Only idiots aren't moral relativists. Being a moral relativist doesn't mean you don't think anything is wrong, it just means you have no durable absolute criteria to judge it against. Every effort to rationalize morality fails (see "the trolley problem" and other scenarios that lead to moral dumbfounding)
If I understand correctly, she was doing this WHILE she was married, and he KNEW about it?!
That's certainly strange. He is a lawyer, however, so there's a good chance he's a moral relativist.
What are the chances that he sent clients her way?
The fast-track to partnership.
OTOH, maybe he's gay and they never do it anyway, so what would either of them care?
Lots of possible explanations, I would like to hear some more reporting.
This is tangential to the main story, but in her prime, Suzy Favor was a big deal in Wisconsin. MUCH bigger than Alan Webb, whoever he is.
might be wejo wrote:
I would still bet 10 people out of 10 don't know who she is even in Wisco. I live in the DC area and pretty much all non runners have little to no idea who Alan Webb is. How many DC 7 year olds who know Webb is (the age of SFH's daughter)? I would guess none.
Try speaking for yourself. You might find it a helpful change.
sad sad sad wrote:
Child Please, the dispute you two are having is merely over the definition of 'crush'. I believe that you are using it lightly as signifying a sexual attraction and maybe delusion that you like their 'personality' which you could not possibly know, not having really spent time with them in a non-media way. R U cereal is using 'crush' to mean the beginnings of a romantic love, which is much more than sexual attraction. It is a deep desire to be around someone and have them like you. In this definition, sexual attraction and wanting someone sexually is only a fraction of the crush. Fantasies involve intimacy and closeness but not necessarily sex.
Walk out of your women's studies class and into an evolutionary psychology class.
Bros before it Snows wrote:
Classic. A woman has sex with men for money, and she's a whore, slut, prostitute, etc. Her name is forever tarnished.
A man has sex with 50 women for free, and he's praised by his 'bros' and society as being 'a real man.'
How about a local paper already picking it up:
Child Please wrote:might be wejo wrote:And how many can find out in 30 seconds with Google? All of them.
I would still bet 10 people out of 10 don't know who she is even in Wisco. ... How many DC 7 year olds who know Webb is (the age of SFH's daughter)? I would guess none.
anyone know what suzy's nickname was back in the day when she was at wisconsin? suzy flavor. she had a reputation across the ncaa. this is not shocking as indicated by sprintgeezer above.
This revelation of moral turpitude is just as shocking as any suggestion that current world-record holders would use PED's.
This. This is what I'm saying. Even if she were no more famous than your avg. Joe, everyone in their neighborhood, school, professional environment, etc. is going to know what's up, causing a hell of a lot of trouble for the husband and daughter.
wicker r wrote:might be wejo wrote:__possum1424 wrote:I would still bet 10 people out of 10 don't know who she is even in Wisco. I live in the DC area and pretty much all non runners have little to no idea who Alan Webb is. How many DC 7 year olds who know Webb is (the age of SFH's daughter)? I would guess none.
This reeks of dumb. What about 10 people on the street in Madison, WI? You know, where her daughter is growing up, going to school, etc. Think that might change things a little? Think going to school might be a bit rougher for the child? Think their "private issues" might be a little less private than you think in Wisconsin?
how about 10 kids in her daughter's schoolroom tomorrow? I'm thinking 30 out of 30 know her mom's a prostitute.
How about 10 of the next people mr hamilton meets? They probably know too. really.