C: A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words
Those of you who have been reading Stickhorse Cowgirls for very long knew this was coming…you had to have known that Rielle Hunter’s GQ Magazine interview would activate Cowgirl C. In a big way.
At the risk of my PG rating, it gives me great pleasure to post Rielle’s pictures here. I want to post these pictures because I am afraid some of you will miss them otherwise. And I believe the camera does not lie….Rielle needs to be exposed for the trash that she is, and the whole world needs to know.
Look at this portion of the Cleveland Celebrity Examiner’s March 15, 2010 interview with Rielle Hunter describing Rielle’s first meeting with John Edwards:
The two met in the bar of New York's Regency Hotel in 2006…she handed one of Edwards' people her business card and he met her at the bar moments later. According to Rielle there was a mutual attraction.
… And I just uttered to him, 'You're so hot.' And he said, 'Why, thank you!' And he almost jumped into my arms. Literally."
Amazing. Talk about trash…both of them.
I remember reading of this meeting, as told by John Edwards, during the time when he had “repented” and returned to Elizabeth. What stuck in my mind from that conversation is his description of her approaching him, saying, “You’re hot…” Apparently, that’s all it takes for him to ditch everything—his family, his political future, all that he had worked so hard to gain and maintain.
And now there’s a baby. A little, innocent baby. Sorry. You cannot convince me that this baby was an accident. Seventeen-year-olds get pregnant by mistake. Adult women who know how to premeditatively snag married men are savvy about birth control. Write it down: this baby was intended. It is the way women try to solidify relationships. I see it all the time. It is a fool’s game, and it is unfair and blatant using of an innocent baby.
And look where Rielle is because of this baby-pawn: getting a reported $20,000 per month in child support, a house, yadayadayada….a spread in GQ, far and away more than she would ever have made on her own.
Here’s her picture with baby (not that she would ever use her child, mind you). Doesn’t she just look like the sweet mommy?
And, by the way, she’s whining about these photos you see here. She’s calling them “replusive” and says she cried for hours when she saw them. My question: Where was she when they were taken?? Now she’s worried they make her look like a slut. If the shoe fits… I am so happy to post them….
And let me dispel her statement to GQ when she said, “….healthy marriages are not susceptible to infidelity…” Wrong, honey. There are studies on this one. Look at this quote from therapist Ann Bercht, who specializes in adultery:
…[It is a} commonly believed myth that affairs happen only as a result of problems in a marriage. That it is not possible for someone who is genuinely happy and in love with their spouse to have an affair. This is false. You can be in love with your spouse, have all your needs met perfectly and still be enticed by the flattery, seduction and smooth talk of another. Why is he there? Because it feels good to have an affair … for a brief period of time, like eating chocolate cake when you’re on a diet.
Can you say that if you’ve had a very satisfying and fulfilling meal, that you are immune to the temptation of a desert or 2nd helping? This is ridiculous logic. Every married person needs to protect themselves from the temptation of affairs, first of all by being aware that that they are not immune, and then by learning the truth about affairs, and the subtle ‘letting down of walls’ that can lead you down their deadly path. When it comes to affairs, what you don’t know DOES hurt you. (Anne Bercht. “My Husband’s Affair became the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Me.”, 2004)
Probably because I have a personal axe to grind, I feel the need to refute Rielle's statement absolving herself. I want women everywhere—on both sides of this adultery fence, the betrayer and the betrayed—to understand this: that, yes, sin and temptation can invade a happy, healthy relationship. The adulterer needs to own her responsibility in, yes, “home-wrecking.” The betrayed spouse needs to be absolved of it.
Here’s another picture of Rielle…looking for all the world like a slut…amongst the toys, being one herself. An ego toy for Johnny. I’m sure she’s embarrassed, sob (not!).
And, after denying that she was, in her words, a “home-wrecker,” because who would want to be called that, Rielle says this of herself in GQ:
I was never, as it's been reported, a drug addict. The word addiction means inability to stop. I stopped doing drugs in my twenties. As for being promiscuous, I would say that I was a bit promiscuous for about six months. But it was because I was partying, and there were a lot of very good-looking available 20-year-old men around that you'd be partying with, and there was a lot of, you know, hooking up going on.
Well, isn’t that a character recommendation???
Okay. That’s it. For now. C
Comments
As for the 'creation' of a child, I agree, it was manipulation plain and simple on her part (which obviously worked cha-CHING!)... HOWEVER... why didn't the 'John' have sense enough to wrap his lolly in latex?
Riding bareback, gentle people, incurs risks. No matter how well you think you can handle the filly.
I'll stop now before I start to drown in my own gushing similes....
Warm hugs and quiches from Kitty xo
I also agree that any marriage no matter how healthy is capable of being penetrated by seduction, manipulation, and a blow xxx.....Ahh, I am sorry I said that but it is true.
But 2 things bother me. First, that these women don't realize what it costs them; ( I treasure my self-respect and reputation and fear the consequences of such a life style) And 2nd, seeing her child used as a prop in this "filth" shoot should send up a red flag to the DCFS that this woman is not fit to parent this child. Unfortunately, her father isn't either. Sad, isn't it.
Debbie
Really. Can she help it if John is hot? Can she?
Is it his fault if women throw themselves at him in bars?
It just happened, I tell you. It was an accident. Like that baby.
It's not like they KNEW she was going to get pregnant, after all. You know, people do the deed all the time without pregnancy. It was an accident!
And, what clues did the poor woman have that these pictures would come across as unflattering to her pristine reputation?
That they're taken in a bed with rumpled sheets?
That she's wearing a man's button-down shirt, only partially buttoned?
That her full legs and her bare belly are exposed to the world?
It's abundantly clear that this woman is so very pure and naive that she's been taken advantage of. It's bound to be another case of a professional photographer (the media) TRICKING a young woman for their own gain.
Now, if you'll excuse me. I have some swamp land to sell right away. It appears I'm on a roll.
That chestnut got tossed at me. I was told (by him) that the X wouldn't have looked elsewhere if all was as it needed to be in our marriage. Sounded like BS then, and a really good excuse for him to blame me for his 'friendship' with her.
Now I know that our marriage was not as healthy as it could have been. And there is sometimes a need to leave an unhealthy relationship. I see that now, and I know I am healthier and happier for him leaving me.
But. End it first! Don't be finding the 'next one' before honestly assessing what needs to be done and why.
Justification after the fact is not honesty. It's just throwing crap.
Excellent post.
I did a post on Sandra and Jesse.. another horror story.
Attractive, no morals and dumber than a box of rocks -- a fatal combination. I feel such sympathy for the little girl who is being raised by this woman.
That goes up there with my other favourite: Dumber than a bag of hammers!
BTW: Hoppy Easter!