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 3 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 
   201. Backlasher Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:40 PM (#2762424)
da 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.

I agree, cheating occurs all over the place. Unless you are in a Supermax prison, you have access to others that you are likely to find attractive.

splitting i understand. cheating i just don't

From the theories you have seen, there are as many reasons for cheating as there are cheats:

(1) Some its for status; they need to have cred among their peeps. (not everyone can just flash the Piru Blood sign like Paul Pierce), or in teh words of George Clinton

Like the boys
When they're out there walkin' the streets
May compete
Nothin' but the dog in ya

(2) For some, they legitimately fall in love, but view their committment to their children, or their spouse to still be important (albeit able to cheat at the edges for sex)

(3) For some, its just their nature or in in the immortal words of George Clinton:

Why must I feel like that
Why must I chase the cat
Nothin' but the dog in me

_________
There is not one answer.

Bow-wow-yippie-yo-yippie-yeah,
BL
   202. Charles S. will not yield to this monkey court Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:44 PM (#2762432)
splitting i understand. cheating i just don't

Imagine a situation where you are very happy with your life. You have a nice home. You love spending time with your kids. You like your social situation and don't want to monkey with it.

But something is missing. Perhaps your wife no longer makes you feel special. She has let herself go or is no longer interested in sex. Someone comes along and gives you that spark that you were afraid you'd never feel again.

I'm not saying it's okay to cheat, and I would certainly never do it, but I can understand it. Over the weekend I saw Chris Rock's movie, I Think I Love My Wife, on cable. It's not a great movie, but it's funny enough, and it does capture that feeling very well.
   203. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:47 PM (#2762434)
That's cute and all, but I would say the reason for cheating is simply pure selfishness and utter cowardice regarding honesty. No other reason.
   204. Answer Guy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:52 PM (#2762442)
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.


Men with more income, in addition to more money (which they could use on escorts or entertaining other women and so forth) also tend to have jobs that take them to different places. If a man generally doesn't leave his own home metro area, in the back of his mind he thinks that there's more of a chance he'd get caught cheating than if he had the opportunity during some downtime at a sales convention halfway across the country.

In addition, couples with higher income tend to have their own private vehicles, which was not something available to my parents for much of my childhood. (That's less of an issue now since more couples can afford two cars.) With just one car, it's harder to get away.

Incidentally, many men have gotten good at telling women what they want to hear. No woman wants to hear a man say that he'll never be happy with one woman even if she strongly suspects that's the case. (Whereas I have had more than gay man tell me point blank that no, there's no way that he could stay faithful to one partner.)

Some men are satisfied with one woman, but some are not and some likely never will be. Of the latter, some are going to be constrained by external circumstances, others by a sense of duty. There's a lot of subtle social pressures towards pairing off, and most men aren't going to openly defy them for the entire lives even if that's what they ought to do if they really just want to play the field their whole lives.
   205. SoSH U at work Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:57 PM (#2762448)
Come back when you're 45 and find yourself in a loveless marriage. Then we can discuss some more.


So have some balls and leave. Don't provide silly rationalizations for cheating.
   206. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:58 PM (#2762449)
Come back when you're 45 and find yourself in a loveless marriage.


TMI.
   207. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 04:58 PM (#2762450)
More males than females are born but gradually females catch up to and then surpass males. But that doesn't happen until adolescence, I believe.


You might be a redneck, if anyone in your family's last words were, "Hey, y'all, watch this!"
   208. Charles S. will not yield to this monkey court Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:03 PM (#2762457)
SoSH and Lassus, I respect your beliefs and I hope you can continue to live by them. Nevertheless, I don't know how old you are, but leave yourself open to the fact that the world might seem a little less black and white as you get older.
   209. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:05 PM (#2762459)
That's easy to way when you don't have your kids to worry about.

Or maybe you just think it takes balls to ignore everybody else's feelings but your own when you're considering ending a marriage.


If you were that concerned about your kids, you wouldn't be cheating, and you'd be honest about leaving. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that marriages with kids end all the time, and a majority of the kids end up fine.

Caring for your kids isn't a justification for CHEATING, it's a justification for NOT LEAVING, which is different. But we weren't discussing not leaving your spouse, we were discussing cheating, and THAT is based in selfishness.


And I'm 38. You don't need to be young to have standards for your behavior.
   210. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:05 PM (#2762461)
BL,

my GAWD you got an awesome memory!!!!!! damm boy!!!!!!!
- grinning
in case i am giving you credit when you don't deserve it, just lieeeeeee to meeeee
go ahead and lie to meeeeeeeeeee

when i didn't see you in the last beane thread or in the endless politix thread i KNEW you been busy and i hope it is going well 4 you and
before I forget again,
hope the contest went a little better this year - did you get to finals?
   211. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:07 PM (#2762462)
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.

But now that McCready has confirmed what we all suspected fromt the first story, the point is moot.
Actually, McCready didn't do anything of the kind. Nice try slipping that one by, but all she said was that the first story -- not the second story, and not "things we all suspected from the first story" -- was true. (Actually, she said that she "couldn't refute" it, which isn't quite the same thing, but I won't split that hair.)

In fact, the second story says that what you suspected from the first story was false. Clemens didn't have sex with her until she turned 18.
   212. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:11 PM (#2762465)
Maybe I should be less righteous, I apologize for that.

I know that people cheat, and I know not all of them are bad people. Absolutely not. My father, my friends, people I have respect for and love. It happens.

However, it IS bad BEHAVIOR. And there is no, absolutely NO justifying your way out of that fact. If you are going to cheat, be honest that it is lying and betraying a person who has put their faith and love in you, and live with it.

