Actors, Marriage, Infidelity and Divorce.

A quick look and there's at least three actors whom are on their second marriage, with the second relationship, officially, occurring within a span of 12 months.

1. Tom Hanks who cheated on his first wife, divorced her, and then married Rita Wilson a year later.
2. Kerri Russell: had her second child with her now ex-husband in 2011. She started filming The Americans in 2012 were she had a main role with fellow actor Matthew Rhys. No official word of when Russell and Rhys started their relationship/affair, but celebrity gossip sites said that their on-screen sex scenes during the first season were so "real" that onset staff of the series speculated that "they definitely were fucking" offset. The series began filming in 2012. Russell and her now ex-husband separated in 2013 and eventually divorced in 2014. Since 2014, she and Rhys have in a relationship.
3. Allison Williams and her now ex-husband were separated in 2019. In late 2019, Williams started dating past co-star Alexander Dreymon. Both Williams and Dreymon had lead roles in the Horizon Line that was filmed in earl 2019. No word that Williams had an affair with Dreymon, but no doubt at least one of them, or both, had the other in mind once the separation was official. They had a child in 2021.

A pattern holds up: the following relationship of each actor has been with a fellow actor whom they shared significant screen time with; with the relationship officially beginning within 12 months after the dissolution of the first marriage/relationship. 

The curios case of Sumner Stroh and Adame Levine: 23 yr old said she was "naive and young." What about the whole 18 is an adult thing?

In pop culture news, lead singer of the American band Maroon 5, Adam Levine, had an affair with a young woman named Sumner Stroh. Stroh is an OF model. Oh boy. Levine has been married to a Victoria Secret model since 2014. Hoo boy. Levine and his wife are expecting their third child. Please let me out of the room!

On the public finding out of the affair this is what Stroh, now 23, said - "I was young and naive." Hmmm. Well, given she was probably around 22 during the affair that lasted a year wouldn't the "young and naive" part be odd given society, particularly Western society, keeps using the "it's legal" alongside the "she/he is 18 yrs old so it's fine" card? If a 22 yr old who has an OF account and manages to sleep with a married man - let alone a celebrity of Levine's stature - counts as being "young and naive" I wonder what counts as being a real adult because being at or older than the age of consent proves that the concept of an "adult" is relatively meaningless in Western society. 

Stroh argues that she was "manipulated" by Levine because she believed his marriage was over (for whatever reason). Really? Wait, if we play the "two adults" and "consent" card then it really doesn't matter who manipulated who because Stroh isn't saying he raped her. By the logic of sexual libertines cheating doesn't do any harm to anyone - but only to the person stepping outside of a relationship in order to fulfill their libido if their feelings are hurt, either by their sexual partner or by their oh-so-mean significant other.

Gee, I thought a 22 yr old, fours years past 18, would be a veteran adult! Levine is a man child if you are aware of his past political rants. He isn't an adult. 

The whole story is a mess. Apparently she took pictures of her and Levine's affair and sent it to "people she trusted" thinking they would keep the whole thing private. First, if this was true, yes, the friends she trusted shouldn't have done what they've done. But they did. Let's move back a bit. How could this have been prevented? How about not taking pictures in the first place! Ah, sorta like when people take nudes of themselves - whether for themselves or for their significant others on their smartphones then their phone or iCloud gets hacked. "Did you see Jenny's nudes? She's bigger than I thought!" Not a good idea in general. Probably take the nude with a polaroid maybe, if you're so compelled to take that kind of picture.

And Levine, if the the texts are legit, wants to name his third kid after her. I hope to God that this isn't true because it further proves my point that the whole "as long they're adults and there's consent" is so utterly shallow and meaningless when sexual acts are involved. 

A Quick Comment on Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

It is said that people could not marry of the same sex and that this was unfair. This was marriage inequality. 

Originally the landmark case was because a person of the same sex could not have visitation rights, inherit money or have tax benefits etc. as compared to couple of the opposite sex who were married. On the national stage the narrative morphed into "bigots don't want gays to have equality via marriage." Now this is an interesting case on both the state and federal level. For now I'll just focus on the national narrative.

