27 replies to this topic

[Kathleen O'Connell]

Jayne, on 18 January 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

5.  To the best of my knowledge,  the NYCB costume department does not sew scarlet letters onto costumes of dancers deemed to stray.

I'll make the only judgement I can: I think rather more highly of The Correspondent's dancing than I do of Ms Bushnell's writing, but your mileage may vary.

[kfw]

Quote

I did find it interesting that in this day and age an allegedly injured spouse was taking such a retrograde course against an errant mate, especially this allegedly injured spouse, but that's a matter for other boards, not this one.

I don't think we've reached a place where citing adultery in a divorce case is retrograde, and I can't imagine what reason could be more justified and germane. We don't know enough to apportion blame and it isn't our business to do so, but we can still condemn adultery committed behind the spouse's back, not for the sake of condemning the adulterer but of recognizing that failing to uphold a commitment is dishonorable. If you're suggesting that it's ironic that a sex columnist is taking this step, I might agree there given my impression that they're not exactly defenders of traditional thinking on male-female relations, but I don't read her so I don't know.

Anyhow, Jayne makes five great points.

[dirac]

Quote

We don't know enough to apportion blame and it isn't our business to do so, but we can still condemn adultery committed behind the spouse's back, not for the sake of condemning the adulterer but of recognizing that failing to uphold a commitment is dishonorable.

Indeed we don't know enough to apportion blame and I trust we can all agree on that (although it sounds as if you're making good headway, if you'll forgive my saying so).  The whole co-respondent farce as it played out in divorce law back when is well known.

Quote

5. To the best of my knowledge, the NYCB costume department does not sew scarlet letters onto costumes of dancers deemed to stray.

Whatever happened to those stocks in the public square?

[kfw]

Quote

Indeed we don't know enough to apportion blame and I trust we can all agree on that (although it sounds as if you're making good headway, if you'll forgive my saying so).  The whole co-respondent farce as it played out in divorce law back when is well known.

To apportion would take intimate knowledge of the actions of all parties. It takes no such knowledge to condemn adultery.

[Helene]

[Admin Beanie On]

I've edited this thread heavily to remove multiple ad hominem attacks and much discussing of the discussion.

If you have problems with a post, hit the "report" button and do not discuss it on the board.  Make your point and move on.  Not everyone will agree with every post.

[/Admin Beanie Off]

[dirac]

kfw, on 18 January 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Quote

Indeed we don't know enough to apportion blame and I trust we can all agree on that (although it sounds as if you're making good headway, if you'll forgive my saying so).  The whole co-respondent farce as it played out in divorce law back when is well known.

To apportion would take intimate knowledge of the actions of all parties. It takes no such knowledge to condemn adultery.

kfw, on 18 January 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Quote

Indeed we don't know enough to apportion blame and I trust we can all agree on that (although it sounds as if you're making good headway, if you'll forgive my saying so).  The whole co-respondent farce as it played out in divorce law back when is well known.

To apportion would take intimate knowledge of the actions of all parties. It takes no such knowledge to condemn adultery.

Something of an iffy distinction, given the circumstances. Certainly you're free to condemn whatever you're inclined to condemn, no argument there.

[cinnamonswirl]

kfw, on 18 January 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Quote

I did find it interesting that in this day and age an allegedly injured spouse was taking such a retrograde course against an errant mate, especially this allegedly injured spouse, but that's a matter for other boards, not this one.

I don't think we've reached a place where citing adultery in a divorce case is retrograde, and I can't imagine what reason could be more justified and germane.

It's also a legal tactic, as well as an emotional or societal one. In this case, the plaintiff presumably has greater assets than the defendant, and she wants to protect those assets. It is therefore in the plaintiff's financial interest  to ask for an at-fault divorce. If they had a prenup, it may have contained an infidelity clause as well.

[kfw]

cinnamonswirl, on 19 January 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

kfw, on 18 January 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Quote

I did find it interesting that in this day and age an allegedly injured spouse was taking such a retrograde course against an errant mate, especially this allegedly injured spouse, but that's a matter for other boards, not this one.

I don't think we've reached a place where citing adultery in a divorce case is retrograde, and I can't imagine what reason could be more justified and germane.

It's also a legal tactic, as well as an emotional or societal one. In this case, the plaintiff presumably has greater assets than the defendant, and she wants to protect those assets. It is therefore in the plaintiff's financial interest  to ask for an at-fault divorce. If they had a prenup, it may have contained an infidelity clause as well.

True. My only point is that adultery is grounds for divorce.

[dirac]

cinnamonswirl, on 19 January 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

kfw, on 18 January 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Quote

I did find it interesting that in this day and age an allegedly injured spouse was taking such a retrograde course against an errant mate, especially this allegedly injured spouse, but that's a matter for other boards, not this one.

I don't think we've reached a place where citing adultery in a divorce case is retrograde, and I can't imagine what reason could be more justified and germane.

It's also a legal tactic, as well as an emotional or societal one. In this case, the plaintiff presumably has greater assets than the defendant, and she wants to protect those assets. It is therefore in the plaintiff's financial interest to ask for an at-fault divorce. If they had a prenup, it may have contained an infidelity clause as well.

Reports suggested the divorce was proceeding "amicably," as they say, until this last wrinkle developed and Bushnell elected to proceed this way. If there was a pre-nup with such a clause that would certainly provide a financial motive.

[carbro]

I find it amusing that we're discussing this business of marital infidelity and correspondents' culpability  while one of our TV networks is  promoting tonight's broadcast of an interview with the second divorced wife of a candidate trying to snag the title of Most Conservative Candidate in the 2012 presidential derby.  We'll see how it goes.  If the accusations don't disrail this candidate's progress, I find it hard to believe that the scandal at NYCB would be the main obstacle between an especially talented corps dancer (who is also one of my favorites) and her soloist status.  Over the years, as Jayne noted, dozens of dancers there have seemed poised on the cusp of promotion only to ... not.

[abatt]

It appears that Bushnell revealed the name of the party that Chuck was having an affair with simply as a way to seek vengeance.  That might make for a good Sex & the City sequel.  It certainly was not  necessary to name names for her to file for divorce.  It makes her look petty.  Also, it does not enhance her legal position.  She could have used the threat of revealing the info to the press as a bargaining chip in the divorce negotiations.  A sad situation all around.

[Eileen]

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!" - William Congreve (1670-1729)

Perhaps she didn't want to make the payment under the prenup that would have been required after a nine-year marriage with a no-fault divorce. With a proven fault divorce, she wouldn't have to give Chuck a dime.

[dirac]

Quote

If the accusations don't disrail this candidate's progress,

I think the values ship sailed a few years ago when a certain much-married GOP politician was not immediately disqualified from serious Presidential consideration after very public adultery, not to mention endorsing alternative lifestyles by moving in with a couple of gay guys for awhile, not to mention the photographs in circulation featuring him decked out for charity as the alluring "Rudia."  Only in New York!