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

Monday, April 28, 2008

N.Y. Daily News: Sources: Roger Clemens had 10-year fling with country star Mindy McCready

Hell…Guys do it all the time.

Roger Clemens carried on a decade-long affair with country star Mindy McCready, a romance that began when McCready was a 15-year-old aspiring singer performing in a karaoke bar and Clemens was a 28-year-old Red Sox ace and married father of two, several sources have told the Daily News.

The revelations could torpedo claims of an unsullied character that are central to the defamation suit Clemens filed Jan. 6 against his former personal trainer Brian McNamee. Vivid details of the affair could surface in several media projects that McCready is involved with - including a documentary that begins filming today in Nashville, a new album and a reality show.

...Contacted by the Daily News Sunday through his lawyer Rusty Hardin, Clemens confirmed a long-term relationship but denied that it was of a sexual nature.

“He flatly denies having had any kind of an inappropriate relationship with her,” Hardin said. “He’s considered her a close family friend. ... He has never had a sexual relationship with her.”

Repoz Posted: April 28, 2008 at 05:21 AM | 492 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: music, special topics, steroids

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 2 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 
   101. Hector Moreda & The Generalissimo Posted: April 28, 2008 at 07:35 PM (#2761626)
I want to see a panel discussion featuring Roger Clemens and Eric Cyr. Maybe it could be set to celluloid by Roman Polanski.


With special guest appearance by Mark Chmura!
   102. Spahn Insane Posted: April 28, 2008 at 07:37 PM (#2761628)
With special guest appearance by Mark Chmura!

I knew I was forgetting someone. Maybe Joey Buttafuoco could handle maintenance of the cast and crew's livery vehicles.
   103. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 28, 2008 at 07:40 PM (#2761632)
No, I don't know. You said it's funny. You said it's funny. Tell me, how is it funny? What the #### is so funny about it?

See, saying someone is ugly is funny. And then when you add the fun of puns, by virtue of how the word "dog" refers not just to a dog but to an ugly person, it's just that much funnier!
   104. Rich Posted: April 28, 2008 at 07:55 PM (#2761644)

Too bad Bill Clinton didn't get a trophy wife instead of sticking us with that fat cankled dog...


This post reveals more about you than it does about Hillary.
   105. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: April 28, 2008 at 07:57 PM (#2761648)
Roger prefers coco butter, retro.


I think we need to start calling him Roger "NummyMuffin" Clemens, then.

And Luis Polonia wants to know why he's not on the panel discussion.
   106. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: April 28, 2008 at 08:01 PM (#2761650)
This post reveals more about you than it does about Hillary.

As "X reveals more about you than it does about what's-her-nose" reveals more about the hacky d-bags who say it than it does about those whom they refer to. It's the circle of life.
   107. base ball chick Posted: April 28, 2008 at 08:26 PM (#2761672)
well

looking back through my family, both sides, my mother was the FIRST woman i can find who wasn't married/pregnant by 16. of course, Our Sort didn't really have skoolz to go to so why not marry off the females as soon as they old enough to breed? and it had to be old guys too because teenage guys couldn't support a family.

but just because something CAN be done don't make it a good idea. or don't yall daddys tell your kids that too?

and the 15-17 year old females the most fertile - well, they also most likely to die with pregnancy problems too.

as for 28 year olds having the hots for 15 year olds - well, i guess i COULD try to remember that they'll never be hornier or spermier or prefer to WATCH the rockets go off, but i guess i'm just not into a large kid no matter WHAT his **** is like. and 15 year old girls ARE still kids no matter WHAT their boobs look like
   108. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 08:40 PM (#2761686)
and the 15-17 year old females the most fertile - well, they also most likely to die with pregnancy problems too.

Interesting that you should bring that up, because that's actually a virtue in a preindustrial (ie, Malthusian) society: death rates lead to higher living standards and deaths of young females has the added bonus of decreasing that generation's birth rate, which increases living standards down the road. That's why female infanticide was so widely practiced in pre-industrial societies outside of Europe.

Anyway, the threat of dying in childbirth helped shaped the European Marriage Pattern (NW Europe pre-1800) in three key ways: relatively late female marriage (24-26), sizable percentage of women who never married (10-25%), and very little intercourse by unmarried women (not necessarily with their husband, but there was always a husband who could be credited for the birth).
   109. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: April 28, 2008 at 08:40 PM (#2761687)
Ms. McCain gives us two straight republican should-be felon narc addicts sleeping in the presidential bedroom.

Family values!


Reminds me of a joke from when Bush was nominated in 2000: "Hey Republicans, are you tired of the White House being occupied by an inexperienced Southern governor with a history of lying about his drug usage and draft dodging?

I guess not."
   110. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 28, 2008 at 08:42 PM (#2761690)
As "X reveals more about you than it does about what's-her-nose" reveals more about the hacky d-bags who say it than it does about those whom they refer to. It's the circle of life.

Rejecting an entire sentence construction because it makes you feel uncomfortable reveals more about you than it does about those d-bags who happen not to be you.

Let's keep going!
   111. bumpis hound Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:17 AM (#2761845)
Most of us don't know the temptations associated with being rock stars or ball players and yet, given some of the comments in this thread, we have no trouble being judgmental about others reactions to those special temptations.

Barry Greenstein has a chapter on this in his book, "Aces on the River." He talks about how athletes, musicians and other top public performers need sexual release on the road for peak physical & mental performance, and how there's usually an unspoken agreement between said performers and their significant others: "You keep performing and maintaining our high standard of living, don't bring anything home, and I won't complain about what happens on the road."

