Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    
    	I agree...I don't condone his actions by any means but...
    
    	I think she has no legal rights to anything....I find it 
    	hard to believe that he forced her to quit her job to 
    	travel with him on the road.  That was HER decision.
    	If he was Joe Shmoe next door no one would blink an 
    	eyelash.  But he's a celebrity...and we have to know
    	every teensy bit of their lives don't we?  Or it
    	seems like we do....personally, I don't care what
    	he does with his life as long as he gets his job
    	done on the field.  We, the public, are just too
    	damn nosey...and as for her...she's looking to 
    	cash in on big bucks like Donna Rice and Fawn
    	Hall.  In for themselves and don't care who
    	they step on.  She knew he was married and never
    	should have gotten involved in the first place.
    	Now that she did and the world knows about it,
    	she's cashing in on his name and the pain that
    	his family is going through.
    
    	JJ
    

    I guess if we're talking about Wade Boggs, and whether or not Margo
    is right in trying to get money out of the situation, than I guess
    I'll add my resounding no to those already mentioned.
    
    The other side of this is, how can we control what the press/media
    decide they want to build up into this great big scandle. You almost
    have to but the stupid magazine just to find out what the heck is
    happening, and if you're really justified in your thinking.
    
    Maybe if the hero's of our world were allowed to be people, we wouldn't
    have to pay the outrageous prices to see them play.

         My first thought is...
         
         If "we" did not buy the rags they would not sell
         based on such stories. No news media hypes anything
         that does not sell "papers"...so regardless of how
         many of us insist that we do not judge people by
         what we hear or see in the press, a good number of
         us must be lieing because we sure buy a lot papers...
         
         As a whole [present company excluded...grin] J.Q.
         Public lusts after information to attach feet of
         clay to its heros....it is a national
         pastime...defoliating the images of those we at first
         place on pedestals...
         
         The ONLY way to prevent this is to NOT BUY publications
         that publish such private information. We all know
         the possibility of THAT working...[sigh]
         
         My second thought is...
         
         People who "choose" to be public heros must know
         that we do this...so why would anyone in such a position
         place themselves in double jeopardy? Do they really
         think they are "good" enough to avoid all the
         muck-rakers around? Do they really think they are
         untouchable?  Are they really incapable of resisting
         the temptation to gratify their every wish?  Feet
         of clay indeed....
         
         The Greeks called it "Hubris"...a lack of humility
         that brought every good tragic hero in Greek drama
         to his knees....that instant when the hero "believes"
         that he/she is equal to the Gods...and untouchable,
         regardless of his/her actions.
         
         ---
         
         I am torn between these two thoughts...I think they
         both have some little merit...but they are opposed
         in truth....
         
         Melinda

"People who "choose" to be public heros must know that we do this...so why would
anyone in such a position place themselves in double jeopardy? Do they really
think they are "good" enough to avoid all the muck-rakers around? Do they really
think they are untouchable?"

This is one reason I would never want to be a celebrity.  Too many bozos wanting
to make much of any flaws to cut celebrities back down to their size.

Jim. 

    ... then there's "hell hath no fury as..., ...."
    

         RE: Hell hath no fury....
         
         That's because Hell is a male invention....they [males
         in general] lack the creativity to deliver truly
         exceptional pain and injury....and the patience.
         
         [Sorry...couln't resist....I have been Soooooo serious
         lately....]
         
         Melinda

    
    
    Wade Boggs is a fool that the Red Sox should let go of.
    
    He knew what he was doing was wrong, and Margo knew what
    she was doing was wrong.  But Wade as a professional ballplayer
    has an image to live up to.  And he helped himself destroy that.
    I thought that aspiring young ball playing kids looked towards
    these guys as their idols and mentors.  If that is true, then
    are the rules of the game changed.  Is Wade sending out a 
    message to these kids that it is ok to cheat on your wife
    because it really doesnt mean anything and it wont change
    anything?  I sure hope not, but isn't that now part
    of his image?  Isn't that now an accepted part of Wade Boggs?
    
    As far as Margo's suit against him, I think she has every right
    in the world to capitalize on this.  Her interview with Penthouse
    could bring her upwards to 500,000 dollars.  That's a pretty
    hefty sum of money. Why shouldn't she be able to earn a buck or
    two?  She probably won't be able to get anything from him, and
    I really don't think she should get anything from him personally.
    They both made a big mistake and each of them in their own ways
    are paying for it.  Hopefully the team will not have to pay for
    it in the long run!!
    
