Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
“She and Kris are both denying the affair, saying it was just ‘inappropriate talk,’” said Benson. “But I picked up his iPad and and I hit the Facebook button and looked at his inbox messages, and there were all of these sexy messages between them. And you just don’t talk with somebody like that that you’re not having sex with.” ...
"Sure, I was snooping, but he's still the bad guy, right?"
Kris, now a money manager, allegedly slept with one of his wife’s friends who he was supposed to be giving financial advice.
If porn has taught me anything, it's that this occurred after Kris advised his wife's friend that she needed to "invest" something of HIS into something of HERS.
"Sure, I was snooping, but he's still the bad guy, right?"
Pretty much, yeah. The evidence she uncovered retroactively justifies her suspicions and behavior.
7.jobu posted on July 19, 2012 at 01:38 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I saw this and wondered if she'd passed her sell-by date, and a search led me to this sweet 1973 Topps Baseball card mock-up. Whoever put this together could have been a lot more creative with the lower-right-hand corner silhouette.
I don't know why, but I thought they got divorced years ago.
Ditto. My first instinct was to look at the submission date and see if this was one of those articles that resurfaces after a couple of years for some random reason.
She was part of a short-lived baseball wives reality show on VH1 if I remember correctly. I was surprised they were still married even then; she seemed like a terrible human being and was never really that attractive to begin with.
Also, if you're carrying on an affair using Facebook, you pretty much deserve to get snooped on and found out.
18.Brian C posted on July 19, 2012 at 02:54 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Snooping is a little wrong, cheating is a lot wrong. Making a judgment is basically just math from there on.
I used to feel pretty much the same way, but now I think that they're both about the same wrong, because they both indicate the same betrayal of trust, just manifesting itself in different ways.
The way I'd put it is that someone who's snooping like that deserves to have something to find.
19.Stretch posted on July 19, 2012 at 02:54 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
and was never really that attractive to begin with.
Boobs. Yeah, I know they're fake.
20.BDC posted on July 19, 2012 at 02:55 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
if you're carrying on an affair using Facebook, you pretty much deserve to get snooped on
Especially when she sees in her newsfeed: Kris Benson has Changed his Relationship Status from Married to It's Complicated.
I used to feel pretty much the same way, but now I think that they're both about the same wrong, because they both indicate the same betrayal of trust, just manifesting itself in different ways.
I don't understand this statement. Doesn't the character of the manifestation of mistrust matter?
The way I'd put it is that someone who's snooping like that deserves to have something to find.
What is she supposed to do, just grin and bear it? She felt she was being lied to (and she was right about it), how is she supposed to verify it?
I think a lot of it depends on what motivated her to snoop on his Facebook account. If his behavior had changed, if she had found lipstick on his collar...or other stuff that were real reasons to think something was up then I can't say I blame her at all. If she was just inherently distrustful I don't think that's right.
Of course he's a dirtbag for cheating regardless of how he got caught. If you don't want the one you're with, have the stones to end it.
I used to feel pretty much the same way, but now I think that they're both about the same wrong, because they both indicate the same betrayal of trust, just manifesting itself in different ways.
The rest is just puritanical reflexes that trigger whenever sex is involved.
Kind of a jerk statement here. The majority of married people would not be happy if their spouse slept with another person. You believing it should be another way doesn't make you more progressive, just different.
Why? It's just a symptom of the underlying issues.
So if I ogle a hot girl, it's pretty much just as bad as what Tiger Woods was doing.
Get a divorce anyway if she can't trust her husband.
Have you ever had an adult relationship? This is some weird #### you're peddling.
34.Brian C posted on July 19, 2012 at 03:21 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Kind of a jerk statement here. The majority of married people would not be happy if their spouse slept with another person. You believing it should be another way doesn't make you more progressive, just different.
I'm not saying that people should be happy when their spouses cheat on them, and in fact you'll note that I specifically referred to such behavior as a "betrayal of trust". It's just that I don't think it's appreciably worse than snooping around.
If you're going to call someone a jerk, have the courtesy to read what they actually wrote first.
A significant number of people, possibly a majority, cheat or snoop. It's apparent that it isn't the cheating or snooping but getting caught that is viewed as immoral, otherwise the activities would be limited to the people that either didn't subscribe to that morality or believed themselves to be above morals, and neither can be true of a majority. Therefore the morally correct course is to cheat and snoop with discretion.
37.Brian C posted on July 19, 2012 at 03:23 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
So if I ogle a hot girl, it's pretty much just as bad as what Tiger Woods was doing.
What? Someone has to have a really Pollyannaish view of their spouse if they think that they're not even attracted to other people.
Have you ever had an adult relationship? This is some weird #### you're peddling.
Why yes! I've been with my wife for nearly 12 years now. And you know what? She agrees with me!
If you're going to call someone a jerk, have the courtesy to read what they actually wrote first.