Of course, this isn't univeral, but the fact that it's discussed in such a matter-of-fact tone by a pro like Greenstein is pretty interesting, although I have a feeling that the majority of the fingerpointers here will have a tough time with it.
   112. theboyqueen Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:41 AM (#2761855)
Interesting that you should bring that up, because that's actually a virtue in a preindustrial (ie, Malthusian) society: death rates lead to higher living standards and deaths of young females has the added bonus of decreasing that generation's birth rate, which increases living standards down the road. That's why female infanticide was so widely practiced in pre-industrial societies outside of Europe.


Assuming your entire post is meant to be serious, can you provide an example of this statement: "death rates lead to higher living standards and deaths of young females has the added bonus of decreasing that generation's birth rate, which increases living standards down the road."? In India, for instance, in any given state you can look at the ratio of women to men and the closer it is to unity (and therefore, we would assume, the lower the rate of selective abortion/female infanticide/whatever) in general the more prosperous and developed it is. Kerala and Punjab actually have more women than men and are by measures like literacy and economic equality the most advanced states in India, and gang-run tribal shitholes like Bihar have like 10% or more men than women.

I cannot imagine anyone arguing in this day and age that female death rates track (other than inversely) with living standards, or even ever have historically. This is all begging the question that Malthusian thinking has any merit at all, of course.
   113. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:54 AM (#2761869)
I'm being completely serious. The Malthusian model states that living standards (y*) are established by the equilibrium point between birth rates and death rates because B is positively correlated with y and D is negatively correlated with y. That's why living standards in Europe skyrocketed during the plague (~1350-1650).

The Malthusian model should not be applied to current developing economies, as they are no longer true pre-industrial economies even if portions of the population live in squalor.
   114. Gromit Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:27 AM (#2761903)
From a strictly biological perspective, there is nothing unusual about a 28 year-old male being attracted to a 15 year-old girl. In other words, it may be considered morally wrong in this country, but it's not pedophilia


Well, except for that fact it is considered statutory rape so it is morally wrong since the nation's law define what is moral.

Whether we agree on the morality of each law is another question.
   115. Charter Member of the Jesus Melendez Fanclub Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:34 AM (#2761908)
the nation's law define what is moral.

False.
   116. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:37 AM (#2761910)
Yes, the law has very little to do with morality.

It's not like the city wants me to not park my car on the street every other Tuesday because doing so would be immoral. And the federal government does not think driving motorboats in wildlife reserves is an immoral thing to do. There are a lot of other reasons to create laws against things.
   117. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:40 AM (#2761915)
Laws define what is legal and illegal. Social norms (such as religion) define what is moral and immoral. Some acts are legal but immoral, some are illegal and immoral, and some are illegal and moral.

In most of the US, a 28 year-old having sex with a 15 year-old is considered both illegal and immoral. But the system of laws only determines the legality, not the morality.
   118. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:43 AM (#2761919)
In most of the US, a 28 year-old having sex with a 15 year-old is considered both illegal and immoral.

Not quite. A 28-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old is considered illegal, by definition, if it's against the law. But as for being considered immoral, it depends on the individuals involved, and who is doing the "considering".. Some 15-year-olds are very mature, and some 28-year-olds are very immature. The law has to draw a bright line between legal and illegal in situations where the morality is more of a gray area.
   119. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:03 AM (#2761931)
Sure you can find a few exceptions, such as the polygamist communities in Utah/Texas. But by and large, a 28 year-old having sex with a 15 year-old is considered immoral under nearly all mainstream social norms.
   120. NTNgod Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:05 AM (#2761933)
>>>>In most of the US, a 28 year-old having sex with a 15 year-old is considered both illegal and immoral.

>>Not quite.
Where the hell do you live?
   121. Шĥy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:43 AM (#2761968)
I would think of different term to describe you considering you refer to 15 year old girls as temptations.


Hetero? Sighted? I can only guess.


I was thinking more along the lines of creepy. 15 year old girls are freshmen or sophomores in high school. Just because they wear thongs and suck dick doesn't mean that they have anything resembling a full grown body. Obviously there are some exceptions most 15 year olds are closer to children than college girls. I guess you are the type of guy that signs up for the porno sites where the 18 year old girls wear braces to look younger. Hopefully, you're not looking at anything worse.
   122. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:45 AM (#2761972)
Obviously there are some exceptions most 15 year olds are closer to children than college girls.


I'm going out on a limb and guessing this was not true of the 15-year-old Mindy McCready.
   123. Guy LeDouche Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:54 AM (#2761987)
"I guess you are the type of guy that signs up for the porno sites where the 18 year old girls wear braces to look younger"


You sound like you know a lot of the tricks of the porn industry. Clean yourself up and then tell us more!
   124. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:14 AM (#2762009)
Sure you can find a few exceptions, such as the polygamist communities in Utah/Texas. But by and large, a 28 year-old having sex with a 15 year-old is considered immoral under nearly all mainstream social norms.
I thought there was some state where the age of consent is 14. One of the Carolinas or something.
   125. Шĥy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:23 AM (#2762016)
I thought there was some state where the age of consent is 14. One of the Carolinas or something.

The max age difference on an age of consent is usually 3 years. There is no where in the US that a 28 year old can legally have sex with a 15 year old.
   126. ValueArb Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:57 AM (#2762078)
That's why living standards in Europe skyrocketed during the plague (~1350-1650).


