I guess there’s no chance that none of these women just took their marriage vows very seriously?
I don’t respect that position, mind you. Marriage should never reduce someone to a doormat. But love makes people do much worse than that.
So Karma harms multiple innocent people to get even with one guilty person? Are you sure you don’t have Karma mixed up with God?
Pretty sure it was originally about the Trumans. I xertainly heard it pre Clinton presidency.
Round these here parts, we call that third grade.
We’ve been through this before, and referring to those other celebrity wives involved in scandal fails because it brings up nearwildheaven’s correct observation, that mere philandering is different from serial rape, and cochrane’s that at least some of them would stand in quite good stead career and respectwise without the men.
OTOH, it’s easy for many people to say “oh, why doesn’t she just dump him on the spot, what a mercenary”; they don’t pause to think that there may be just as many people who in the opposite case would be saying “oh, she could not wait to throw him under the bus fast enough, she’s looking out for #1” – and many of the first group will just shake their heads and refuse to grant the second group validity in their counter opinion.
So why do you assume that the people who wrote 1776 originated the joke?
Also note that the Steve Jobs film (and the book upon which it’s based) is about real people. How do you know that this was not said by one of them in reality? (Note that I have not read the book by Walter Isaacson.)
I’m trying to understand why this was worth its own thread on a “Fighting Ignorance” message board. Did someone come out taking a strong stand* in favor of a contrary position? (can’t grasp what that would be though… “Cosby and Clinton’s wives secretly divorced them”?)
- Maybe someone did. Can you give us a link?
Wait, the musical or the book?
And who knew KITT could sing?
I have no dog in this hunt, but will say that Sorkin has gone on record saying he had no interest in representing actual happenings and quotes, per se, and he is also a massive Broadway fan.
As for the OP, yes, complicity comes in many shapes and sizes.
As for genuine infidelity, more than one woman has told me that she could not divorce her husband for that because she had done it herself.
Nobody ever knows what goes on in a marriage except for the people in it.
I think we also need to separate sex from love. They are not at all equal.
However, everything also points to Cosby being a rapist. Did his wife know?
Hijack continued because it’s much more interesting than the OP:
The musical. Although if it’s in the McCollough book (which I doubt, but possible), then maybe it’s an actual exchange between Jefferson and Adams–Peter Stone liberally used letters and documents for his script.
If Peter Stone (who wrote the book and lyrics for 1776) copied the exchange from somewhere, it’s probably historic. I don’t see anyone accusing him of re-using the dialogue.
This is a well-regarded play/film that any history wonk or lover of witty dialogue would likely know it. Since Sorkin’s both, I’m calling a j’accuse on him. 
BTW, I should mention the actual lines in question. In 1776, it’s from the scene where Adams confronts Jefferson on not having completed even a first draft of the Declaration of Independence:
The last two lines are the ones Sorkin paraphrased (slightly). If anyone else used them before, I’m not finding it–and I’m far from the first person who’s spotted that the exchange in the trailer is practically word-for-word quote from 1776.
So basically, in this scenario, Sorkin would be quoting Isaacson quoting Andy Hertzfeld quoting 1776 quoting Thomas Jefferson. It’s turtles all the way down! While pedeconferencing, no doubt. 
Honestly, if this were a real exchange told to Walter Isaacson, as a screenwriter Sorkin still should’ve avoided using it, since he’d recognize the quote. But I don’t think it is. Everyone quoting the lines on the web credits Sorkin with the witty dialogue, not Isaacson or Hertzfeld.
Look, I like Sorkin’s work too, Sports Night and TWW being two of my favorite shows. But the guy reuses lines, plots, character archetypes and even names as if he’s some kind of Word Conservationist and they’re being rationed. He’s also almost physically incapable of creating characters who don’t speak just like Sorkin characters. Which is great if you love Sorkin characters, but not so much in a biographical film.
To quote the man (as he’s done himself): Words mean things. Or, to quote him quoting someone else (in this case, Mike Nichols): “Art isn’t about what happened.”
That makes a lot of damn sense. Pardon me for not reading the rest of it.
it’s important to remember that no person can be reducible to just one thing, that’s just us trying to simplify everything and everyone into a good/bad format that relieves us of the burden of thinking. The best of us have bad qualities that might horrify the crowd
and the worst of us have committed acts of generosity and selflessness that the crowd may never suspect. Crimes and cruelties should be punished and condemned, certainly, but it is possible that people marry other people for their virtues, not for money in spite of their faults. We can condemn individuals for their bad acts without pretending that no one, ever, had a good reason to love them.