Divorce is Dirty.

When Christie Brinkley's husband, Peter Cook, decided to dance a horizontal mamba with someone other than his wife you can bet your last shiny Euro he wasn't expecting it to end up with him answering questions about his private life in open court.
Yesterday's court transcripts make for cringe making reading, I feel slightly grubby reading about his porn surfing and masturbation for video cameras. I say slightly, because I'm still bloody reading and if I had more gumption I'd gloss over the details and go read something else.
But human nature being what it is, salacious details of others keep a body interested.
A couple of quotes...
' The normally staid Suffolk County courthouse in Central Islip turned into an adults-only peep show when the 49-year-old cad admitted under oath that he habitually ogles online pornography, masturbates in front of strangers via a Web cam, and even had sex inside his office with the comely clerk.

His barely legal mistress-turned-star-witness Diana Bianchi then nervously took the witness stand yesterday and detailed how she gave herself up to him after several advances within weeks of being hired.

She also said Cook leaned on her to help him cover up the affair.

Among the dirty details also laid bare yesterday:

* Cook began flirting with Bianchi when she was only a high-school student and cashier at a toy store. He admitted he hired her with sex on his mind.

* Cook spent $3,000 a month on Web porn, pleasured himself on a Web cam, and trolled for sex partners on swinger sites using handles such as wannaseeall and happyladdie2002.

* He paid his teenage mistress $20,000 in "salary" in addition to gifts of lingerie, jewelry and cash.

* He tried to cover up the affair, and ultimately paid Bianchi $300,000 in hush money.

* Brinkley found pornographic images on Cook's computer - and their preteen son, Jack, accidentally saw them, too.

* Cook tried to bail himself out by revealing he and Brinkley viewed porn together as a "precursor" to sex. "



Okay, this chap is a bit of a douche, well, a lot of a douche, but what on Earth is Christie doing opening this case up to the public? Everyone knows he was caught cheating, no one would blame her for divorcing him, but this is something else, this is humiliation on a epic scale. She claims she is doing this so that her children might understand the 'reasons' for the breakup of her marriage. But surely she could explain what happened in private.
I don't understand her. She and cook have two children together, as much as a douche as I think he is, I don't think she's doing herself any favours either. Surely it would be better to protect her children from the trauma of listening to their parents sex lives being gossiped about, paraded out for public consumption. Surely it's not beneficial to them to hear all these salacious details.

Cook's lawyer has this to say. ' "He did it and it was wrong," Sheresky said of the affair. "And we said so. And there is no way to make this right. Peter has apologized. He's cried his eyes out. He's lost his marriage."

He then pointed out that Brinkley herself has a poor marital track record.

"For goodness sake: She's on her fourth husband," Sheresky told the court. "Your honor, we're here because of the self-indulgent wrath of a woman scorned . . . That's putting her agenda in front of the best interests of the children. What kind of a mother wants her husband flogged in public?"

Her marriages are not under scrutiny, she believed her marriage to Cook to be a good one, so trying to suggest that she is at fault here is bollocks. But I cannot disagree with him with regards to the children.

Brinkley's hurt and rage, Cooks shame and embarrassment notwithstanding, their children are the ones now who will be hurting. It's not about who started this whole seedy affair, but how it is handled and a little grace might go a very long way.