Or could it be that living standards have alway skyrocketed during 300 year periods throughout known human history?
   127. ValueArb Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:15 AM (#2762088)
Not cool man. What does Hillary's weight (or looks) have to do with anything? You sound like a sexist piece of ####.


Hillary is running for public office, she's fair game unlike family members of candidates mentioned here. But I'll switch from her appearance to her incredible commodities trading skills, $50k in a single day in an account setup and managed by a large campaign donor. Or her magical ability to make the whitewater documents suddenly re-appear in the white house.

I'll be here all night with further material if prompted, so please tip your waiter;)
   128. theboyqueen Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:29 AM (#2762093)
That's why living standards in Europe skyrocketed during the plague (~1350-1650).


Really? How did it help the Mongols or the Chinese? How did smallpox help the American Indians?
   129. NTNgod Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:34 AM (#2762097)
NY Daily News: Mindy McCready weeps as she confirms affair with Roger Clemens
Barricaded behind tightly drawn blinds at her Nashville home Monday, country singer Mindy McCready confirmed a long-term affair with embattled pitcher Roger Clemens.

"I cannot refute anything in the story," a tearful but resolute McCready told the Daily News, which broke the story at midnight Sunday.
...
"Yes, I have known Roger Clemens for a long time," McCready said, reading from a prepared statement. "He's a kind and caring man. He's also a legendary athlete. The central topic in the debate, however, regards his professional life, not his personal life.

"There are legal matters working their way through the system that have nothing to do with me. From my point of view, that is where the focus should remain."
...
"I have no doubt that Roger has excellent legal representation and he will emerge from this a strong person and a revered athlete," she said. "I wish him and his family the best."

Details of the relationship could also emerge in several media projects that McCready is involved in, including a documentary film, which is to begin filming soon, a new album and a reality show.
Of course, a cynic might feel she was weeping (for joy) because her dead career just got a major shot in the arm.
   130. Charter Member of the Jesus Melendez Fanclub Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:48 AM (#2762100)
Just because they wear thongs and suck dick doesn't mean that they have anything resembling a full grown body.

So likewise, it would be immoral to #### a skinny 25-year-old with no hips, titties, or ass.
   131. DosRafaels Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:03 AM (#2762101)
I can't wait to here from Dan Burton and the rest of those preening self-righteous Congressman who were so willing to weigh-in on what a wonderful person Roger is because he let them bask in his glow for a few hours. You can argue whether or not bedding a 15-year girl is immoral, but at least we know that Roger's a gigantic fraud with his committed family man bullshit.
   132. Rear Admiral Piazza Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:57 AM (#2762109)
And while there are social norms in this country that make such a relationship taboo, it's hardly a universally shared restriction.


Yep, and other norms include "starving Ukrainians to death."

Note, not a Godwin violation!
   133. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 10:34 AM (#2762120)
"I cannot refute anything in the story," a tearful but resolute McCready told the Daily News, which broke the story at midnight Sunday.
What an odd way to phrase it. Keep in mind that the story said that there was an affair, but (as I noted) never specifically said anything about sex. This story does mention sex, but (despite the fact that it cites McCready) doesn't cite her on that point:
After the teenage McCready met Clemens at a Fort Myers bar called The Hired Hand, she returned with the Rocket to his hotel room, but there was no sex that night, sources told The News.

It wasn't until later, after McCready had moved to Nashville and become a country singing star, that the relationship turned intimate.
If this version is true, Kevin once again looks like a fool; Wiki says that "When she was 18, she moved to Nashville." So no, no statutory rape, no sex between 28 year olds and 15 year olds.
   134. Dan Contilli Posted: April 29, 2008 at 11:11 AM (#2762122)
So, if he didn't sleep with her until she was 18, where's the story here? That an athlete cheated on his wife? That is a "Dog Bites Man" story of the highest order.

Maybe Clemens isn't as creepy as so many hoped he was.
   135. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:01 PM (#2762130)
So, if he didn't sleep with her until she was 18, where's the story here?

Well, if you're 31 with two kids and hitting the sheets with an 18-year-old not-your-wife, that's kinda creepy, yes? And if you've been mackin' on her since she was 15, that just ratchets up the ick factor.
   136. Spahn Insane Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:11 PM (#2762132)
Well, if you're 31 with two kids and hitting the sheets with an 18-year-old not-your-wife, that's kinda creepy, yes? And if you've been mackin' on her since she was 15, that just ratchets up the ick factor.

His waiting 3 years to tap that nubile ass in the face of such "temptation" further attests to his amazing self-discipline.
   137. Spahn Insane Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:19 PM (#2762136)
Gambling rent-thanks for the comprehensive list; I'll keep it handy when I travel.

Wasn't there an Onion headline a few years back to the effect of "Area man has uncomfortably comprehensive knowledge of age of consent laws"? I swear I remember seeing that.

Perhaps Gambling Rent should be re-christened "Area man"...
   138. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:22 PM (#2762138)
His waiting 3 years to tap that nubile ass in the face of such "temptation" further attests to his amazing self-discipline.

Using the same logic, it's OK to blow up a bank if you wait until everybody is safely outside first.

And, politics aside, "fat cankled dog" is RDF.
   139. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:38 PM (#2762144)
I don't think the body maturing is the issue whatsoever. The mind and soul maturing is much more important, and I can't begin to assess the destruction of a person, but the linked article seems to illustrate the potential damage to the child.

