Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Kris And Anna Benson To Divorce After 13 Irritating Years

A Real Major League Ballplayer managing your money?  How can that go wrong?

Kris Benson and Anna Benson, overhyped sports power couple of all overhyped sports power couples, have decided that this is it: after 13 years of marriage, it’s divorce time.

Anna gave an interview to Fox News in which she acknowledged she served Kris with divorce papers in March after finding out about his infidelity. Kris, now a money manager, allegedly slept with one of his wife’s friends who he was supposed to be giving financial advice.

“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.” ...

Benson, who last pitched for Arizona in 2010, has been inextricably tied to and overshadowed by his bombastic wife throughout his career. (We couldn’t even be bothered to find a photo of him for this post.) In Pittsburgh, she told a magazine that they had had sex in the stadium parking lot, and wanted to try it outside every ballpark in the majors. In New York, she told Howard Stern that if he cheated on her, she’d sleep with all his Mets teammates. (Somewhere, Cliff Floyd wonders what the statute of limitations on that promise was.) And with Benson’s performance never quite living up to expectations, more than one team decided the package deal of Kris and Anna was more trouble than it was worth.

The District Attorney Posted: July 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM | 122 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: diamondbacks, kris benson, mets, orioles, pirates, rangers

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 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Benji Posted: July 19, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4187067)
Please marry someone from a country without media. Or don't get married again and just go away.
   2. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: July 19, 2012 at 01:31 PM (#4187078)
Well that's that then. The next time we'll hear about them is when they die.
   3. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: July 19, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4187084)
“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?"
   4. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: July 19, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4187085)
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.
   5. SoSH U at work Posted: July 19, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4187088)
"Sure, I was snooping, but he's still the bad guy, right?"


He wasn't?
   6. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 19, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4187092)
"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: July 19, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4187093)
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.

Anna Benson 1973 Topps card
   8. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 19, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4187097)
3: Yes.
   9. Dan The Mediocre Posted: July 19, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4187119)

Pretty much, yeah. The evidence she uncovered retroactively justifies her suspicions and behavior.


One of the few things in which the decision is based on the results and not the process.
   10. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: July 19, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4187124)
Kris Benson is a money manager now? I would not have guessed that.
   11. RJ in TO Posted: July 19, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4187125)
I don't know why, but I thought they got divorced years ago.
   12. Chicago Joe Posted: July 19, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4187131)
I saw this and wondered if she'd passed her sell-by date,


She has.
   13. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 19, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4187154)
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.
   14. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 19, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4187161)

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.
   15. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 19, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4187165)
Pretty much, yeah. The evidence she uncovered retroactively justifies her suspicions and behavior.

One of the few things in which the decision is based on the results and not the process.
Snooping is a little wrong, cheating is a lot wrong. Making a judgment is basically just math from there on.
   16. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 19, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4187166)
Let's just hope he doesn't become the next Lenny Dykstra.
   17. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 19, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4187168)
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: July 19, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4187175)
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. JustDan Posted: July 19, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4187177)
and was never really that attractive to begin with.

Boobs. Yeah, I know they're fake.
   20. BDC Posted: July 19, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4187178)
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.
   21. PreservedFish Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4187186)
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?
   22. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4187187)
I don't understand this statement. Doesn't the character of the manifestation of mistrust matter?


Why would it?
   23. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4187189)
Doesn't the character of the manifestation of mistrust matter?

Why? It's just a symptom of the underlying issues. The rest is just puritanical reflexes that trigger whenever sex is involved.
   24. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4187191)
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?

Get a divorce anyway if she can't trust her husband.
   25. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4187193)
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.
   26. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:08 PM (#4187194)
I don't know why, but I thought they got divorced years ago.


They filed in 2006, but ended up reconciling.
   27. JJ1986 Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4187196)
The quote isn't really clear about whether she read his facebook messages before or after she had suspicions.
   28. Nasty Nate Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4187197)
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.


not all betrayals are created equal
   29. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4187198)
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.