The national narrative is more or less false. The concern was that marriage was between one man and one woman. Pretty simple. But then The Left threw in the concept of love. This further muddled any sort of actual fair reasoning and logic. Here's the raw truth that defeats those in favor of Obergefell v Hodges: As previously noted, homosexuals (and bisexuals) had the right to get married all along - to the opposite sex. The standard was the same for every single person in the States. And it's been done before.

Numerous people with same-sex attraction have married people of the opposite sex. Probably a good amount of spouses had no idea that the person they married was either a homosexual or bisexual. The latter party had to "come out" to their partner. Maybe some had an idea that something wasn't "straight."A number of couples even had children. Some "came out" decades into their marriage. To parrot and drum on that people with same-sex attraction weren't allowed to enter marriage is a complete and utter lie. It's a false belief. 

Exceptions to the rule make for bad law. Obergefell v Hodges is a case that led to bad law.

Cohabitation

I never truly bought into the arguments of why people should cohabitate. One reason is because "it's the next step in our relationship." This is mostly bullshit because it means practically nothing unless it's symbolic of commitment (I doubt it). Some say "it's the next natural thing." Also bullshit. Many couples move in with each other because it's the norm - a norm that really has no basis in its purpose. Now, I can understand moving in for financial reasons since a roommate cuts down the cost, but that's probably the minute number.

Cohabitation is playing house when you're not even engaged let alone married. And yea, I heard the "test the waters" - also bullshit. Testing what waters? How many had a "successful" test and later broke up? How many boyfriends and girlfriends have you been through? How many moved in to only cancel the lease a year later? Can't you live alone and be in a relationship at the same time?

Call me old fashioned but when I seek a roommate I seek someone that isn't my significant other.

I simply don't play house. 

Pathetic courage and faux class.

I just got done watching Sidney Lumet's Murder on the Orient Express. I liked it; it was humorous in more places than I expected. I did also read the novel on which it is based off of, inked by Agatha Christie. This I also liked, but not as much as I hoped for. Nonetheless decent entertainment.

SPOILERS

Now, onto the post's heading. I was particularly intrigued by the portrayal of Greta Ohlsson played by legendary screen actress Ingrid Bergman. I found her execution of her lines very amusing. For example her character becomes pious after seeing Jesus in the clouds surrounded by brown children and it is this revelation that her character is inspired to go to Africa and "help little brown children." Of course, credit should also be given to Paul Dehn, the script writer, for giving a talented actress like Bergman to work with. In the dvd's special features Bergman insisted that she wanted make the character "a crazy nanny" and so she did. Honestly, her interview with Poiret was one of a kind. By far the best interview that Lumet had set up, which was rather different than what happened in the novel.

But, ah, admiration for Bergman's acting talent is wear my admiration stops. Forget her fight with cancer. Many have died with cancer and I see her as no difference, after all she had people drooling over her and forgiving her for every since, or "sin", under the sun. I quickly wiki'd her and learned that, to no surprise, she went through several marriages. The first marriage she had two affairs that is known. The first affair she luckily didn't get pregnant, but the second one she did. While on shoot I believe. So shortly after her second child was born (first child born within marriage to her first husband), she divorces her first husband and marries the director who impregnated in Mexico. After five or so years of marriage, and with the birth of a set of twins, he cheats on her and then later leaves her. Karma is a bitch. Later she remarries in which it would be her third marriage.

The Daily Beast deeply cares on how she was treated by US Senator in the 1950s. As Marlow Stern writes, " Senator Edwin C. Johnson (D-CO), a rank moralist who opposed FDR’s New Deal policies, slut-shamed the actress on the Senate floor." What? Do leftist moral relativists always add in X policy that a politician opposes that is beloved leftists at that time? Seems like it. And of course the "you slut-shamed" card. But what exactly did the senator say?

“Mr. President, now that the stupid film about a pregnant woman and a volcano [Stromboli] has exploited America with the usual finesse, to the mutual delight of RKO and the debased Rossellini, are we merely to yawn wearily, greatly relieved that this hideous thing is finished and then forget it? I hope not. A way must be found to protect the people in the future against that sort of gyp,” he proclaimed.