I don't buy the historical standards either. If you are using them to argue relationships between 13 year olds that's one thing, but the historical flight of patriarchy and treatment of women should be pretty clear, especially since we've gotten a look in the wayback machine with Mr. Jeffs and his rape compound.

This assumption that it's natural and universal for men to be tempted by the physical allure of adolescents is exactly why male educators have to deal with all sorts of stereotyping and suspicions when they take interest in the mental and emotional development of their students.

Do you expect to have "temptation" to hook up with your developing daughters? I hope not. Ask yourself why, and if it goes beyond the "ick" factor, apply the same issues to other people's children.

Finally, it makes me question what people are looking for in their sexuality.
   140. Gromit Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:50 PM (#2762150)
Morality and Law are not separated.

If the law says you cannot distribute copies of downloaded music to all your friends, the government is considering it immoral. Whether you think the music is part of "public domain" and the government should keep there nose out of it is something else.

So if the law says Don't Schtoop 15-Year Olds, they are telling you its immoral.
Personally, I think the law *may* be wrong. It wasn't that long ago it was commonplace in this country (frontier days and earlier) that teen girls married older men.
   141. Craig Calcaterra Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:08 PM (#2762163)
According to the story Clemens took the 15 year-old McCready back to his hotel room after the night at The Hired Hand. Of course, we have to take the story at its word that no sex occurred that night.

Not long after she turned 18, the relationship turned sexual.

Clearly, the intervening three years consisted of chaste, paternal mentorship during which Clemens ushered McCready into the arms of responsible adulthood.

Look, this is one of those times where the legality of the situation doesn't much matter to me. Laws of consent differ all over the place and everyone here has made some good points about legality/morality. I couldn't give a sh*t about steroids or the Hall of Fame or any of that stuff and don't think any of this is all that relevant to it.

My judgment here comes down to the fact that, no matter when the sex began, a relationship like the one described in these articles is not a healthy one, and that Clemens bears some level of responsibility for the mess McCready's life became in later years.
   142. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:12 PM (#2762167)
Do you expect to have "temptation" to hook up with your developing daughters? I hope not. Ask yourself why, and if it goes beyond the "ick" factor, apply the same issues to other people's children.
That is a very interesting question. As a middle-aged man, I still have some kind of primal attraction to girls in their late teens to some women in their 60s. It's the other brain thing. I don't have daughters but I do have nieces who are 16 and 20 and I do not have a primal attraction because my first impulse is protection. Same for the female friends of my sons (now 19 and 21) that I have gotten to know.
If I see a sexy 17 yo on the street, I look, I might even do a Jimmy Carter and lust in my heart. For a moment. But I know I am not going to act on any primal impulse because it ain't right. And I go on with my business almost as quickly as I'm interrupted. So I would say I wasn't really tempted but our definitions of where temptation starts and primal urge leaves off may differ.
Or maybe it's different for you. We all have impulses, it's how we behave that counts.

EDIT: E-X, that last statement wasn't directed at you, it's just meant to be a summary statement.
   143. zonk Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:18 PM (#2762171)
His waiting 3 years to tap that nubile ass in the face of such "temptation" further attests to his amazing self-discipline.


Sure -- and in fact, we should feel sorry for Rocket because his 3 year "investment" turned to #### when he was finally able to cash it in.
   144. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:21 PM (#2762174)
I can't wait to here from Dan Burton and the rest of those preening self-righteous Congressman who were so willing to weigh-in on what a wonderful person Roger is because he let them bask in his glow for a few hours. You can argue whether or not bedding a 15-year girl is immoral, but at least we know that Roger's a gigantic fraud with his committed family man ########.

I thought everyone on the site had discounted for the fact that Clemens cheated on his wife a lot, because I thought it was common knowledge.

Word is from multiple sources that he could use some of that stuff "Bob" uses to propitious effect in the cheesy ads you see on sports-related shows.
   145. Шĥy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:35 PM (#2762184)
After the teenage McCready met Clemens at a Fort Myers bar called The Hired Hand, she returned with the Rocket to his hotel room, but there was no sex that night, sources told The News.

It wasn't until later, after McCready had moved to Nashville and become a country singing star, that the relationship turned intimate.


This contradicts the article's earlier assertion that Clemens had an affair with her that started when she was 15. If there was noting physical between them until she was 18, then the affair did not start until she was 18. I think its clear that Clemens was on base during those three years. The question is what was his slugging percentage?
   146. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:46 PM (#2762186)
From now on I believe I will refer to him as R. Clemens.
   147. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:49 PM (#2762188)
If this version is true, Kevin once again looks like a fool;

And if it isn't true, you do. Is that fair? Good!
   148. Spahn Insane Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:50 PM (#2762189)
Using the same logic, it's OK to blow up a bank if you wait until everybody is safely outside first.

Fix your sarcasm detector.

(You mean, it's *not* OK to blow up a bank if you wait until everyone's safely outside?)
   149. Spahn Insane Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:55 PM (#2762193)
Sure -- and in fact, we should feel sorry for Rocket because his 3 year "investment" turned to #### when he was finally able to cash it in.

Yes, I'm getting misty-eyed for him over here.

I like the "R Clemens" bit, btw.
   150. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:03 PM (#2762197)
I would think of different term to describe you considering you refer to 15 year old girls as temptations.


Hetero? Sighted? I can only guess.

