The Kids Come Last
Christie Brinkley says having "a big, happy family" is the most important thing to her -- except, of course, when getting revenge on her cheating husband comes first, second, third, fourth, and fifth.
Quick, Christie, throw those kids under the bus! Anything to get revenge. And then make yourself out to be a suffering saint. Here, from a Tom Leonard piece in the Telegraph/UK, the subhead:
The model Christie Brinkley has told a court how it was a "nightmare" to put on a brave face and throw a birthday party with 30 children after learning that her husband was having an affair with a teenager.
That's what you do if you're a parent, dear -- put on a brave face about adult dramas so you don't ruin your kid's birthday.
And come on, so he cheated on you. He didn't cheat on you and then send you and your entire family to Auschwitz. What could possibly justify putting your kids through a public divorce?
Ahh...always better to place the blame on someone other than oneself! More from the story:
Brinkley, once one of world's most famous models, married the architect in 1996, following a whirlwind courtship of about five months.
Asshole. You had a kid then, too (with Billy Joel) -- and thus, an obligation not to act like a hormone-addled 14-year-old idiot, marrying a guy you barely knew.
It's about time a judge saw Brinkley's behavior in having this proceeding opened up to the media for what it is: a form of child abuse.
Amy, I think you're being harsh!
Mitigating factors:
1.
2.
3. I really don't have the energy for this list.
But seriously, is this worse than any other celebrity divorces? That's not to say that the woman is well adjusted or anything. But she was never famous for anything but being fun to look at 28 years ago.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at July 8, 2008 1:23 AM
At work, we are trying to figure out why this happened, and have arrived at a hypothesis. Christie is still quite the eye candy, and so the only apparent reason for cheating on such a legendary beauty is that she's untouchable. Men especially like to think that a fine appearance means a good time at all hours, but supermodels don't necessarily want you back as badly as you might want them. I've seen the effect on a lesser stage many times.
Radwaste at July 8, 2008 2:45 AM
Exactly Radwaste.
Why do guys cheat?
1. Least Likely - Sexual compulsive disorder
2. More Likely - Just an asshole
3. Most Likely - Not getting it at home
Quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned, withholding sex is on the same par as cheating
lujlp at July 8, 2008 4:56 AM
Well, wasn't this guy married when he met Brinkley? And left his then-wife for her? I always say, If they do it with you, they'll do it too you. o_O
Flynne at July 8, 2008 5:31 AM
"What could possibly justify putting your kids through a public divorce?"
Surely you're not suggesting she stay with him for the kids? That's not good for them. I don't think I'd be talking to the press, but it's going to be public anyway. You know some tabloid would sniff out the details no matter what.
She was really not smart with most of her marriages, but hey, she's a model, what do you expect??
momof3 at July 8, 2008 5:34 AM
Okay, I need to read all comments before I make mine
"Quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned, withholding sex is on the same par as cheating"
Last I heard, marriage vows don't include "I promise to lay you no matter what". Most women who don't want sex dont' want it for a reason-ie, they get no attention until the guy wants sex, or he's stopped trying to make it fun for her too, or there are other issues in the relationship like money stresses, or he doesn't help with the housework or the kids and she's just damn exhausted at the end of the day, or whatever. Very few women just say "HA! No more sex for you!!!" although I'm sure that happens some, on both sides of the gender line.
momof3 at July 8, 2008 5:39 AM
I'm talking about the way she asked the court to make the divorce public.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2008 5:42 AM
Withholding sex is completely stupid. Per my mail, women are usually the ones who do that, although men do it, too. And the deal is supposed to be, "Sex is no longer on the menu, but don't let me catch you dining out." Right.
Also, for many people, marriage is a cure for blow jobs.
And Crid, what's awful about this divorce is the way she made it public. She fought to have it be a public divorce.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2008 6:02 AM
Well obviously it's all about tit for tat - he was exposed publicly with another woman; she (Brinkley) was humiliated; so now she wants to humiliate him. What she doesn't understand is that he doesn't really give a shit, he'll get over it faster and with less damage done to him than the kids will. That's what's reprehensible about her going public with it - she's definitely doing more damage to the kids than she is to Cook. Didn't anyone learn anything from the McCartney-Mills debacle?? Little Beatrice is the only real casualty in that mess. People don't get it - the kids are the innocent victims here. They have NO control over what the adults in their lives do, yet they are the ones who suffer the most severe consequences for it.