That's what I mean, I guess. Frighteningly, I haven't even been cheated on to my knowledge, I actually just think these things.
   213. SoSH U at work Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:12 PM (#2762466)
What Lassus said in 229, except I'm 41, been married 16 years and have 3 kids. And when it comes to cheating, the name itself kind of suggests that it is black and white.
   214. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:12 PM (#2762467)
If you were that concerned about your kids, you wouldn't be cheating, and you'd be honest about leaving. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that marriages with kids end all the time, and a majority of the kids end up fine.

Cheating is not some sort of act of aggression against your marriage or even your wife. It's an act of giving into the temptation to have something that you wouldn't otherwise have.

My impulses towards unfaithfulness are 100% completely unrelated to any feelings I have about my fiancee. Being monogamous does not seem natural to me. The reason I don't cheat is not that I think cheating would make me love her less. It's that A) I'm afraid of the consequences if she or one of our friends finds out, and B) I have no desire to.

If I knew nobody would find out, I would have no reason not to cheat. However, I wouldn't, because I don't need anything that she doesn't give me.

However, if 20 years go by, and we're no longer romantically excited by each other...but still like living together and jointly raising the kids...
   215. Backlasher Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:13 PM (#2762468)
my GAWD you got an awesome memory!!!!!!

About 90% of the time, I can google lyrics. I doubt I'll forget the songs though

hope the contest went a little better this year - did you get to finals?

We were in Austin for the finals during the last week of March. Unfortunately, my trophy case still looks like Beanes.
   216. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:13 PM (#2762470)
Clemens didn't have sex with her until she turned 18.

I've opined this elsewhere, but I wonder to what extent this is technically true in the WJ Clintonian sense, but that while sex was not technically had until she was 18 there was physically intimate contact.
   217. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:17 PM (#2762473)
If I knew nobody would find out, it would have no reason not to cheat.

Well, I think that's sad, but I will admit I don't expect everyone to be like me. And you don't think it's poor, selfish behavior to cheat?
   218. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:19 PM (#2762477)
my fiancee. Being monogamous does not seem natural to me.


I'm sorry, I don't mean to pry or get personal, but I have to echo bb-chick's question here. If monogamy "does not seem natural" to you, why are you engaged (to somebody who, it sounds like, expects monogamy)?
   219. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:21 PM (#2762479)
Yes, it's selfish behavior, but it's not behavior that has anything to do with wanting to hurt someone else. It's the result of giving in to temptation. Like going into debt to buy a fancy car for no reason.

Adultery is virtually unique in that it can be done with no malice at all, and the person "victimized" by it can recognize that, and still feel very betrayed. Monogamy is a unique emotional situation.
   220. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:22 PM (#2762484)
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.


You base your entire understanding of male infidelity on this?

It might be interesting to hear from cheaters as to why they cheat. I wouldn't be interested in speculation.
   221. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:22 PM (#2762486)
If you were that concerned about your kids, you wouldn't be cheating, and you'd be honest about leaving. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that marriages with kids end all the time, and a majority of the kids end up fine.

Caring for your kids isn't a justification for CHEATING, it's a justification for NOT LEAVING, which is different. But we weren't discussing not leaving your spouse, we were discussing cheating, and THAT is based in selfishness.
Agreed 100%. Well, 75%. I don't think divorce is generally good for the kids, and I think that if your personal lack of satisfaction is the only issue, suck it up and deal.

It's surreal that the same person that self-righteously denounces someone for allegedly using a substance that wasn't even against the rules as a cheatercheatercheatercheater thinks it's okay to cheat on one's spouse because one is bored with the marriage.
   222. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:25 PM (#2762490)
I'm sorry, I don't mean to pry or get personal, but I have to echo bb-chick's question here. If monogamy "does not seem natural" to you, why are you engaged (to somebody who, it sounds like, expects monogamy)?

Well, I figure everyone feels these temptations to one degree or another. Maybe I feel them more than she does, I don't even know. But similarly, we can all overcome them.

For religious people, it is much easier to consider something like adultery to be totally out of the question, because it's a sin. But for non-religious people...well, it's a victimless sin. Unless the "victim" becomes aware that it has occurred.

Personally I think that if I commit adultery I will in fact start feeling less love for the person I've committed to, even though that doesn't seem logical. That's another reason not to do it. But that doesn't make the temptation go away.
   223. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:25 PM (#2762491)
Crispix, just FYI, whether you mean poly relationships here or not, I'm not entirely sure. That's something else entirely, and I'm not unfamiliar at all. I've never ever ever seen one WORK, but I know that is not in the same realm cheating on a spouse with an agreed monogamy.
   224. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:26 PM (#2762492)
Yes, it's selfish behavior, but it's not behavior that has anything to do with wanting to hurt someone else.


This is something of a tautology. Selfish behavior, by definition, isn't about <u>wanting</u> to hurt someone else, it's about <u>not caring</u> about anybody else. In that regard, I don't see how adultery is different than any other selfish behavior.
   225. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:27 PM (#2762495)
It's surreal that the same person that self-righteously denounces someone for allegedly using a substance that wasn't even against the rules as a cheatercheatercheatercheater thinks it's okay to cheat on one's spouse because one is bored with the marriage.

You just assume he was bored. He didn't say he was bored.
   226. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:27 PM (#2762496)
Filliam H Muffman (Charles S) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:44 PM (#2762432)

splitting i understand. cheating i just don't

Imagine a situation where you are very happy with your life. You have a nice home. You love spending time with your kids. You like your social situation and don't want to monkey with it.