I was thinking more along the lines of creepy. 15 year old girls are freshmen or sophomores in high school. Just because they wear thongs and suck dick doesn't mean that they have anything resembling a full grown body. Obviously there are some exceptions most 15 year olds are closer to children than college girls. I guess you are the type of guy that signs up for the porno sites where the 18 year old girls wear braces to look younger. Hopefully, you're not looking at anything worse.


Funny stuff. Simultaneously contradictory, offensive, false, and absurd. Good work.

And if it isn't true, you do. Is that fair? Good!

It doesn't work that way, Joe. You aren't foolish for being suspicious of claims floated by interested parties in a lawsuit. McReady's only confirmed the "relationship," right, and not the sex?
   151. DCA Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:07 PM (#2762198)
Morality and Law are not separated.

You are correct, but you have the mechanism wrong. Law does not make something immoral, nor does it indicate what "the government" things. The law -- sometimes -- is an attempt to codify an existing morality, either universally held, or (in the more interesting case) stridently held by some portion of the population. In addition, the law informs morality, in the sense that if we grow up with certain laws in place, we may end up considering the prohibited action immoral, even if there is no underlying reason why it should be. This is the goal of moral laws of the second type -- to codify a non-universally held morality, and have in spread over the course of a generation via the "law informs morality" mechanism.
   152. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:12 PM (#2762205)
Morality and Law are not separated.

If the law says you cannot distribute copies of downloaded music to all your friends, the government is considering it immoral.
You are a very scary person, much scarier than people who want to have sex with 10 year olds. The government is a bunch of politicians. They have no special insight into morality. They have no claim on defining morality for anybody. They cannot make something immoral or moral by fiat.
   153. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:14 PM (#2762208)
In India, for instance, in any given state you can look at the ratio of women to men and the closer it is to unity (and therefore, we would assume, the lower the rate of selective abortion/female infanticide/whatever) in general the more prosperous and developed it is.

The assumption that 50/50 demographic split is the norm in inaccurate. In general, more females than males are born and survive. Females are hardier than men before and during infancy.
   154. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:16 PM (#2762212)
If this version is true, Kevin once again looks like a fool;

And if it isn't true, you do. Is that fair? Good!
Uh, no, because unlike Kevin, I did not make any claims about Clemens based upon either the article itself or based on "assumptions" from what the article said. Kevin was the one who called Clemens a "rapist" based on the story. I didn't say, "No, he isn't." I said, "The article doesn't say that."
   155. SoSH U at work Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:19 PM (#2762213)
You are a very scary person, much scarier than people who want to have sex with 10 year olds.


It's true. I tell my kids to stay away from Gromit and his frightening ideas on government, but by all means take that ride from the shifty-eyed stranger in the windowless van.
   156. Craig Calcaterra Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:21 PM (#2762216)
McReady's only confirmed the "relationship," right, and not the sex?


Technically, she said that she could not refute anything in Sunday night/Monday morning's story. Here is a sampling of the assertions from that story which she does not refute:

Roger Clemens carried on a decade-long affair with country star Mindy McCready, a romance that began when McCready was a 15-year-old aspiring singer performing in a karaoke bar and Clemens was a 28-year-old Red Sox ace and married father of two

McNamee, who worked with and traveled with Clemens extensively over the last decade, has confirmed that he saw Clemens and McCready together on many occasions, including in Clemens' room at his apartment in the former SkyDome

"It was love at first sight, no doubt about it," said a source with intimate knowledge of the relationship.

Clemens would frequently send bundles of cash in FedEx packages, they say, as she dealt with her legal issues. According to one of the sources, Clemens even reached out to McCready through an intermediary while she was in jail last year, although McCready had cut ties with the Rocket as far back as 2006.

The two were known to take lavish trips to Las Vegas and New York.

There were personal love missives to Clemens hidden in McCready's album liner notes.

No, none of that is sex, but forgive me if I read all of those now-confirmed facts and make the assumption that, at some point, some sex was happening.

In any event, this should all be settled rather shortly. Today's story asserts that sex happened, even if it was after she was 18. I assume we'll hear her vehement denial within the next 24 hours if that part is untrue.
   157. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:29 PM (#2762228)
Using the same logic, it's OK to blow up a bank if you wait until everybody is safely outside first.

Your analogy is blowing up a bank compared to...adultery?

I would say that it's a lot better to blow up a bank if doing so doesn't kill anyone. Of course, you would still be destroying people's valuables that happen to be in the safe deposit box, and destroying the bank's property doesn't do anyone any good either.

And, politics aside, "fat cankled dog" is RDF.

Would any combination of three insults be equally funny?
   158. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:30 PM (#2762229)
well,
when jose canseco had written that clemens was the only ballplayer he knew who didn't cheat on his wife, i was stunned. i thought basically that was something ALL rich men did.

i won't never understand why any woman would agree to continue to live with a cheating man for any amount of money - unless of course, she cheats too - like mrs sandberg you know - so i can't help all yall with that one. i guess it is some kind of maschochism or selse she really don't care what he does like ever as long as the money come in - kind of a prostitution i guess

but maybe some of yall might could help me understand why males - especially rich males - don't think there is anything wrong with them having sex with people other then their wife.

i've heard all the - it isn't "natural for males to be monogamous" and of course i know it isn't "natural for females to be monogamous" neither, but sin is all about doing stuff that is "natural" and some things that are "natural" are not sin.

so why do rich men believe it is their right to commit adultery? any ideas?
   159. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:31 PM (#2762231)
It doesn't work that way, Joe. You aren't foolish for being suspicious of claims floated by interested parties in a lawsuit. McReady's only confirmed the "relationship," right, and not the sex?