Sen. Johnson then proposed a bill wherein movies would be approved for licenses based on the moral compasses of those behind the picture, insisting that Bergman “had perpetrated an assault upon the institution of marriage,” and going so far as to call her “a powerful influence for evil.”

In Johnson's defense he wasn't too far from the truth. It's now 2018 as I write this and given how many think sex outside of marriage is totally A-OKAY the sexual adventures of a Swede (go figure) being treated nonchalantly by so-called progressives comes to no surprise.

What more interesting is how Bergman responded when she decided to return to the States.

“No, I have no regrets at all,” she said, unleashing that radiant smile. “I regret the things I didn’t do—not what I did. I have done what I felt like.”

This ties in a very narcissistic mindset on what is said earlier in the Daily Beast article when Bergman ponders about the films that either inspired her or which she acted in.

It’s the tale of a gal from Stockholm who grew up obsessed with the story of Joan of Arc, marveling at how this young, rebellious woman followed the voices inside her head, social mores be damned.

Well, that doesn't mean to sleep with whomever you "fall in love with" (it wasn't love). Stern attributes a line said by her character, Joan, in the film to how she lived her life.

“I don’t want any roots,” Bergman says in the film. “I want to be free.”

And, despite her marriage to Lindström—which produced a daughter, Pia—Bergman lived freely, much like many of her male movie star contemporaries.

Freely? Well damn social mores of fidelity and commitment, eh?

"She’d won an Oscar (for Gaslight) and purchased her family a luxurious home fitted with a gigantic pool in Benedict Canyon, yet still suffered from what she calls “a daily sadness.”

“I never understood the kind of happiness I was longing for,” she recalls in the film. “We finally got a house, fixed it up the way we wanted. But then that bird of passage started to flex its wings again.”

It seems Bergman wanted the next excitement after the material goods of earth bored her.

But shortly after the 1960s, the height of the Sexual Revolution, another politician wanted to address  Senator Johnson's remarks.

“Twenty-two years after Sen. Johnson’s disgusting tirade, on April 19, 1972, Senator Charles Percy (R-IL) read an apology to Bergman on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, one of the world’s loveliest, most gracious and most talented women was made the victim of bitter attack in this Chamber 22 years ago. Today I would like to pay long overdue tribute to Ingrid Bergman, a true star in every sense of the word.“I know that across the land, millions of Americans would wish to join me in expressing their regrets for the personal and professional persecution that caused Ingrid Bergman to leave this country at the height of her career,” he continued. “Miss Bergman is not only welcome in America; we are deeply honored by her visits here.”

The issue here is that I see no apology needed. One wanted to warn the American people of how zombie like devotion to an actress who's private life was a mess (but she was a wonderful mother! some may say) and to not let it influence their sexual morals and actions while another, for whatever, went the fanboy route. Percy would have probably pre-ordered Notorious: The Life of Ingrid Bergman. (Apparently the book reads like it was written by a fanboy.)

So yes, Bergman is a "true star in every sense of the word." Multiple divorces. Multiple marriages. Multiple kids from multiple marriages and affairs. Rootlessness. And the ever so smug "I regret nothing," mentality. But is she a "class act" as Stern writes? Only in the eyes of people like Stern. They are the ones that produce phrases like "rank moralist." Well, you can't cover up urine smell with makeup, costumes and the industry's highest acting award. Urine is urine even if it's named of Ingrid Bergman.

Askthebigot moves in new direction + new link.

Katy Faust's site, askthebigot, is adopting a new angle on advocating for real  marriage and for children who were raised in a same-sex household. She gathers their stories to show what a same-sex parent household cannot give a child: a household with two, loving parents of the opposite sex. Check it out.

NOTE: Those who do not see the nuclear family as, well, nuclear say that you technically only need one good, loving parent to succeed - even better if it's two people of the same sex in a relationship raising you. It's too bad that (A) common sense and (B) solid social science studies have shown that kids being raised in a two parent opposite sex household fair better than both. Of course there are exceptions since I personally know a handful of my peers that were brought up in single parent households that are married or soon will be and  have career success, but here's the thing: they all expressed disappointment in their parents' splitting and had their grandparents fill in where the missing parent would be.

