I know its wrong, but I find sex scandals endlessly entertaining, particularly when someone who annoys the piss out of me is in the center of the scandal. Saccharine E.V.O.O.-lover Rachael Ray took a hit to her reputation after a woman claimed she maintained a five-year affair with Rays husband.

Some broad from Florida named Jeannine Walz told The National Enquirer that Rays husband, John Cusimano, enjoyed some freaky shit. The thirty-nine-year old attorney and musician reportedly paid Walz to spit in his face and rub her feet on his face. Such a naughty boy.

The 30-year-old Florida woman contends that they met outside a lesbian bar in New York's West Village in 2000. That night, she said, Cusimano paid Walz and three friends $20 to spit in his face. "He even took pictures of us doing it," she tells the tab.

Walz said they continued to meet at her apartment and the apartment he shared at the time with Ray, 38.

"Sometimes he'd be naked," she claims. "I always kept my clothes on.

"John paid me up to $500 for a session," she claims. "We'd often have sessions at least twice a month I virtually supported myself by spitting on him. But there was never any normal sex involved. He once offered to pay me $1,200 to perform a kinky sex act with him, but I refused."

She also alleges, "Sometimes John would buy marijuana or cocaine and we'd use it together."

While a common evening for me and my husband typically includes getting stoned and making spit videos, Ray built her reputation as a good girl who can whip up a fantastic casserole in less than thirty minutes. Rays flack immediately defended her reputation and marriage, a difficult task considering the affair continued after Cusimano and Ray married.

Speaking through their rep, Ray and Cusimano told us they found The Enquirer story "absolutely laughable. It is obvious to us the lengths that tabloids go to create stories. It's just sad when they take unwarranted shots at the people you care about the most."

The Enquirer article stated the kinky Walz "often still gets together for her bizarre sessions with Cusimano" The rag included in the article a photograph, allegedly taken November 6th, of Walz and Cusimano.

"Jeannine Walz has passed a polygraph test," said Enquirer editor David Perel, whose retooled mag has nailed such recent exclusives as Farrah Fawcett's cancer fight and O.J. Simpson's book deal. "Our lawyers are comfortable with her story."

Regardless of the rumor and the damage it might cause Rays successful career, friends of the couple claimed they dont give a fuck whats going on, and the couple "couldn't be happier."

John Cusimano and Rachael Ray hug it out.

Gayballs

Seattle, WA

July 2005

NOV 17, 2006 06:06 AM

Poor Rachael.

joyfuldemise

Calgary, AB

September 2005

NOV 17, 2006 06:13 AM

The National Enquirer? I wouldn't take that very seriously either. Isn't that a really bad tabloid?

FridgeMagnet

Chicago, IL

November 2004

NOV 17, 2006 06:47 AM

joyfuldemise said:
The National Enquirer? I wouldn't take that very seriously either. Isn't that a really bad tabloid?

THe National Enquirer actually checks their stories very diligently. They used to be a typical "make shit up tabloid" but they got sued so often it was threatening to put them out of business. I'm pretty inclined to believe NE these days.

However....on a site that really embraces sexual wackiness, should we be helping to fuel the fire, and calling this a sex scandal. So the guy likes to be spit on, who gives a shit?

Avalon13Chase

Baltimore, MD

June 2006

NOV 17, 2006 06:48 AM

FridgeMagnet said:

joyfuldemise said:
The National Enquirer? I wouldn't take that very seriously either. Isn't that a really bad tabloid?

indeed..

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

NOV 17, 2006 06:50 AM

avalonchase said:

FridgeMagnet said:

joyfuldemise said:
The National Enquirer? I wouldn't take that very seriously either. Isn't that a really bad tabloid?

indeed..

I think the scandal is that he was he was fucking around on his wife behind her back.

Tornateaux

Fort Campbell, KY

August 2006

NOV 17, 2006 06:54 AM

joyfuldemise said:
The National Enquirer? I wouldn't take that very seriously either. Isn't that a really bad tabloid?

They're all pretty bad, really. But I've never seen Batboy appear in the pages of the Enquirer. Still, that's not saying much.

The best way to figure out if the tabloids bear any real social signifigance and/or hint of truth is a nigh-fail proof, simple mathematical formula that my best friend and I came up with in our misspent (and very odd in a "makes sense to us" kind of way) youths: the more tabloids a story appears on the cover of, the higher the likelyhood that it has a grain of truth to it.

For example, suppose "Tom Cruise and John Travolta called home to the Mothership to have torrid threeway manlove tryst with Xenu" is the cover story for the Enquirer. You would give that cover a truth probability of +0. If the same story allso appears on the cover of The National Examiner, it's truth probability goes up to +1. If it's on the cover of both The National Examiner and The Sun, it's truth probability jumps to +2. Anything rating +2 or higher is likely true, as demonstrated time and again by more reliable news sources during the course of our little experiment.

In the highly unlikely event that the same story ever appears on the covers of The National Enquirer, the National Examiner, The Sun, Star, Globe, and Weekly World News, not only is the story 100% true, the seventh seal has been broken and the end is upon us all. Place your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.