JC: "I cannot refute anything in the story," a tearful but resolute McCready told the Daily News, which broke the story at midnight Sunday.

McReady's not involved in the suit. Dance around the issue of whether or not there was sex. Doesn't it seem like there had to have been? The Irwin Mainway's of the world can slap together a defense based on hair splitting, but I don't have to buy it.
   160. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:34 PM (#2762234)
so why do rich men believe it is their right to commit adultery? any ideas?

I'll have to read the "Rich Man's Manifesto" and get back to you on that.
   161. Craig Calcaterra Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:36 PM (#2762236)
but maybe some of yall might could help me understand why males - especially rich males - don't think there is anything wrong with them having sex with people other then their wife.

i've heard all the - it isn't "natural for males to be monogamous" and of course i know it isn't "natural for females to be monogamous" neither, but sin is all about doing stuff that is "natural" and some things that are "natural" are not sin.

so why do rich men believe it is their right to commit adultery? any ideas?


My observation from working with, representing, and just watching rich men operate is that, in order to get rich, many men have had to devote themselves so wholeheartedly to their job or business that their notions of what is and is not important are skewed. They may not even realize it, but in this process they come to devalue their wives and families. Maybe not overtly -- when asked they will say and maybe even believe that their families are the most important things in their lives -- but they really aren't anymore, and it therefore becomes far less of a transgression than it is for those people who have a better balance in life.
   162. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:37 PM (#2762238)
No, none of that is sex

It was foreplay! Nothing wrong with that! [/DMN]
   163. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:49 PM (#2762260)
It doesn't work that way, Joe. You aren't foolish for being suspicious of claims floated by interested parties in a lawsuit. McReady's only confirmed the "relationship," right, and not the sex?

JC: "I cannot refute anything in the story," a tearful but resolute McCready told the Daily News, which broke the story at midnight Sunday.

McReady's not involved in the suit.
That quote came out after our discussion. That's from the next day's story on the issue, not the story which started this thread. The first story mentioned an affair, a relationship, etc., but no sex. Based on that, Kevin accused Clemens of statutory rape. (Actually, Kevin just said "rape," but I concluded that he meant statutory rape, since there was no hint of lack of consent.) I pointed out that the first story doesn't support that.

The second story involves McCready (essentially) confirming the first story -- the one that doesn't mention sex -- and then cites anonymous people as saying that there wasn't sex for the first three years of this affair/relationship. So if you believe the Daily News and its sources, then there was no sex until McCready turned 18, no statutory rape. (If you don't believe the Daily News and its sources, then there's nothing to talk about at all.)
   164. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:53 PM (#2762263)
kevin,

but what is it all those rich men aren't getting? can't be just p***y. and it sure don't seem to matter one bit what their wife looks like...
   165. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 02:54 PM (#2762265)
Personally, I think the law *may* be wrong. It wasn't that long ago it was commonplace in this country (frontier days and earlier) that white men owned black men as slaves.


Fixed.
   166. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:01 PM (#2762270)
bbc, I don't think that any one explanation for why people cheat is going to fit all circumstances. Here's a review of studies about infidelity. I don't think it's just income, but all sorts of other variables come into play.

My guess is that some people can't resist temptation, and some can. Among those who can't resist temptation, some can rationalize why they stray, and so they do. Some can't, and so they don't and they may subsume their urges elsewhere.

This is a long-winded way of saying that people are weird. It might be interesting to pose your question in the opposite way. Why are people faithful to their spouses? Or pose it in a third way, why is it that in some relationships the sex just disappears?

People are complex, and there's no easy generalizing to be done.
   167. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:01 PM (#2762271)
Add yet another item to the long, long list of things Roger has been lying through his teeth about in the last several weeks.

Good luck in that defamation suit Clemens, ROFL.
   168. A.T.F.W. Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:02 PM (#2762272)
so why do rich men believe it is their right to commit adultery? any ideas?

They just can't resist those Ashley Madison ads on the Howard Stern show.
   169. The Good Face Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:06 PM (#2762278)
My observation from working with, representing, and just watching rich men operate is that, in order to get rich, many men have had to devote themselves so wholeheartedly to their job or business that their notions of what is and is not important are skewed. They may not even realize it, but in this process they come to devalue their wives and families. Maybe not overtly -- when asked they will say and maybe even believe that their families are the most important things in their lives -- but they really aren't anymore, and it therefore becomes far less of a transgression than it is for those people who have a better balance in life.


I don't disagree with any of that, but I think a bigger factor is that having money removes most of the obstacles to fooling around and greatly reduces the consequences.

Being rich makes it much easier to get hot young women to sleep with you. It makes it much easier to do so without getting caught. If (when) you get caught, your wife may decide your money makes it worth putting up with your cheating. If not, you're rich! You can afford a divorce or three, and you probably have a prenup anyway.

In short, rich guys fool around 1. Because they can, and 2. The consequences are bearable to them. #2 especially makes sense when coupled with Craig's post above.
   170. Craig Calcaterra Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:11 PM (#2762280)
scotto and The Good Face have pretty much covered the bases, I think. Very good points.
   171. Kirby Kyle Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:13 PM (#2762286)
The part where Clemens tried to convince her to change her name to McKready was kind of creepy.
   172. TomH Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:14 PM (#2762287)
"but maybe some of yall might could help me understand why males - especially rich males - don't think there is anything wrong with them having sex with people other then their wife."

men know it's wrong - they still do it. Not much different than women there.

