I remember the early Blair years which more or less coincides with the start of LL.  Whilst I was never a Blair supporter I did have the feeling that the Blairite mood was very much on our side.  When we had our ifrst media breakthrough with a 3 page article in Guardian G2 I recall feeling how this was like a ‘stamp of approval’ from Labour central office on our enterprise.  Certainly the Blair/labour years were extremely kind to our business area.  Will this change with Cameron and his emphasis on the family?  Probably not, but we might find our sector more open to media attack in the coming years.  Its not that the Tories are against adultery – heavens no! – but they might feel less happy condoning it as happily as the Blair regime did. – Just a thought…

There is an interesting thread on our forum this week      that started off as a discussion as to why people use our site and what they hoped to get from their membership – is it just about sex? etc.   As often happens the tread has gone ‘off-topic’ to discuss who is to ‘blame’ if a realtionship is sexually incompatible.  There are some really perceptive posts and I do urge you to have a look.  User Maggie discusses her dismay about reaching the vital parts of her man’s sexual interests and forum stalwarts like Aria, Goldi and Violet give some amazingly good advice. 

I was reading recently in the Sunday times about a dating site that only allows ‘beautiful’ members.  Applicants are vetted by existing members and then either accepted or rejected as not being attractive enough.  This passed thru my mind today when I had feedback from a private client about a woman I introduced him to last week.  I had met and interviewed the woman and she ticked all the boxes for a great LL partner – securely married, middle aged, middle class, articulate, understated.  Ok she wasn’t a ‘head turner’ but why would anyone into discreet realtionships want heads to turn when you are on a discreet date?  My male client called me and said ‘ yes she was very nice but not pretty enough’.   I rarely have the equivalent comments from women.  They might say a guy was ‘too full-on’ or too arrogant etc. but rarely ‘not attrractive enough’.    Is this just shallowness on the part of the men  or do women also reject on looks and cloak it in other words.   Also many of the men who reject on looks are obviously confused as to the ‘looks’ pool they swim in themselves and feel entitled to someone who is swimming in a much ‘prettier’ looks pool anyway.  I always rate a person’s agenda way above a person’s looks at least when it comes to choosing an affair partner but then maybe I have seen how focusing too much on looks can go awry in discreet dating.

Well, that didn’t take so long did it?  The tiger is back and it’s Xmas time for cocktail waitresses.  Whilst Mr Woods insists he is a changed man, tigers just like leopards do not change their spots.   Tiger is a compulsive user of women and no amount of therapy and rehab is going to change that.  The itch will be impossible to resist.  He may have to try a bit harder on concealing stuff but this is not a guy who is going to go early to bed and read a book.  If Elin goes through with the separation/divorce he will convince himself that obliging totty is essential to get him through the long nite of the soul.  If Elin sticks around she will be so suspicious that he will feel he might just as well have the fun if he is taking the punishment anyway.  Just like a client of mine who got caught and then 3 months later phoned to tell me he wanted to test out his remaining testicle!

Now the election campaign has started it will be fascinating to see if someone comes up with a nifty sexual scandal to get the tabloids buzzing.  Perhaps some MP with a mistress paid for out of some allocated public funds – with all the knives out I dread to think what will be dredged up during the coming weeks.