But something is missing. Perhaps your wife no longer makes you feel special. She has let herself go or is no longer interested in sex. Someone comes along and gives you that spark that you were afraid you'd never feel again.


- charles
then you go to him/her and say you want to go to marriage counseling because you are unhappy. or you both work out a business arrangement - you both have separate life but you don't bring it home

- and yes i DO understand that theres a LOT of men out there who do NOT want to lose their kids which is what happens to most men when they split - which is why my husband made me swear on the Bible before we got married that i wouldn't never do that to him.

- and yes i have talked to more than a few men who told me they stayed married to a woman they didn't want to be near until the kids grown because they did not want to lose their kids.

i understand wives who stay in a marriage with a man who insults her like that because she got nowhere to go and she does not want her kids to grow up with no father or poorer. and then later she too old to find another man because men don't want old women (so all the older women have told - i mean warned me.

but i think a whole lot of it is someone thinking - oh look there is this nice piece of (reproductive organ) and won't nobody know so why should i deny myself???
   227. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:27 PM (#2762497)
Clemens didn't have sex with her until she turned 18.

Well, it is at least somewhat good to know that he isn't a statutory rapist, and there are certain lines that he won't cross.

However, this directly contradicts: "He has never had a sexual relationship with her.”

It will be interesting indeed to see whether or not he plans on sticking by this story too.
   228. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:28 PM (#2762499)
I've heard the following reasons for why people cheated, and please don't think that I'm using "reasons" as synonymous with "justifications":

1. The relationship is already over and this is a concrete indicator of that fact, and impels the cheater to leave the relationship they're in.

2. The cheater's partner will no longer have sex with their spouse, and all attempts at counseling, etc. have failed.

3. Cheater misses the thrill of a new relationship/wants to see/feel something new.

4. Cheater falls in love with someone who they feel more bonded to than the person they married.

It's not exhaustive, but all of these I've heard.
   229. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:29 PM (#2762500)
and yes i DO understand that theres a LOT of men out there who do NOT want to lose their kids which is what happens to most men when they split

This again?
   230. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:30 PM (#2762502)
??? Does this imply that you HAVE been cheated on without your knowledge?

Don't be embarrassed. We all walk that mile at some point.


What the hell are you talking about? To my knowledge, I haven't been cheated on. That's what I wrote. What's unclear?
   231. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:33 PM (#2762507)
Imagine a situation where you are very happy with your life. You have a nice home. You love spending time with your kids. You like your social situation and don't want to monkey with it.

But something is missing. Perhaps your wife no longer makes you feel special. She has let herself go or is no longer interested in sex. Someone comes along and gives you that spark that you were afraid you'd never feel again.


Or, imagine that your wife is an emasculating, selfish piece of work, who has no respect for you.

It seems that this discussion only leads to: When men cheat, it's because men are dogs, and when women cheat, it's because men are dogs.

I'm truly sorry for anyone who was/is in a bad marriage, but to lay the blame for cheating on men alone is ridiculous, and probably wishful thinking.
   232. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:35 PM (#2762513)
What Lassus said in 229, except I'm 41, been married 16 years and have 3 kids. And when it comes to cheating, the name itself kind of suggests that it is black and white.


43 years old--just celebrated anniversary No. 20--still crazy in love with my wife.

Yes, I count my blessings--especially when my wife wears blue jeans.

Best Regards

John
   233. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:36 PM (#2762515)
Carmona My House (Crispix Attacks) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:12 PM (#2762467)

Cheating is not some sort of act of aggression against your marriage or even your wife.


- well, actually, yes it is.
think for a minute how you would feel about it if your wife announced she had done some guy she met in the kroger's on the way home from work. i was feelin a lil fat, just needed a good f*** right then, she sez. or how about - well, i did the 18 year old next door. he done stuff you ain't even THOUGHT about in years. you keep it up for 2 hours/do it 4 times in 2 hours, then maybe i wouldn't have to go find someone who can. or - so i did the boss. big deal. it got me that raise, didn't it? what are you so upset about? it got you your F-15 didn't it?

It's an act of giving into the temptation to have something that you wouldn't otherwise have.

- sigh
that excuse can be used for any sin/theft you can think of
   234. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:40 PM (#2762521)
Backlasher Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:13 PM (#2762468)

my GAWD you got an awesome memory!!!!!!

About 90% of the time, I can google lyrics. I doubt I'll forget the songs though


- sigh
darling boy, you a shtty liar but thats OK, i luuuuuuvvvvv you anyhow



hope the contest went a little better this year - did you get to finals?

We were in Austin for the finals during the last week of March. Unfortunately, my trophy case still looks like Beanes.


- i'm sorry.
ida know what to say. maybe it is the baseball equivilent of refusing to steal and/or lousy baserunning.
- since you KNOW you opponent and KNOW how he works/thinks is there any way to use his strengths as a weakness against him?
   235. Answer Guy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:40 PM (#2762523)
so i did the boss. big deal. it got me that raise, didn't it? what are you so upset about? it got you your F-15 didn't it?


Where on earth am I going to keep that aircraft?
   236. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:42 PM (#2762529)
Where on earth am I going to keep that aircraft?

Maybe if your wife bangs the boss a few more times, you'll get a hangar out of it.

(don't correct me.)
   237. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:44 PM (#2762537)
Sane Joe Bivens Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:22 PM (#2762484)

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.

You base your entire understanding of male infidelity on this?

It might be interesting to hear from cheaters as to why they cheat.