I don't know if rich guys have more affairs. Seems like a claim I wouldn't want to make without evidence. Imagine if soemone said this about a minority group?

count me as a fairly finanically fortunate guy who wouldn't ever come close to consdiering tossing his marriage away for a 30 minute fling
   173. Spahn Insane Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:23 PM (#2762295)
Clemens would take Mindy back to his hotel room with him and they would play paper dolls together.

Kinky l'il vixen, isn't she!
   174. Dan The Mediocre Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:23 PM (#2762297)
The part where Clemens tried to convince her to change her name to McKready was kind of creepy.


I agree Cirby Cyle.

I don't know if rich guys have more affairs. Seems like a claim I wouldn't want to make without evidence. Imagine if soemone said this about a minority group?


The link in 180 goes over this, and people making at least $30,000 per year are more likely to cheat than those earning less. It doesn't talk about whether or not higher incomes tend to cheat in a more general sense.
   175. Craig Calcaterra Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:25 PM (#2762301)
count me as a fairly finanically fortunate guy who wouldn't ever come close to consdiering tossing his marriage away for a 30 minute fling


Your wife just called and said that she wouldn't be having an affair if you really could go 30 minutes.

/I keed! I keed! This thread needed some levity.
   176. Spahn Insane Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:25 PM (#2762303)
so why do rich men believe it is their right to commit adultery? any ideas?

Perhaps they DON'T believe it's their right (to the contrary, they know that it isn't), and the *fact* that it isn't is part of the reason they do it. Forbidden fruit theory, and all.
   177. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:26 PM (#2762307)
The first story mentioned an affair, a relationship, etc., but no sex.

You're splitting hairs.

If there's a story about a bludgeoning, it's safe to assume there was a death.

If there's a story about an affair, it's safe to assume there was sex involved.
   178. Spahn Insane Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:27 PM (#2762309)
Your wife just called and said that she wouldn't be having an affair if you really could go 30 minutes.

/I keed! I keed! This thread needed some levity.


Heh. And I thought I was tasteless for thinking "At least hold out for the full hour if you're putting your marriage on the line."

I suspect there's room on the tastelessness bandwagon for both of us, actually...
   179. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:28 PM (#2762310)
DtM, like many things involving socioeconomic status there are several variables at play, including opportunity and access. People who are more educated tend to make more money, tend to travel more, tend to be more exposed to members of the opposite sex who are more educated and wealthy, etc.
   180. Spahn Insane Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:28 PM (#2762311)
If there's a story about an affair, it's safe to assume there was sex involved.

Res ipsa loquitur.
   181. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:30 PM (#2762313)
thank you boys for your answers

as for NOT cheating and why people don't, here's my guesses -

1 - some people have a good marriage and want the strong emotional bond more than they want a fresh piece of (reproductive organ) or a lor more $$$

2 - some people say - what for? it's not like they gonna find a man/woman who is "different" they got a place to live, why give away all their money to lawyers

3 - some people don't think they can get any or CAN'T get any even if they wanted to

4 - some people believe it is morally wrong or refuse to go back on their word to their spouse and/or God no matter HOW much they want to have a different piece
   182. Dan The Mediocre Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:30 PM (#2762315)
Your wife just called and said that she wouldn't be having an affair if you really could go 30 minutes.

/I keed! I keed! This thread needed some levity.

Heh. And I thought I was tasteless for thinking "At least hold out for the full hour if you're putting your marriage on the line."

I suspect there's room on the tastelessness bandwagon for both of us, actually...


And I thought "30 meetings is bound to get you caught!"
   183. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:31 PM (#2762318)
My observation from working with, representing, and just watching rich men operate is that, in order to get rich, many men have had to devote themselves so wholeheartedly to their job or business that their notions of what is and is not important are skewed. They may not even realize it, but in this process they come to devalue their wives and families.


I knew that you were in Ohio, Craig, but I didn't know that Funky Winkerbean had you on retainer.
   184. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:31 PM (#2762319)
Nice going, Retro. I expect paragraphs from DMN arguing the tiniest of loopholes. -
   185. Andere Richtingen Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:32 PM (#2762320)
If there is a disproportionate amount of adultery going on among ballplayers, and my guess is that there probably is, they don't do it because they're rich. I think they do it because they are part of a closed, macho, competitive "fraternity" where such behavior is condoned, and even gives them status, combined with the "advantage" that they are away from home much of the time.

Money and fame, probably more the latter than the former, simply gives them access to women.
   186. Dan The Mediocre Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:33 PM (#2762321)
DtM, like many things involving socioeconomic status there are several variables at play, including opportunity and access. People who are more educated tend to make more money, tend to travel more, tend to be more exposed to members of the opposite sex who are more educated and wealthy, etc.


True, but I meant that it didn't cover whether or not a person making $60k had a greater chance of cheating than someone making $50k. It simply used $30k as a cutoff.
   187. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:37 PM (#2762326)
The $30K shut off is kind of lame.

For those interested in looking at this more substantively, there is probably General Social Survey data publicly available that would let you run regression models until the cows come home.
   188. DCA Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:41 PM (#2762332)
The assumption that 50/50 demographic split is the norm in inaccurate. In general, more females than males are born and survive. Females are hardier than men before and during infancy.