To add to this there is a belief that has rolled out of the mouths that despise the nuclear family, which is good because the cat is somewhat out of the bag: that a father isn't necessary (hello third wave feminism). Does the feminist have the audacity, or even the feminist mom who has a husband, turn to the fathers or their husband and say they're truly optional, and then turn to their kid(s) and say that their father can be nullified by (A) just her own love and (B) a person of the opposite sex acting as "mom #2"? I bet not.

Penis and tits.

Okay, I got your attention. Warning: this is probably my crudest post. Just sayin'. This is something I don't want my parents to read, but hey, sometimes you gotta tell it like it is.

When women, not all, say that men are shallow and that all they care about when measuring a woman's worth, whether or not they want to have a sexual relationship with the, is based on how big a woman's chest is. This might be true for some men. But in reality men, once you get down to it, really aren't that superficial when it comes to dating at least. There are probably more men who date women that have no bigger than B-cups. There are plenty of known actresses who aren't blessed with sizeable breasts; I bet many men would like to date them. You go to any American major city, say NYC to LA to DC. I will bet that there are more men dating women who are have small breasts than there are men dating those who are busty. It's also a numbers game: there are more women who don't fall into the busty category, say the more large side of C-cup.

When the clothes come off for "happy hour" men don't wish damn I wish your tits were big as that one actress from Mad Men. No. They're thinking fuck yea I'm gettin' some! Truth be told breasts, once the friction starts, aren't treated the same as a vagina. A vagina is a vagina (transgender "women" do not count, sorry but not sorry), let's me honest. Same with breasts. As Al Pacino's character says in Scent of a Woman, "Tits. Hoo-ah! Big ones, little ones, nipples staring right out at ya, like secret searchlights. Mmm." Men are simple creatures when it comes to sex.

Women, if you're worried that you aren't attractive, or if you're unhappy that your breasts aren't "big", you're just putting more angst into your psyche that isn't needed. When it comes down to it men (I) don't really care.

But what's the equivalent to breast size for men? Penis size. This is pretty straight forward and I'm not sure why no one, that I've come across when reading about modern dating, has touched upon this. Like breast size for women, penis size can really make a man question is worth. Let's face it: too big can hurt a woman; too small the women is embarrassed for you. If anyone knows anything about sex is that a woman's g-spot is the clincher. You hit that right she'll be melting with aid of stimulus of the clitoris.

When she pulls down your pants and is met with a little pecker she might think What? In today's dating landscape I hope you have a lot of money to keep her from leaving; if she's considered a seven or above there will be men who want to date her. Like bank accounts, a man's penis size is another form of it. Unlike breasts, a penis plays a large part in a woman's sexual pleasure and a man's self-esteem. When a woman takes off her shirt, whether she's flat chested or not, it's a sight to behold because a woman's body is innately beautiful. When a man pulls down his pants a woman is thinking I wonder how big it is -- OMG that's one good lookin' dick.

Once you get down to it the breasts may be small but they're breasts and any guy without some messed up psyche will be happy with 'em. The penis, on the other hand, can make a girl embarrassed when she talks sex with her girlfriends at Sunday brunch in DC. Simply put, the penis is linked to sexual pleasure than breasts ever were since breasts, for a male, are seen for sexual arousal. Yes, men may goggle as a busty woman but that doesn't mean he'll leave his B-cup girlfriend for her. If anything, men may leave their significant other for "prettier" types.

A woman can break up with a guy for many reasons - not tall enough, penis too small; if the penis is too big at least it's big, not making six figures, doesn't have elite academic pedigree, doesn't make a living as a lawyer, actor, doctor or youtuber etc. As a guy the pressure is on us. In some ways it's a good thing: you're forced to stay in shape and to be learned; you're forced to not be a pansy and find ways to provide for your family or girl.

So again, ladies, if you're upset that you don't have big breasts like this cute thing here (she indirectly expressed jealousy towards a co-worker's bigger bra size only to be met with breast cancer a year later; she then said that after chemo she can finally get new breasts), there's no true need to worry.

And no, I will not tell you how long my schlong is nor its girth.

Weddings.

I have some opinions that will be considered bizarre if not stupid. So be it.

