The Moss case

[fpb]

According to how it finally ends, the Kate Moss affair may well be of considerable historical importance. Here is the reason why.

In 1935, Hollywood actress Mary Astor was caught by her husband having an affair with well-known theatre personality George Kaufman. Her diary ended up in the hands of the press, and it was a disgusting document: one that, behind yards of schoolgirlish rhetoric and self-absorption, showed a woman who treated her men as living vibrators with a few irrelevant appendages thrown in, and did not even begin to understand the ideas of loyalty, companionship, or even respect for another person. (No wonder that Astor had her greatest movie part as the heartless, murderous seductress in The Maltese Falcon; she was playing herself.)

The significance of the Astor divorce case is this: that before 1935, and in spite of Hollywood's well-deserved reputation for sexual, alcoholic and chemical excess, anyone caught like Astor condemning herself out of her own mouth, would have been finished. But with the passing of the decades, Hollywood had become increasingly used to, indeed increasingly confident in, what might be called their unusual ways. By 1935, a generation had been born and brought up in the extended brothel in Southern California, and found it harder and harder to even accept the sexual views of the rest of America and the world. And in the case of Mary Astor, they closed ranks. She was not destroyed; she did not even lose any important job.

When this sort of thing happens, it is because a whole group of people, a whole social class, has grown up with a sense of entitlement, of normalcy. Americans before the Civil War, especially in the Southern states, had grown up with large-scale black slavery around them; it was part of their sense of entitlement, part of their social world, and they did not begin to understand why the rest of the world should find it so unacceptable. By the same token, Hollywood citizens had either been born in or entered very young into a society whose sexual habits were routinely out of kilter with those of the rest of America, let alone the world. They had a distant awareness that this was so, but with a steadily diminishing understanding of outsiders' views; the sense of entitlement was growing, as was the resentment at the hostile scrutiny of others.

The Astor case was the breaking point. It was the point where Hollywood, as a collectivity, silently and widely challenged the rest of the world. Mary Astor remained a star. She continued to perform. Hollywood essentially, collectively (the collective aspect is important; it means that nobody in particular had to stand up and justify their stand) held up two fingers to ordinary morality. And, what is more important, they succeeded. The public did not desert - or deserted only briefly - Mary Astor's movies. Moral disapproval lost out before Hollywood glamour.

Now, getting back to the present. Does anyone doubt that if the kind of stories that came out about Kate Moss in the last few days - there are several, not just one - had come out ten years ago, she would have been instantly destroyed? Nobody would have wanted to touch her with a barge-pole.

However, look what is actually happening. Not one, but several media personalities have defended her on screen or gone in print with articles about "the Kate Moss I know," that Kate Moss being of course a fantastic, funny, intelligent, generous, etc. person. And to date, only the mumsy Swedish high street outfit H&M have broken their contract with her.

We still have to wait and look. Things might turn out differently. She might yet lose all her contracts - nothing is more cowardly than a large corporation. But if she survives this storm, it will be a sure sign that in several influential areas of our world, not only multi-partner sex - that was already known - but regular cocaine consumption, has come to be covered by that sense of entitlement and daily habit that I was speaking about.

The consequences for our society may well be far-reaching. Hollywood's increasingly successful defence of their own turned into an increasing commercial use of semi-nudity and propaganda, however disguised, for free sex. The Sixties, the destruction of the Hayes Code, and the rise of pornography as a major industry (now surpassing Hollywood in cash size), may all be seen as the long wave of Hollywood's successful imposition of its own view of sexual morality, which began with the Astor affair.

By the same token, if rich and media-savvy parts of society such as the fashion industry (and do we doubt that they are not the only ones?) have come to take the use of cocaine as part of their sense of entitlement and normalcy, then the laws against the use of drugs, however savage, however supported by State power on all sides, cannot be expected to last for ever. What people come to see as habitual cannot be long forbidden.

(As a side note, I will add that I am in favour of legalizing most drugs - not because I have any respect for the fashion industry, which I loathe, or Hollywood, which I despise, but because I find it hugely hypocritical that one of the most damaging drugs of them all - alcohol - should be freely available, while others are forbidden.)

Comments

[enelya-oronar.livejournal.com]

Too engrossed in school work - what was she arrested for? Possession?