This is incorrect. More boys than girls are born. In cultures with low infant mortality and/or strong cultural preference for male children, this persists or even increases through childhood. Only when boys grow up and start killing themselves and each other with idiot behavior are females more common.

Women, in general, are biologically hardier than men -- it's the two X chromosomes for full redundancy and suppressing negative recessive traits -- but most of the male failures happen in the womb (male conceptions are much more common than females).
   189. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:43 PM (#2762336)
You're right DCA. That's what I get for posting pre-caffeine.
   190. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:01 PM (#2762359)
In terms of the affair, I'm not really sure why it's relevant whether or not there was sex. You can certainly be unfaithful to your wife without sleeping with someone else.
   191. Backlasher Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:14 PM (#2762372)
n terms of the affair, I'm not really sure why it's relevant whether or not there was sex.

Here is one reason that it might matter

"He flatly denies having had any kind of an inappropriate relationship with her," Hardin said. "He's considered her a close family friend. ... He has never had a sexual relationship with her."


Top that off with:

From a public relations standpoint, Clemens' decision to file the suit against McNamee the night the Rocket appeared with Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes" could end up being the biggest risk he has taken yet. Clemens, under investigation for perjury, has already endured the ignominy of publicly admitting his wife's own human growth hormone use, having photos of bloody gauze and needles linked to him and embarrassing scrutiny of an alleged injection-site abscess on his buttocks.




and you have to say that Rusty has done just about as bad a job as could be done with this case. Its the legal version of Limatime.

Is there anyone that would want syringes with assblood, assabscesses, and their flings with underage ass out in the public?

And every time Roger gets caught with his midsection going in and out of things its not suppose to, ol' Rusty is right there making some over the top statement about how he is going to sue somebody for public health violations, vehemently denying what other people are confirming, or floating a story that blows up. I wonder if he is going to tell us that McCready will need to "get a good lawyer" or if Roger is going to "eat McCready's lunch"
   192. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:14 PM (#2762373)
If there's a story about an affair, it's safe to assume there was sex involved.
You know what they say about assuming. It's not safe to assume that at all; if you believe the second story, that assumption you made would have been false for the first three years of the affair.

When newspapers print potentially defamatory stories, they have their lawyers vet those stories. When newspapers have salacious facts, they don't leave things to be "assumed"; they tell you. So what's actually "safe to assume" is that the Daily News didn't have a sufficient basis, at the time of the first story, to satisfy its lawyers that it could claim that there was sex.

So, no, you're wrong here too:
If there's a story about a bludgeoning, it's safe to assume there was a death.
If it doesn't mention a dead body, you don't "assume" there was one.
   193. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:21 PM (#2762391)
"/I keed! I keed! This thread needed some levity."

A poor substitute for Craig's wife, but I guess I'll take it.
   194. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:23 PM (#2762392)
"In general, more females than males are born and survive. Females are hardier than men before and during infancy."

The perils of external genitalia. Get that thing caught in a door, and you really want to die.
   195. Dan The Mediocre Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:25 PM (#2762395)
The perils of external genitalia. Get that thing caught in a door, and you really want to die.


That's why you don't reveal your intentions until you're inside.
   196. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:26 PM (#2762396)
DtM, like many things involving socioeconomic status there are several variables at play, including opportunity and access. People who are more educated tend to make more money, tend to travel more, tend to be more exposed to members of the opposite sex who are more educated and wealthy, etc.
Or perhaps the sort of poor person who's inclined to cheat simply doesn't get married in the first place, whereas even faithless rich people get married. You can't assume that the two groups are identical.
   197. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:29 PM (#2762405)
If there is a disproportionate amount of adultery going on among ballplayers, and my guess is that there probably is, they don't do it because they're rich.


It is probably all related to opportunity. If you expect the same percentage of people to cheat, and one group meets more people, there will be more incidences. People who make over 30G's (presumably) have more disposable income and more opportunities to meet new people.
   198. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:30 PM (#2762406)
See my acknowledgment of error at 203, kevin.
   199. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:32 PM (#2762407)
scotto - read your link

ida know about the $$$ means you have more time/opportunity excuse because pretty much everyone has plenty of chances to cheat unless you are always with the other person all the time.

before i got married i asked some men who were/had been married why they cheated on their wife because i didn't want my husband to cheat on me and i didn't want to make the mistake their wife did and i didn't never really get a straight or honest answer except for 1 man who said cheating is what men do so i asked him why he got married and vowed to God to not cheat when he never meant it and he said because women want you to say it even when they know you lying.
so i said why get married when you know you want more than one woman and he shrugged and said - ida know.

and here i am 8 years later and still i got no idea why so many people got no problem with cheating. splitting i understand. cheating i just don't
   200. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:37 PM (#2762417)
I don't understand it either, bbc.
Page 2 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(1 - 9:25am, Oct 25)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(921 - 9:24am, Oct 25)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(1 - 9:22am, Oct 25)
Last: I Am Not a Number

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(1 - 9:18am, Oct 25)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(1 - 9:17am, Oct 25)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3739 - 9:08am, Oct 25)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(15 - 7:54am, Oct 25)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(23 - 7:32am, Oct 25)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(13 - 7:15am, Oct 25)
Last: ursus arctos

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."
(81 - 2:03am, Oct 25)
Last: Dan

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(16 - 1:35am, Oct 25)
Last: base ball chick

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(515 - 1:26am, Oct 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(385 - 1:05am, Oct 25)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 1.2061 seconds
52 querie(s) executed