SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

If you haven't seen the Martha Stewart documentary on Netflix, allow me to spoil it a bit. She admitted to cheating on her husband at least twice, one time while on their honeymoon. He also had affairs, which reportedly included bringing the women into their home.
I was struck by just how brazenly unrepentant she was. And to dredge all that ugliness up again decades after the divorce seemed especially petty since they've both moved on (I suspect...but perhaps I'm projecting).
It had two effects on me:
1. Actually almost wishing that my experience with infidelity involved someone so initially callous and indifferent. It would have been a no-fail excuse in ending that relationship instead of what happened. My XWF actually seemed initially regretful about what she'd done when it first happened. I did agree to try again, but went behind her back and had a very brief RA just to feel that we were even. Stupid doesn't even cover it. She then nuked me. In hindsight, a lot of her rancor was obviously revenge-for-my-revenge. BTW, RAs are a really bad idea. I genuinely wish she'd just been awful right away and I could have moved on with some dignity instead of having so many of my personal relationships ruined.
2. I now really dislike anything in our home that is linked in any way to Martha Stewart. Luckily there's not much, but there are a few things. Before, I was ambivalent to them, now they're almost triggering.
Prior to seeing this, MS occupied less than a fraction of a percent of my consciousness over the past 20 years. I really am surprised that something so outside of my conscious thoughts could affect me so personally.

I am halfway through this special. So far, I have been in shock of the entire thing. I knew she had a coldness but I was not expecting all this.

I think her view is just so twisted by the things she needs/wants to believe. Yes Martha, kissing a random guy is cheating. The 'In a church...while on the honeymoon' is just so telling of her mindset.

I get her emotional distancing. I have always struggled with that. BUT girl....get yourself into some IC.

I think that to succeed in business you need a ruthless streak that could be seen by many as narcistic. Narcissism has a bad rep, but IMHO a "healthy" level of self-love and self-valuation (i.e. narcissism) is necessary. It’s when it starts coming at a cost to others and/or not based on true values that it might become an issue.

Many manage to discern between their professional roles and their personal life. I read an interview with the chief executioner of Saudi Arabia who shared a cold and professional stance to his "work" activities like beheadings, while sharing an image of a caring father and doting grandfather. Came across like a great guy to play golf with, but not someone I wanted to do business with...

I have a feeling that Martha might be exactly the same person at home and at the office. Maybe because her name is her brand. Or maybe her name is her brand because of the narcissist traits... She definitely has succeeded in business, and those jobs in Asian sweatshops aren’t there in some well-intended and conscious effort to create careers there...

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said that the rich are different. Google for the full paragraph. Martha married a 24 year old rich guy when she was 19 then they went to Europe for a 4 month honeymoon. Anyone out there able to honeymoon for four months? When I was 19 I was deciding on a major and working a temp job to get the money to buy 2 new brake cylinders so my old car would pass inspection. The closest anyone in my family got to Europe was watching Upstairs Downstairs. I think I’ll put Martha in the same category as Frank Sinatra. Love his music and his commitment to civil rights. The rest? There are better role models. The latest Martha Stewart disclosures just serve to remind us that we really don’t know much about the people who appear on our TVs and in public life. Martha is a good cook and decorator. She’s smart and charming. The rest? There are better role models.

No judgement in this statement- I just found it spoke volumes:

The woman has been to prison for insider trading. She was already a billionaire. Yet, this is what you will break ties with her over.

I think that speaks volumes as to how awful infidelity is.

Her entitlement is always there, I think that’s how people like her make comebacks. They simply do not believe they are worth less than everything they want.

I personally saw her commentary about her personal relationships to be sad. It’s absolutely evident the woman has never loved or been loved. If her husband was a terrible cheater for most of her marriage, I can see how in comparison she looks at herself as practically innocent. I am not saying she is right about that, but as a madhatter I can see how that tendency could go unchecked.

I also felt that his betrayal with other women wasn’t what made her bitter towards him. It was that he left. Same with her boyfriend of 15 years. She didn’t care that he ignored her while she was doing time. She only cared that he left. I personally think fidelity wasn’t that important to her to begin with. She didn’t put up with it for any other reason than she valued other things about the relationship. It’s only in hindsight that he left that she thinks she should have done it first. Because how dare someone leave Martha Stewart. It’s not like she didn’t have the resources to end the marriage, it just wasn’t a deal breaker for her.

I think she has had all the riches in the world but not the things that truly matter. She remains emotionally undeveloped and whether she can acknowledge it or not largely lonely and devoid of connection. I just don’t think she values that. When she said she wasn’t interested in her spouses feelings at all, then the only thing she valued was the intellect, partnership, and commitment to stay.

The woman has been to prison for insider trading. She was already a billionaire. Yet, this is what you will break ties with her over.

I actually thought about this as well. I wondered why that fact bothered me less than the infidelity. I think it's because I--personally--have not been impacted by insider trading (that I know of), so I'm not really as emotionally invested. Plus, I do believe there's some truth that she was made an example of. Not a scapegoat, per se, because that would imply she could be innocent. But that the book was thrown at her to scare other folks off. Totally understandable, but it doesn't excuse what she did.

