Well, I’m sitting here having a nice cup of tea and contemplating what I want to write about today. I would like to start what I am going to say today with an apology. The last two posts had to do with two alleged “bad girls.” One was Lisa Bonder Kerkorian, the former wife of 91 year old Los Angeles based billionaire Kirk Kerkorian; and the other was the alleged mistress of New York based billionaire, Henry Silverman, a woman I refer to as the “Starbucks Bimbo.”
I want to refer specifically to the Starbucks Bimbo comment. It was inappropriate of me, a woman, to call another woman a “Starbucks Bimbo,” especially since I am trying to brand myself as an attorney for women. I don’t even know who this woman is, what her name is, and what her educational pedigree is. She could be a rocket-scientist for all I know and I reduced her to a “Starbucks Bimbo” just because she’s been accused of “stealing” another woman’s husband. And then I have the audacity to put up Beyonce’s picture next to the offending post, as if Beyonce has anything to do with it. I. must. be. out. of. my. mind! (I am so lucky that I only have about 2 readers per month on this thing, otherwise I’d be in big trouble, missy.)
Okay. So, I’m sorry. Inappropriate.
Now, for today’s post. I have a question that was raised by someone who left a comment to the Kirk Kerkorian Wiretapping post . Is the court, or even society, biased in favor of women in divorce matters? I don’t know if I would say that is true. I think it depends on the woman. I have seen women get shafted in divorce actions like nobody’s business. I think it depends on the woman and the judge… What do you think?
Whatever the case may be, what I find myself really wanting to discuss is a much sexier topic than whether the courts are biased in favor of women. I find myself wanting to talk about the bias against women who are involved in “adulterous” scenarios that result in divorce. I think most of us always blame the woman, and assume that she must have done something to lure the “good” man away from his “good” wife. But there is something fundamentally wrong with that. Because in my experience, it is men who are the aggressors in most of these situations. They are the ones with the marriage commitment, yet they go out hitting on women, and otherwise defiling the vows they made to their wives. The Silverman girl was probably minding her own business trying to get a latte at Starbucks, when this rogue came up to her and said, “Google me.” And when she found out how accomplished he was, naturally she was impressed. I mean, come on. Then he probably started to seduce her with flowers, and billets doux, and a whole bunch of bull, and the next thing you know, she’s in over her head with this jackal.
Yet, nobody, not even the wives, (not even me!) blames the husband. Oh no. They blame the “other woman” who, technically, had no duty towards the wife. I mean, look at Jennifer Anniston, Brad Pitt and Angelina. In her last interview with Vogue, Jennifer stated, “what Angelina did was uncool.” I agreed with her at first blush, because I like Jennifer and I think she has a right to feel slightly sick about the whole situation. But the more I think about it, the more I see that there is something flawed about this reasoning. Angelina did not make a commitment to Jennifer. Brad did. What Brad did was uncool. He broke his vow to stay with his wife for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, till death do them part. Angelina did not rape Brad. Angelina did not kidnap Brad and force Brad to get on that plane and fly to Africa to be with her and Maddux. It is Brad that Jennifer should be miffed at, not Angelina.
I just think that society has set it up in such a way, that men blame women for being, women (and they make it so there is something fundamentally negative about that), and women blame women by calling them bimbos and whores for stealing their men when in fact, they are afraid to call a spade a spade. They are afraid to admit the true culprits, the instigators, the bad actors, are these greedy, lascivious, conniving men, their beloved, long-eyed, unfaithful husbands!
Look, here’s the bottom line: when a married man (or woman) cheats, he is the one who is committing adultery and he is the one who should be called a bimbo – not the woman. It is the married cheater who is culpable. It is the married cheater who has done a wrong thing to his/her spouse.
Although, let me take back some of that: because, if you are one who subscribes to the Judeo-Christian religious dogmas, in fact, when adultery is committed, all participants are guilty of adultery, and thus, all are culpable. So in the case of Nancy and Henry Silverman, Henry and his Starbucks babe are both culpable. And if Nancy even once fantasized about someone other than her husband in a sexual way, she’s culpable too.
Oh, and get this: Legally, in New York, adultery is still technically a crime and you can do jail time for it, and be made to pay a fine. So, Nancy Silverman can have her malfeasant spouse Henry Silverman brought up on criminal charges and he can do time in jail for this. If the prosecutor decides to pursue the issue, that is – and that is highly unlikely. As for the other participant, the Starbucks girl, if she is guilty, she can be sued for loss of consortium by Nancy. Nancy could argue that the Starbucks girl alienated Henry’s affection from her, and that she seduced Henry, and that whatever she said or did to Henry caused Henry to pack up and leave the marriage and the marital abode. She would have to prove that the Starbucks girl was the root cause of Henry abandonning her. I think. I’ve never actually had a case where the wife sued for loss of consortium, but I am pretty sure it is a cause of action in New York.
So, okay girls, the next time that married man gently caresses your arm as he talks to you about his stamp collecting hobby, do yourself a favor: RUN! Because it is more than just getting called a bimbo that is at stake. YOU CAN BE SUED!