Project 365: Day 94

Day 94, originally uploaded by shalimargonzales.

Between my visits to San Pedro and Gardena this morning/early afternoon, I spent a few minutes taking a gander at the city of my birth. Yes, although I claim to be a Bay Area girl (as does everyone in my family), it should be pointed out that I was born right here in LA County.
Speaking of born days and baby daddies something about this whole Arnold Schwarzenegger as baby-daddy ordeal struck me as strange.

No, it wasn't the fact that Arnold hid a love child from his wife of 25 years nor was it that the love child was the product of an affair with a member of his house staff. Sadly, I didn't find all of that particularly shocking.

What was strange in my admittedly desensitized look was this statement in the article from The LA Times.

"To protect their privacy, The Times is not publishing the former staffer's name nor that of her child."

I'm not sure how I feel about their omission of the staffer's name. I am all for protecting the privacy of others, especially young children, but in this case I'm not sure I think it's fair for someone to be protected when they were an equal participant in the "scandal" being reported.

I'll leave the issue of privacy protection to the experts, but this one question lead me to another: in a situation where a married man cheats with a woman who knows full-well that he is married, is one party guiltier than the other?

Yes, Arnold is the celebrity in this situation, but he did not act alone. He cheated on his wife with someone who worked in their home, but the "former staffer" had sex with her married employer. Is what he did worse? I don't know. But she is not innocent.

Let's assume he pursued her, worked hard to convince her, and made all the arrangements to have and hide the affair. Does that make him more guilty?

Is there a scenario in which her luring him, convincing him and insisting he hide all the evidence makes her more at fault?

I don't know the answer. I know people who have been involved in the situation and no matter how you slice it, it always feels like the person in the relationship is more in the wrong. Logically I know that's not correct.

This latest gossip really tests the question best. You've got a world famous actor-turned-politician with intense physical strength having an affair with a person he employs. It feels like he must be the villain, and lord knows we'll treat him that way. But is this unnamed former staffer at equal or less fault? And, back to the original question, what does the LA Times move to keep her identity a mystery mean relative to that bigger question?