Crouching Tiger, Hidden Drag
I love how you write about the evolutionary psychology driving us, like your recent bit on how women across cultures prioritize money and mojo in men. So, what do you think about the Tiger Woods scandal? Was this just a man being true to his genes? Or, is there more to it than that, since most other men aren't running around to the extent he was?
--Curious George
People are speculating that Tiger has a "sex addiction," when all the ordinary guy can usually be accused of is a porn addiction. What separates the sex addicts from the porn addicts? Being rich enough to get the girls in 3-D.
You'll hear people sneer that gay men are promiscuous. And they are. All men are. Unfortunately for straight guys, women's timeline for putting out is typically three dates, not three minutes or whenever the stall is free, whichever comes first. Men evolved to want sexual variety far more than women do. Evolutionary psychologists Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa write in Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters that a man who has sex with 1,000 women in a year can potentially produce 1,000 children. "In sharp contrast, if a woman has sex with 1,000 men in a year, she can have only one child (barring a multiple birth)." In other words, "there's little reproductive benefit for women in seeking lots of sex partners," while, as my blog commenter "sterling" put it, "Men like sex the same as women like shoes. No matter how many cool shoes you already have, you want different shoes."
So, Tiger's really no different from Henry the Eighth or Fred, the fifth guy on the left. Henry had to practice what could be called "rolling monogamy" -- beheading one wife before marrying the next. Fred might cheat with the occasional cocktail waitress -- if he gets really, really lucky. But, beyond being a bazillionaire, a golf virtuoso, and boyishly handsome, Tiger's famous. Really, really famous. And even just being borderline famous seems to be a wildly potent aphrodisiac (after all, women chase Gary Coleman).
It isn't wrong for a guy to want his sex life to be all "I love a parade"; he just needs to figure that out before he marries the nice Swedish woman and makes babies with her. George Clooney, for one, sets a good example. If media reports are correct, he tells the ladies he isn't the committing kind, and when it's over with Francesca he moves on to Elisabetta -- with no need for apologies before the international press and his mom.
Of course, Tiger had to publicly apologize for the bimbo malfunction because he isn't just Tiger the guy who plays golf, but a role model who has countless people depending on him for their livelihoods. If he weren't, he could either have said nothing or said what I suspect is the truth: "I'm not sorry for having sex with all those models, escorts, and busty wafflehouse waitresses. I loved every minute of it. I'm sorry I got caught. But, I'd do it again. And, hope to in the future."
Is there a lesson in this? There is, for the ladies. Women who marry rich, powerful men should recognize that there's a strong temptation for those men to cheat -- especially during the horndog 20s and early 30s. Women can ignore this if they want, or tell themselves their love will make the difference. Or, they can decide the homes, the cars, the yachts, and annual trips to the cheating husband section of the diamond mine are compensation enough.
As a man pinchs self yup still a man Tiger up until the death of his dad was under the thumb always focused on Golf.Never to stray at some point power money every tramp from town to town throwing themself at you 24/7 breaks a man down.
Now Tiger has to get the wingman like a devil and angel on each shoulder like the movie Animal House yelling fuck her brains out and Lawance I am so proud.The dream job of being paid 250K a year to make sure old Tiger is not trying to bed that Blond hair bed thrasher down at the pancake house Sign me up
RexRedbone at March 17, 2010 2:19 AM
huh? Maybe try writing in complete sentences next time?
bradley13 at March 17, 2010 2:36 AM
Interesting. Yes, men are horndogs. Which doesn't change the fact that Tiger made a promise and broke it. It rationalizes his actions, but does not excuse them.
And Henry VIII only beheaded two wives out of six. But poor Henry has a few misconceptions surrounding him. Including one that I saw on this blog: that he divorced his wives because they got fat.
Not true. Not saying he wasn't a vile slime who treated his wives like shit, but he didn't end his marriages because his wives got fat. He wanted to secure his succession with sons, and his wives weren't giving him any. Jane Seymour (wife number three) gave him one, but unfortunately died while doing it.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 2:59 AM
"Jane Seymour (wife number three) gave him one, but unfortunately died while doing it."