Flynne at July 8, 2008 6:19 AM
Well, to be fair, her husband didn't just cheat. He boned an 18-year-old who he later paid $300,000 to keep quiet - and that's just one of the women he was screwing. He posted his profile on seeking-sex sites. He asked one woman to marry him. Etc. This isn't a case where he just had a honey on the side with whom he had the occasional tryst. This guy's behavior does seem to fit the sexual compulsion category.
...that having been said, apparently the couple's property division is all taken care of, and the hearing Brinkley fought to have open to the public is solely over child custody. Now, maybe she thinks she'll have a better shot at getting custody if Cook's behavior is laid bare to the world...but that doesn't justify what she's putting the kids through. And Amy, it's even worse than you thought. Brinkley had TWO kids when she met Cook. Her son Jack is the biological child of Ricky Taubman, who she dumped Billy Joel for and married after being in a helicopter accident with the guy. However, Taubman apparently turned out to be a dud, and Peter Cook adopted Jack. So her relationship with Cook wasn't the first time she'd rushed into marriage post-motherhood.
Withholding sex is completely stupid.
If you're talking about someone who's withholding sex from a kind, reasonably attractive, reasonably attentive partner, I agree. But we've discussed here before that men are visual and are less likely to be attracted to women they find visually unappealing, and that women who allow themselves to gain significant weight after they get married are putting their sex lives in jeopardy. I don't remember many cries that these guys were "withholding sex," though perhaps I misunderstood. On average, women connect sex with emotion much more than men do. A woman who feels emotionally unfulfilled by her partner - or has a partner who, say, refuses to shower on a regular basis - is probably just not going to feel turned on by her partner, just like a man is less likely to be turned on by a woman who's gained 100 pounds in two years. (On average. There will always be exceptions.)
My approach to someone who claims that his or her partner is withholding sex is more or less the same as it would be to someone who claims that his or her boss hates him or her. Namely, the first thing I'd wonder is, are YOU doing anything to provoke/exacerbate the situation? No? Are you sure? Because there are horrible bosses and horrible spouses out there, but the ratio of totally blame-free subordinates and totally blame-free spouses paired with these horrible bosses and horrible spouses is lower than one would think from listening to complaints.
marion at July 8, 2008 6:26 AM
What are the chances that Peter Cook fits in all of Lujlp's categories? A perfect storm of an arsehole of a sex addict who wasn't getting (what he considered to be) enough at home. I can't remember the comedian who complained that his wife looked at their sex life as "all the time" and he complained it was only three times a week. Sexual frequency and satifaction are subjective within a marriage, or any relationship for that matter, but wedding cake HAS been known to kill a woman's sex drive, conceivably for the reasons that Momof3 lists.
Back to the point, since Peter Cook was known to use porn ($3G a month!?!?!), there is a substantive link between porn addiction and men's increasing sexual DISsatisfaction. Ironic, huh?
Juliana at July 8, 2008 6:30 AM
Marion, very wise, as always.
This woman, not surprisingly, seems to latch onto men to fill some void in her, pretty much in a panic. You do not marry somebody after five months, but especially, you do not have license to act like this kind of idiot if you have children. Or should feel that way, anyway.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2008 6:31 AM
And you dont suppose, momof3, that it is the responibility of both parties to keep the romance alive?
How many times do you suppose a guy hears "I'm not in the mood" or "I'm too tired" before he stop even bothering to ask?
Incedentally form what I remember the edding vows say somthing about loving honoring and cherishing, your right they say nothing about sex on demand but they say nothing about not cheating either
lujlp at July 8, 2008 6:52 AM
>>>they say nothing about not cheating either
Well since there's no standard template of wedding vows that's a tough one. I believe most of the more traditional vows contain the "let no man put asunder" but that can be interpreted in soooo many ways. There's also the "forsake all others" piece.
However, if you're going to use wedding vows as a measurement for this particular disaster of a union, consider the character of both parties. As Marion pointed out, Brinkley is a bit of a bobble-head in the mate selection department, and Cook left his previous wife for Brinkley. The vows are only worth as much as the character of that who speaks them.