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

She wasn't actually arrested: just caught snorting coke in a recording studio.

More to the point, I can't believe people are actually surprised about a supermodel being a cokehead.

[enelya-oronar.livejournal.com]

Not surprised, I was just unaware.

Silly girl, I cannot understand how people can knowingly inflict harm on their own bodies ~ smoking, drinking, any of it....this is like intentional self-abuse. Silly, silly girl!

[fpb.livejournal.com]

What do you do with your life when you have nothing in particular to offer except your beauty, and you are not being paid to think, to work, or to do anything at all except wear clothes? The worst Hollywood actor has a more interesting and challenging life than any model. All they have is their money and the beauty that gives it to them. Nothng they do ever challenges them or gives them any reason to respect themselves; unless, like Helena Christiensen, they branch out into such things as photography, which is actual work.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Nobody is surprised, although Kate Moss had a cleaner image than some. The point is that this is more than gossip.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

She was not arrested. In fact, she is still free. But a national newspaper shot her setting up lines and sniffing them, and another came up with several stories of cocaine-fuelled bisexual orgies.

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

Well, nothing sells better than a good old scandal, doesn't it? We'll never know if she was setting up lines of cocaine or making a chalk drawing on the pavement, or if the bisexual orgies were not actually having tea with her aunt and uncle.
I think it's a bit easy to get all worked up because of the wicked ways of celebrities. They all have a histrionic streak in them and they're competing for the media's and the public's attention. So the more outrageous their behaviour, the better. If we all could decide to get bored with their antics, they might try to give it a bit of thought before they go on stage to entertain us with their whims, their neuroses, their perversions and their vulgarity. I know it's fun to be scandalized about Kate Moss taking cocaine, but to be honest, Jimmy Hendrix did it before her, and so did tons of others.
I dream of a world where we could say "look, Kate, cocaine is boring. Why don't you try getting addicted to something else, like Harry Potter, for instance? It would be much more novel to see on the front page of a tabloid that KATE MOSS SHIPS SEVERUS SNAPE/HERMIONE GRANGER, or something."
Sorry if I sound a bit grumpy, Fabio, but I'm not in a mood to get schocked by Kate Moss's wicked ways.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I do not think you caught my point at all. The article is hardly about Moss at all. It is about a possible coming change in our attitude to drugs. Please do not pigeonhole me as the standard bluenose of liberal invective, it is not a compliment and not true either.

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm young and idealistic, but I think that people don't just get addicted to drugs because top models are. Just like I don't think that people get divorced because movie stars do. For one thing, "normal" people are well aware that stars live in a different world and that they are a bit weird. Second, normal people can't afford to live like movie stars. Third, people are well aware that drugs are highly damaging and that you don't get a mediatized divorce every time you break up with a boyfriend. There have been drug-addicted celebrities for centuries, and people still don't approve of it (I mean, what about Baudelaire, Verlaine and Rimbaud drinking absinthe like it was lemonade, Toulouse-Lautrec living in a brothel, van Gogh cutting off his ear,...).
And I don't see what the problem is with being a bluenose. Every week, I study the front covers of all the tabloids, and I don't see what's wrong with that. I'm even sorry for Britney Spears poor kid, who doesn't deserve that, so I can even be counted as a liberal invective.

[(Anonymous)]

In 1935, Hollywood actress Mary Astor was caught by her husband having an affair with well-known theatre personality George Kaufman. Her diary ended up in the hands of the press, and it was a disgusting document: one that, behind yards of schoolgirlish rhetoric and self-absorption, showed a woman who treated her men as living vibrators with a few irrelevant appendages thrown in, and did not even begin to understand the ideas of loyalty, companionship, or even respect for another person.

Do you have a source for this? According to the Wikipedia entry on Mary Astor:

Excerpts of what she wrote about her marriage and affair with Kaufman were then released by Thorpe's lawyers to the press, who dubbed it the "purple diary," although it was actually penned in Aztec brown ink and not purple, and it became headline news. Although the excerpts in the papers were fairly harmless, with romantic and sentimental chatter and no intimate details, lurid tales of sexually explicit contents began to circulate. No one ever actually read the authentic diary, however, and such reports of its contents were purely speculative.