Also, I have a relative who has been to prison who became a model citizen. Almost annoyingly so. So I can relate to someone who made terrible choices and learned the hard way.

I agree that it was that they left. That makes a lot of sense. Given her description of her father, it's entirely reasonable that she would really take anyone leaving her more personally than almost any other infraction.

BUT girl....get yourself into some IC

Stat!

[This message edited by 1994 at 4:20 PM, Wednesday, November 13th]

Oh 1994- I should have said I felt the same way. That’s what I mean by no judgment. I think you are right, once cheated on there are few crimes that one might look at like that one. I just thought it was a testament on just how bad cheating is, there just isn’t a jail sentence for it.

I didn't take it that way at all. On the surface, it does seem like a weird programming glitch.
Thank you as always for your thoughtful responses.

Maybe because her name is her brand. Or maybe her name is her brand because of the narcissist traits... She definitely has succeeded in business, and those jobs in Asian sweatshops aren’t there in some well-intended and conscious effort to create careers there...

I agree. My professional life has been in government service, so I do have the luxury or privilege or naivete or whatever to be motivated evenly by things other than the corporate bottom line. Someone with her ability to emotionally detach has probably served her very well...professionally. Until it didn't.
I had no idea she'd been a stock trader in her early life, so she likely saw shades-of-grey financial opportunities that she exploited for years before it caught up to her.
It all goes back to the basic idea that character is at the root of all good and bad things that people do. She had no trouble cheating on her husband or at the stock market or within labor markets; no amount of coiffed gardens can overcome poor character.

I think that to succeed in business you need a ruthless streak that could be seen by many as narcistic.

Sigh. So many believe that, and it’s a load of 💩. I’m a serial entrepreneur, very successful by most any standard, and I’ve been the opposite of "ruthless". Successful people were once looked up to, or at least their success was celebrated. Now, likely due to those fomenting class warfare, pretty most all self-made rich are looked at with suspicion, where others assume they must be Machiavelli (or worse), and therefore we all ought root for their destruction.

Those who create great jobs and lead to the success and wealth for many others, were once cheered. Now, due to thinking like this, I know some wealthy folks who drive crappy old cars and shabby old clothes since they don’t want the abuse. No, I’m not asking for pity for the wealthy. I’m merely pointing out how much our society has changed, for the worse I think, and we now celebrate misogynistic thugs like rappers, instead of those who create new businesses, build, and succeed by hard work and smart choices. There’s a better way.

Those who create great jobs and lead to the success and wealth for many others, were once cheered.

We have had this same discussion in this house more than once. People really resent when someone else is massively successful regardless of how much they donate, how many they employ, how much risk they take on to do so, etc. It's mind boggling. And like you said, we (collective "we") look up to entertainers, sports stars, etc for next to no reason. Sure, some of them are charitable, too, and they employ their entourage that gets them around the world but they aren't employing thousands of people in many countries, and building new stores or factories that will employ many more.

Rewatch it and listen closely to her definition of her father. She starts off like they were buddies and then the more she talked he sounded like a horrible father. Her focus on things instead of people seems to be from a rotten childhood. It is easier to deal with things instead of parents who are cruel to you.
She comes across a a person who has a hard time letting down her guard so I have enjoyed the idea that she and Snoops are buddies. I think he brings out a gleeful side of her. I also think people whose name is their brand has to be tough.

I was reading some speculation on another site last night that they think MS might be on the spectrum. I wonder.

My friend was her neighbor for several years did not have many positive things to say about her.

I watched the Netflix documentary and have to wonder why she shared those very private letters she wrote to her husband.

She's a product of her generation and social class. Meaning, she carries her childhood trauma of emotional abandonment and abuse with her to this day. She's an amazing business woman but really damaged. According to acquaintances that claim to know her husband, he was definitely a serial cheater before she cheated, but who knows. Does it really matter who cheated first. Neither own their choices. I'll still watch her cooking shows and read her recipes.

I think we tend as a people to associate ruthlessness and repulsive degeneracy with rich people for two primary reasons:

1) They have greater option and opportunity to do so compared to the struggling proletariat;

2) When they are ruthless and repulsively degenerate they tend to attract more attention and subsequent judgement/ire.

Like gr8ful said, good people who make money honestly just don't really get that much attention at all, positive or negative. My great-grandfather was also a serial entrepreneur. He opened a huge chain of chicken hatcheries with live-in employees who sometimes started their families whilst living in the store. One of those stores survived long enough for me to visit it before being sold by my dad and his brother. Some of the families that were associated with ours through that live-in hatchery arrangement are still in close, friendly contact with the family to this day. And no one remembers him. That's ok, I do, through the stories my dad told me. And the fact that he made a bunch of money isn't any kind of detriment to the familial and community legacy that he left behind.

All that to say: having money really shouldn't be the deciding factor. MS has a lot of money. MS is a degenerate reprobate married to a degenerate reprobate and they both mindlessly wallow in their gilded cesspool. The two facts don't depend on each other -- except maybe in the adjective "gilded" which is the only reason any of us know about it, anyway.