1. When a bride asks for advice to deal with a friend being upset for not being in the bridal party, many, if not all responses, will say if she were a true friend she'd get over it and should be be honored to be invited as a guest to the ceremony.

My answer: You're not royalty and what if you get divorced? I've been to weddings. Was I honored to be there? No.

2. The whole "it's MY day" to "it's MY wedding."

My answer: Yes, it's your wedding, but what if you get divorced? Where's God in this? You sound like a damn spoiled bitch. "It's all about MEEeeEEEE!"

3. SIL/BIL as bridemaid/groomsman.

My answer: A rather stupid "rule."

It could be just me but I find it very strange how Americans (and I'm an American) approach and view weddings.

As I grow older I find myself rejecting the whole wedding industry complex. If I ever do get married I don't want a bachelor's party. I want the ceremony to focus on my bride, me and God. I don't want it held outside, or at some resort, or Vegas, or a court house. I want the ceremony to be in a Catholic church. No ifs not buts. I want it to be damn simple. I don't want speeches at the reception, at least on my side. Head table? Is this fucking Hogwarts with Professor Dumbledore? I don't want a flock of groomsmen - maybe just a best man. And the honeymoon? Okay, I'll take the honeymoon.

New link added.

It's called askthebigot.com.

Like Robert Oscar Lopez, the writer - Katy - was raised in a household with two parents of the same sex -- that were in an intimate relationship. Like Lopez she does not support same-sex adoption. And like Lopez, she - and a very telling way - has been threatened and cyber stalked by actual homosexuals.

I want to drive more traffic to her site because I believe it's a place that's worth visiting, reading and knowing the side that opposes children to being raised in same-sex households that were actually in that very same situation.

The "telling" which I mentioned is that her site wasn't really well-known to the traditional family crowd or even to the pro-equality BS crowd. It's my hunch that the LGBT Gestapo, with their tentacles deep in the pockets of lobbyists and education, have scoured the internet for sites that oppose their view. Now, these sites can't be the run-of-the-mill sites (like mine, I admit), but those that (1) are strongly known in the conservative blogosphere and (2) have writers that can potentially damage the narrative of "Gay Is Good" and "Nothing To See Here." That's why National Review, Breitbart, American Thinker and Daily Caller have so many assholes from the modern leftist side posting.

Katy has mentioned that a homosexual from Spain (?) found about her site and threatened to reveal her personal information - her real name, her home address and where her husband worked. Eventually her information was leaked. People who do this are unbalanced, seek revenge and have vitriol in their hearts. If this isn't evidence that same-sex attraction isn't 'normal' then I don't know what is.

So, please, visit Katy's site. Read the posts. And read the combox section. I guarantee that the crazy, narrow-minded side will be those who support same-sex "marriage" and adoption. Oh, and many of the crazy, narrow-minded side are homosexuals. Talk about desperation.

Religion, secularism & marriage

I've observed that many of my friends that majored in physics tend to quote Carl Sagan. I've also observed that many that I throughout high school, given their particular personality and physical makeup (a bit dorkish and tall and lanky) are non-believers.

Another thing that's worth noting is that my brother's group of friends whose only a few years older than I treat religion with a bit more respect than those who, say, are a year or two younger than me. It's not all a huge age difference, but the contrast is a little striking. From getting married in a courthouse (why anyone would do this is beyond me, well, besides them being non-religious and/or can't afford the church fees) to nature weddings (ceremonies outside that are nowhere near a church) or the marriage conducted by a non-religious officiate (I just recently learned a friend is an officiate - as I saw a picture of him presiding a marriage).

Now the first and third -- why even bother attending. It's really just a bunch of 20/30 somethings playing dress-up like Halloween, but instead of getting candy it's putting rings on each others ring finger and declaring "For life!" Instead of a ring pop, Joe and Jane, now holding jobs/careers that afford them to rent out the facilities exchange relatively expensive rings. Instead of dressing up in a werewolf costume the groom dresses in a tux and the Pink Power Ranger puts on heels and a white dress. There is no real meaning to it. If you can get a divorce in a snap (no-fault divorce) and hold up that state wedding license with smiles why the celebration? Maybe it's a failure of their upbringing. Maybe it's a failure of their lack of understanding of what marriage is as a whole, not what marriage is to the individuals getting married.