That must have been after Live and Let Die then.
Sorry, I had to do that.
old rpm daddy at March 17, 2010 4:20 AM
Nah. Plenty of girls will give it up free even to not-rich men. You can have Tiger's quality women any night at closing time. Not every man wants to fuck random germ-infested skanks constantly. Not every straight or gay guy.
momof4 at March 17, 2010 5:10 AM
Look, what it all comes down to is, guys are hornier than women, most of the time. There are exceptions, of course, but once all is said and done, men just want it more and with more variety. People just have to learn to deal with it. Some deal better than others.
Flynne at March 17, 2010 5:34 AM
The answer of course to the LW's question is the old joke - why do dogs lick their balls? Because they can...
Funny, while I agree men are more promiscuous and less picky about their women (couldn't Tiger have done better? Seriously you could have anyone mate, cocktail waitresses are for anonymous losers like me aren't they?), my long term partners have all been very horny and demanding women. The expectation that men want sex morning, noon, and night tends to fall apart when it's offered on a regulasr basis. Not that I didn't try...
But that supports the point I suppose that men want variety over regularity.
Ltw at March 17, 2010 6:21 AM
"Which doesn't change the fact that Tiger made a promise and broke it."
We have no idea what promises Tiger made, or didn't make, to his wife. You are supposing.
As a highly public figure, his media releases are designed to cultivate an image and a brand. The damage control being done now is not necessarily based on what his life actually is, but rather the image they need to project in order to restore Tiger, Inc.
In short, we have no clue who he really is or what he and his wife understood their marriage to be.
And yes, Tiger is simply doing what most men--not all men, but most--would do if they were rich, famous and in their twenties. Sorry, gals, if that disturbs your sense of things.
Spartee at March 17, 2010 6:21 AM
Spartee: We have no idea what promises Tiger made, or didn't make, to his wife. You are supposing.
I assume his marital vows didn't include fucking everything that moved.
Yes, I do know what promises he made to his wife. The same ones everyone else does when they go through this prehistoric ritual.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 6:31 AM
"Or, they can decide the homes, the cars, the yachts, and annual trips to the cheating husband section of the diamond mine are compensation enough."
What's ironic is that most of the married women I know who complain about their husbands never say "he doesn't love me enough" or "he's not a good companion." They always use words like "lazy" or "irresponsible" or "not a good provider."
Razor at March 17, 2010 7:26 AM
"Yes, I do know what promises he made to his wife. The same ones everyone else does when they go through this prehistoric ritual."
Oh, please. Just stop. You have no idea what was or is going on in his marriage. There is nothing wrong with that--none of us have any idea.
When people have strong opinions about other people's marriages, it tells us much about the speaker's views on marriage and sex, but nothing about the gossip target's life; every marriage is a mystery to outsiders, and we project our lives onto such things.
Spartee at March 17, 2010 7:35 AM
Bah. The whole Tiger affair exists in a sphere so far removed from the lives of nearly everyone else that its relevance in the real world is nil.
Cousin Dave at March 17, 2010 7:41 AM
Plenty of girls will give it up free even to not-rich men. You can have Tiger's quality women any night at closing time. Not every man wants to fuck random germ-infested skanks constantly. Not every straight or gay guy.
Yup. It's all about mating strategy. Some guys are more successful trying to hit everything that moves. Some are more successful being selective. Same goes for women. If I believed that having lots of indiscriminate sex improved my chances (for love, good sex, babies, whatever), I would do that.
My fiance only partly jokes that he's a nerd because, while it killed his chances of getting laid early in life, later he had access to women across the board -- smart chicks who want smart men with stable careers, and skanks who want men who can afford to buy them drinks.
MonicaP at March 17, 2010 7:54 AM
I think he makes a good example in relation to the brain blog. (Brain blog...sounds like how I feel this morning.)
Pricklypear at March 17, 2010 8:12 AM
Patrick: My wife and I wrote our own wedding vows. There is nothing in them about "forsaking all others."
