Hi. Greg here. Just a word of caution when freedom of speech is up at bat - defamation? Rough waters there. Korea has one of the world’s highest divorce rates so your theories of confinement are a little jaded and, uh, way off the beaten trail I’m afraid. The sad fact remains that Mrs. Ok was snogging high profile figures which came with a severe case of knuckle rapping. End of story. After sifting through the endless stream of derogatory comments, I turned to a few of my Korean friends for guiding light. Funnily enough, the culprit is not revered at all in the eyes of Koreans. In fact, the husband is more the victim here than anything else. Mrs. Ok has a child and that entails a significant level of responsibility. The case stems from her desire to protect her image. A divorce wouldn’t look so good in her books so I find it apparent that she tried her best at continuing her charade while trying to keep the thinning thread of her marriage in tact. Granted, the adultery law is punitive. No argument there. But Jesus Christ, if you want to try your hand at scratching that seven-year-itch, could you not choose a slightly better forum than with a foreign chef and her husband’s closest friend? And in the same year.
The law ain’t all that nice, but the rest of the country abides by it - or at least tries their hand at making things work out to the best of their ability. This case is nothing more to me than an example of one who wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
58 Comments
Shouldn’t this be a blog comment instead of a new post?
“The rest of the country abides by [the adultery ban under the Korean Criminal Code]“? You’re kidding, right?
I believe we’ve now discovered the Marmot’s Hole’s Dumbest Reader.
Also, Greg, you should not equate “the world’s highest divorce rate” with it being easy to divorce under Korean law. If two people agree to divorce, no problem. But what if one wants a divorce? Under Korean law that spouse must be able to allege one of three kinds of misconduct by the non-divorcing spouse: cruelty, mistreatment, or abandonment. Given what we know about Koreans’ ideas of what is “cruelty” or “mistreatment”, do you think that’s an easy burden to bear?
There are a lot of people stuck in marriages they can’t get out of. Ok So-ri’s case allows Korean society to re-examine whether that’s a social plus.
But what do you expect from a foreigner who thinks Ok lowered herself by shagging a *gasp* foreign chef?
And WTF does this mean?
Complete and utter bullshit. The adultery law is severely biased, selective, and out of date.
If it is simply defined as sexual relations outside of marriage, the sheer number of brothels in this country should give you a slight indication….
Greg, though I originally found your commentary on the earlier thread to be a little callous and presumptuous in tone, it generated an interesting response, thus you might have kept it, albeit somewhat edited.
As Brendon pointed out, divorce — and the social stigmata that comes with it — is not always an easy or viable solution for couples in Korea. Try it with the wrong partner who will not let go and see how you like it. Being trapped in a marriage with an unresponsive, and in Ok’s case, a pathetic partner (IMHO) is hell. I have learned of these things from others and I have more sympathy for such, thus I rarely “cast stones” at people in these situations. Considering her husband a “victim” is a fair example of the type of bias I have run into here as well. Korean women (IMHO) have got a tough field to sow.
Lastly, as I said before, this abominable adultery law has been a boon to blackmailers far more often than it has helped any marriage. It is a badly, rationalized law that should die before sundown and the society, at large, should focus upon more marriage counseling instead of attempting to legislate morality.
OK, Greg, perhaps some background info to this case is needed.
This might have been more than just “scratching a seven year itch” and having a taste of Italian sausage. After all, Ok has claimed that her husband had sex with her only 10 times in 11 years.
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....90023.html
Is that true or not? I don’t know. And neither does the state, which shouldn’t be getting in the ibul in the first place.
It also should be pointed out that there has been considerable debate on the issue of abolishing the adultery law for some time. And for good reason — it may violate constitutional guarantees of privacy. Moreover, although the law supposedly exists to protect women — although when it was first legislated in the colonial era, it only punished married women for the crime, and changed only in 1954 to include men — these days, more than half the cases being raised are by men against their wives, and even women’s groups are turning against the law:
http://news.naver.com/main/rea.....0000603468
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/soc.....44040.html
http://www.heraldbiz.com/SITE/.....100197.asp
Brendon you beat me to the punch. Most of Korean guys I know (maybe this says something about the company I keep) have committed adultry so I do not know what Greg is talking about. This is an issue about values and has no business being a law.
Could we rename this post to something like, “My views on the Mrs. Ok scandal” or something? It’s kinda weird for this to be presented as news on the front page without so much as a preface indicating that it’s his opinion.
Plus, the author only reveals what he’s talking about six sentences into the peice.
Greg is still learning the ropes here.
I’m with you G.B.
Why is everyone freaking out over the “strictly opinion” nature of the post? Robert may not do it this way, but other blogs do. No link! So what?