When Thorpe surrendered the diary to the court it was impounded and the full contents never revealed. The judge was only concerned with the welfare of the child. Astor wanted her diary back, while Thorpe asserted it should be returned to him. The judge then ordered that it be stored in a safe deposit box at Security-First National Bank at Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue in Hollywood, sealed against prying eyes. In April 1952, with no objection from Astor or Thorpe, the diary was destroyed, unread, by order of the court.

Interestingly, there was Thorpe was rumoured to have enjoyed many affairs during his marriage but, as is so often the case with double-standards, these were not fully reported at the time.

with the passing of the decades, Hollywood had become increasingly used to, indeed increasingly confident in, what might be called their unusual ways. By 1935, a generation had been born and brought up in the extended brothel in Southern California, and found it harder and harder to even accept the sexual views of the rest of America and the world. And in the case of Mary Astor, they closed ranks. She was not destroyed; she did not even lose any important job.

Alternatively, Astor kept her contracts because her marriage to Howard Hawks' brother, Kenneth (which ended in his death in 1930) had led to her having a good friendship with Hawks, who himself wielded considerable influence amongst the studios and because the reporting in the newspapers led to considerable public fascination with her so that the studio to which she was contracted (Warner Bros?) knew that whatever they put her in would make money, so it was arguably more profit motive than normalcy that saved her. Not that the profit motive makes it any better.

How do you reconcile this with the Fatty Arbuckle case?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The Fatty Arbuckle case may be seen as the last hurrah of any serious attempt to rein in Hollywood (unless you count the Erroll Flynn statutory rape case, which collapsed into ridicule). It stands to the Astor case, in my view, roughly as the last struggles of prohibitionists (which were taking place at the same time) stand to the election of FD Roosevelt with a mandate to repeal Prohibition: these things may overlap, but one represents the sunset of a movement, and the other represents the sunrise of another. I would also say that these case are rather more symptomatic of underlying facts (i.e., in this case, the rise of a native Hollywood generation out of sympathy with the country's standards of sexual morality) than resolutive in themselves. We should also remember that the Arbuckle case involved a corpse, and one that had endured a singularly unpleasant death; the Astor case only involved two very unpleasant people. My source is the "classic" Kenneth Ainger's HOLLYWOOD BABYLON.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, you are right that only extracts from the diary ended up in the Press, but they were a good deal less innocent than the author of the Wikipedia article seems to believe. In particular, all the "passionate" schoolgirlish outbursts clearly referred to Kaufman's sexual performance. And the thing with Thorpe is that he started to run amuck with foursomes and such, only after he had found out the extent of his wife's infidelity. It was his attempt to prove that he could be every bit of a little devil as she could. And it backfired, because the testimony of corrupt servants in court cost him custody of his daughter.

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

And people say there are no 'royals' in the US. There's plenty. They're either the beautiful people (Hollywood, the media) or the powerful (politicians, the media), and they both have in common their generally great wealth.

To those who say that no 'normal' person would ever do the stupid, inane, insipid, self-destructive things that celebrities do: You are obviously pretty young. If you change the word 'celebrity' to 'role model', then things change. Kate Moss and the rest of the beautiful people are role models to young girls who want to be thin, have big tits, perfect complexions and be the next 'America's Top Model'. The idolise. They emulate. They want wealth, fame and reputation, too. I used to be in show business, for almost a decade. I've seen it first-hand. I've seen some get over it, some get lost in it, and many be personally destroyed by it (usually along with their families). Drugs. Sex. Alcohol. I'm about as surprised by what's going on with Kate Moss as I was about Jose Conseco with the steroids. The on'y real surprise is how either 'surprised' or totally blase everyone seems to be reacting over it. If most people had the sense you attribute to them, they'd all know better. And none of this would really be a 'problem'.