This was not deliberate, as in, "Let's have an open marriage and write the vows accordingly," but it is nonetheless true, and while it wouldn't be a very nice thing to do I wouldn't be breaking any promises if I were to boff every bored waitress I could trick into the linen closet between courses. Lots of people write their own vows. So don't be so sure you know what promises who made to whom. ;)
sardonic_sob at March 17, 2010 8:17 AM
*****What separates the sex addicts from the porn addicts? Being rich enough to get the girls in 3-D.*****
BAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, I really needed a laugh this morning. I snorted coffee out of my nose.
Ann at March 17, 2010 8:34 AM
"Or, they can decide the homes, the cars, the yachts, and annual trips to the cheating husband section of the diamond mine are compensation enough."
This only works to a point. I think it's easier if you never loved him in the first place...if it was always a golddigger business-type relationship.
Sure, women like money and a secure life, but for most women who marry these types of men, there's more than that - there's a courtship and romance. If you only viewed him as a sugardaddy from the start, it's easier to swallow the infidelity in exchange for the lifestyle, but if you believed there was real love there - and love is important to you - then it's very hard to maintain that when your partner is lying and cheating.
Still, if it's ONLY cheating - guys fulfilling their biological or evolutionary needs - that's also easier to take. But what doesn't really fit with evolutionary theory, and what I've seen finally destroy many relationships like this (including my own), is that men do want to connect emotionally, not just sexually. If he was just boffing some cocktail waitress when he was out of town, that's almost, for many of us...somewhat forgivable. Don't ask. Don't tell.
Yet, I think that gets old for anybody. Sex without emotions sounds great to guys who haven't had that 100 times already, but rich guys get casual sex thrown at them all the time, and it gets boring and unfulfilling. They start craving true romance served up with their free sex.
Where Tiger really went wrong was apparently falling in love with one of these women...and fucking these skanks in the family home, where his wife and children live. One even took pictures of their bedroom!
Elin is a stronger women than me if she can forgive either one of those things.
lovelysoul at March 17, 2010 9:19 AM
>>>>As a man pinchs self yup still a man Tiger up until the death of his dad was under the thumb always focused on Golf.Never to stray at some point power money every tramp from town to town throwing themself at you 24/7 breaks a man down. Now Tiger has to get the wingman like a devil and angel on each shoulder like the movie Animal House yelling fuck her brains out and Lawance I am so proud.The dream job of being paid 250K a year to make sure old Tiger is not trying to bed that Blond hair bed thrasher down at the pancake house Sign me up
Best. Comment. Evar!!
Carl at March 17, 2010 9:39 AM
"Sex without emotions sounds great to guys who haven't had that 100 times already, but rich guys get casual sex thrown at them all the time, and it gets boring and unfulfilling. They start craving true romance served up with their free sex."
Look, a woman explaining the nuance of male sexuality to the world. So, guys, how close to the mark is she?
Not very, to my eye.
Spartee at March 17, 2010 9:58 AM
Then, Spartee, explain why men fall for their mistresses and break up families over them. If it was just about sex that would never happen.
lovelysoul at March 17, 2010 10:21 AM
Word has it Tiger and Elin are going out clubbing tonight ...
WHO-WAH! I'm just gettin' started ... Thank you, I'm here all week; tip your waitresses, try the veal ..
Mr. Teflon at March 17, 2010 10:21 AM
Men like recreational sex; women like recreational shopping.
After having sex with a really good-looking woman, in their heart of hearts most men want to ask, "Can you set me up with your foxy friends?"
After really good sex, most women want a lifelong monogamous relationship.
Quite a gulf.
BOTU at March 17, 2010 10:28 AM
"Then, Spartee, explain why men fall for their mistresses and break up families over them. If it was just about sex that would never happen."
Sure it would. Men may want to keep sexing the mistress more than they want to hang out with their kids. If abandoning the family is needed for access to the mistress' goods, then it could well be an instance of, "Sorry, kids, dad is out of here! Good nookie beckons!" (Hence the common, but often unheeded, advice to never, ever cut off your husband from sex...unless you want him to find other lovers.)