Because it's *shocking* that a man who would marry Anna Benson would dip his stick in something on the side.
   30. SoSH U at work Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4187205)
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.
   31. Biscuit_pants Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4187208)
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.
   32. DA Baracus Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4187212)
Anna Benson married a guy who married a stripper. Stunning that he has low morals.
   33. PreservedFish Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4187215)
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: July 19, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4187216)
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.
   35. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4187217)
Because it's *shocking* that a man who would marry Anna Benson would dip his stick in something on the side.


The funny thing is I can't tell if this is meant as an indictment of Anna, Kris, or both.
   36. Swedish Chef Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4187218)
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: July 19, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4187219)
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!
   38. Biscuit_pants Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4187223)
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?
   39. The Good Face Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4187226)
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.
   40. PreservedFish Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4187227)
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.

All of these people have the same level of sin?
   41. SoSH U at work Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4187228)
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: July 19, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4187234)
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.
   43. Biscuit_pants Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4187235)
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.
   44. Biscuit_pants Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4187242)
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.
   45. Biscuit_pants Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4187243)
How are they the same? There's nothing wrong with dressing "a certain way", regardless of the comments it draws.
because in both cases the actions themselves do not deserve the result.
   46. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4187244)
The funny thing is I can't tell if this is meant as an indictment of Anna, Kris, or both.


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.
   47. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4187248)
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: July 19, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4187251)
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.
   49. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4187253)

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.
   50. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4187257)
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.


Choose more wisely next time.
   51. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4187259)
because in both cases the actions themselves do not deserve the result.

Well, I think I've made the logical distinction clear. I think it's very obvious that I'm not saying that all victims deserve their fate in all cases, so again I don't see the connection you're drawing to these two very different scenarios.

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.

What's the difference? It's fair to say that most people are "morally strict" when asked if cheating is proper behavior, wouldn't you agree? Would you deny that your stance here is "morally strict"?
   52. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4187261)

Choose more wisely next time.

What? I'll refrain from responding until you explain this comment.
   53. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4187264)
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.

Yes, how silly of American society not to prefer quick and rash divorce to "snooping." Particularly when American society, as expressed through its popular culture, is so reticent and private. It's not as though millions of people won't do literally anything to get noticed by millions of other people or anything.
   54. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 19, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4187265)
"Morally Strict" seems a comparative phrase. Strict in relation to what?
   55. Biscuit_pants Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4187270)
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?
It gets me twisted because you are using it in a way that most people would not use it, which gives the impression you are saying something completely different. If you are saying that we as a society have found it unacceptable then I agree with you. That still does not explain how she deserved to get cheated on because she was snooping.

   56. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4187271)
What? I'll refrain from responding until you explain this comment.


It's an oblique reference to Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade.
   57. SoSH U at work Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4187272)
What else would they be motivated by? Sex is the only issue at stake here!


Not necessarily, unless you've already decided what motivates everyone else (which, you kind of did).

A spouse may very well feel betrayed not because the husband was out banging someone else, but that he sought out someone else outside the marraige to create a relationship with. In fact, one can feel betrayed if a relationship such as this is created without the sexual consummation.
   58. Biscuit_pants Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4187273)
What's the difference? It's fair to say that most people are "morally strict" when asked if cheating is proper behavior, wouldn't you agree? Would you deny that your stance here is "morally strict"?
By using the word strict you are putting it in relativistic terms, using it with the word puritanical gives the impression that it is an old fashion and out dated belief.
   59. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4187275)
A spouse may very well feel betrayed not because the husband was out banging someone else, but that he sought out someone else outside the marraige to create a relationship with. In fact, one can feel betrayed if a relationship such as this is created without the sexual consummation.


True. The problem isn't so much sexual puritanism so much as the idiotic notion that pervades American relationships that one person is going to be the end-all, be-all for everyone, for eternity, forever and ever, amen. The whole "soul mates" thing needs to be skewered like the sacred side of beef that it is.
   60. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4187281)
"Morally Strict" seems a comparative phrase. Strict in relation to what?

The parameters of this discussion are pretty clear, aren't they?

Not necessarily, unless you've already decided what motivates everyone else (which, you kind of did).

A spouse may very well feel betrayed not because the husband was out banging someone else, but that he sought out someone else outside the marraige to create a relationship with. In fact, one can feel betrayed if a relationship such as this is created without the sexual consummation.

