Volume 2, Number 11
December, 1997
|
Marv Albert
|
by The Professor |
|
In its never-ending quest to reveal the dirty little secrets of today's
celebrities, the throbbing, pulsating, blood-engorged probe that is our
national media recently sank its teeth into the Marv Albert trial.
Striving to lay bare the naked truth, reporters across the nation
dredged deeply to get to the meat of the issue, probing deeper, ever
deeper, until the facts of the case at long last came gushing forth in
all their wicked and depraved detail. Greedily did the public lap up
every slimy globule of information that the media spewed at them,
gulping it down and pleading breathlessly for more until finally, at
long last, the whole scandal was spent, exhausted, drained. Only then
did the media zip up and move on to its next conquest, leaving poor Marv
lying in a pathetic heap on the motel floor.
Why?
Not, "Why did the media exploit our interest?", but "Why did we care?"
Make no mistake about it, this was not a case about sexual assault any
more than baywatch is a show about water safety. If the defendant in
this case were not a marginally well-known personality, it would never
have made it to court. If you or I were hauled before the judge and
accused of biting the woman with whom we were having a long-term
relationship during consensual sex, and that this 'biting' was, by all
admission, part of our normal sexual routine, the judge would most
likely laugh and toss the case out within seconds.
Marv Albert and the accused were involved in a sexual relationship for
ten years before the 'incident' in question took place. According to
witnesses called by the prosecution, biting and 'rough sex' were
techniques commonly employed by Albert. Therefore, it is entirely
unreasonable to expect that in ten years of frequent sexual encounters,
Albert had never before employed these same methods.
Having reached that conclusion, and having not seen or heard a shred of
evidence to refute it, we can safely conclude that biting was a common
element of the sexual relationship shared between Albert and his
accuser. If the accuser did not approve, she should have made her
objections known early on and, if the behavior continued, should have
ended the relationship. To wait ten years before going to the police is
patently absurd.
Ok, ok. So now we're going to paint her as a victim of the "cycle of
abuse" and say that Albert is an abusive person. Fine, lets accept
that. Lets put both of them in therapy and see if we can straighten
them out and stop treating Albert as if he dragged this women into a
hotel room and bit her on the ass. He is not a threat to society at
large, only to the women who sleep with him. My advice: Don't sleep
with him. End of story.
But what I still cannot fathom is how this story managed to grab the
public's attention? Oh, sure, he's a celebrity and all, but it's not
like he was OJ Simpson or Mike Tyson or even Howard Cosell. He was,
and is, a modestly-talented sportscaster with a funny voice who has said
'Yesssss!' to more men than my ex-wife. But do I care one whit about
his sexual preferences? Absolutely not.
He wants to wear women's underwear? More power to him. Both myself
and Victoria's Secret wish you all the best.
He wants to wear a bad toupee? Fine, it just gives us print-types more
material to joke about.
He wants to bite his girlfriend's hiney during sex? Weird, but I
suppose if he can find a woman who's willing...
And make no mistake about it, Marv has gotten his share of second
dates.
I suppose what bothered me the most about this whole case was two
things.
- It was a presented as sexual assault case when, at best, it was an issue of sexual deviance, and
- It was packaged and promoted by a manipulative media desperately in search of 'OJ 2: The Sequel'.
That being said, I gotta run. They're about to announce the 'Nanny
Verdict'.