I was just at a ceremony that was held at a botanical garden and the officiate, as I learned later, is a homosexual. I knew something was "off" because during the officiates speech about the two people getting married, there was no mention of faith, God or anything transcendental besides love and commitment. The only things that were repeated was love and commitment; the speech sounded like an atheist omitting the "under God" when saying the Pledge of Alliance. Alongside the bride's brother reciting a poem about, you guessed, love. It was somewhat weird. And the entire ceremony lasted no more than 15 minutes.

There's something lacking in courthouse/secular/outdoor-weddings. These weddings really are just a proclamation of "We really, really like each other! We've decided on forever!" Okay, where's the priest? Where's the steeple? There are non. I'll skip the ceremony and show up to the reception. At least they have alcohol to make my brain accommodate the nothingness that pervades the room.

If non-religious ceremonies are this uneventful, completely void of being transcendental and bizarre between two people of the opposite sex, then I can only imagine what a ceremony would be like between two people of the same sex.

These are a few quotes that showed up on my friends facebook page. Two, I presume are atheists and the other agnostic at best.

"time will pass, nothing will last" 

"God is an alien" (when listing his religious views) 

"The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." - Carl Sagan (this was one of three quotes on a three tier wedding cake)

EDIT: I just learned that one of college acquaintances, she and her boyfriend, just went to the courthouse and signed the marriage license. This was on facebook. The two dressed in casual clothes - like they were running errands - and the caption read something like this, "Well consider this my proclamation. I'm off the market! We've decided to not have a ceremony and felt it was time to finally time to sign a piece of paper." Finally time to sign a piece of paper. Why even offer a congrats in that? (Granted there were many by in-laws, immediate family members and close friends.) Why "make it official" with that line of thought? 

In contrast, another college acquaintance of mine was married at, I think, in a Catholic church. The pictures of the groomsmen and women were really lovely. The pictures of the family and the married couple in front of the alter were more lovely. I am not sure if it means anything, but if she felt the need to list "Catholic" under religious views on facebook then I suppose that there is some sort of spiritual fire in her. I am not sure about  her husband. At least their effort to respect the institution of marriage is more hopeful than the story just above.

Are you saying that single motherhood (or parenting) is totally "fine"?

Around the 11:10 mark. Good points about government and it being involved in marriage, making divorce a nightmare for guys, but what you just said about "tons and tons and tons of single mothers" is really ridiculous. Advocating for single motherhood, like it's a fine alternative to two people of the opposite sex being married and raising a child, is fucking crazy because it's irresponsible and plain out idiotic to even support.

A poster named Gracie

wrote this on AT (American Thinker) of an article trying to refute the popular notion that marriage is an unpopular option -

"I would be lonely than miserable" Too many married women, after working 8 hours, must come home to cook, help children, do laundry while their husbands "are resting" after 8 hrs work. It's just too much, so many women would rather have the peace and quiet and be single again. Single men/women have "friends with benefits" that solve other problems. Whether married or single, a women must look hard and chose whatever will be easier for her in the future.....

Now I'll say this: Not everyone is meant for marriage - some people are called to the religious life (celibacy) and some people just don't do well in relationships so they're single forever. Some never find a person of their opposite sex worthy of a proposal; some women never are proposed to. I've even met some who said their profession, mainly single teachers (male), was their calling and the students were, in some way, their "children." Their quality of teaching is their legacy which, hopefully, resides and influences some of their students.

Onto Gracie. She later comments on another poster's "my wife keeps the house clean while I work outside" asking "Is your wife a stay-at-home-wife or does she work?" Based on the above quote I figure she has issues with women working and doing house chores. I also take that she sees  marriage and everything that comes with it as more of a burden - almost like "Whoa is me for having breasts and a vagina with fallopian tubes that aren't tied (yet) - than "it is what it is."

Though just a couple of comments, I think these types of quick "insights" of a modern woman is telling. I know I'm being judgmental, but this mentality is just a turn-off and comes across as sad, confused, pathetic, lost and plain narcissistic.