And it strikes me the GB is going after this THIS WOMAN’s self-serving motives –not all women. Geeeez…
Defamation? He’s the one who went sniveling to the media. He invited us in. I hope he and his lawyers have lots of money and time cause he’s gonna get defamed the rest of his life. He was looking for some sympathy and perhaps he got some from those of his ilk. He may have found something else. He’s everything I find loathesome in men. I’m ashamed to share his gender.
It’s too bad that a law would force people to “make things work out to the best of their ability”. People shouldn’t have to resign themselves to legislation. And the government shouldn’t be passing laws that put this much of the population in jeopardy if it’s ever inforced.
You wanna do it, then do it. How many of the men trolling that ohhhh so well hidden pink hued street a block from Yongsan Yeok have wives and kids at home? Throw a net over it then let’s see how much sympathy Park Chul gets.
Greg, don’t you think you ought to explain why your previous thread dealing with this topic no longer exists? Aside from any personal disagreements posted about your opinions, there were also interesting and informative comments on that thread. After all, don’t we all - bloggers and posters alike - comprise this blog? Where’s orankay - we may have a new type of crime for the Comments Sheriff™ to consider.
Brendon wrote:
There are a lot of people stuck in marriages they can’t get out of. Ok So-ri’s case allows Korean society to re-examine whether that’s a social plus.
Frankly, no matter how much one may ponder whether we could not have a ‘better’ advocate for change, that is simply beside the point. Fact is, you don’t get to pick ‘em, Greg - they decide to do that on their own. Simply due to their noteriety, cases such as this one can work to alter public sentiment, and this can, in turn, lead to legislative change.
Why don’t you set up a practice blog (a la Wikipedia’s sandbox) for folks like Greg and Shelton?
After all, Gen. Sec. Ban is reading.
Highest divorce rate in Asia, not the world, actually.
Just imagine how many people would divorce if it was easier to do here.
The fact there is such a law against adultery seems a bit of a farce when you look at the number of love motels in this country. It’s like putting people in jail for life for small amounts of drugs when the president himself is a former cocaine addict.
Could this be once again the case of conservative politicians trying to artificially create their ideal of what Korea should be without consideration to the consequences?
If you want to prevent people from cheating on their spouse, then maybe you should allow them to get divorced more easily. It’s that fucking simple.
PS. There will always be selfish bastards, so allowing people to divorce more easily (and changing public perceptions about divorce) won’t eliminate cheating, but it will greatly reduce the number of cheaters, I would guess.
Food for your thoughts…Is cheating bad when you’re in a loveless marriage and your spouse refuses you a divorce?
@#13:
Yeah, but this is Robert’s blog. People click in to read the latest Korea-related news with some commentary to start the thread.
Has anyone accused GB of misogyny? What commenters are going after are GB’s strongly worded opinions and laughably absurd statements like the belief that most Koreans do not violate the law against adultery. He is not going to live that one down for a long time.
Question??
Mr. Carr notes that Korea has one of the highest divorce rates in the world. I hear this all the time but never see an actual statistic or reference.
http://www.nationmaster.com/gr.....-marriages
Don’t see it here either.
Families of four live in 500-700 sq. ft. apartments. The love hotels aren’t just for cheating spouses — they’re also for simple privacy.
As long as dogbert’s memory of the Ban Ki Moon gaffe?
whether its the adultery law or marijuana law, however bad they are, its the law. either follow the law or don’t get caught. imho, i think mrs. ok would have more credibility if she brought up this issue before she got caught. having said that, i agree with her.
btw, no one is bad as shelton.
#16 ME:”And it strikes me the GB is going after this THIS WOMAN’s self-serving motives –not all women.”
SONAGI: “Has anyone accused GB of misogyny?”
No, no…not misogyny. What I meant was that it seems Ms. Ok is is making a “Federal Case,” so to speak, out of this in an attempt to distract unpleasant attention away from –and perhaps justify– her affairs. I feel a bit unsettled that her cheating is being justified in the comments here based on the assumption that, well, most Korean men hit the whorehouses. “Two wrongs…”, you know, that’s not good enough.
Hell, I’d probably do the same thing if I were her. She’s trying to save her career. But I think it is naive to view her as somehow representing “all Korean women” against an unfair law. If she wanted to change the law BEFORE she broke it, then fine, I’d be all for it.
And if G.B. did do one thing I didn’t like, it was erasing the earlier post.
As a point of clarification, I repeat G.B. Curley’s assertion from his original post.
Wow! Indeed I am learning the ropes here. Quite true. I had no idea this would spark such a riot. Anyhow, duly noted. I was simply tossing a few sticks on the fire. I’ll take my lashings at the next town meeting.
As for the link, voila.
And I will be the first to admit slicing the last post off was a tad sheepish - but, Christ almighty, some retorts were pretty far-reaching. And, frankly, for using this portal for what it is, grossly uncalled for. Last fucking thing I need to see on a Saturday morning, cup of java in hand, is a snail trail of insults.