The case we're talking about deals specifically with sexual infidelity, doesn't it?

I mean, people will get upset when their spouses do all kinds of things. But in this case, we're talking sexual infidelity.
   61. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4187285)
By using the word strict you are putting it in relativistic terms, using it with the word puritanical gives the impression that it is an old fashion and out dated belief.

So since I've now clarified what I meant, you can stop acting like I meant something different.
   62. SoSH U at work Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4187287)
The case we're talking about deals specifically with sexual infidelity, doesn't it?


But you're the one that determined it was the sex, and the sex only, that was the betrayal. And that the level of betrayal felt by the spouse (any spouse in that situation) is motivated purely by puritanical views on sex.

As for this specific case, regardless what we may think of Anna (or athlete marriages), she made her feelings very clearly known on the subject of Kris and infidelity long ago. Therefore, Kris knew where she stood on the behavior he was undertaking and ignored it. Conversely, we don't know a damn thing on how Kris felt about her looking at his Facebook messages (for instance, if my wife wants to snoop on my online activity, I wouldn't feel particularly betrayed).

If you really feel there's no difference between snooping and cheating, knock yourself out. It's the idea you've been pushing that no one else can make such a distinction without having "strict" (whatever that means) views on sex that is off base.
   63. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4187290)
But you're the one that determined it was the sex, and the sex only, that was the betrayal.

No, I didn't.
   64. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4187297)
I mean, people will get upset when their spouses do all kinds of things. But in this case, we're talking sexual infidelity.


In fairness, Kris is probably also upset that she was snooping in his Facebook account, since it got him caught.
   65. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4187299)
True. The problem isn't so much sexual puritanism so much as the idiotic notion that pervades American relationships that one person is going to be the end-all, be-all for everyone, for eternity, forever and ever, amen. The whole "soul mates" thing needs to be skewered like the sacred side of beef that it is.
I broadly agree with this, but it's a very weak excuse for cheating. If you want to be a responsible non-monogamist, you have to be an honest non-monogamist with your partner. If you're cheating, you're doing it wrong.
   66. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4187304)
I broadly agree with this, but it's a very weak excuse for cheating. If you want to be a responsible non-monogamist, you have to be an honest non-monogamist with your partner. If you're cheating, you're doing it wrong.

Just want to say that I fully agree with this.
   67. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4187309)
I broadly agree with this, but it's a very weak excuse for cheating. If you want to be a responsible non-monogamist, you have to be an honest non-monogamist with your partner. If you're cheating, you're doing it wrong.


I broadly agree with this, but it's a simple fact that most people are going to lock into the prevailing theory and skirt the edges - just like Mommy and Daddy before them, and Grandma and Grandpa before them - rather than make a staunch stand outside of conventional mores.
   68. Biscuit_pants Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4187312)
So since I've now clarified what I meant, you can stop acting like I meant something different.
Actually it is you playing around with words, you explained what you meant while still using the word strict, and since strict is relativistic you have not given us what it is strict relative to. You have yet to fully explain what you mean with the exception of her actions deserved her being cheated on.

You are using words that give off different impressions than what you mean and when questioned you are claiming the parameters of what you said are clear…there not.
   69. SoSH U at work Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4187314)
No, I didn't.


Tell that to the guy who posted "Sex is the only issue at stake here!"

Seriously, I can't even follow what you're trying to argue here any longer. I think you overstated things above and haven't been able to extricate yourself from it.
   70. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4187322)
Tell that to the guy who posted "Sex is the only issue at stake here!"

And tethered "puritanical reflexes" to sex, and sex alone.
   71. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4187326)
The parameters of this discussion are pretty clear, aren't they?

Whether by failure of implication or inference your point is not clear to me. Based on past statements it seems clear there was not a mutual assent to extramarital sex.

You acknowledge it is a betrayal of trust (just like snooping is), but categorize hurt feelings of that breach of trust as arising from a puritanical viewpoint. What is unpuritanical (or qualitatively different) about being angry that your spouse is snooping on you?
   72. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4187332)
And now I'm getting "Flirt Live" ads from the website. Thanks Anna Benson!
   73. Flynn Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4187347)
I broadly agree with this, but it's a simple fact that most people are going to lock into the prevailing theory and skirt the edges - just like Mommy and Daddy before them, and Grandma and Grandpa before them - rather than make a staunch stand outside of conventional mores.