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but wouldn't the people who start taking Kate Moss as a role model and seriously do everything she does already be rather damaged to start with? Usually, when you start getting self-destructive, it's because someone started destroying you first. And I don't necessarily mean physical or sexual abuse. The number of parents out there who have no idea that a child deserves a bit of respect on account of being a human being is pretty high.
So, for me, taking Kate Moss as a role model and start to take drugs because she does is more an excuse than a reason. Even if there was no such person as Kate Moss and co., don't you think that they would find something else to destroy themselves? After all, if you take the whole population of people who are aware of Kate Moss and what she does, and if you take the proportion of those people who actually copy her behaviour to the point of taking the same drugs as her, the percentage is rather low. Maybe it seems higher when you are in the show business, but I can promise you that in the scientific world where I live in, people don't really follow Kate Moss. Granted, we're as much prone to have self-destructive behaviour as anyone else (tobacco, workoholism, submitting yourself meekly to the abusive behaviour of professors...) but Kate Moss is not considered a role model.

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

Kate Moss isn't a role model... for you.

Abraham Lincoln and Jimmy Carter aren't role models... for me.

Silvio Burlesconi isn't role model... for fpb.

How about Britney Spears?

How about John F. Kennedy?

How about Kurt Kobain?

How about Jim Morrison?

How about, well, any major NBA star?

How about John Lennon?

How about Cher?

How about John Belushi?

Those five right there are role models/idols for tens of thousands of Americans, at least. Each one of them have/had various levels of usually enormously self-desturctive behavior, and yet... for many they are lenegenday, admired and to be in whatever ways possible emulated. Celebrity. Success. Wealth and/or Fame. Beauty. That is what drives some to idolise others. Don't try to apply common sense, logic or rationality to it. The psychiatric establishment will tell you that's barking up the wrong tree. "Scientific world we live in"? I must disagree. We live in a technological world, in an instant gratification world. Science is the foundation, yes, but if it were really the integral part of life you seem to say it is -- we wouldn't have nearly the problems we do.

Having knowledge is one thing. Having the maturity to use iot effectively, wothout killing yourself and others, is a different matter altogether.

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

I think I wrote "the scientific world I live in". In fact, I work in a scientific lab.
I never denied that people take celebrities for role models. In most cases, that means they pick up a guitar and start caterwauling, or at worst get a terrible sense of fashion. Because it's the success, fame, beauty, wealth they are interested in. Not the psychological problems.
Now I know that some people followed Kurt Cobain when he commited suicide, and that people who take drugs start doing so because they think it's cool, but my whole point is that I don't think the ultimate reason behind this all is not the celebrities's behaviour, but because these people are extremely unhappy. And besides, nobody, not even a celebrity, is responsible for anyone else's behaviour. Except for children and then it's the parents who are responsible, not the star the kids idolise.
Now I will not advise you to take a Sesame Street character for a role model, because you obviously have something against role models (and if you start taking heroine to follow Big Bird's example I don't think I'll ever forgive myself) and Fabio will not appreciate it if I started a brawl in his comment section. But I would appreciate it if you took the time and energy to read my comments before answering them in a condescending way. Maybe you don't think I'm worth it, but then, to follow that logic, I'm not worth answering either.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I would be pretty hypocritical if I objected to people brawling in my LJ when I have done it in others' - not as long as some serious issue is involved, as it clearly is here. However, I can see that some degree of LJ guest intervention is warranted, and I shall probably put in my two bits' worth tomorrow (am bushed now).

[(Anonymous)]

I apologise if I offended you, but I was addressing the substance of what you wrote as I understood it from the language of the post. I certainly understand the great depth of psychological layers that go into things such as hero worship and emulation (the need for acceptance, the desire to be liked, the love of approval from loved ones and strangers, the urge for recognition and accomplishment, et al.) and the highlights and pitfalls of the process. One size does not fit all, and I rather saw your post as, well, something along that line. Specifically, I took what you wrote as something of a condescension/condemnation of those worshipped/idolised/emulated and an estimation of high discerning and rationality to the masses. And as much of a benefit of the doubt I am willing to give individual persons, I can't say I do for people in general.

And no, I have nothing against role models. I have several. However, I accept that I am 'me' and they are/were 'them', and ne'er shall they combine while on this circling sphere. I neither condone nor necessarily condemn the behavior of the role model nor those that see them as such. I simply accept it all as a matter of nature and life.

And as far as condenscension goes...

But I would appreciate it if you took the time and energy to read my comments before answering them in a condescending way. Maybe you don't think I'm worth it, but then, to follow that logic, I'm not worth answering either.

Pleasure to meet you, Kettle. I'm Pot.

oops

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

My auto-logon wasn't on there.

The above post is mine, as I reckon is pretty obvious.