- patiently
if i had any understanding of male infidelity i wouldn't have wasted any time asking those cheaters why they cheated
- or spent time discussing it right now
   238. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:44 PM (#2762538)
Hah. Show me one study that suggests religious people are more faithful to their spouses than non-religious ones.


There are many such studies that show (1) religious folk [folk who self-identify by faith] are less likely to engage in extra-marital affairs, and (2) religious folk who practice their faith are still less likely to engage in extra-marital affairs. Amy Burdette of UNC was the lead author on a well-respected article confirming that. There have been others.
   239. SoSH U at work Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:47 PM (#2762542)
I notice that too, the double standard of blame. Men can't cheat by themselves. For every cheating man, there is a homewrecking/cheating woman. In fact, I bet more often than not, it's the woman, and not the man, who initiates the affair. After all, who spends more time/money trying to look attractive to the opposite sex?


Has anyone in this thread suggested that women who cheat are guiltless?

I doubt it.

Or, that the nonmarried actor in an adulterous affair has done nothing wrong?

(Pause to see if McCoy has posted)

No.
   240. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:47 PM (#2762543)
You slipped the word "frighteningly" in there. That sort of implied that you sensed something you were afraid to further investigate.

Ah, no, this was self-commentary on my rather strictly moral opinion on the matter. But I can see how you might be confused by my speech, especially when looking for reasons to not actually address the opinions expressed.

It seems that this discussion only leads to: When men cheat, it's because men are dogs, and when women cheat, it's because men are dogs.

What a load of freaking crap. Anyone who cheats is equally to blame, and the concept that women who do it are looked on as fine is such complete garbage. You and kevin both with this OH THE WOMEN ALWAYS GET A BREAK WAHH. Please.

Where in this discussion has this concept of the blameless woman cheat come up on this board? If I missed it, I definitely apologize. I'm at work.
   241. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:47 PM (#2762544)
I notice that too, the double standard of blame. Men can't cheat by themselves. For every cheating man, there is a homewrecking/cheating woman. In fact, I bet more often than not, it's the woman, and not the man, who initiates the affair. After all, who spends more time/money trying to look attractive to the opposite sex?


Geez, come on. While I agree often these things are presented as one-sided, don't go overboard and start pulling crap out of your ass. Your proof for the assertion women start it more often than men is that women wear makeup?
   242. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:53 PM (#2762553)
think for a minute how you would feel about it if your wife announced she had done some guy she met in the kroger's on the way home from work. i was feelin a lil fat, just needed a good f*** right then, she sez.

Well that wouldn't be an act of aggression against me, either.

- sigh
that excuse can be used for any sin/theft you can think of


My point was that most sins that one might be tempted to commit, such as theft, involve depriving somebody else of something. Adultery doesn't do that. All it is is breaking a promise.
   243. Answer Guy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:55 PM (#2762558)
My point was that most sins that one might be tempted to commit, such as theft, involve depriving somebody else of something. Adultery doesn't do that. All it is is breaking a promise.


It potentially exposes the spouse to STDs. It creates the potential for unwanted children. It's not exactly a victimless crime.
   244. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:01 PM (#2762572)
i don't know if all the comments about females cheating is pointing at me, but i originally asked about MEN cheating

i will say that there are PLENTY of female dogs out there who cheat for the thrill of it or because of any reason you can think of when their man didn't do wrong by them.

people might BOTH say - well i cheated because he/she isn't exciting, have good sex with me, doesn't pay any attention to me, etc. that stuff goes both ways and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as my mama sez...

and i know good and well that there is plenty of times when women say they only cheat because the man is a dog is not really true. and that women use that as an excuse for their own selves to cheat.
   245. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:01 PM (#2762573)
It's not exactly a victimless crime.

Not to mention the hurt that such a betrayal creates. I'd go further and argue that in the majority of marriages spouses are generally aware when the bonds start getting attenuated. An affair is going to create that awareness, and that is going to hurt the spouse as one partner psychically withdraws from the other.

An old girlfriend cheated on me more than once. It hurt like hell.
   246. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:06 PM (#2762581)
Clemens didn't have sex with her until she turned 18.

I've opined this elsewhere, but I wonder to what extent this is technically true in the WJ Clintonian sense, but that while sex was not technically had until she was 18 there was physically intimate contact.
Actually, the language of the article was that "the relationship didn't turn intimate" until she was 18. It didn't say sex at all. So I don't think your argument works.
   247. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:06 PM (#2762583)
Carmona My House (Crispix Attacks) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:53 PM (#2762553)

My point was that most sins that one might be tempted to commit, such as theft, involve depriving somebody else of something. Adultery doesn't do that. All it is is breaking a promise.


- adultery most DEFINITELY does deprive somebody of something - the cheated on spouse is deprived of any honest emotional bond, the absolutel most important thing in a marriage. it completely breaks trust. it isn't just "breaking a promise" - do you really think it is the same thing as your spouse who promised to take out the garbage before bed not doing it?
   248. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:09 PM (#2762590)
Actually, the language of the article was that "the relationship didn't turn intimate" until she was 18. It didn't say sex at all. So I don't think your argument works.

Tomato, tomahto. It then depends on how one defines what constitutes an "intimate relationship".
   249. Answer Guy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:09 PM (#2762591)
An old girlfriend cheated on me more than once. It hurt like hell.


I'm fairly certain XAB was with his current guy (whom he's on the rocks with) more than once while we were still an item. Yeah, that's not a good feeling.
   250. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:15 PM (#2762601)
In other words, people who consider themselves religious are more in denial and/or less forthcoming about their infidelities.