I did and perhaps you should have used a different word than puritanical which makes your statement seem like an old fashion belief that is out of date. And following it up with someone who is snooping around deserves something to find just solidifies the jerk statement. How is that any different than saying a woman who dresses a certain way deserves to have guys say crude things to them?
What? Someone has to have a really Pollyannaish view of their spouse if they think that they're not even attracted to other people.
OK, let me put it differently.
Guy X: Has a one-night stand, was immediately consumed by shame and guilt over it, will never do anything like that as long as he lives. Is only deceitful about this one thing, and would probably admit it and cry like a little baby if pressed by his wife.
Guy Y: Tiger Woodsing it. He has girls in every city. He goes to Vegas and enters a room of dozens of prostitutes and chooses his favorite three for the night. Has constructed entire worlds of lies to support his philandering.
Wife of Guy Y: Perfect innocent woman, in the face of immense circumstantial evidence, reads her husbands email.
I did and perhaps you should have used a different word than puritanical which makes your statement seem like an old fashion belief that is out of date.
Exactly. If you want to believe that snooping and cheating are identical betrayals of trust (a questionable idea, particularly since the snooping may very well have been prompted by changes in behavior that justified a loss of trust), that's one thing. But the takeaway from the post Biscuit posted is that anyone who feels otherwise is simply motivated by puritanical views on sex. That's the kind of jerkish part.
42.Brian C posted on July 19, 2012 at 03:34 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I did and perhaps you should have used a different word than puritanical which makes your statement seem like an old fashion belief that is out of date.
Well again, you're pretending that I said something I didn't. 'Puritanical' does not mean outdated, it means severely strict, usually wrt morality.
How is that any different than saying a woman who dresses a certain way deserves to have guys say crude things to them?
How are they the same? There's nothing wrong with dressing "a certain way", regardless of the comments it draws. But even most people here seem to acknowledge that snooping is wrong, albeit less so depending on results.
Why yes! I've been with my wife for nearly 12 years now. And you know what? She agrees with me!
I hope you have a wife that agrees with you otherwise you have issues. My point is just because that is how you see things doesn't me anyone else does, and in fact the majority of the people are going to disagree with your views. Saying that anyone that doesn't subscribe to your beliefs deserves bad consequences is a pretty bad thing to say.
Well again, you're pretending that I said something I didn't. 'Puritanical' does not mean outdated, it means severely strict, usually wrt morality.
OK then, you should have used a different word than puritanical because most people would not look at cheating as a morally strict construct in which to conduct yourself, they would consider it a rational expected behavior. The rest of the statement of her deserving what she got is also a lot more puritanical than the act of sexually cheating.
A significant number of people, possibly a majority, cheat or snoop. It's apparent that it isn't the cheating or snooping but getting caught that is viewed as immoral, otherwise the activities would be limited to the people that either didn't subscribe to that morality or believed themselves to be above morals, and neither can be true of a majority. Therefore the morally correct course is to cheat and snoop with discretion.
This is all QFT. People feign moral outrage about extramarital sex because it's a social marker, not because they're morally opposed to extramarital sex. (Most often, they're opposed to *other people's extramarital sex.*)
48.Brian C posted on July 19, 2012 at 03:51 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
But the takeaway from the post Biscuit posted is that anyone who feels otherwise is simply motivated by puritanical views on sex.
What else would they be motivated by? Sex is the only issue at stake here!
I'm not really sure how this is debatable. We've kind of decided, as a culture, that sex outside of marriage is the ultimate betrayal of a spouse. Why would that be? Call it something other than puritanical if that word gets you twisted, but what precisely do you see as the motivating force here?
All of these people have the same level of sin?
Well, I would say in that case that Guy X has committed one betrayal, while Guy Y has committed many, many betrayals. Kind of like how robbing one bank gets you less jail time than robbing 100 banks.
The wife of Guy Y ... well, I feel bad for her. Given "immense circumstantial evidence" however, I think the proper thing to do would be to confront the husband. If she isn't satisfied with his explanations, then she has to make the decision as to how much this marriage really means to her.
As someone who has at some point both "snooped" and been snooped on (but never cheated or been cheated on, as far as I know), I'm pretty confident in saying the two things are qualitatively different. Snooping is an act of insecurity; yes, it is also a betrayal of trust but that is not its defining characterstic.
Some people have been through such betrayal in the past that they have a hard time trusting anyone, regardless of whether there's a reason or not. Telling someone like that to "get a divorce anyway if you can't trust your husband/wife" is unhelpful; what they need is to work out their own issues, not find a new partner.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 3 pages
1 2 3 >"Sure, I was snooping, but he's still the bad guy, right?"
If porn has taught me anything, it's that this occurred after Kris advised his wife's friend that she needed to "invest" something of HIS into something of HERS.
He wasn't?
Pretty much, yeah. The evidence she uncovered retroactively justifies her suspicions and behavior.
Anna Benson 1973 Topps card
One of the few things in which the decision is based on the results and not the process.
She has.