I would argue most people who cheat don't want their partner to cheat on them, they just want to cheat themselves.

So basically it comes down to being a grown up and denying that your urges come first to the exclusion of everybody else's. I know people who are in genuinely non-monogamous relationships and more power to them. They can deal with the occasional situation where the other half is getting laid and they aren't. I think most people can't.
   74. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4187352)
Tell that to the guy who posted "Sex is the only issue at stake here!"

In the Benson case. You know, the one where Anna specifically said that the sex was the problem. She didn't say that "I don't really even care whether they had sex or not, just the fact that they seemed close really bothered me." No, she said, "you just don’t talk with somebody like that that you’re not having sex with.”

Seriously, I can't even follow what you're trying to argue here any longer. I think you overstated things above and haven't been able to extricate yourself from it.

All right, I'll try again:

If I found out that my wife had been hacking into my email/facebook/whatever account to snoop around on me, that would bother me as much as if I found out that she cheated on me. Yes, I understand that many people disagree, but talking about disagreements is a major reason that people discuss things.

Furthermore, yes, I think that people typically have more drastic reactions to sexual misconduct than other forms of misconduct, and I think a major reason for this is a reflexive aversion to sexual misbehavior in general [NOTE: I edited the previous sentence after posting for clarity]. Yes, it's true that people can also get upset when their spouses have what they see as inappropriate non-sexual relationships, although in these cases I think it's fair to generalize that sexual consummation would be seen as even worse than the non-sexual relationship.

Now, a lot of people have objected to the word "puritanical", which I suppose is fair enough (disagreements happen, after all!), but then again, no one has offered an alternate explanation for why they disagree with my basic stance on the situation. So I ask again, why does sexual infidelity bother people more than other forms of misbehavior? Why would it bother you more, SoSH, if your wife cheated than it would if she snooped through your online activity?

You guys are acting like I'm crazy for not seeing these answers as self-evident in order to avoid answering those questions, but no one's willing to offer up any explanation for their views. Even if they are self-evident, though, why do so many people feel that way? What plausible explanation is there other than a reflexive aversion to sexual misbehavior?
   75. PreservedFish Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4187367)
If I found out that my wife had been hacking into my email/facebook/whatever account to snoop around on me, that would bother me as much as if I found out that she cheated on me.


Well, I will go on record as to saying that you're nuts.

but no one's willing to offer up any explanation for their views.


In all honesty I don't know if I've ever considered it. It does seem self-evident to me.
   76. SoSH U at work Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4187371)
Now, a lot of people have objected to the word "puritanical", which I suppose is fair enough (disagreements happen, after all!), but then again, no one has offered an alternate explanation for why they disagree with my basic stance on the situation. So I ask again, why does sexual infidelity bother people more than other forms of misbehavior? Why would it bother you more, SoSH, if your wife cheated than it would if she snooped through your online activity?


First, I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that you and your wife are free to see snooping and cheating as identical betrayals. If that's how you view things, bully for you.

But others don't, for any number of reasons that may or may not be simply a "reflexive aversion to sexual behavior." I've already given you one.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, snooping should not simply be seen as a betrayal of trust, but a manifestation of insecurity. ANd while it's possible cheating can be the result of that, I don't think that's the default assumption.

As for me, all I can tell you is that snooping doesn't bother me. If my wife wants to look at what I've been up to online, I simply won't feel betrayed. I don't know if that answer will satisfy you, but that's what I've got.

And that's the heart of my objection here Brian. You've taken your position (that sexual betrayal is equal to other types) and, decided (paraphrasing here) that is is the only logical position unless one happens to have hangups about sex. I think that's quite the overreach.

   77. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4187372)
If I found out that my wife had been hacking into my email/facebook/whatever account to snoop around on me, that would bother me as much as if I found out that she cheated on me.
I think one of the big issues here is the mitigating circumstances.

Cheating is much more defensible if one partner has been unreasonably refusing intimacy over a period of time. ("Intimacy" being a weasel word meant to cover a wide range of stuff, particular to the individuals in the couple.) Snooping is much more defensible if one partner has reason to think the other has been cheating.

