Ordinarily these things are the result of out of proportion actions taken against someone, here that doesn't apply. He is innocent of rape. I don't see how acknowedging that excuses him of something else, especially something that wasn't a crime. I also don't find it clear that he knew she was married, only that they met at a place where she had come with her family...a pub no less.

Peter:

I think the phrase �this innocent man� refers to the charge of rape alone.

Peter:

In the section you've highlighted, the point is that he is innocent of rape.

But that aside, conerning your main point as to whether knowingly cuckolding someone now escapes social censure... there are plenty of feminsits who would argue, probably convinvingly, that men always have escaped censure for it - even been lionised for it - while the cheating wives are universally reviled.

The point, of course, is that Howard�s conduct has cost him his friendship with Stephen, even though the latter has never met the woman and never will..

Hold on. What exactly is the "conduct" to which we are being referred? Is it the actually affair, or is it Alec's deception---most unfriendlike---of his friend Stephen?

Given that Stephen refers to himself as "the most broad-minded of men," it is quite certain that Alec's deception, lying, dissembling and lack of respect for Stephen is the issue here; and not the affair itself.

But it is more than this; for Alec's decision to hide his behavior from his friend, child-like (or Adam 'n Eve-like, who tried to hide their shame from God in the garden?), rather than stand up and reveal himself---and take the consequences---means that he has neither understanding of Stephen's character nor faith in Stephen's friendship. Thus the friendship, as Stephen quickly realizes, proves a sham; but not because of the affair, per se, not because of that lapse.

Though the point may well be that those who betray certain principles can be counted on to betray their weaknesses in other areas. Perhaps.

Nonetheless, as Puddn'Head Wilson constantly reminds us (in his calendar), honesty is the best policy. (And of course the hardest.)

As for the underhanded Ms. Underwood, might we assume that had she "merely" strayed, she would still be married? For surely, more than the contempt she held for her lover, more than the contempt she held for the law, all motivated by perhaps an understandable fear, was the utter contempt she held for her husband and family.

And ultimately for herself.

Jeff/Brit;

You are probably right, but there is still an aura of how he was a complete victim who had no culpable role in this saga. He is hardly the first man in history to be caught in this nightmare, which is a risk one runs in such circumstances. I accept the criminal charge was an outrage, but the idea that he was just a good citizen victimized by circumstances over which he had no control is a little hard to swallow.

Brit, that women have been condemned more than men is obviously true, but that men have escaped censure and been lionized is not, particularly if the result was the destruction of a family.

Barry:

I think you are deconstructing too much by drawing such a sharp distinction between the deception and the adultery. Do you think Steven would have reacted as he did if he had been told Alec wanted to write a book, only to discover he was baking cakes?

According to the original article: "She finally confessed to chatting him up in a nearby bar and admitted she had spent the night with him."

To me, it sounds like the woman left the bar where her husband and son were, went to another "nearby" pub, met the guy and then went somewhere else with him to have the assignation. If this is the case, the wrongly accused man may not have known she was married. So he might not be guilty of knowingly commiting adultery, only fornication. Assuming, of course, that he was not married as well.

I derive two lessons from this tale: One, free sex isn't. Two, if you can avoide it, don't marry a "vindictive and deceitful" woman who also appears to be a slut.

Finally, a question: What were they doing bar hopping with a two-year-old in tow?

Pubs work a bit differently in the UK than bars do in the americas. Think of a local coffee house or McDonalds and you'll get the approximate equivalent. For the brits, the pub is the "third place" that the teahouse is for the chinese and Starbucks or Borders is for americans. Plus, kids are legal to go to pubs from an early age. Tradeoffs: warm beer, early closing times.

instant karma in action.

How many people, faced with the information that a friend had knowingly had an affair with a married person (or even attemted to), would say "I'm sorry, but we cannot be friends anymore"? Tragically, you're several decades too late, Peter.

b:

You're several decades too late, Peter

Tell me about it. I was born forty years old with an intimate knowledge of the Old Testament. However, the question remains. How the heck can we prattle on about "family values" and then do a "you old devil" routine whenever someone is in an adulterous relationship. Frankly, I think men are congenitally hopeless on this issue and we'll have to wait until women come to their senses and start directing a little collective rage to bring us to heel.

Peter:

"Frankly ... bring us to heel."

Exactly.