    Michele

    DOTTI -
    
    	I agree with you, unfortunately, people who become public figures
    are not allowed to suffer privately.
    
    	The media is driven by the profit motive, not human values,
    and there's not much hope of it changing.
    
    	Something to consider before one decides to embark on a career
    which will lead to becoming a public figure, or to marry one.
    
    
    				Guy B.
    

    Guy,
    
    That's right.  But why should a celebrity be an "easy mark" so to
    speak, just because they are a celebrity.  He got to be a "celebrity"
    by being darn good at his job.  That to me is how he should be judged.
    Most of us have "things" we would not want the whole world to read
    about.   Don't get me wrong, I don't condone what he did.  But it's
    done.  If his wife can forgive him and still stand by him, why can't
    the rest us judge him only by his batting average?
    
    What about all those Hollywood types that do worse things?  I think
    THAT enhances their careers, but not a baseball player.  I guess
    it's like the all American - apple pie, Chevrolets and baseball.
    
    But I think the media should leave him alone now.  Enough is enough.
    
    Again, just one woman's opinion.
    
    -Dotti.

"As far as Margo's suit against him, I think she has every right in the world to
capitalize on this.  Her interview with Penthouse could bring her upwards to
500,000 dollars.  That's a pretty hefty sum of money. Why shouldn't she be able
to earn a buck or two?"

That's quite a bit ***more*** then a buck or two!!!

"They both made a big mistake and each of them in their own ways are paying for
it."

He's paying for it... SHE's getting PAID for it.  Which makes her a prostitute.

Jim.

	Jim:

"He's paying for it... 
SHE's getting PAID for it.  Which makes her a prostitute".

	Bravo! Well said! I wish *I* had thought of it!

	Mel

	 I find it very disheartening that people have to dwell on
	 other's mistakes.  My gosh, we're all human and we all make
	 mistakes, otherwise how would we learn?  I'd be curious to
	 know how many people casting stones at the man have had
	 extramarital affairs of their own--or some other equally as
	 "awful" mistake.

	 "Let he who is blameless cast the first stone."

	 kath

    Poor Wade my foot....
    
    The guy makes over $1,000,000 dollars a year.  He chose to be in
    the public relm.  He knew that the newspapers like juicy dirty laundry.
    It's all part of his job.   Margo is just capatalizing on an awkward
    situation.  I know it's not right, but it could be expected.  I
    think the guy is a bozo for messin' around on his wife, but I still
    think he's a great ball player.  The stories and jokes are pretty
    funny too....Besides all this how about the pain that he caused
    his wife and family, he deserves some ridicule....maybe he won't
    do it again....
    
    Who says it didn't effect his ball playing.  One story I heard tells
    different....
    
    	Wade was in a hitting slump.  One game that Margo was attending
    he hit 4 for 5.  He later found out that Margo wasn't wearing any
    panties.  From then on every game that Margo went to Wade had her
    not wear panties.    
    
    Sik.
    
    And some what believable.  Wade is known for pre-batting rituals,
    very superstitious.
    
    Bill

    ... or "The Natural".
    
    I find this national preoccupation with the private lives of
    celebrities to be a bore.  I don't think we should hold celebrities
    like baseball players to any higher standards than we would hold 
    ourselves to.  (I have somewhat different thoughts about political
    figures, but would also allow them a lot more freedom than the
    public wants to give them.)
    
    I don't believe it's the fault of "the press" - it's the millions of
    people who eat up every word of drivel and pant for more who are
    the real force behind this hysteria.  If nobody cared, nobody would
    print anything.
    
    				Steve

>    	I for one think that once a person becomes a target of media
>    attention, they become a potential role model, and as such, they
>    are naturally scrutinized more closely.  And rightly so.


	 I think the people we come in contact with day-by-day are
	 perhaps potentially more of role models than anyone the media
	 targets.

	 Just because someone happens to have a job that puts them in
	 the public eye, does not mean they are any more "perfect" or
	 more important than any of the rest of us.  They are allows
	 to stumble and make the same mistakes we do...I think its
	 awful the way this country is so eager to strike someone else
	 down and ruin their life just because they stumbled.

	 k

To me, a far better question is 'should these stars be role models?'.

I don't think so, I'd rather have my sons have people they know as role models
rather then bozos pushed into the limelight, or artificial movie personalities.