Nice work. Anyway, the study suggests exactly what you implied studies don't suggest. Wrong again, Kevin!
   251. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:23 PM (#2762612)
There's an inherent bias there and thus, an unreliable report.


Uh, no, it's not unreliable, it's limited. And, again, it suggests exactly what you implied no studies suggest. Had I the time and inclination, I'd find more such studies. It's really not that hard to believe, Kevin, that people with firm religious convictions will have fewer incidents of infidelity, is it? That doesn't make them better people necessarily; it's just confirmation that certain kinds of disincentives will influence behavior.
   252. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:27 PM (#2762621)
The General Social Survey not reliable? Jeez, it is only the second most used set of data in the US. Any survey is going to have self-reported data, kevin. That's what a survey is.
   253. base ball chick Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:33 PM (#2762633)
kevin and jc

i think all people both religious and not religious lie about sex. a LOT. even when it is supposed to be anonymous.

and trust me on this a LOT of females have - shall we say - INteresting definitions of the word "sex." i mean i have had a few of my gf INSIST they didn't "really" have sex with some guy because they weren;t into it or they were drunk or it was a mistake or it was just anal/oral or bout anything else you can think of

but i wonder if males, especially ones who are say that they are religions start doing the excuses - well, it was just a ho so therefore it wasn't REALLY adultery or cheating because she was 7 months and i hadn't got some for 2 months - kind of stuff
   254. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:35 PM (#2762635)
Well, excuse me. So the data is so limited as to be unreliable. I stand corrected, JC.

FWIW, JC, using interview results to generate data is a notoriously flawed method of data collection, JC. In fact, it's not really science.


It's really not that hard to believe, Kevin, that people with firm religious convictions will have fewer incidents of infidelity, is it?


Actually yes, it is hard to believe. It implies that religious people somehow have more control over their libidos than non-religious people do. I think that highly unlikely. You could argue the opposite. You could argue that religious people turn to religion because they feel out of control and don't know where else to go.

I think what has transpired with the clergy shenanigans in the US over the past 3 decades or so kind of blows a hole in that theory, no?


So much wrong and so little time! See scotto's post above, Kevin, about social scientific research and surveys. You don't know of what you speak. I know we're supposed not to criticize each other's professions here, but I love the ease with which you demean Burdette's work. As I said, her work is well-respected and I take your critique as the babblings of a blow-hard.

It implies that religious people somehow have more control over their libidos than non-religious people do.


No, it implies they have another disincentive not to relent to their libidos and nothing more.

I think what has transpired with the clergy shenanigans in the US over the past 3 decades or so kind of blows a hole in that theory, no?


No, as the "clergy shenanigans" find you talking beyond your pay-grade as usual. All the studies on the "clergy shenanigans" have showed that clergy are no more likely to engage in shenanigans than anyone else. The scandal arose not b/c clergy find it harder than the rest of us to zip their pants (and I grant there's something unfortunate about that), but b/c of coverups by bishops too cowardly to punish (and subject to punishment by law enforcement) their priests.
   255. Guapo Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:36 PM (#2762637)
Clemens didn't have sex with her until she turned 18.

I've opined this elsewhere, but I wonder to what extent this is technically true in the WJ Clintonian sense, but that while sex was not technically had until she was 18 there was physically intimate contact.

Actually, the language of the article was that "the relationship didn't turn intimate" until she was 18.

Until she was AT LEAST 18. The article says:

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.


So "later" could be anytime after that. It's entirely possible they didn't start banging until, say, 2000, in which case she was 25.

The Daily News says they had a "10-year affair," so he well could have slipped her the Pocket Rocket in her teenage years, but the News is obviously reporting this so we all draw the most salacious conclusions, notwithstanding whether they were accurate. Yesterday's article was clearly written to imply that Roger injected her with love steroids when she was 15, even though the News apparently knew that was not the case.
   256. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:37 PM (#2762639)
i think all people both religious and not religious lie about sex. a LOT. even when it is supposed to be anonymous.


Of course, bbc. I'll defer to scotto on this, as he's an expert on these issues, but such social science accounts for lying in reporting and fashions questions in a manner to remove as much ambiguity as possible. Kevin is merely doing what he always is doing: trying to redeem a blowhard assertion by attacking evidence to the contrary. He quite literally doesn't know what he's talking about and didn't when he made his initial assertion.
   257. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:37 PM (#2762642)
Well, if you think having an affair doesn't involve sex, then you might be right. I'm just used to calling those kind of relationships "friendships".
And one day, maybe you'll experience one.
   258. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:39 PM (#2762646)
FWIW, JC, using interview results to generate data is a notoriously flawed method of data collection, JC. In fact, it's not really science.

The US Census is based on self-reported data. So that should be disregarded as well? Being interviewed anonymously removes the need to lie, and if you fear interviewer effects you take that into account when you do the survey, or you make it so that the sensitive data is done without the interviewer being involved, either through a paper survey or on the computer.

There's been a ton of research that refutes your point, but if you disregard it then there isn't much point too discussing it.
   259. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:46 PM (#2762670)
Kevin: I guarandamntee you I know more about the philosophy of science, social science, and "objectivity" in science than you ever will, and I further guarantee the more you discuss this, the dumber you'll sound.

Again, see scotto's post #288.
   260. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:47 PM (#2762673)
Has anyone in this thread suggested that women who cheat are guiltless?

I doubt it.

Or, that the nonmarried actor in an adulterous affair has done nothing wrong?

(Pause to see if McCoy has posted)

No.