Among young single men there definately exists a "you old devil" treatment of such behavior. It is easy to delude oneself that sleeping with a married woman is acceptable. They will tell you that they're getting divorced, or that they are abused and can't go home. Or they will say they have an open relationship, whatever. Many men are only too willing to use whatever comes to hand to excuse their behavior. Even so, both parties generally know it is wrong and can such behavior lead to anything other than self-loathing?

Not being familiar with the movie, I agree with Barry. Friendship is reliant on trust. We can often excuse a friend's lapse in judgement (glass houses and stones come to mind), but a display of dishonesty and deception that makes one a party to a friend's immoral behavior shows a lack of trust and consideration. Who needs friends like that?

I think we can all agree that falsely accusing someone of any crime is intolerable and accusing someone of rape is particularly egregious in that the accuser presumably was party to the act. Whatever the legal fallout of that unfortunate affair, the innocent child and husband won't be immune to the negative impact on their lives. A tragedy was had by all.

It was the discussion of the film that intrigued me. Whatever her previous behavior, the woman's actions at the flat were perfectly understandable. Rather than be found out, she ran down the back stairs and out of the story.

Not being a man, I found it hard to understand all the rationalizations not only in the original post, but the comments. It just occurred to me that there are few women who comment here. I wonder that I didn't notice that until just now.

Anyway. What exactly was the egregious act committed by the Alec towards Stephen that caused a fatal breach in their friendship? It seems a small thing to be circumspect when seeking to use another man's flat for an assignation. That's why I can't understand Stephen's behavior. He makes it clear he was unhappy that he wasn't aware of Alec's plans, but wouldn't Alec have been something of a cad had he told Stephen of his plans for the afternoon?

The sophisticated British men like David Niven we've grown so fond of in English films, wouldn't have deigned to notice the scarf or the scuffling down the back stairs. Face and friendship would have been saved and if there were any cooling in the relationship, it would have happened gradually with neither party remembering why.

It's hard to imagine why even if he had been taken aback and had been offended by his friend's moral lapse, Stephen would launch into a preposterous story about women patients. Perhaps after he recovered his wits, he realized he'd made a fool of himself, he became angry at his friend for being the cause of it. Hard to say. Hard to say too is which one of the two is the bigger jerk, but then I never liked Trevor Howard and never could understand how Scarlet could be bothered with him when she had Clark Gable for the asking.

I just checked to see who played Stephen and it seems there is no Stephen among the characters. Stanley Holloway plays the friend, Albert Godby, and if I had a friend like that, I'd add ... and good riddance.

Brief Encounter

Brief Encounter

Brief Encounter

Sorry. I just learned how to link and got carried away.

erp:

If you click the "more" link at the bottom of the cast, the rest pops up and you will see Stephen was played by Valentine Dyall.

I think something about Stephen's speech is lost in just reading the script. You have to imagine it said with a steely-eyed and very confident contempt. His absurdity about women patients is a taunt to Alec to try and brush it all off with some silly yuck-yuck excuse. Alec is gasping for his dignity and Stephen, who never breaks a cold eye contact, makes sure he stays gasping. The fact that Stephen himself is good-looking and urbane only reinforces his dismissal.

Whether he is offended generally or thinking specifically of Alec's wife, I don't know, but I have a hard time believing all would have been ok with him if only Alec had levelled with him in advance, or that his problem was that he was embarassed. He was far from embarassed.

Thanks. From this discussion, I wouldn't have imagined that there was such a large cast. I didn't recognize Mr. Dyall's name, but his face was familiar. I'll definitely check out the video and see how it all fits together.

Actually the Howard who plays Ashley in "Gone With the Wind" is Leslie, not Trevor.

I accept the criminal charge was an outrage, but the idea that he was just a good citizen victimized by circumstances over which he had no control is a little hard to swallow.

Peter, I think you are reading too much into the lack of condemnation of the man by the writer. As the article was about the rape trial, I think that it is appropriate that the journalist, who is ostensibly writing a news story and not an opinion piece, stuck to the relevant details vis a vis the trial. Don't we have enough problem with journalists disguising their editorial pieces as factual news stories?

I agree with JonSK, there is no free lunch or free love. Even not knowing that the woman is married is no guarantee that she isn't, or that she isn't bringing some other kind of baggage to the encounter, whether emotional, legal or biological.

I read an interview with a female attorney who works with rape victims, who said that one of the biggest problems that real victims face is the skepticism that is brought against them as a result of women who very often do make false accusations of rape against men. She has learned to be very careful in assessing the truthfulness of the women that she represents, as she once had a client who made an accusation of rape against a man that she had sex with as revenge after he left her for another woman.