting of ‘all the news that’s fit to print?

Hysteria September 3, 2010 at 20:10

yup – the MSM have a lot to answer for – in this and many other areas –
but don’t get me started !

Alan September 2, 2010 at 13:00

Woman on a Raft
September 3, 2010 at 13:28

Hague has presented himself consistently to his constituents as a
monogamous heterosexual would-be family man and appealed to his conservative
electorate on that basis. He is expected – required – to do what he said on
the tin, or else he should have written something else on the outside and
let them make their own minds up.

If you don’t care when people lie to you, don’t complain when they feel
justified in going to war on the basis of dodgy dossiers.

Span
Ows September 2, 2010 at 12:23

I don’t think for a nanosecond that WH released his statement without
Ffion’s consent. That is why the very personal nature of it comes across so
strongly.

“However, we now feel it necessary to give some background to our marriage
because we have had enough of this continued and hurtful speculation about
us.”

jailhouselawyer September 2, 2010 at 12:14

I have the honour of beating Guido to the story by 24 hours, and in a 24
hour media that is like a week in politics being a long time.

I note today that the Foreign Office is claiming that it has not lost a
beat since Chris Myers resigned. Obviously, surplus to requirement. It still
leaves the question why he was appointed contrary to section 3.2 of the
Ministerial Code on Special Advisers?

Downing Street are saying that it was an error of judgement on Hague’s part
appointing Myers. However, s.3 (2) clearly states such appointment must be
authorised by the Prime Minister.

Did Hague breach the Ministerial Code or did Cameron authorise the
appointment?

PT September 2, 2010 at 11:48

It’s tough being human. All human societies, worldwide, have their own
versions of sexual mores. Hang on though, most other species having two sexes
also seem to insist upon some form of “acceptable” sexual behaviour. I’ll try
another tack.
It’s tough being a member of an Earthly species which has two
sexes.

The Man with Many
Chins September 2, 2010 at 11:41

I thought that the miniature tape recorder implanted in women actually said
“All men are bastards” in a continuous loop!

As to Mr Hague, I don’t care whether he is gay, straight, black, blue white
or purple as long as he is capable at his job. He has shown himself to be a
very good politician over the years, so in that case, who really cares what he
shags (except for his poor wife of course).

And I really do feel for his wife in this situation.

Lilith September 2, 2010 at 12:35

Yup, “All men are bastards, except your grandfather and your brother” was
the message loop I got. “NEVER marry” was a pre-puberty update.

JuliaM September
2, 2010 at 11:29

If the allegations are true, she’s a beard (fully knowing what she got
into) or, like Blunt’s wife, a victim. If the latter, I hope she takes him to
the cleaners.

If the allegations aren’t true, then she’s the most incredible doormat for
allowing him to reveal the details of her procreative attempts, and any
sympathy I might have for her is tempered by my amazement that any grown woman
would so debase herself for any man…

Anna
Raccoon September 2, 2010 at
11:58

Wow Julia, I usually find myself in agreement with you – but not this
time.
So if it turns out that by some miracle – confession from Myers? –
that the twin hotel beds didn’t turn out to be just the last Premier Inn
place available – that automatically makes her a ‘beard’ who was fully aware
that this would happen before she married? And the only alternative you
offer the woman is divorce and a large cheque? That’s pretty harsh. What if
she truly loves him, what if it was a ‘one-off’ that she is prepared to
forgive for the sake of not abandoning many years of happy marriage?
The
idea of Mr Raccoon cavorting with a sPad in some Travel Lodge is so
incredible as to be unimaginable – but should it occur, I certainly wouldn’t
chuck up 25 years of very happy marriage – nor be happy to be labelled a
‘beard’ who knew what I was getting myself into – if only life were really
that straightforward.
And as for ‘the most incredible doormat’ – do we
know that the statement was released with her permission? Do we heck. We
only know that it was released, for all we know she could have been clinging
to the boot of the car as he drove off to Conservative Press Office
central……he released it, not her.

JuliaM September 2, 2010 at 13:08

I’m afraid I can’t believe, in this day and age, that he released it
without her full approval.

Hell hath no fury, and all that. She’d have only needed to pick up the
phone, and legions of reporters would have flayed him alive and presented
her with the remains, like any proud housecat…

Al
Jahom September 2, 2010 at 12:17

If we suppose that the rumours are ture, that Pauline prescott stayed
with Fatty on the condition he took ermine, how much sympathy should one
have for a woman with such a worldview?

As for Ffion, who knows – maybe Julia Dworkin above has it right, but
really,the married Hague when he was leader of the party that had just seen
the Tory sleaze train-wreck come and go.

What is it we’re supposed to credit these women with, exactly?

To compare either of them to Mrs Blunt, by the way, seems quite
inconcruous.

Al
Jahom September 2, 2010 at
12:19

Forgive my poor proof-reading… the curse of teleconference surfing.