But to limit the discussion to why "men do what they do" without talking about the participation of women seems to place the entire onus on cheating on men. And, once we agree that non married actors in adulterous affairs are just as guilty of wrongdoing (if they're aware the other party is married), there are more subjects to interview.

Let's face it: women who sleep with married men are the scum of the earth, too. Right?
   261. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:48 PM (#2762676)
"so i said why get married when you know you want more than one woman and he shrugged and said - ida know."

The answer to this one is pretty simple: Guys think that they're supposed to get married and settle down. There's significant social pressure to do so, and most are subjected from an early age to both conscious and unconscious conditioning that this is the way things are. Thus, even when a guy isn't really mentally invested in the idea of a monogamous lifetime commitment, he's going to say the words because it's The Next Step. It's expected: By his girlfriend, by his parents, even by his government (which provides tax breaks for married couples, in the expectation that marriage is everybody's default goal).

It's kind of analogous to the homosexuals who date (and sometimes marry) members of the opposite sex. They're trying to live up to a cultural ideal, and they don't have a good enough sense of themselves and their needs/wants to depart from that ideal and set out on their own path.
   262. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:51 PM (#2762682)
"injected her with love steroids"

Ew.

"For instance, how in the heck do you control for the inherent tendency of people to lie about their sex lives?"

Cameras. Cameras everywhere, running continuously. Alternatively, I guess you could install a little water meter on every guy's junk, and take periodic readings.
   263. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:54 PM (#2762691)
The answer to this one is pretty simple: Guys think that they're supposed to get married and settle down. There's significant social pressure to do so, and most are subjected from an early age to both conscious and unconscious conditioning that this is the way things are. Thus, even when a guy isn't really mentally invested in the idea of a monogamous lifetime commitment, he's going to say the words because it's The Next Step. It's expected: By his girlfriend, by his parents, even by his government (which provides tax breaks for married couples, in the expectation that marriage is everybody's default goal).

I totally agree, and would add that getting married is a way for immature people to pretend they're mature. Then, when reality sets in, we see so many divorces among couples under a certain age.
   264. SoSH U at work Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:56 PM (#2762694)
But to limit the discussion to why "men do what they do" without talking about the participation of women seems to place the entire onus on cheating on men. And, once we agree that non married actors in adulterous affairs are just as guilty of wrongdoing (if they're aware the other party is married), there are more subjects to interview.


Joe, has anyone threatened you if the discussion veered into why women do what they do? Opine away.

In this case, it was a married man and an unmarried woman engaged in the act, so the discussion is going to lend itself to discussing why men cheat.

Let's face it: women who sleep with married men are the scum of the earth, too. Right?


In my opinoin, women who knowingly sleep with married men (or men who sleep with married women) are engaged in behavior I find worthy of condemnation. I don't think they are as blameworthy as the married person sleeping around, but it's still wrong.

As for the "Who is the scum of the earth?" question, I already supported David's contention that Gromit held that particular distinction.
   265. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:57 PM (#2762695)
But to limit the discussion to why "men do what they do" without talking about the participation of women seems to place the entire onus on cheating on men. And, once we agree that non married actors in adulterous affairs are just as guilty of wrongdoing (if they're aware the other party is married), there are more subjects to interview.

Let's face it: women who sleep with married men are the scum of the earth, too. Right?
I certainly think so, but as I recall, there was vigorous dissent from that opinion coming from at least some Primates in the Leo Durocher thread.
   266. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:58 PM (#2762699)
Kevin: I guarandamntee you I know more about the philosophy of science, social science, and "objectivity" in science than you ever will, and I further guarantee the more you discuss this, the dumber you'll sound.
JC: now you know how us lawyers feel when dealing with Kevin.
   267. scotto Posted: April 29, 2008 at 06:59 PM (#2762701)
I already supported David's contention that Gromit held that particular distinction.

He's eccentric, sure, but evil? His no-kill bunny business suggests that he's not wholly evil.
   268. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:01 PM (#2762703)
"I totally agree, and would add that getting married is a way for immature people to pretend they're mature. Then, when reality sets in, we see so many divorces among couples under a certain age."

Yeah, exactly. That's the motivation behind a lot of those couples' decision to have their first kid, too.
   269. Answer Guy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:03 PM (#2762709)
Cameras. Cameras everywhere, running continuously. Alternatively, I guess you could install a little water meter on every guy's junk, and take periodic readings.


Hehe. Supposedly there are, even as of this late date, lots of women out there who don't realize how often guys, um, play with themselves. Or at least that seems to be what the magazines at the checkout counter at the local supermarket assert, as half of them feature "Men's Sex Secrets Revealed!" articles and "Guys stroke off. A lot." is an item on most of them.

The previous owner of Answer Guy Manor subscribed to one of these magazines. They had a couple of nice recipes in them.
   270. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:10 PM (#2762724)
"Supposedly there are, even as of this late date, lots of women out there who don't realize how often guys, um, play with themselves."

By which, of course, we mean "continuously".
   271. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:10 PM (#2762725)
Joe, has anyone threatened you if the discussion veered into why women do what they do? Opine away.

Not at all, and I did "opine"(kind of). I think that the issue of fidelity is far more complex than "men are dogs" or "women are sluts" or whatever the stereotypes are. I just think that if you want to expand the discussion from the specific instance of Clemens' cheating on his wife to why men cheat without acknowledging that women are also involved, you're only going to rehash the same tired stereotype I referenced above.

I certainly think so, but as I recall, there was vigorous dissent from that opinion coming from at least some Primates in the Leo Durocher thread.