[fixes logon options]

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

Let me put it in the most simple way I can:
Celebrities get addicted to drugs because they have deep-rooted psychological problems.
People who are not celebrities get addicted to drugs because they have deep-rooted psychological problems.
They may say that they started taking drugs because celebrities do, or that it's OK to take drugs because celebrities do, but that's to deceive others and themselves in order to protect themselves from contempt and self-hatred.
That is my whole point. I hope it's clear to you. If you have questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.

Now you say that I despise the celebrities and worship the masses.
Do I despise Britney Spears? Yes. Do I despise John Lennon? No.
Do I despise people who think they're the hight of cool because they wear round sunglasses and scratch a guitar? Yes. Do I despise people who really want to learn to play the guitar, put effort in it and write their own songs? No.
Again, I hope it's clear, and if it's not, feel free to ask questions.

Now, do I despise you? I have to say that I don't know you except from last week's argument. What happened here is that I made a comment, and you made your comment in a separate thread. Now that would not be a problem if you hadn't insinuated in your comment that I was a little stupid. On my side, that does not create the impression that you're out for an honest debate, but rather that you feel like sneering at me (or at someone in general) and that you don't have the guts to do it in my face. Maybe that was a mistake on your part and you just clicked the wrong button. But it does not give me a favourable impression. Next time you feel like saying I'm an idiot, at least, say it directly to me.

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

Now you say that I despise the celebrities and worship the masses.

No. I did not. What I said was: "I took what you wrote as something of a condescension/condemnation of those worshipped/idolised/emulated and an estimation of high discerning and rationality to the masses." I stated that I perceived a particular 'condescension' or 'condemnation' of those who fall into the category of 'role model' or 'celebrity'. You make the blanket statement that all celebrities are psychologically damaged, suffering from unspecific forms of self-hatred and loathing. I disagree with that statement (which you have made more than once and emphatically), and I sought to explain that.

As far as despising you, I have no idea why I ought to. I don't believe I came anywhere close to insinsuating that, nor do I believe I made the insinuation that you were in any way 'stupid'. Please cite for me the passages from my posts wherein you believe I made such insinuations. I have read and reread my posts, and I do not see them. I do understand, however, that indeed most people with whom I debate/discuss/argue/whatever issues get this impression -- which I must confess sometimes is present. But in this thread with you, it was certainly not intended. Again, apologies.

Next time you feel like saying I'm an idiot, at least, say it directly to me.

I did not say that you were an idiot. I figure you are referring to my statement of "Pleasure to meet you, Kettle. I'm Pot." I was making light of what I saw as your request for 'no condescension' being followed up with what I saw as, well, condescension. I get that a lot, too, and I don't believe pointing out contradictory statements/behavior in anyone, for any reason is a bad thing. I get amused when I see it in myself as well, and people point out when I do it all the time. But I do find that most people don't appreciate it when I do it back. That's the problem with perceptions though, isn't it? (Oh, what a catch-22! My philosophy professor would be so amused.)