Every mins0306 has his mjw, and every Carr has his pawi, Curley. Be honored that people are jockeying for the job of being your nemesis.
Actually, it might be better if you don’t think of anyone here as people. It might make you hold back.
they attack you because you don’t tow the party line. they villify you because you don’t make the korean man the guilty party.
i hope you continue your independence.
welcome, curly.
folks, let’s hope that this breath of fresh air doesn’t turn into just a puff of a smoke.
i think they attacked him because he made some pretty lame ass comments but whatever pawi
Mr. Carr - dumbest reader? Most misunderstood.
Robert, cheers for the info. Appreciated.
Giving the scathing animosity inflicting foreigners as of late, she sure as shit pulled all the wrong stops in trying to keep it quiet. THAT’S my goddamn point here. No more, no less. End of story. I ain’t taking sides, ain’t trying to re-write the legal system. You think the fleet of Korean men occupying judicial posts took that matter lightly? I can certainly assume they had it in for her from the beginning. You ever see a foreigner with a Korean woman in ANY propaganda in Korea? Nope. It’s always the other way around. See for yourself. It won’t happen. Anyhow… there are too many elements here to try and defend.
Essentially, regardless of who or who doesn’t cheat, that’s a can of fucking worms no matter how you see it. And to assume that I am that far off my fucking rocker to set foot in to that territory warrants no rebuttal from my end.
This woman in question (NOT all women) is a hypocrite. At least that’s how I see it. So next time, fellas, before you go brandishing your guns and contributing your nuggets of wisdom, don’t be saying things that are not needed.
Yeah, and next time don’t be deleting reasonable commentary by those who never tried to hang you, fella.
I don’t know if she’s a hypocrite. Her argument is certainly self-serving. I don’t know if she changed her beliefs because of her situation or whether she’s always been against this law.
Do you think she secretly cheered those put away for adultery before this?
Do you believe all those who were not vocally against this law before and now are, are hypocrites?
I’ve spoken about how archaic and invasive I think this law is in the past to my co-workers, my friends and my wife, but you certainly wouldn’t know it. Would you call me a hypocrite?
Simply because circumstances have changed, objectively or subjectively, doesn’t negate the validity of an argument. That is illogical.
I like G.B.
Things were getting boring around here….
Well, hypocrite or no hypocrite, it doesn’t negate the fact that I simply tossed in my two cents. It’s subjective. In fact, it always was. I never discounted some of the ‘unfairness’ to it all. And, frankly, who bloody well knows what was going through her mind. Madllew, you’re over-stretching a little bit. What was presented in the case at end, in MY eyes, her actions seem somewhat hypocritical. That’s the whole premise to this blog, no? To bat a few ideas - not eyes - around.
The whole premise may be “to bat a few ideas around,” but maybe your ideas should be presented better.
I mean, what is your point here:
1. that adulterers deserve legal punishment? (You’ve backed away from that one a bit - smart move);
2. that we should be concerned because this is all happening because she had sex with a foreigner and we’re (largely) foreigners, too, and our lot in Korea will never improve until she’s been smited?
3. that she’s a hypocrite for not opposing a bad law publicly until it affected her? Maybe so, but does she deserve your particular scorn for that? Why her? Why this case? What bad laws have you publicly protested lately?
The fact that you’ve kept at #3 suggests to me that what you really think is #1.
The tone of this and your previous post on this topic calls to mind nothing so much as Mencken’s definition of puritanism as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might be happy.”
I see your two cents and call, because I don’t think you’re holding aces in the argument.
“Families of four live in 500-700 sq. ft. apartments. The love hotels aren’t just for cheating spouses — they’re also for simple privacy.”
What, they leave the kids home alone so they can go to the motel? Come on, Brendon. Don’t be so naive.
#23,
Tossing a few sticks in the fire…At least you weren’t throwing a stink bomb in it like Pawi revels in doing.
A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does something else. Whatever you think of Ok, she is NOT a hypocrite. Her challenge to the adultery law is very much in line with allegations of affairs with other men. If she supported the law, that would be hypocritical since she herself appears to have broken it.
Now don’t spew your cup of java on the screen just because I dared to correct your misuse of a word.
Duh! Sonagi is absolutely right.
Who is GB Curley? I must have missed the post in which this new guest blogger was introduced. Can I get a link to that since I can’t find it for the life of me?
On the bright side, there is always the option of not reading posts authored by certain people….
#35,
Scratch “Don’t be so naive”. It gives my comment a tone I was not trying to create.
hey GB, i’m only a noob, but if you want to avoid controversy here, at the Korea Haters Hole, just do the following:
1. Always, and i mean Always, bash korea and its people/government.
You have to recognize that something has gone wrong when *you* become the topic of comment rather than the *post.*
This could be the beginning of an Infidel-style self-immolation. Marshmallows on standby.