Several Primates have just keeled over from shock. DMN actually gave an opinion. Bravo, sir!
   272. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:11 PM (#2762733)
Is it just me, or is there a lot of dick-measuring going on in this thread?

Best Regards

Joooooooooooohn
   273. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:14 PM (#2762736)
"Supposedly there are, even as of this late date, lots of women out there who don't realize how often guys, um, play with themselves."


Which is why we prefer to drive cars with standard transmissions and are disappointed when emissions tests aren't what we expected.

Best Regards

John
   274. bfan Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:20 PM (#2762746)
"...even by his government (which provides tax breaks for married couples..."

I actually thought there was a penalty for married couples. To the extent the 2 combine/aggregate income, and that kicks them into a higher tax bracket than the 2 might be, filing separately, then it is a tax penalty, not tax break, for being married.
   275. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:26 PM (#2762754)
"I actually thought there was a penalty for married couples."

Not so much, from what I can tell (though I'm not an expert). There's a good breakdown here.

Among married couples, there IS an incentive for one partner to have a substantially higher income than the other, which of course reinforces the traditional roles of the husband as bread-winner and the wife as house-minder.
   276. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:32 PM (#2762762)
"Is it just me, or is there a lot of dick-measuring going on in this thread?"

One time, during a snowstorm, I was forced to use mine to club an enraged bear to death.
   277. Rich Rifkin I Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:38 PM (#2762776)
"One time, during a snowstorm, I was forced to use mine to club an enraged bear to death."

That wasn't a bear. I was wearing my bear-skin coat, innocently walking in the snow, when you attacked me with you little unit for no reason. The only way I could get you to stop was to play dead. Now that I know who you are, you owe me an apology and money for the cleaning bill.
   278. bfan Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:42 PM (#2762781)
Rich-I would think a tip from him would be in order, too; perhaps 15% on top of the cleaning bill.
   279. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:43 PM (#2762785)
"The only way I could get you to stop was to play dead."

You had me convinced, right up until there. Why would I stop just because you were dead?
   280. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:47 PM (#2762791)
Y'know, Roger Clemens and Luis Polonia were teammates in 2000.

I'm just sayin'...
   281. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2008 at 07:49 PM (#2762794)
But to limit the discussion to why "men do what they do" without talking about the participation of women seems to place the entire onus on cheating on men.

Note all the women participating in this discussion. ONE. Hence the main discussion being men. I'm sorry, but that strikes me as the whining I referenced earlier.

Let's face it: women who sleep with married men are the scum of the earth, too. Right?

Never said this about men (see post 232) who cheat and wouldn't say it about women either. I said it is lying, and bad behavior, and attempts to justify it as otherwise are weak and slippery excuses for selfishness and dishonesty. If we classified this as "scum of the earth" that would be kind of harsh in my opinion.

And actually, a single person sleeping with a married person is nowhere near the same thing as a married person sleeping with a single person, judgment-wise. Entirely different responsibilities and consequences for the respective parties involved.
   282. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:00 PM (#2762810)
One time, during a snowstorm, I was forced to use mine to club an enraged bear to death.


Yeah? Well, my wife thinks she's sitting on my lap when I'm actually standing plus they have to raise the drawbridge whenever I do the backstroke in the river!

Now that I know who you are, you owe me an apology and money for the cleaning bill.


Why, because he didn't call you back the next day?

Best Regards

John
   283. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:13 PM (#2762826)
Let's face it: women who sleep with married men are the scum of the earth, too. Right?

In addition to what Lassus said in #316, the woman (or man) who sleeps with a married person doesn't always know they're married.
   284. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:15 PM (#2762830)
In addition to what Lassus said in #316, the woman (or man) who sleeps with a married person doesn't always know they're married.

I should have added "knowingly".
   285. Spahn Insane Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:22 PM (#2762843)
Or, imagine that your wife is an emasculating, selfish piece of work, who has no respect for you.

Testify. Had myself one of those, and didn't cheat on her (divorced her, however).

Honestly, I probably should have.
   286. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:23 PM (#2762844)
Note all the women participating in this discussion. ONE. Hence the main discussion being men. I'm sorry, but that strikes me as the whining I referenced earlier.

I missed that earlier post, sorry.

The ONE woman participating is the one who steered the topic of discussion towards "why men cheat". Not "why anyone cheats", but just "why MEN cheat". That we all answer has nothing to do with our gender, it has to do with the willingness to limit the discussion to "just men". I object to that. I acknowledge infidelity is a hurtful proposition, and that men are often to blame. I don't think it's helpful to focus on one gender, though.
   287. Spahn Insane Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:24 PM (#2762846)
There are many such studies that show (1) religious folk [folk who self-identify by faith] are less likely to engage in extra-marital affairs, and (2) religious folk who practice their faith are still less likely to engage in extra-marital affairs.

Less likely to engage in them, or less likely to admit to them?

EDIT: I did not intend for this post to be snarky; I'm honestly curious. And much of my curiosity has been addressed by the posts following the one I responded to.
   288. SoSH U at work Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:25 PM (#2762849)
The ONE woman participating is the one who steered the topic of discussion towards "why men cheat". Not "why anyone cheats", but just "why MEN cheat". That we all answer has nothing to do with our gender, it has to do with the willingness to limit the discussion to "just men". I object to that. I acknowledge infidelity is a hurtful proposition, and that men are often to blame. I don't think it's helpful to focus on one gender, though.


The one woman offered an anecodte about her personal experience. You were free to steer it in your own direction instead of using it as another excuse to whine about mean old bbc.
   289. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:29 PM (#2762856)
Among married couples, there IS an incentive for one partner to have a substantially higher income than the other, which of course reinforces the traditional roles of the husband as bread-winner and the wife as house-minder.

