Discussion:
Woman's Infidelity is eternally a grave offense
Add Reply
m***@gmail.com
2015-08-31 12:14:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Woman's Infidelity is in any era or society a grave offense
~--~--~--~--~--~- ~--~--~--~--~ -~--~--~--~- ~--~--~--~--~-
On Wednesday, May 31, 2000 at 9:00:00 AM UTC+2, Brad Ferguson wrote:

« It's funny how the nature of scandal changes from decade to decade, though. Look at what we do for scandal now: There's that thing about Angelina Jolie and her brother, and there might not even be anything to it. Pretty blah. »

What changed is NOT "the nature" of scandal, which actually remains unchanged forever, but its image built and constantly altered by the medias. Ingrid Bergman and her husband, as most people in these circles, were living a dangerous life since constantly living far from each other, e.g. one in L.A., the other in Italy. When Rosselini courted Ingrid, she fell: this is the fault. The laws, the media buzz, the publicly imposed opinions, may change, but some things don't, even if it gets actually forbidden to say or write or recall them; one is that a man loves a woman, very dearly, she belongs to him, so she must NOT give herself to another one (which she is armed to resist because the woman's instinct does NOT pull her, as men, toward affairs); if she does, this is felt, by everyone, even stronger by women than by men, as a very grave offense, no matter the woman's status (ordinary wife, actress, queen, loved or hated by the public opinion, or whatever). Then when she (Ingrid) got pregnant it got even worse and she had no solution but to divorce. If such thing happened today, the *regular* people would have the same reaction.

The kiss between Angelina Jolie and her brother is so instant, temporary, different, that it is actually unrelated.

I am pretty sure that if a big actress, happily married with a loving husband and a lovely daughter, suddenly had an affair with another man, got pregnant and abandoned husband and daughter, she would get the same blame *from regular citizens* in 2015 than in 1950 or 1800 or in the Bible era. The only change would be how the story is recounted and presented by the official medias.

Versailles, Mon 31 Aug 2015 14:14:15 +0200
s***@gmail.com
2017-09-13 15:25:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It is true. Irrespective of the times, the reaction of those affected and the sensitive is the same. Only the onlookers have become more callous. If it happened today, one would say - To hell with Rosellini or Ingrid Bergman or Petter Lindstrom. From all the Biographies on Ingrid Bergman, particularly by Joe Steele, Alan Burgess and Laurence Leamer, it seems that she was bitter about Petter Lindstom for not divorcing her quickly enabling her to marry Rosellini. However, it is ironic that she had already got pregnant in April,1949 when her husband met her in Messina, Italy asking her to return and tell their child about their separation herself, to which she agreed and later refused to return. She agreed in her autobiography later that all the drama and scandal could have been avoided if she had met with her husband. Her relationship with Rosellini did not last, as it was evidently linked to their artistic attraction mistaken for divine love. Her 3rd marriage to Lars Schmidt was also a relationship based on convenience destined to fail. It would seem that if she had remained with her 1st husband or remained alone after divorcing him, she could have attained more for herself in the show business and her contentment lay in work, not in family life, to this she herself agreed. She was never a free woman as many think, always passing from one man to another and they would control her affairs, till her death. My impression is that she was a lost soul, always discontent, driven for her self fulfilment unmindful of others. Otherwise she would not have chosen a scandalous path but resorted to a dignified one. Once, her lover Bob Caps warned her that success is more corrupting than misfortune, looking at the drive she had to make herself an institution. Petter Lindstrom appears to have been silent all along, only telling his side of the story to Alan Burgess 30 yrs later who deceived him by editing his version along with Ingrid Bergman thereby forcing the Dr. to withdraw his part of the story. Later, some parts of the version given by Lindstrom was published in the biography by Laurence Leamer.
Loading...