A Facebook “friend” (not someone I actually know well) posted this link on his Facebook page with the comment, “I have one thing to say: TACKY!”
Here’s the link. Go ahead and read it; I’ll wait right here.
Tacky? Well, yes. I keep trying to imagine what might have possessed them to put all of this in the Times. I can only think that maybe they’d had enough of gossip and speculation from their social circle and wished to set the record straight and proceed with everything in the open. People won’t whisper behind their backs as much if they release the information themselves and act like it’s not a big deal. Also, by being the ones to tell the story, they can control the spin, or at least have some counterpart to the version already in circulation, where she’s a homewrecker and he’s a cad. Still, it seems disrespectful to the exes, who didn’t ask for the bottom to drop out of their lives.
By the way, I know the article specifies that they didn’t consummate their emotional affair by having a physical affair. Maybe this is true; maybe not, but I don’t think it really matters. Once you step out emotionally, it’s a betrayal, and the only difference between an emotional affair and a physical affair is a matter of its degree, not its nature. In the end, they both left their spouses to be with someone else. It’s the same result.
I remember when the managing partner (then married with 4 kids) of a company where I used to work had an affair with the marketing director. Even after the other partners had all been served with subpoenas in his divorce case (watch out for holiday parties!), he still tried to go the Bill Clinton route and claim that they didn’t have an inappropriate relationship. Everyone knew about this affair, from the top brass down to the people in the mailroom (they see EVERYTHING). It was a ridiculous thing to deny. About 3 years later, a former co-worker forwarded me a birth announcement for the partner’s and the marketing director’s newborn son – they had gotten married in the interim. So I suppose that’s another option in the balls-out category: just pretend like everything is completely normal, and that nothing about the situation is remotely improper. Is that better?
Of course then there’s the version that DB’s ex favors, which is to be able to sue me for “alienation of affections” for stealing her husband (a cause of action now eliminated in almost all U.S. states, including the one in which I live, and rightfully so – it’s not like I entrapped DB; he made a choice). I think if she could put me in the stocks in the town square for people to throw rotten fruit at me and require me to wear a scarlet letter every day for the rest of my life, she’d do that, too. I guess it makes her feel vindicated.
It’s not that I have no shame. And it’s not that I think anyone who ends up in my situation should wallow in shame forever. I just don’t think it’s anyone’s business. I’m not holding myself up as a paragon of virtue; I’m not a Republican politician or a televangelist. I’m just doing the best I can. I’m trying to raise my children and hold down a job and pay my rent and make a life and do better. That’s mostly the sense I get from the Times article people, except for the fact that they put it in the Times, and seem to have a lot more money and status than I do.
In the end, though, I can only wish them well. Because it’s not like I’m exactly in a position to judge anyone.