Maybe we should have a “How Long Has This Been Going On” feature for new SBs? We’ve touched upon some of the recent spectacular marital meltdowns leading to actual or likely SB-hood for Mel, Charlie, Mark, Tiger, other people whose last names you know. Many seemed like sudden tabloid eruptions. But sudden is simplistic when applied to SB-hood. And past is prologue. Which brings us to John, SB of the week.

I will wager that behind the seemingly sudden conflagration leading to SB-hood for many SBs is a slow burn behind closed doors. Tiger was, after all, shtupping all those women for years before his wife finally picked up the club and chased him down the driveway (just a theory, I know…). And Mark S. was spending time in Argentina and elsewhere with his lover before he went down there (so to speak) via the Appalachian Trail . B.t.w. how much of a shock is the Sanford spectacle anyway when he refused to take the vow of fidelity when they got married?? Teensy red flag? Not that any of us rubberneckers had any reason to know that until Jenny’s tell-all.

And now John Edwards is again having his moment in- I won’t say the sun, but certainly the hot glare of the prurient media. But there is nothing sudden in that paternity test. This has seemed like a slow motion car wreck for how long now? And what I come away with is- he might have made a good President someday as long as honesty is not a prereq for the job, but steely soulless ambition is. And I wouldn’t just dismiss that hypothesis! Scary even to the jaded to see him insisting over and over in interviews that it was all a bunch of lies. Eerily reminiscent of an actual President- who hasn’t become an SB only, in my view, by dint of a mutually assured political non-destruction pact with his wife- who made the same vehement public stuck pig squealing sounds when accused of similar stuff. Let’s remember though that both of these politicians like many others were lawyers before donning the cloak of public service. Regrettably for both politicians, sometimes the difference between lawyer and liar is only the letters w, y and e. And the public cloak is the opposite of a cloak of invisibility. And politics, like old age, isn’t for sissies. And- let’s see what other clichés I can come up with.

Which brings me to my non-point (because it’s so non-revelatory): SB-hood may be a form of liberation for some, a car wreck for others, but the seeds of SB-hood are usually planted years before its onset. In fact they may be planted in the womb of the mother of each SB, since by my reckoning we only become more ourselves, live out more of our inherited traits (inherited both by nature and nurture) as we age, and in that fact lies the undoing of many jerrybuilt relationships. A takeaway from the Edwards exit is- if you marry a demonically good trial lawyer who makes his extremely good living out of- shall we say being a bit cavalier with the truth in courtrooms- think hard whether you are right in assuming that part of the persona switches off when he hits the bedroom (yours or especially anyone else’s). Same takeaway from the Sanford spectacle: if you marry a politician or politician in waiting, i.e. someone who makes their career out of- shall we say- being a bit cavalier with the truth in order to get and stay elected- think hard whether you are right in assuming that part of the persona switches off when- well you get the idea. If we want to Monday morning quarterback (since it’s Superbowl Sunday after all!) our or someone else’s SB-hood, we should cast our net wide and long back in time to discern the reasons. Which means- if you’re not an SB and don’t want to become one- or if you are and want to find a way not to next time- learn from history to avoid repeating it. And try not to marry politicians or lawyers. Or try to find really nice ones. Coming soon to a SB Store near you- a Nice-ometer, just for that purpose!