I think hero worship has more negative aspects then positives aspects.  The kind
of a role model that you can get from the media is shallow, and good mostly for
starting fashion fads.

Jim.

    The other night Bob Lobell interviewed some younsters down at Winter
    Haven, right after all of this hoopla hit the media.  He asked them
    who was their favorite ballplayer...well you guessed it, everyone
    he talked to said Boggs.  
    
    Which goes to show that kids don't realy know or care about his
    private escapades, they just judge him as a baseball player.  And
    that, to me anyway, is the bottom line.
    
    -Dotti.

    
    
    "He's paying for it....... She is getting paid for it
    which makes her a prostitute.
    
    Did he or has he paid her for the services a prostitute renders?
    
    So far he has not given her a dime, and I honestly doubt she will
    get any money from him.
    
    She is however getting paid for an interview in Penthouse.
    Since when has giving an interview/photos become the same as
    being a prostitue?   Please explain??
    
    Mi

    
         The concept of her being in the same category as a prostitute
    comes from the fact that for 4 years all of her expenses were paid
    for. If one of us either male or female did the same thing and sex
    was expected as part of the DEAL, then you WOULD be a prostitute.
    

         RE: -.1 

         Using that definition....half the women in this country would
         be considered prostitutes.... 



         RE: in general 

         It really frosts me how people can condemn others and speak
         ill of others who's lifestyles are not like their own.
         Narrowmindedness is not a good quality at least not in my
         book. 

         "Judge not lest you be judged." 

         kath

         [Ahem]....
         
         Shield up again....
         
         Since I am one of the regular folks in this Notes
         file that stand up and foolishly defend the right of "alternate"
         lifestyles and morals....without judgement....I rather
         do not like being accused of same just because I
         "also" rather much agree with the observation about
         prostitution.
         
         Point of fact....[Ahhh, I think,....then again perhaps
         I should say...point of definition...]
         
         "Prositution" is defined by the transaction of or
         substitute thereof....[material goods]....for sexual
         favor. I would venture that the lady in question
         qualifies...and if that means half of the women in
         the known universe *also* qualify...well...so what?
         If the definition fits...[yawn].
         
         I have no problem with Mr Boggs sleeping around on
         his wife....I *may* have a problem with his blatant
         decision to do so because of his *other* decisions
         to place humslef in the lime-light as far as a role
         model goes...and I think he was stupid to think he
         could get away scot-free...yellow-journalists sit
         and pray for fools like this every day...[sigh]...
         And I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that we [in general, the
         PUBLIC] should get off the dime about needing to
         know every fitfull breath of public figures...but
         this is a wish and a prayer if I ever heard one...
         
         I also have no problem with the lady's decision to
         accomodate him. *IF* she benefits monetarily, I ALSO
         have very little problem with it....but she does
         identify herself in the realm of PROSTITUTION....by
         definition.
         
         I suggest....[IMHO]....that the value judgement that
         took place was yours....not the author of .10....It could
	 be argued that you perceived PROSTITUE as a judgemental phrase...not
         he...he merely provided a term for the definition.
         With no value added that I can see in his terse and
         pithy reply.

	 I doubt that the lady inquestion is concerned about the
	 definition at all, since it will sell more interviews.
	 *I* have very little opinion about the moral value of
	 either of their actions....but I *do* object to being
	 chastised for recognizing the truth of an observable
	 fact....

	 We say...#1:person A garners monetary increase from providing
	 sex to person B. #2:any person garnering monetary gain for
	 sexual favor can be defined as a prostitute. Therefore:
	 Person A is a prostitute.

	 That is simple logic....I see no value judgement?
                                                          
	 Melinda

	 RE: .25

	 The following was the definition of prostitution I was
	 referring to.

>     The concept of her being in the same category as a prostitute
>    comes from the fact that for 4 years all of her expenses were paid
>    for. If one of us either male or female did the same thing and sex
>    was expected as part of the DEAL, then you WOULD be a prostitute.

	 By this definition, any wife/live-in/other, who "stays home"
	 and allows a man to pay her expenses would be considered a
	 prostitute.  I guess using this definition my mother would be
	 considered a prostitute.  We could argue about the "expected"
	 clause, but I'd rather not...

	 I know that's not what the author meant, but I was just kinda
	 playing "devil's advocate"...

	 I did not mean to offend you....remember I never once stated
	 I didn't classify her as a prostitute (note: I'm still not
	 saying I do...I don't want to get into that argument.)  I was
	 just asking for a more CLEAR definition of prostitute.