Here is a little secret guys won't share with women they marry or love: a man can be utterly indifferent towards--heck they can even hate--a woman and still want to have sex with *that* woman more than the woman the man married/loves. (When I say "can", I don't mean to imply this is a constant state, but it is not terribly unusual either.)
Men don't divulge that sort of fact about ourselves too much to women for the reason that women might be very upset to know that about the men they love. Men generally don't like dealing with upset women, so we avoid such scenes whenever possible.
My sense of women is they are decidely *not* like that, so a similarly profound disconnect between sexual desire and emotional attachment seems unimaginable to them.
Spartee at March 17, 2010 11:39 AM
I think it depends on the man. Many men have gotten far more attached to me emotionally after sex than me to them. And I noticed right away that this was very important to my boyfriend - that we connect emotionally, not just have sex. I wasn't used to that, as a lot of men are content without it, but he needed eye contact, kissing, touching and cuddling even more than me.
So, it's tough to generalize. Men and women are different, but men are different from each other too.
The problem with these affuent male/trophy wife relationships is that even though there are evolutionary motivations at work, it's ultimately unfair for only the man to have fresh new encounters all the time while the woman shops for shoes.
Yes, we love shoes, but just like meaningless screwing, meaningless shopping gets old and boring if you do it enough. Plus, although women may not crave sex as much as men, most of us still like it. We long for the heart-pounding, lustful excitement of a new encounter too. Everyone needs to feel attractive and desired.
So, it just becomes an unfair arrangement unless the man is willing to open the door for the wife to have a little fun on the side too, which hardly ever happens. Maybe in the past women had to accept these situations, and look the other way, but now, almost any woman with self-respect will weigh her options and see she's better off either alone or with a man who values her enough not to cheat.
lovelysoul at March 17, 2010 12:17 PM
"In short, we have no clue who he really is or what he and his wife understood their marriage to be."
Ahem. Sure we do - well, maybe not you, 'cuz you missed it:
Tiger ran his SUV into a hydrant and a pole.
That's not a sign he was doing what he was supposed to be doing.
Radwaste at March 17, 2010 1:24 PM
I think the biggest part of Tiger's problem is the quality of women he was with. A man who is richer than some of the smaller European countries can afford discretion. There are celebrities that have affairs that don't blow up in their faces this way. I liken Tiger's situation to Steve McNair's, albeit on a lesser scale. McNair had had affairs that the general public did not know about, but then he took up with a nutjob at a sports bar (and apparently everyone there knew about their relationship) and she went homicidal when he was cheating on her with another mistress. I think Mr. Woods is lucky that his women were just famewhores.
NumberSix at March 17, 2010 1:38 PM
"What's ironic is that most of the married women I know who complain about their husbands never say "he doesn't love me enough" or "he's not a good companion." They always use words like "lazy" or "irresponsible" or "not a good provider.""
That's worth this second look.
And I have just been quite surprised to find (NSFW!) this on-line. Got $$? Maybe a professional is the wise choice.
Radwaste at March 17, 2010 1:48 PM
$275 an hr is apperntly 'not bad' for a high class hooker according to some guys I know
But what kind of agency only has five girls?
lujlp at March 17, 2010 2:46 PM
I've had some great sex with some guys I maybe didn't hate, but sure didn't "like". It can make for fireworks. Women rarely do without sex, guys, unless it's a hormone/medical problem. If you're doing without it from your wife, I'd want to know where she's getting it. Probably before I decided to go get it elsewhere, if I were you. But hey, that's just a woman's opinion on women. Not like we know anything. We can really love that great provider/friend/coparent hubby, but still want the young pool guy to flip us over and do us on the patio.
It's. not. just. you. Just like wanting monogamy isn't just us.
momof4 at March 17, 2010 4:09 PM
I think a comedian summed it up best...a man is only as loyal as his options. (I think it was Chris Rock.) With Tiger's kind of money...he has LOTS of options.