In the case of Anna and Kris Benson, we have good evidence that Anna's suspicions were reasonable, and no evidence that Kris had reasonable cause for cheating.
   78. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4187374)
What plausible explanation is there other than a reflexive aversion to sexual misbehavior?

Sexual jealousy, particularly within marriage, has been legitimized by high literature and art in Western culture -- and thus seen as something fundamental to the psyche of Western men and women -- for centuries before the Puritans.(*) Identifying its patrimony as Puritan bordered on illiterate.

(*) Othello, Medea, et seq.
   79. Tippecanoe Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4187375)
why does sexual infidelity bother people more than other forms of misbehavior


I'll bite. In the case of a marriage, the vows themselves are a promise of fidelity. It is a traditional pillar of Judeo-Christian marriage. Facebook snooping based on justifiable suspicion, on the other hand, not so much.
   80. PreservedFish Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4187378)
I'll bite. In the case of a marriage, the vows themselves are a promise of fidelity. It is a traditional pillar of Judeo-Christian marriage. Facebook snooping based on justifiable suspicion, on the other hand, not so much.


Yeah. This is what marriage is, right? I remember hearing that Nietzsche defined it as a contract of ownership of each other's genitals.
   81. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4187380)
In all honesty I don't know if I've ever considered it. It does seem self-evident to me

OK! Now we're getting somewhere - you consider something as self-evident despite not having given it any thought. Sure sounds "reflexive" to me. At least you're being honest about it.

You've taken your position (that sexual betrayal is equal to other types) and, decided (paraphrasing here) that is is the only logical position unless one happens to have hangups about sex. I think that's quite the overreach.

Maybe so, but at least I've tried to explain my stance, instead of resorting to "just so". It's hard to dodge accusations of being reactionary when that's all you've got, isn't it?
   82. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4187382)
Sexual jealousy, particularly within marriage, has been legitimized by high literature and art in Western culture -- and thus seen as something fundamental to the psyche of Western men and women -- for centuries before the Puritans.(*) Identifying its patrimony as Puritan bordered on illiterate.

Wow, this is fascinatingly irrelevant to anything under discussion here. The objections to my use of the word "puritanical" were historically based? Sure thing.
   83. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4187386)
Yeah. This is what marriage is, right? I remember hearing that Nietzsche defined it as a contract of ownership of each other's genitals.

And to think, you asked me if *I* had had an adult relationship. If I had known that this was what you meant, I'd have answered "no".
   84. Biscuit_pants Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4187390)
If I found out that my wife had been hacking into my email/facebook/whatever account to snoop around on me, that would bother me as much as if I found out that she cheated on me. Yes, I understand that many people disagree, but talking about disagreements is a major reason that people discuss things.
That is fine that you think that way, if it works for both you and your wife then really, good for you guys. You were essentially saying she deserved to be cheated on for snooping because it is the same level of transgression. Just because it is how you and your wife see things does not mean ANYONE else does. The jerk statement was that she deserved what she got.
So I ask again, why does sexual infidelity bother people more than other forms of misbehavior?
Because to a lot people it is the most intimate action of a relationship, maybe not everyone but a heck of a lot of people.
but no one's willing to offer up any explanation for their views. Even if they are self-evident, though, why do so many people feel that way? What plausible explanation is there other than a reflexive aversion to sexual misbehavior?
I shared a room with three brothers growing up, privacy was never that big with me. In fact when I want to keep something to myself I flat out state that is what I want to do. Would I be bothered by people poking around after I stated that? Maybe if it was personal enough I might, might consider it a betrayal but that circumstance has never presented itself so I guess I don't even know if that is true. There is not a piece of my life that I would not share with pretty much anyone who I trusted with the information. But I consider my sexual relationship with my wife very personal and intimate and between me and her.

   85. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4187391)
This whole discussion is funny for 2 reasons:

#1 We are talking about a ballplayer and his ex-stripper wife who is known to be a bit of a publicity whore so that fact that someone was caught cheating on someone in this relationship isn't surprising at all. The more surprising part is that there was no sex video released during the so called "heyday" of their publicity.