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

My apologies. I should have said:
the celebrities who get addicted to drugs do so, in my opinion, because they have deep-rooted psychological problems.
Please note that I used the same grammatical structure to say that the people who are not celebrities and get addicted to drugs do so because they have deep-rooted psychological problems.
I did not mean, in any way, that everybody gets addicted to drugs and that everybody has deep-rooted psychological problems (celebrity or not).
In your first comment, you put the following:
To those who say that no 'normal' person would ever do the stupid, inane, insipid, self-destructive things that celebrities do: You are obviously pretty young.
It's of course not as offensive as if you said that I'm old, in which case I would certainly have sent my brother to challenge you in a duel, but I did take it badly. Young and stupid do not mean the same thing, but the fact that you didn't say it to me directly and that you have been misunderstanding about everything I have said has made me see red.
Just to sum it up:
To those who say that no 'normal' person would ever do the stupid, inane, insipid, self-destructive things that celebrities do
I never meant that. I meant that people who get self-destructive do so because they are hurt. Nobody gets self-destructive for such shallow reasons as "Kate Moss does it, too". Blaming self-destructive behaviour of non-famous people on celebrities is not addressing the issue of self-destructive behaviour and is not helping anyone (least of all celebrities who are addicted to drugs. They don't need additional guilt).
Celebrity. Success. Wealth and/or Fame. Beauty. That is what drives some to idolise others. Don't try to apply common sense, logic or rationality to it. The psychiatric establishment will tell you that's barking up the wrong tree. "Scientific world we live in"? I must disagree. We live in a technological world, in an instant gratification world. Science is the foundation, yes, but if it were really the integral part of life you seem to say it is -- we wouldn't have nearly the problems we do.
Couldn't agree more. I meant that I work in a research lab in science, and I tried to describe the kind of self-destructive behaviour that scientists tend to have, namely smoking like chimneys, workoholism and accepting abusive behaviour from their bosses. Of course, you couldn't know that, but I'm still baffled at what you made of what I said. English is not my first language, but if I may be so saucy, let nobody ever tell you you have no imagination.
I took what you wrote as something of a condescension/condemnation of those worshipped/idolised/emulated and an estimation of high discerning and rationality to the masses
I have estimation of high discerning and rationality for individuals, not "masses". Again, I condemn and despise individuals, not the body of worshipped, idolised and emulated people. I would be in bad shape if I despised my own role-models.
I hope we agree at least on what I think, if not on the importance of Kate Moss in History and on her impact on the attitude of people on drugs. I can perfectly believe that the people you've met in show business did drugs, if only because, as you seem to say, it's the self-destructive behaviour of choice in the show business. I guess in the show-business, drugs is the "cool" thing to do. In scientific research, the "cool" thing to do is to work till you drop dead. I'm no physician, so I wouldn't be able to say what is worst in terms of health issues, but it's still sad to see otherwise smart and good people forget that you can't do good science if you don't eat or sleep or have a life next to the lab.

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

FPB, when you say you are in favor of legalizing most drugs, do you mean marijuana, or do you also include drugs such as cocaine, crack, heroin, etc? Because while to me, legalizing marijuana makes sense, I still feel the human cost of legalizing the more addictive drugs would be too great. Although, here in the states the argument is moot because it will never happen, even if it makes sense. But I would like to hear what you think on the matter.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I would stop at LSD, which can ruin lives permanently with a single hit. But as for the others, I do not think - always speaking under correction, because I am not a medical doctor and I have no expertise in the matter - that even crack and heroin are not deadlier than whisky. We survive whisky, most of us, because we know enough to take small amounts and stop. But one ordinary bottle, taken at once, is enough to kill a human being.

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

I've seen complete schizophrenic episodes brought on by magic mushrooms. You watch a top-grade law student drop out and spend the rest of his life in a drug-induced stupor and it kinda kills a lot of the attraction for it.

And I would ban Chinese fire water, just because it truly is the most lethal substance in the world. The mere smell of it from a metre away can literally make you vomit, and my boyfriend's couch has the stain to prove it.

[helixaspersa.livejournal.com]

I found this post interesting and we have some relatively unusual listed interests in common (vedic, mahabharata, homer and so on) so I have added you as a friend, though I don't make actual entries very often at all so don't feel that you need reciprocate.

I am curious though about your conviction that the reaction - or, perhaps more specifically, the result of the reaction - to this case would have been so different 10 years ago. Are you sure this is the case? Are you thinking of some specific cases? Perhaps you are right, but certainly in the London, media-based context I'm not completely convinced. Though I do see that there's a distinction between how people feel (ie not suprised, perhaps not even minding much, perhaps finding it mildly glamorous both then and now) and how they decide they ought to react (ie, possibly, refusing to employ her, hypothetically 10 years ago and not bothering with that reaction now).

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I was speaking specifically of the public and collective reaction of her social world. I feel fairly sure that ten years ago it would not have been as aggressive as it is now. You may even look back to as recent an event as Naomi Campbell's outing as a drugs user; nobody lined up to support her (of course Campbell is personally more disliked than Moss, which may have contributed to the different result, but I still think that there is a perceptible change in atmosphere).

As things stand, I guess that we are at a sort of compromise. Moss has not won out as Astor did in her day, but neither has she been destroyed; people have lined up to defend her, but she still has had to enter an apparently very severe detox clinic. The overall result of her "outing" is not wholly clear, and may well remain inconclusive.

Thanks for the friending. I will friend you back.