Renee at March 17, 2010 5:42 PM
Yeah momof4 it's common enough from what i have seen. Sugar and spice and bullshit.
Richard Cook at March 17, 2010 7:43 PM
It's. not. just. you. Just like wanting monogamy isn't just us.
Thank you for pointing out something that tends to get glossed over: Women like sex, too. Women like sex with attractive men who are good at sex. Often, men act like they invented lust and have cornered the market on what it feels like to be horny.
MonicaP at March 17, 2010 9:21 PM
"Oh, please. Just stop" yourself. Obviously, there is an understanding of fidelity in both parties or the incident in the wee hours of the morning involving a perfectly innocent tree and fire hydrant wouldn't have happened, now would it?
So spare me the self-righteous finger wagging about how I don't know what promises were made. Obviously, someone had an expectancy of marital fidelity and it's plain idiotic to pretend we don't know that.
Why wouldn't it be nice? Sounds like a lot of fun to me. If there's no understanding of marital fidelity between you and your wife, why wouldn't it be nice to "boff every bored waitress [you] could trick into the linen closet"?
Seems like a very nice thing to do, actually. Unless you're an unbelievably bad lover, I think it would solve their "bored" problem, right?
But you say it wouldn't be nice? But...but...but...you never promised fidelity, so you're free to do just that, right?
It wouldn't be nice because regardless of the words you specifically used in your marital vows, fidelity was the implicit understanding. You just proved that by saying "it wouldn't be nice." By not making it abundantly clear that you intended an open marriage (preferably long before you took your self-penned marital vows to the altar), you implied the marriage would be monogamous, and you yourself said so with your "it wouldn't be nice" to boff every bored food server.
Checkmate.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 9:49 PM
Actually, it was a hydrant and a tree. You know, because he was having trouble deciding between a wood and an iron.
You know the difference between a golf ball and an SUV?
Tiger Woods can drive a golf ball 350 yards.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 9:53 PM
In response to the people saying that we don't know what kind of understanding he and his wife had, I think it is important to mention that while that may be true, we can surmise from the events that said understanding did have limits. Else, as Patrick and others pointed out, we wouldn't have heard about it. Nothing came out until the car accident. So maybe they did have an understanding about what Tiger could do while touring, but I think it's fairly obvious that he broke whatever rules that they had set up.
and while it wouldn't be a very nice thing to do I wouldn't be breaking any promises if I were to boff every bored waitress I could trick into the linen closet between courses.
Gotta love a technicality, right? If this were really true, more divorced men would have cried "But I never technically promised her I wouldn't screw other women!" Doesn't happen. If you never had a conversation where both parties agreed they can have sex with others, this is not a valid argument. While I'm all for blanketing these things with the term "consenting adults," if both adults have not given consent, it is cheating.
NumberSix at March 17, 2010 10:03 PM
Frankly, the amount of fuss about this amazes me. Tiger Woods is an unfaithful husband. Yeah...like about 90% or more of Big-Name Athletes. Between the "gotta f*ck the biggest jock I can find" syndrome a lot of women still have from HS and college, and the curiosity about what doing a famous person is like, he probably had more opportunities than most men can imagine.
My own take is that any partner that got violent enough with me to be swinging a golf club at me would be gone for good. That's it. No second chance. No saving throw. No apologies accepted. Just "get out and if I ever see you on my property again, I'll shoot you for a burglar." If it had been a man chasing and swinging a golf club at his cheating sports-star wife, we'd be hearing about how far into the dungeons he was going to be thrown, and how hard they'd have to work to pump in light to him.
Technomad at March 17, 2010 11:29 PM
"involving a perfectly innocent tree and fire hydrant"
Innocent? I think not. That pair had been hanging around outside their house for years. Damned suspicious.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 17, 2010 11:55 PM
Henry wasnt a serial mongamist... he was having affairs all over the place, in addition to his many wives.
Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, died.