#2 We are also living in an age when it doesn't take much to find websites that advertise finding partners outside your marriage.
   86. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4187394)
Wow, this is fascinatingly irrelevant to anything under discussion here.

It's entirely relevant. You asked about the sources of sexual jealousy and they were provided. They have nothing to do with puritanism -- large or small p -- and they aren't "reflexes."

Biologically, men don't want to spend money on other men's kids and if their wife's ####### someone else they can't be certain they aren't. Women don't want men wasting time and effort and resources on some other ##### instead of on her kids.

   87. PreservedFish Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4187397)
OK! Now we're getting somewhere - you consider something as self-evident despite not having given it any thought. Sure sounds "reflexive" to me. At least you're being honest about it.


You're right, it is "reflexive." That doesn't necessarily imply that it's wrong, or illogical, or anything like that.

And to think, you asked me if *I* had had an adult relationship. If I had known that this was what you meant, I'd have answered "no".


Oh, I just mentioned that Nietzsche idea because I think it's funny. It's obviously not just a genital ownership contract. But it does highlight an important part of marriage.
   88. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4187407)
Because to a lot people it is the most intimate action of a relationship, maybe not everyone but a heck of a lot of people.

This just begs the question, though, of why they feel that way. Merely restating the question isn't really an answer.

Would I be bothered by people poking around after I stated that? Maybe if it was personal enough I might, might consider it a betrayal but that circumstance has never presented itself so I guess I don't even know if that is true.

I don't even think it's a matter of privacy for me - believe it or not, I'm not fooling around behind my wife's back using even the strictest, most Puritanical sense of the term. In fact, it's partly *because* I feel like I've demonstrated a sufficient level of trust that I don't feel like I deserve to be spied upon. And naturally, I try to treat my wife the way I want her to treat me.

Mostly, though, I simply think that healthy relationships are built on mutual trust. Suspicion and jealousy are anathema to that and just make people miserable. I think this is uncontroversial, but then again, people keep telling me that showing a lack of trust is no big deal. So who knows.
   89. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4187411)
You're right, it is "reflexive." That doesn't necessarily imply that it's wrong, or illogical, or anything like that.

Fair enough, and this is the nature of the disagreement. And again, at least you're honest about the dynamic here, and not getting all defensive about it. Speaking of which...
They have nothing to do with puritanism -- large or small p -- and they aren't "reflexes."

Biologically...

"Biological" reactions are pretty much "reflexes" by definition. Deal with it.
   90. PreservedFish Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4187412)
I think this is uncontroversial, but then again, people keep telling me that showing a lack of trust is no big deal.


In this thread?
   91. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4187416)
Biologically, men don't want to spend money on other men's kids and if their wife's ####### someone else they can't be certain they aren't.
This is a hilarious use of the word "biology". In case anyone's wondering, there has yet to be identified a biological process that makes men not want to spend money on the kids of other people.

Popular evolutionary psychology remains mostly a bullshit dump for people who don't understand either science or philosophy, but who want to ground their personal feelings about the world in something they can pretend is fact.
   92. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4187421)
In this thread?

Yes, many have argued that snooping - which, warranted or not, is a manifest lack of trust - is no big deal.
   93. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4187427)
Now, a lot of people have objected to the word "puritanical", which I suppose is fair enough (disagreements happen, after all!), but then again, no one has offered an alternate explanation for why they disagree with my basic stance on the situation. So I ask again, why does sexual infidelity bother people more than other forms of misbehavior? Why would it bother you more, SoSH, if your wife cheated than it would if she snooped through your online activity?

A few thoughts:

1) You act as though everyone views sexual infidelity as the ultimate betrayal, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. I'm not sure I'd be less angry to find out that my wife had been spending her evenings reading romantic poetry in the arms of another man than I would be to find out that she'd had a drunken one night stand. The problem in both cases is the dishonesty, betrayal of trust, and sharing an intimacy with another person that is supposed to be reserved for one's spouse. (Those would both be pretty tough to recover from.)

2) Part of the reason why sexual infidelity bothers us is precisely because we all know it does. If I know that having sex with another woman is going to irreparably damage my marriage, and I do it anyway, that is a sign of total disregard for my wife's feelings and our marriage.