Not if you're smart and marry a woman with strong earning potential.
   290. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:30 PM (#2762861)
Joe - In your moral system, is the judgment level for a "bad" (everything being relative) person in your eyes exactly equal for a single person who knowingly sleeps with a someone who isn't single, and a person who isn't single cheating on their partner, with whomever?
   291. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:33 PM (#2762870)
The one woman offered an anecodte about her personal experience. You were free to steer it in your own direction instead of using it as another excuse to whine about mean old bbc.

I thought I did.
   292. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:37 PM (#2762875)
Your proof for the assertion women start it more often than men is that women wear makeup?

Those painted whores know exactly what they want and they aren't afraid to go out and get it.
   293. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:39 PM (#2762876)
Lassus--I guess it depends on the circumstances. Generally, I think it's the same. I think if you know someone isn't single, you shouldn't attempt to bed them, and it's bad if you do.

If the non-single partner's legal partner was an abuser, I would understand them looking for comfort outside that relationship. If you're the "comforter", I think you might want to offer a different kind of comfort and/or support than bedding the abused.

I'll get back to you later this evening, if this generates more comment.

Edit...and SoSH...looking back, I appreciate bbc's 270. She's with me.
   294. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:45 PM (#2762883)
The scandal arose not b/c clergy find it harder than the rest of us to zip their pants (and I grant there's something unfortunate about that), but b/c of coverups by bishops too cowardly to punish (and subject to punishment by law enforcement) their priests.


A distinction without a difference.


The sheer stupidity of your reply makes me wonder how you ever made it into the military.
   295. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:52 PM (#2762892)
The sheer stupidity of your reply makes me wonder how you ever made it into the military.

His is not to reason why. His is but to do and die.
   296. The Original SJ Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:53 PM (#2762894)
True warriors ask no questions. They go in with their heads down and their swords up.
   297. JC in DC Posted: April 29, 2008 at 08:58 PM (#2762899)
Why don't you tell me how to do science again, JC? Tell me a story about your trials and tribulations in the lab.


If you think I told you I can do your science, you're mistaken. That you're able to do your bit is wonderful, a true testimony to the GI Bill. I said, however, that I know from philosophy of science, social science, and "objectivity" in science, having studied those. I don't think you know what you're talking about given your criticisms of social research.
   298. Backlasher Posted: April 29, 2008 at 09:01 PM (#2762902)
Lassus--I guess it depends on the circumstances. Generally, I think it's the same. I think if you know someone isn't single, you shouldn't attempt to bed them, and it's bad if you do.


What if you bed them when you thought they were single, develop a relationship with them, then find out they have a family.

Are you just as evil if you don't call it off then? or do you get some type of moral squatters rights, if you fall in love without the bad mens rea.
   299. Mike Emeigh Posted: April 29, 2008 at 09:11 PM (#2762918)
Among married couples, there IS an incentive for one partner to have a substantially higher income than the other, which of course reinforces the traditional roles of the husband as bread-winner and the wife as house-minder.


True. However, there's also a marriage penalty between two lower-income people, one of whom has children; they lose earned income credit. This is one reason why you see a lot of lower-income families where the mother and father DON'T get married, BTW; one parent claims the EIC as head of household, and that can lead to a considerable tax refund. (Don't get me started on this rant...)

And there are other kinds of marriage penalities that apply across the board. The itemized deduction phaseout, for example, begins at $156,400 (it's only reduced for married filing separately). So if someone making, say, $150,000 marries someone making $50,000, their itemized deductions will be reduced. If you marry someone during the year, your ability to take a child care deduction is limited by the "lower" of your income, or your new spouse's - so if you're making $60K and paid someone $7500 for the year to take care of your 5-year old, and then married someone who only made $5K, you can only get credit for the $5K.

-- MWE
   300. Dr. Vaux Posted: April 29, 2008 at 09:32 PM (#2762933)
That's crazy! What's the reasoning behind that?
Page 3 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
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(2702 - 9:24am, Jul 22)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogThree Moves The Red Sox Should Make - Tony Massarotti - Boston.com
(10 - 9:23am, Jul 22)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogPoll: Does Citizens Bank Park really need metal detectors at the gates?
(2 - 9:18am, Jul 22)
Last: bobm

NewsblogMLB.COM - Toman: Lewis takes exception with Rasmus' bunt
(121 - 9:17am, Jul 22)
Last: They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot

NewsblogMisremembering Mantle's Final Season
(33 - 9:13am, Jul 22)
Last: They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-22-2014
(7 - 9:00am, Jul 22)
Last: RMc's desperate, often sordid world

NewsblogTrading for Price would be right move for Cubs | FOX Sports
(55 - 8:58am, Jul 22)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogBraves release Dan Uggla
(37 - 8:40am, Jul 22)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(280 - 8:36am, Jul 22)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogSports Reference Blog: 1901-02 Orioles Removed from Yankees History
(4 - 8:32am, Jul 22)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(36 - 7:51am, Jul 22)
Last: MHS

NewsblogTony Oliva turns 76; Gardenhire: 'He should be in hall of fame'
(2 - 7:44am, Jul 22)
Last: Rants Mulliniks

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(804 - 6:58am, Jul 22)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogJim Bouton Still As Opinionated As Ever
(136 - 2:05am, Jul 22)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-21
(34 - 1:44am, Jul 22)
Last: Dale Sams

Page rendered in 0.6810 seconds
52 querie(s) executed