Only two were beheaded. That makes it all better. One of whom, according to legend, gets the best last words of all time "I die a Queen, but I would rather have died the wife of Thomas Culpepper." BAM!!! (She probably didn't really say it. But don't you wish she had?)
nicoleK at March 18, 2010 5:26 AM
Patrick: You were the one who said you knew what promises someone had made, based on their "marital vows" and their participation in the "prehistoric ritual." I pointed out a perfectly valid counterexample. I'm right, you're wrong.
Perhaps it's because I'm a lawyer, or perhaps it's because I'm a bastard-coated bastard with bastard filling (these two are often related but not *necessarily* the same thing) but to me a promise is a promise, and a convention or an understanding or an assumption is... not a promise. I got married, full prehistoric ritual (well, we were married by a judge.) I didn't promise not to have sex with other people and neither did she. We both wrote the vows, we both knew what was in them, we both said "I do." It wouldn't be very nice for me to go Tiger Woods for a variety of reasons, but I wouldn't be breaking a promise if I did it. And for all you know, neither was he.
sardonic_sob at March 18, 2010 6:42 AM
So, sardonic, if you catch your wife with another man, you'll be fine with that because she didn't technically promise not to? And, you also wouldn't use it against her in court, in the divorce, even though it might be an advantage? You'll explain to the judge that fidelity wasn't actually in your wedding vows? Yeah, right.
lovelysoul at March 18, 2010 7:18 AM
lovelysoul: What do any of those things have to do with whether or not somebody made a promise to somebody else?
For instance, if I walked up to you and poured paint over your head whilst you strolled harmlessly down the boulevard, you'd be justifiably upset with me, I'll wager. That is because I would have violated the social contract - that is, the mutual "agreement" we all have that you won't pour paint over my head uninvited, and I will likewise refrain. And you'd be able to not only get the majority of people to agree that I was a bad person, but more importantly, you'd be able to get the police and the courts to agree and do something about it.
However, the fact remains that I did not promise not to pour paint on your head, and your outrage would not, in any way, come from a sense of having had an oath betrayed. If you asked anybody whether my pouring paint over the head of a total stranger made me a liar or a cheat, they'd look at you as if you were almost as crazy as the pigment-pitching perpetrator. That's because the social contract is not a real contract. They are both important, but they are not the same thing.
Likewise, the "marriage contract" is, in the eyes of the law, an enforceable agreement whose terms are largely set by statute and precedent. Adultery, in many jurisdictions, is a violation of the marriage contract, and entitles the other party to terminate it. (Interestingly, impotence and infertility have in various times and places been viewed likewise. Would you say that not being able to get it up or having excessively acidic cervical mucus was in actuality some kind of breaking of troth?) This would be true even if the marriage vows explicitly stated, "By the way, though you're pledging your love to me eternally before God and the County Clerk, it's fine by me if you operate a tasteful brothel in the downstairs apartment with yourself as starting quarterback." If it was really a contract, you'd be free to set the terms. You are not. It may look like a contract, and quack like a contract, but contrary to the usual experience in this case it's a platypus.
As for what I personally would do or think, that's totally irrelevant. (While no one can be sure what they'll do in any given situation until it arises, my own belief is that I'd do exactly what you sneeringly suggest I would to imply that I would not.) The question is whether one can posit from the fact that two people are married that if one of them has sex with someone not a party to the marriage, that person is automatically breaking a promise. The answer is that one can not.
sardonic_sob at March 18, 2010 7:53 AM
I'd just like to point out that not all rich people have affairs or treat their spouses badly. We sure hear about it when they get caught. And of course they have more chances... if someone has a tendancy to be a cheater there will certainly more opportunities for them if they are rich... but it doesn't follow that all rich people are jerks.
NicoleK at March 18, 2010 8:11 AM
Easy to tell you're a lawyer, sardonic. :)
Marriage vows are fairly meaningless from a literal standpoint. Some still say the traditional "honor and obey," but that doesn't mean they'll actually take orders.
You're right that there's a "social contract", an implication of how we are all supposed to act. Anyone can change that but the burden is on them to do so. I could say, "I'd love for you to throw paint on me!" but it must be by agreement. Not saying, "Don't throw paint on me!" doesn't void the social contract or expectation.