3) A lot of people view sex as an escalation of a relationship (even though it doesn't always work that way). And, as in #2, once we all know it's viewed that way, having sex takes on a certain significance. And sex is an easy bright line--if I have dinner with a female coworker one evening, there might be ambiguity about my intentions, but if I sleep with her, there's not really any ambiguity left.
   94. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4187430)
"Biological" reactions are pretty much "reflexes" by definition.

Except that the "reflex" isn't always present and some people reason or deliberate their way out of it, or never have it in the first place.

Sexual jealously simply isn't the product of "puritanical reflexes" or puritanical anything.

Deal with it.


What does this even mean?
   95. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4187432)
Yes, many have argued that snooping - which, warranted or not, is a manifest lack of trust - is no big deal.
I don't think that, in a relationship, one is bound to trust the other partner even when they aren't being trustworthy. Obviously identifying who is and is not trustworthy, and when a person becomes untrustworthy, is a complex process with no easy rules.

Given that Kris Benson not only was cheating, but was doing so through Facebook, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he wasn't being worthy of his partner's trust.
   96. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4187434)
Sexual jealously simply isn't the product of "puritanical reflexes" or puritanical anything.
We don't know where it comes from. You have suggested that a biological explanation is a matter of scientific record. That is demonstrably false.

There are various ev-psych hypotheses which can't really be tested. The Sex at Dawn hypothesis is just as much a bullshit dump as your "American 20th century sexual mores are a function of biology" hypothesis, but the Sex at Dawn hypothesis has as much evidentiary backing as any other, which shows that we don't actually know what sorts of relationships humans evolved to have.
   97. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4187435)
You act as though everyone views sexual infidelity as the ultimate betrayal, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

No, I'm saying that it seems clearly the case in the Benson case that led to this discussion, and it seems pretty uncontroversially true in general terms.

I'm not sure I'd be less angry to find out that my wife had been spending her evenings reading romantic poetry in the arms of another man than I would be to find out that she'd had a drunken one night stand.

But to me the question is, would you be angrier to find out that she had been "spending her evenings reading romantic poetry in the arms of another man", or "spending her evenings reading romantic poetry in the arms of another man and having sex with him"?

I'm sure that there are people out there for whom the sex would be inconsequential in that case, but I don't think I'm wildly off base to say that those people are rare.
   98. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 19, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4187436)
Yes, many have argued that snooping - which, warranted or not, is a manifest lack of trust - is no big deal.

I don't know if it's been argued in this thread, but picking up an iPad sitting around the apartment, hitting a Facebook icon, and then an email icon really isn't that big a deal. It's not nothing, but it isn't remotely comparable to banging another woman.
   99. Brian C Posted: July 19, 2012 at 06:03 PM (#4187440)
Except that the "reflex" isn't always present and some people reason or deliberate their way out of it, or never have it in the first place.

Well, you've got me there - I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that people who don't have those reflexes, or who reason their way out of them, aren't reacting reflexively. GOOD POINT!
   100. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 19, 2012 at 06:04 PM (#4187442)
You have suggested that a biological explanation is a matter of scientific record

I've suggested no such thing. That was a throwaway line that I don't give a #### about. There's probably a biological/evolutionary source of sexual jealousy.

What is entirely true is what was written in 78.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(12 - 6:15pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cat8

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(454 - 6:11pm, Oct 25)
Last: stanmvp48

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(24 - 6:10pm, Oct 25)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 4 OMNICHATTER
(16 - 6:08pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cat8

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(872 - 6:02pm, Oct 25)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3791 - 5:58pm, Oct 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(4 - 5:54pm, Oct 25)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(395 - 5:49pm, Oct 25)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with Wife!)

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com
(11 - 5:28pm, Oct 25)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(12 - 5:25pm, Oct 25)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(87 - 5:12pm, Oct 25)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(20 - 4:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(936 - 4:29pm, Oct 25)
Last: Howling John Shade

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(12 - 4:08pm, Oct 25)
Last: Textbook Editor

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(22 - 3:31pm, Oct 25)
Last: esseff

Page rendered in 0.5650 seconds
52 querie(s) executed