	 About my other comment....To me, prostitution is just another
	 way of life, I just see too many people (not only in this
	 note, but in others, as well as people in the media)
	 condemning people for having a different way of life.  No one
	 has the right to condemn or judge another....sadly, it
	 happens, though.

	 Entirely too much emphasis is being put on the whole
	 situation...I'd much rather put the blame on the media for
	 influencing children the way MikeZ was talking about, than
	 put the blame on a person for being human.

	 IMHO, once again..

	 kath

         RE:-1
         
         My apologies, I misinterpretted your response.
         
         I agree with you about the media.
         
         M-

    
    Nope, we have the right to judge him the way we see fit.  We also
    have the right to be speak our judgements.  We all have our own
    opinions and we have the right to express them.  We don't have the
    right to liable him.  What we say we have to believe is true or
    state otherwise.  He does have his own personel life, but he has
    given up some of it when he took his profession.  IMHO he's a big
    bozo.  If you don't want to agree or pass judgement then don't.
    It doesn't mean that I'm Narrowminded.....I don't feel that I am,
    and doesn't the fact that you called us who judge him Narrowminded,
    make you narrowminded for judging us like we judge him?
    
    
    Bill (Not trying to start any arguments......)
    

    The key to good hitting is timing and patience.  The key to this
    situation Wade Boggs got himself into could very well be the same.
    He'll probably wait till the storm blows over and write a book and
    make a million dollars on it!  And I am sure we will all be the last 
    thing on his mind before, during, and after.  I think a note previous 
    to this one says it all.  "Much ado about nothing." Ah yes!  The 
    American dream lives on!  

My labelling the woman in question a prostitute (value judgement intended) was
based more on the fact that she is benifiting monetarily from her *sexual*
liasons through lawsuit and playboy interviews, not on the fact that she was
supported during the relationship. 

During the relationship there were undoubtably many exchanges of many types.
That is what relationships are.  The fact that he supported her does not qualify
her as a prostitute.  As noted many women are 'supported', but the majority of
them return nonsexual value in the relationship in exchange for the support.
What makes them not prostitutes is that the exchange is not purely sex for
money; there are many other factors in a fullfilling relationship. 

Now however, she is getting paid for her sexual laison and publicising it, and
trying to extort more money out of the man without returning any value for it.
A Prostitute *and* a blackmailer.

Jim. 

IMHO, Prostitution occurs when there is a clear-cut, direct, payment
for sex, without a relationship. 

By this definition, when a relationship exists, even when it 
includes both sex and money changing hands, there is no 
prostitution. That includes most marriages/live-in/SO-relationships, 
et al.


-- Ron

    re .31, .32
    
    Prostitute:  one who performs sexual acts with others for pay
    	1. To offer (oneself or another) for sexual acts in return for
    	   pay.
    
    	2. To devote (oneself or one's talents) to an unworthy cause.
    
    I would say that #2 applies in this case.
    

I started a discussion on palimony, related to the Boggs-Adams affair,
in Note 527. It didn't get much play back in June in this file, although
in WOMANNOTES Note # 33, there appeared to be some sympathy for "poor
Margo".
    
Of course, that was before her "screw-and-tell/show-and-tell" 
appearance in Penthouse.
                    
  Alan  
    
***************************************************************************
                             
    
    
            <<< QUARK::DISK$QUARK2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]HUMAN_RELATIONS.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< What's all this fuss about 'sax and violins'? >-
================================================================================
Note 527.0                          Palimony                           3 replies
FDCV03::ROSS                                         22 lines  21-JUN-1988 10:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Note has also been posted in Soapbox, Mennotes  and Womannotes.
    
Reading the sports section in the Boston Globe this morning (the
suit being brought against Boston Red Sox player Wade Boggs) led me to 
thinking about palimony in general.

What is the ostensible justification for palimony, especially when
both parties are able (albeit, not necessarily willing) to work? 

Is it a form of legalized (and well-rewarded) "prostitution" in the
broader sense of the word: "to sell (one's talents) to an unworthy
cause"?

Is palimony claimed on the basis of sex having taken place? That is, if
two people have been non-sexual companions, would there be grounds for one
of them bringing a palimony suit against the other?

Is there an unwritten minimum age of the people involved, for the concept 
of palimony to be presumed? Could one partner of a teen-age couple bring
a palimony suit against the other?

  Alan