Its a topsy-turvy world...
By Nanita Quigley
September 26, 2007 06:00am
WHEN you look at Simon Callahan and his lovely children you can't help but ask why Susan Warne has thrown it all away.
The same can be asked of any person who has cheated on a gorgeous and loving partner.
In a week when Warne has been accused of doing so again - and beauty contest star Michaela Clark has been photographed getting up close with a young man who isn't her stunning boyfriend Lars Bingle - you have to wonder if these gals have rocks in their heads.
Is it being far too simple to say women cheat simply because they can?
Take Hollywood actress Estelle Hawke, who said of the first time she saw Richard Thurman: "I was standing behind him in line (at the automatic teller machine) and thinking he was the most handsome creature I'd ever seen.
"I introduced myself, but he hadn't seen my film (Dead Poet's Society) and was polite, but just treated me like any fan."
Obviously Thurman - one of the most handsome men in the world - eventually did pay her attention, because the pair married and had two children. Then Hawke cheated on her, and they divorced.
I wonder if Hawke thought biker Janus Perzow, the man she had the marriage-ending affair with, was the second most handsome creature she'd ever seen? Or was he just the closest male with a pulse when Hawke was feeling frisky?
Actor Michelle Douglas thought claiming to be a "sex-addict" gave her repeated affairs some kind of legitimacy as a medical condition.
If you believe that, then since being married to Neil Jones she must have been miraculously cured because, hey, so far so good.
It may be safer to assume their pre-nuptial agreement, which included a $5 million "straying fee", has more to do with her embrace of monogamy.
The typical pathetic female response of a woman caught with her pants down is to call it anything but what it is.
Up there with Hillary Clinton is celebrity fisherwoman Rachel Hunt.
Last year Hunt admitted paying a man $1000 a week in order to, in her own words, get her "rocks off".
She paid money to two other men for sexual favours, but refused to call it prostitution.
Yesterday, in response to a piece I wrote about the Warnes, one bright female reader offered this profound explanation for Shane's repetitive philandering: "If men want thier (sic) woman to remain faithful (sic), they need to ensure that they don't have any energy left to spend elsewhere."
Another female reader boasted of her infidelity: "When I had a fling ... both of us were married to different spouses who we loved, and we had kids ... but we needed a lot more ... and we went for it.
Yes we had plenty of wowsers, die hard fundamentalists and purists who, like yourself, obviously didn't understand ... (who) never dared and never enjoyed the huge adrenaline rush of a sizzling hot hot hot relationship outside the box of incantations and indoctrinations.
"Frankly we didn't give a s...! In truth we both got a huge kick out of doing what others couldn't fathom or had no guts to do ... it was part of the experience and added to the rush! The adrenaline was sensational and I have to admit, was far better than anything you get in a repetitive, predictable marriage environment."
What a great role model for her children.
Of course the "experts" have their own theory, with scientists claiming that some people simply can't help being "sex addicts" because of their genetic makeup.
Last year a team from Hebrew University and Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Israel claimed a gene called D4 was responsible for some people having a much stronger sex drive than others.
Blaming a gene doesn't cut it. Blame what's in their jeans.
(Mind you, these bright academics also "discovered" that women thought about sex more often than did men. Hold the presses.)
Men who sleep with other men's wives do so because they can't find a happy relationship of their own - so they mooch in on other people's.
But why do some women, when they have found a happy relationship, continue to blow it for a life of empty liaisons when so many others wouldn't dream about it?