Likewise, any couple can choose to have an open relationship, but it would have to be clear. Otherwise, there is an implied promise of fidelity because that is the default view that everyone holds about marriage.
You can try to tangle this up with the word "promise", as if fidelity is something that must be pledged aloud to be ethically binding, but the reverse is actually true. If you're not going to be faithful, you need to say so.
lovelysoul at March 18, 2010 8:20 AM
lovelysoul: I find the idea that someone would take a vow they had no intention of living up to exactly as offensive as I find the view that one can state that "the default view that everyone holds" about anything is the moral equivalent to an explicit promise. If she promised to "obey," then if I tell her to jump, the response I expect to get is "Is this okay?" as she reaches apogee. (Our vows, by the way, did not include that promise.) One could certainly debate whether morality would require an order to feed the children into a wood-chipper be carried out, but failing to comply would in fact be breach of promise. (I've told clients to breach contracts without blinking an eye, because the consequences of breach were less than the consequences of compliance. Doesn't mean it wasn't a breach.)
Whether you think this is rational or not is beside the point. A promise is a promise, what is not a promise is not a promise.
I've already said that I didn't think it would be nice, and I'll go further and say that I don't think it would be smart. If I were our esteemed hostess, giving "advice for the real world," I would even go so far as to say, "Don't do that, moron, and expect what she may think was a typo in the judge's cheat sheet to save you." But logically speaking, I'm right, you and Patrick are wrong, and I'll happily refute arguments to the contrary from now until Doomsday. However, I'll do it in email from here out if you wish to continue, because I think I've abused her hospitality quite enough. (My email address is my nick at yahoo dotcom)
sardonic_sob at March 18, 2010 8:43 AM
Tell you what. If and when that issue comes up, you just pull the "I never promised marital fidelity" argument and let us know how it works for you.
You can pretend you've got a valid point all you care to, but as I said before, you have been checkmated. Knock the king over. You're done. Whether you admit it or not.
Patrick at March 18, 2010 10:32 AM
Actually, compared to Henry's predecessors, he had relatively few affairs. That's because he married most of them. Notice, I don't say he had NO affairs...just fewer. Anne Boleyn's sister, for instance, was one of Henry's mistresses who never became queen.
Wife number two (Anne Boleyn, mother of Elizabeth I, the most celebrated -- and luckiest -- monarch in England's history) was lady-in-waiting to wife number one (Katherine of Aragon, mother of Mary I, aka Bloody Mary, probably the worst monarch in England's history save King John). Wife number three (Jane Seymour, mother of Edward the VI) was lady-in-waiting to wives nos. one and two. Wife number five (Katherine Howard, the one who supposedly said, "I die a Queen, but I would rather die the wife of Culpepper!") was lady-in-waiting to wife number four (Anne of Cleves).
And the mnemonic is "divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, SURVIVED." Wife number six (Katherine Parr) outlived Henry VIII, and went on to marry her fourth husband, Thomas Seymour (brother to Henry's third wife, Jane Seymour).
While the mnemonic you cite is useful, it's technically inaccurate. Henry never divorced any of his wives. He annulled his marriages to them. It would more properly read, annulled, annulled and beheaded, died, annulled, annulled and beheaded, survived.
Granted it probably made no difference to his wives, but a divorce is ending a marriage while an annullment is saying the marriage never existed. If Henry himself were asked, he would likely say he had two wives, Jane Seymour and Katherine Parr, the only wives whose marriages he did not annul.
And finally, I didn't say it makes it all the better that Henry lopped off two of his wives' heads. I point this out only for the sake of accuracy.