Juliana at July 8, 2008 7:07 AM
Sometimes, as in the case of my ex-husband, men cheat just because they're bored banging the same person. They enjoy the thrill that comes with having a new partner. In this case, no amount of sexual or emotional availability is going to prevent that. This type of person should stay single, but, unfortunately, societal pressure to get married is great.
MonicaP at July 8, 2008 7:20 AM
Perhaps because Brinkley was so Barbiedollacious, she never had to grow up. By this, I mean, women in their teens and 20s choose the wrong guys, and they ideally learn from it, that the asshole guys with the flash aren't good partner material.
I'm guessing Billy Joel was the single best guy she's been with, and probably just because the poor thing pursued her like mad, and he was rich and famous and good to her, and she went along with it.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2008 7:20 AM
Maybe he screwed around on account of the old adage "No matter how hot she is, somewhere, someone is sick of fucking her."
I suspect there's enough crazy to go around in this particular matchup. And remember, Billy Joel was a drinker at the time of their blowout. Don't know whether his drinking drove her away or she drove him to drink, however.
brian at July 8, 2008 7:32 AM
What's going on out there? Why is Billy Joel the lead story on the CNN website this morning? (I scanned it: He's not dead or anything.) Are all our soldiers home safe and whole or something?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at July 8, 2008 7:34 AM
In other news, that sextoy Iraq reporter who so impressed Amy turns out to be fuckable indeed.
I guess we can be glad all that exposure to the Dark Side of the Force didn't sap her will to live or anything. Gotta admit, that kid's got spunk... I mean, pluck! Kid's got pluck....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at July 8, 2008 7:45 AM
Um, because it's CNN, and credible news outlets are going the way of the dodo?
Thanks to the return to center, Crid. I noticed that this topic is 18 to 1 in the comments compared to Amy's other piece on Islam.
Juliana at July 8, 2008 7:49 AM
If my husband was boning his 19-year-old secretary, the last thing I would do is advertise it to the entire world. What an embarrassment! Why the hell would you do that? To let the world know that you married a shitty person? Doesn't that speak volumes about your own poor judgement?
On the topic of sex: Men wouldn't get married and have kids if they thought it meant they'd never get laid again. My husband likes me a whole lot more when he's gettin' some regularly. Oh, and we were kind of under the impression that those wedding vows DID include regular sexytime, even though it wasn't really mentioned in the church ceremony. Maybe it's not the same for other people.
andrew'shotwife at July 8, 2008 8:15 AM
Woooooo-hooo!
| "I just surrendered myself completely"
| to the Iraq story, Logan says.
...Tenderly, we're certain.
> At work, we are trying
> to figure out why this
> happened, and have arrived
> at a hypothesis.
A friend at work explained it a few years ago: Show me the most beautiful woman in the world, and I'll show you the guy who's tired of fucking her. I think that's true: We don't have to pretend that these people were suffering from exotic pressure. In love as in every part of life nowadays --achievement, education, finance, insurance (Brian)-- weak-willed Americans aren't willing to believe that life should ever be unfulfilling or mundane.
This is what I was trying to get at in the first comment. Brinkley was a pretty girl, is all. I remember seeing her on the Today show in 1981 (it was a color TV set, a Sony) and feeling my jaw drop. But plenty of other men loved their less-stunning wives just as much as Brinkley's husband[s] loved her. Let's not pretend she carries special burdens. A bunch of supermodels got divorced. There was that one from Australia. And the other one from Australia, and that one from the Carolinas, and that ninny from the Dakotas. Special powers of attraction aren't the same as special powers of bonding... Not after that first weekend, anyway. And they diminish with age like you wouldn't believe.
> Why do guys cheat?
Loojy, number Zero on your list is "Because we're dogs." Women are supposed to tame these impulses: Not divorce us at the first evidence, or whine at us until they're diminished.... (But let's agree, a forty-x year-old third husband who's paying off teenage fuckbuddies is a pretty bad case.) If there's a lesson here, maybe it's that great beauties don't read the feelings of those around them very well, because they never have to.
> If they do it with you,
> they'll do it too you
Flynne is so right about this.
> Surely you're not suggesting
> she stay with him for the kids?
Step carefully, momof3. I think you're probably right in this case: He's the badly-misbehaving second husband of a woman in middle age who's shown difficulty with attachments, so the kids may not think of him as a loving father anyway. But your "Surely" is worrisome.
> some tabloid would sniff
> out the details no
> matter what.
