Lemondrop

Poor Sandra Bullock. Not only is she being humiliated in the press both here and abroad with stories of her philandering husband, Jesse James (aka the Vanilla Gorilla), but in yesterday's New York Times, columnist David Brooks riffed on the opportunity costs of success and happiness, using Bullock as a case study.

His thesis, sketched out in an opinion piece titled "The Sandra Bullock Trade"? Sandra wins Oscar. Sandra's marriage goes bust. Ergo Sandra's success is somehow connected to Jesse's philandering. In his column, Brooks poses this mathematical equation as a philosophic question, asking his readers: "Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?"

I'm flummoxed. First of all, are the two mutually exclusive? And would a story like this ever be written in the New York Times if the Oscar winner was a guy, and it was his relationship that went belly-up because of her cheating heart? Isn't Brooks just digging at Sandra, subtly implying that while she was off making an inspirational film, her husband just couldn't stop himself from lunging at any tattooed motorcycle chick, stripper or 'fetish model' who happened by his shop? It sounds to me like Brooks is suggesting that Sandra's Oscar win somehow justifies Jesse's decision to stray.

And, in my honest opinion, that's a rather shaky limb to crawl out on just to sell more papers.

Besides, if we're going to, why didn't Brooks pose this key question: Was it not enough that Bullock was out making serious bucks for the family and providing a stable home for Jesse's 5-year-old daughter with his ex-wife, porn star Janine Lindemulder? I can't help but feel like Brooks is implying that, instead of practicing her craft, Sandra should have been waiting for him at the door with a tray of brownies, wearing nothing but an apron.

In fact, this piece reads like a thinly disguised -- and dangerous -- tome on why women can't have it all. And, while the author presents quantifiable evidence that Oscar winners make more money and live four years longer than nominees who don't win, the underlying message is that Sandra Bullock made a deal with the devil. Win the award, live till you're 100, and good for you, lady, but don't think you're going to keep the guy in the process.

Let's face it: There's something written on some bathroom wall somewhere saying that if a guy strays he must have had his reasons, and far too many people buy it. Why is it that we never give this sort of license-to-leave to a woman, famous or not?

To me, what's saddest of all is the timing. It almost feels like Jesse had a vendetta, that he was out to prove that she couldn't win the statuette, be acknowledged by her peers and have a happy home life, too. While most fans can separate the work she did on "The Blind Side," it's embarrassing that the person she trusted most took the limelight away from her solid professional achievements and exchanged all of that good stuff for some extremely sleazy headlines.

Now that certainly wasn't a fair trade.

When you think about it, Sandra's teary Oscar speech -- instead of being a glorious pronouncement of all that was good in her life -- has now been rendered cringe-worthy. I mean, in the process, she actually praised the lech for "having her back." He had her back all right -- he did absolutely everything behind it.

But there is one truism Brooks did hit on in his piece: You can't have it all when the guy you're with is intent on having unprotected sex with the sleaziest women he can find. Try as one might, there's just no way to be happy about that.


Lambeth Hochwald writes about marriage, relationships and trends for Redbook, Parents and Self. The daughter of a divorce attorney, Hochwald is keenly aware of the fragility of marital bonds.