The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #46876   Message #696774
Posted By: SharonA
23-Apr-02 - 04:11 PM
Thread Name: OBIT: Linda Boreman aka Linda Lovelace
Subject: RE: OBIT: Linda Boreman aka Linda Lovelace
Jonesey: I'm not sure which quotes you're referring to. I was working from the statement in the obit that said, "Boreman claimed her first husband forced her into pornography at gunpoint. They divorced in 1973. Their relationship disintegrated into a life of violence, rape, prostitution and pornography, according to her 1980 autobiography, 'Ordeal,' and her testimony before congressional committees investigating pornography." Violence, rape, prostitution and being forced at gunpoint to do anything fit my definition of "wrongdoing" – and the criminal justice system's definition as well!

I have not read "Ordeal" so I don't know how reasonable or unreasonable it is to doubt her account. I don't know about the physical evidence of abuse about which Linn speaks, or whether it's been documented independently. I'm sure that, as you say, Linda's first husband's account would paint him in a more favorable light than her account did.

But anyone who's ever been in an abusive relationship will tell you that 'unloading the asshole' is not something one can do freely; an abusive person controls others through fear, and the abused needs to act in spite of that fear (including, in some cases, fear for one's life) to break away from the relationship. Even if (s)he manages to do so, revenge by the abuser is a very real possibility, so the abused must be prepared to live in fear for a very long time even if the asshole is 'unloaded'. So "free" depends on the perspective of the abused, not yours or mine.

I agree with you that "character is defined by one's actions over a period of time." Note that, over a period of time, Linda did 'unload' her first husband (according to the obit, the year after "Deep Throat" came out), had a second marriage that lasted 22 years and had two kids by that second husband. Perhaps for some people that would have been enough, but she felt compelled to "capitalize on her celebrity for a cause" and, unlike you, I have no problem with her working for a cause whether she's a celebrity or not. Working for a cause one thinks is beneficial to humanity is not a bad character trait, and I don't think she should be villified for having done so simply because she was not anonymous.

Sharon

P.S. to Spaw – By the way, I do not have any kids. I applaud you, Spaw, for creating the relationship with your kids that you describe. Too few parents talk with their kids about what they'll be exposed to out in the world, nor do those parents pay any mind to what their kids will be exposed to in their own homes.