Agreed: see top comment.
> Incedentally form what
> I remember
I love me some Loojy
> no amount of sexual or
> emotional availability is
> going to prevent that.
MonicaP understands Loojy's rule #0.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at July 8, 2008 8:21 AM
Marion -Namely, the first thing I'd wonder is, are YOU doing anything to provoke/exacerbate the situation?
I thought this for a number of years, to the point of severe self-esteem issues, when my (soon to be ex)husband didn't want to have sex with me. And I love to give blow jobs - go figure.
However, just to pass along my new found knowledge, typically the problem lies with the person that doesn't want to give it up. In my case, he had developed an addiction to pain meds that I was unaware of, but in many instances it is their own stress, depression, work that interferes with their sex drive.
In regards to the public divorce, I agree that it may not be in the best interest of the children. Brinkly perhaps has reasons of her own though. A man this sneaky to that magnitude may (definitely) have severe issues and she probably doesn't want him to have custody of the children, so in the long run, her getting custody is her primary responsibility as a parent.
dena at July 8, 2008 8:30 AM
Well, dena, the psychologist she hired certainly agrees with you:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25587181/
Flynne at July 8, 2008 9:24 AM
Ooops, my mistake - that's a court-ordered psychologist.
Flynne at July 8, 2008 10:06 AM
The reason this piece gets more comments than the Islam one? Easier to have an opinion here because of limited facts and lots of speculation. To me, the facts of Islam are clear...what's to add? How many "You go girl!"s does Amy really need?
moreta at July 8, 2008 10:27 AM
"And I love to give blow jobs - go figure."
Please, let us know when you are hiring.
jobless in Seattle at July 8, 2008 10:28 AM
and the article about the court ordered psychologist linked above says in part: Herman [the shrink] met 11 times with the parents [Brinkley and hubby], their 13-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter. He says Cook is a narcissist who constantly needs to have his insatiable ego fed.
My experience with people like that is that they tend to marry either: (1)fawning people who stroke their egos at all times and seem to have no will of their own, or (2)people who are close to the same amount narcissistic, so the two of them together seek and receive constant ego-fulfillment, first from each other, then from others; or (3)someone naive who doesn't mind basking in their glory for a few years but eventually becomes drained and either turns into type (1) or leaves. And nobody else would marry them because hanging out with narcissists all the time is exhausting and dysfunctional, and sane people realize that. Christie Brinkley is either type 1 nor type 3. But given her behavior with this divorce, type 2 is looking more likely. Didn't she also cheat on a previous husband? She might be the better parent, but that's not necessarily saying much.
Quizzical at July 8, 2008 10:37 AM
"I can't remember the comedian"
Woody Allen, Diane Keaton in Annie Hall.
smurfy at July 8, 2008 11:31 AM
From Crid: "insurance (Brian)--"
Dude! I spit my drink all over my screen.....
kg at July 8, 2008 1:17 PM
I'm guessing Billy Joel was the single best guy she's been with, and probably just because the poor thing pursued her like mad, and he was rich and famous and good to her, and she went along with it.
Agreed. He apparently stayed devoted to her even as she dumped him for a layabout playboy and then moved on to Cook, with her younger children considering him to be Uncle Billy. I think he was hoping for a reconciliation for a long, long time. While one never knows what another person is like behind closed doors, Joel was probably the best thing that ever happened to Brinkley, so, of course, he was left in the dust. (He recently got remarried to a woman just a few years older than his daughter. Somehow I can't bring myself to roll my eyes at that the way I typically would.)
And Crid: Cook is Brinkley's fourth husband. Joel was her second. Girlfriend does have issues.
Speaking of issues, I think I forgot to mention Cook's $3,000-per-month Internet porn/sex site habit before. Consider it mentioned.
I thought this for a number of years, to the point of severe self-esteem issues, when my (soon to be ex)husband didn't want to have sex with me.