Ditto. My first instinct was to look at the submission date and see if this was one of those articles that resurfaces after a couple of years for some random reason.
She was part of a short-lived baseball wives reality show on VH1 if I remember correctly. I was surprised they were still married even then; she seemed like a terrible human being and was never really that attractive to begin with.
I used to feel pretty much the same way, but now I think that they're both about the same wrong, because they both indicate the same betrayal of trust, just manifesting itself in different ways.
The way I'd put it is that someone who's snooping like that deserves to have something to find.
Boobs. Yeah, I know they're fake.
Especially when she sees in her newsfeed: Kris Benson has Changed his Relationship Status from Married to It's Complicated.
I don't understand this statement. Doesn't the character of the manifestation of mistrust matter?
What is she supposed to do, just grin and bear it? She felt she was being lied to (and she was right about it), how is she supposed to verify it?
Why would it?
Why? It's just a symptom of the underlying issues. The rest is just puritanical reflexes that trigger whenever sex is involved.
Get a divorce anyway if she can't trust her husband.
Of course he's a dirtbag for cheating regardless of how he got caught. If you don't want the one you're with, have the stones to end it.
They filed in 2006, but ended up reconciling.
not all betrayals are created equal
Because it's *shocking* that a man who would marry Anna Benson would dip his stick in something on the side.
She practically asked for it.
So if I ogle a hot girl, it's pretty much just as bad as what Tiger Woods was doing.
Have you ever had an adult relationship? This is some weird #### you're peddling.
I'm not saying that people should be happy when their spouses cheat on them, and in fact you'll note that I specifically referred to such behavior as a "betrayal of trust". It's just that I don't think it's appreciably worse than snooping around.
If you're going to call someone a jerk, have the courtesy to read what they actually wrote first.
The funny thing is I can't tell if this is meant as an indictment of Anna, Kris, or both.
What? Someone has to have a really Pollyannaish view of their spouse if they think that they're not even attracted to other people.
Why yes! I've been with my wife for nearly 12 years now. And you know what? She agrees with me!
Course she does. You're less likely to find out she's been cheating on you if you're estopped from snooping.
OK, let me put it differently.
Guy X: Has a one-night stand, was immediately consumed by shame and guilt over it, will never do anything like that as long as he lives. Is only deceitful about this one thing, and would probably admit it and cry like a little baby if pressed by his wife.
Guy Y: Tiger Woodsing it. He has girls in every city. He goes to Vegas and enters a room of dozens of prostitutes and chooses his favorite three for the night. Has constructed entire worlds of lies to support his philandering.
Wife of Guy Y: Perfect innocent woman, in the face of immense circumstantial evidence, reads her husbands email.
All of these people have the same level of sin?
Exactly. If you want to believe that snooping and cheating are identical betrayals of trust (a questionable idea, particularly since the snooping may very well have been prompted by changes in behavior that justified a loss of trust), that's one thing. But the takeaway from the post Biscuit posted is that anyone who feels otherwise is simply motivated by puritanical views on sex. That's the kind of jerkish part.
Well again, you're pretending that I said something I didn't. 'Puritanical' does not mean outdated, it means severely strict, usually wrt morality.
How are they the same? There's nothing wrong with dressing "a certain way", regardless of the comments it draws. But even most people here seem to acknowledge that snooping is wrong, albeit less so depending on results.
Yes. I mean to say, a club that would have Anna Benson as a member can't feign shocked indignation when the behavior at the club gets tawdry.
This is all QFT. People feign moral outrage about extramarital sex because it's a social marker, not because they're morally opposed to extramarital sex. (Most often, they're opposed to *other people's extramarital sex.*)
What else would they be motivated by? Sex is the only issue at stake here!
I'm not really sure how this is debatable. We've kind of decided, as a culture, that sex outside of marriage is the ultimate betrayal of a spouse. Why would that be? Call it something other than puritanical if that word gets you twisted, but what precisely do you see as the motivating force here?
Well, I would say in that case that Guy X has committed one betrayal, while Guy Y has committed many, many betrayals. Kind of like how robbing one bank gets you less jail time than robbing 100 banks.
The wife of Guy Y ... well, I feel bad for her. Given "immense circumstantial evidence" however, I think the proper thing to do would be to confront the husband. If she isn't satisfied with his explanations, then she has to make the decision as to how much this marriage really means to her.
As someone who has at some point both "snooped" and been snooped on (but never cheated or been cheated on, as far as I know), I'm pretty confident in saying the two things are qualitatively different. Snooping is an act of insecurity; yes, it is also a betrayal of trust but that is not its defining characterstic.
Some people have been through such betrayal in the past that they have a hard time trusting anyone, regardless of whether there's a reason or not. Telling someone like that to "get a divorce anyway if you can't trust your husband/wife" is unhelpful; what they need is to work out their own issues, not find a new partner.
Choose more wisely next time.
Page 1 of 3 pages
1 2 3 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.