Issues Raised by the Petraeus Scandal Re "Petraeus Case: Issue of Privacy Is in Play, Too" (news analysis, front page, Nov. 14): A truly disturbing question at the heart of this case is why the Tampa office of the F.B.I. opened an investigation in the first place based on the complaint of a private citizen, Jill Kelley, worried about harassing e-mails. I doubt that the F.B.I. would open a case if I complained. Adding to the worry is the behavior of the F.B.I. agent who reportedly sent photos of himself shirtless to Ms. Kelley and then leaked the story of the investigation to Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, when he thought the investigation had stalled. Could that F.B.I. agent (or others) have been trying to affect the presidential election? In recent days I've heard some people suggest that politicians" personal lives should be off-limits. They refer back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and so on, who were presidents at a time when the press had a tacit agreement not to expose affairs. But I disagree. The women's movement of the 1970s exposed this double standard, part of the "old boys" network" of the past, and demanded that it end. Now that more women have entered the professions of law, medicine, politics and business, things have changed for the better. The misdeeds of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner and others have been exposed, and I think the information is relevant to their character. Voters have a right to this information. Let's not go back to the days when there was a conspiracy of silence among men to sweep these things under the rug. SARAH FIKE Berkeley, Calif., Nov. 13, 2012 Although I'm resolutely on Frank Bruni's side that personifying the mistress to explain the downfall of the man is an irritating national habit of ours ("The Siren and the Spook," column, Nov. 13), I disagree in one area. David H. Petraeus was not the author of harassing, anonymous e-mails to Jill Kelley. Since these e-mails appear to be responsible for turning what should have been private drama into national pageantry, I think it's acceptable that the mistress, in this instance, shoulders more of the blame. If Paula Broadwell had written those e-mails in her own name, this wouldn't have happened (assuming we are still able to have private disputes over e-mail in this country without involving the F.B.I.). And if she'd never written them at all, then this affair would have been left where it belonged, as an explanation owed not to the country, but to the spouses. What does it say about the state of our national security when our chief spook cannot even take the most elementary precautions to prevent his personal dalliances from becoming public?