Dena, sorry you had to go through that - sounds like an awful experience. And I wasn't trying to suggest that it's ALWAYS (or even typically!) the "fault" of the person who's being denied sex, just as bad working situations aren't always/typically the fault of a subordinate. I do think, though, that it's helpful to start with a consideration of your potential role in the situation, if only because that's what you can change, if necessary. If you've looked it over and determined as best you can that you're behaving reasonably, then it's time to consider the role of your lousy spouse/boss/whatever. And I didn't mean to deny that malicious withholding of sex exists...but I think situations also exist in which a spouse is doing something that actively turns off a partner, and the lack of sex is more of a symptom. If you constantly criticize your spouse, berate your spouse over slights your mother perceives that she's suffered, or make big impulse purchases that throw you into credit card debt, your spouse is likely to find you far less sexy. You probably don't mention that when you write into advice columnists complaining about not getting any, but...
marion at July 8, 2008 1:21 PM
> lack of sex is more
> of a symptom.
Reynolds, who's no prude, says that when sex is good it's ten percent of a relationship, and when it's bad is something like 90%.
Not that he's an authority or anything, but photos like this morning's seem loudly --if allusively-- erotic, balding head an all.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at July 8, 2008 1:57 PM
"This woman, not surprisingly, seems to latch onto men to fill some void in her, pretty much in a panic."
Oh, my... did you really intend to post that?
Anyway - married or otherwise, the line to see Christie and fill whatever void is handy still extends around the planet. I just hope that Christie doesn't pick the first one next time.
Perspective: people are talking about how the kids will suffer. No more than those of poor people who do this. We just think that with so much money and glamour their fall will be from a greater height.
Radwaste at July 8, 2008 2:15 PM
The poor kids are just alot less likely to be approached with an offer to do a reality show of them dealing with their parents' divorce.
Oh come on, you know it's coming....
Juliana at July 8, 2008 2:41 PM
I think Christie married this guy because she still hasn't outgrown her 12 year old compulsion to 'play house'. 'I'll be the mommy and you be the daddy, etc., etc.'. The guy looked good in a superficial way, and since I doubt she's very bright, that's all she was raised to look for in a mate.
Also, remember kiddies, sex is bad, mkay, so nice girls don't think about that, only whores do.
Chrissy at July 9, 2008 6:50 AM
I respectfully disagree, Rad. Poor kids suffer awfully too, of course, but they don't do it in the limelight this way. C'mon, think if this was some woman who works in a factory and her husband was a manager at McDonald's doing some 18 year old girl on the line, anyone would line up for the pity show Brinkly, the sicko, wants to exploit her offspring to put on?
There's a reason family court is closed to the public in the US. It is the one thing they do right. Kids are torn apart enough without their parents using them to say poor, me. And the only reason Brinkley could want to do this to her children is to garner sympathy and have it tried in the court of public opinion rather than by an impartial judge. It's ego time. She's Christie Brinkley after all. And, obviously, Christie's more important than the kiddies. At least in her own mind. I want to slap the bitch and that's thinking he's an sob too. These kids are screwed big time.
Oh and how far do you think some factory worker would get demanding a public trial? She'd be laughed out of court and probably lose the kids to her ex too.
As for the sex on demand issue: both sides are wrong. It shouldn't be withheld out of vindictiveness but neither party should have the right to demand it when the other isn't in the mood. Of course, if never or rarely in the mood, it's not realistic to expect it isn't going to have an effect. And really, everyone talks about money issues in a marriage but c'mon, if the sex drives are vastly different, that's got to big just as be a toll.
Donna at July 9, 2008 11:33 AM
Perhaps Christie's problems started after her first husband, when her fiance was killed in a racing car . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Chandon_de_Brailles
"Olivier Chandon, also called Olivier Chandon de Brailles, Oliver Chandon de Briailles, and Olivier Chandon Debrailles (born in France on September 17, 1955 - March 2, 1983) was a French race car driver, heir to the Moët et Chandon champagne, and one-time boyfriend and fiance of the American supermodel Christie Brinkley."
Jay J. Hector at July 9, 2008 6:31 PM
I would just love to see, during the trial, some smart-ass reporter ask Brinkley the following: "What are you famous for?"
VIC CARS at July 9, 2008 11:44 PM
Great job mate!
video de cul at April 25, 2010 2:07 AM
Another complaint was when he mentioned how loans were insured it led viewers to believe that that was the only reason we are backing loans (I.E. bailout out banks) He should have explained some basics on banking so people understand that insured or not the government must bailout bank failures or loose much more in currency depreciation or currency collapse. They would start to ask why our government (yes Greenspan and Bush were key here) refused to regulate the finance sector when problems were brought up multiple times.
Bethann Muhlhauser at June 23, 2011 12:55 PM
Leave a comment