#40 - I think you just hit that one square on the head. Very astute indeed.
I can feel a witch hunt as I type.
. . . meaning that this style of post is more “Shelton-style” where the subject of the post is more about your reaction instead of commentary on Korean subject matter. The style and commentary is too subjective and, in this case, too personal an attack on Ok So-ri (IMHO). You do not seem to realize that some of us may actually take offense at your sophomoric comments about her. Some of us might actually know here too.
If you called her up and interviewed her, that would be far more interesting and news-worthy.
Richardson,
Could you please post a link to your website’s Hurt Feelings Report?
And the beat drums on.
Plus side to this blog: A clean layout with an archive of spot on storytelling authored by a veteran with over ten years tenure in Korea.
Downside - A gaggle of rabid geese who keep pecking at my already swollen nuts.
For the record, my feelings ain’t hurt. I hardly batted an eye in fact. I know it’s controversial, hence the streaming outpour of grief and compassion for a case that reeks of tabloid drivel.
Give me a goddamn break about briefings and interviews - or the extent to which I have fallen short in conviction. I harbor no ill-will toward the woman in question. I carry a truckload of cynicism about her recent actions. You can’t live with that? Well, lads, that’s about as far as I’m prepared to tackle it anymore.
Lesson learned from my side? A healthy dose of debate. With all do respect, leave all personal retorts out as I remain a faceless voice within these here walls.
I repeat my former request for information from Mr. Carr.
You mentioned the reasons for divorce in Korea…one of them is abandonment….does divorce for “constructive abandonment” (refusal of the marriage bed for an extended period of time for those not familliar with the term) constitute ‘abandonment’ or just ‘mental cruelty’ under Korean law or does it even matter?
Would the court accept her word that her husband would not have sex with her?
Lovely.A moral issue wrapped in legal jargon.There’s,what…6 billion or so people on this planet?Who the hell is ANYONE to tell me I got it right the first time out? Marriage should be hard, divorce should be easy.Marriage should not be entered into lightly.Adultery can be a reason to ask for divorce, but not a reason to be punished criminally.If you spiritually inclined morals lead you to be more choosy about a marriage partner, bully for you, but you can jam it up your ass if YOUR religious feelings urge you to get in my face about how I handle MY marital affairs.
As requested;
http://www.dprkstudies.org/doc.....Report.pdf
Lol Richardson…that’s awesome.
Richardson, I’ll give it to you - that is classic. When the shit settles I’ll try my hand at another post.
See now, Mr. Elgin, you sat there and bitched about G.B.’s lack of links, and that is ALL you provide:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/...../#comments
Your own blogging is insufficient in my opinion and generally veers beyond the limits of “interesting”. So there.
Off-topic: “a-letheia”, the blog entry you linked to is an “aside” which is supposed to be a short call-out for a news point of interest, used as a starting point for comment from other blog readers. An “aside” is not supposed to be an full-blown editorial thread. Review the previous blog entries labeled “asides” to get an idea of just how the aside blurb works, as per Robert’s site.
Other than that, to each his own taste, however suspect.
Funny, when your taste gets offended you get self-righteous, when others are…well, to each his own…
Ain’t nothing like a healthy bout of dueling to cap off the weekend. I am so glad as I skim through this scroll of redundancies that a select few have got a grapple on what the heck I was on about in the first place. And to think this personal jab at ONE particular “celebrity” in question (smokin’ I might add) was pulled in to a tidal wave of ego jabbing!
1) Who has an affair with who is their own business. End of story. Consequences become burdensome when you don’t cover your tracks too well.
2) How many times the lady in question was granted orgasmic delights is slightly irrelevant. The fact is, she wasn’t exaclty a sleuth in keeping the whole matter quiet.
3) The adultery law stinks. I NEVER delved in to that cauldron of cardinal fucking ruin from the get go. Yes, I cynically said the country “abides” by the code, but Christ - it was tongue in cheek!
4) Bottom line, the damn article read like the Enquirer and I found it laughable that SHE and apparently the damn string of those defending her in this here comment thread see it as anything more than that. She strayed from the nest on thin ice by shagging her husband’s best friend and a bloody foreign chef! My angle there was that it drew a shit load of press because he wasn’t of Korean origin. Not a smart move.
I don’t understand why the previous thread was deleted - as far as Marmot threads go, it was fairly civil overall, at least until I posted a comment.
One request to Curley - I don’t really care what you choose to post about, but keep the f*** word off the screen. I’ve read a lot of crap here on the Marmot’s Hole but that kind of language just really turns me off.
GB Curly. Sorry your article was a debacle, but usually there aren’t too many expletives blogged here-all things considered.