(Just one more piece of trivia. Wife number six, Katherine Parr, only barely survived that marriage with her head attached. Henry was getting on in years, and his already notorious temper was aggravated by an ulcerated leg and obesity. The church he created to get rid of Katherine of Aragon [wife number one] was still essentially Catholic. Katherine Parr, on the other hand, was part of a growing protestant movement, and authored several popular devotional books, making her one of only eight women to be published in the first half of the sixteenth century, and she was encouraging Protestant movements throughout England. She also developed the extremely foolish and dangerous habit of debating religion with Henry. Predictably, the King was not pleased and began to draw up the charges to make sure Katherine would meet the same end as two of her predecessors. Fortunately for Katherine, she got wind that she was in really, really hot water, and she knew what she had to do. She went to Henry, found him ready to debate religion, swallowed her pride and deferred to him on every point, claiming that she only argued with him to distract him from his pains and learn from him herself. Not honest, but she was restored to good graces with her husband and lived to marry husband number four.)
Patrick at March 18, 2010 12:28 PM
OK, she survived HIM, but she sure is dead now! So eventually, she died ;)
I never said you said it made it all better!
NicoleK at March 18, 2010 1:37 PM
First of all, humans are moderately polygynous, but, for the most part, monogamous. So, yes, males are more inclined to new conquests than women, but only when they can get away with it. Genghis Khan could get away with it because he beheaded those who stood in his way. (And quite a few more than Henry, I dare say.) I don't see why golfers, actors and politicians should be kowtowed to as they they were Genghis Khans.
I'm especially curious why when some rich bloke like Tiger screws around on his wife, a number of guys will all cheer for him. Um, guess what guys, the biggest losers in the mating game when rich and power men get more than their fair share of women are guys like you. The greater the reproductive variance among males, the less chance ordinary guys have to pass on their genes, or even get laid.
tara at March 18, 2010 1:38 PM
Nichole: "I never said you said it made it all better!"
You wrote, "Only two were beheaded. That makes it all better."
It wasn't to exonerate Henry that I pointed out that two wives were beheaded. I only mentioned this for the sake of accuracy. Henry did not simply behead his current wife when he wanted a new one. Only two of them actually died that way, and what he did to Katherine of Aragon was arguably worse.
Anne of Cleves, although she was the one Henry liked least, actually got off the best. She was an arranged marriage and Henry did not meet her first. He did commission famed artist of the day, Hans Holbein the younger to paint portraits of various ladies whom Henry considered. Henry was interested in sixteen year old Duchess Christina of Milan, but she made it abundantly clear she was not interested in becoming wife number of Henry VIII, whose reputation preceded him. She reportedly said, "If I had two heads, one of them would be at the King of England's disposal."
Ouch.
He eventually settled on Anne of Cleves. While Holbein's portrait suggests nothing blatantly unattractive about her, Henry was promptly revolted when he met her face to face. He was so turned off, that he was unable to consummate the marrriage. She agreed to an annulment six months later. Henry was profoundly grateful for her cooperation. So much so that she was granted a generous settlement of estates and manors, and Henry issued a standing proclaimation that his adopted sister Anne was to receive precedence over all ladies of the kingdom save for his wife and daughters. She was a frequent guest at court, treated well by Henry, and his daughters when they got their turns at the throne.
Ironic how the one he liked least got the best treatment.
Nichole: "OK, she survived HIM, but she sure is dead now! So eventually, she died ;)"
Funny you should mention that, darlin', because her remains had a lot of interesting adventures all their own.
After she married Thomas Seymour, life was bliss for the Queen Dowager. Tragically, it didn't last. She had her first child...and like Henry's third wife, Jane Seymour, she died doing it.
She was buried in Sudeley Castle Chapel, but after years of disuse, no one knew exactly where. Over 230 years later, the coffin was discovered by one John Locust, who hacked open her tomb and found the corpse in amazingly good condition. Reputedly, one of her arms was still soft and moist. After stealing a couple of locks of her hair, he closed the coffin. Less than a year later, visitors reported a nauseating stench emanating from the tomb. Sudeley Chapel was sealed off. Ten years after Locust had made his morbid discovery, some drunks decided that the Queen Dowager deserved a decent burial, so they did...upside down. In 1817, the corpse was exhumed yet again, but Katherine had decomposed to nothing but a skeleton.
Her remains were moved to the tomb of Lord Chandros, whose family owned the Sudeley Castle Chapel. The Chapel was finally rebuilt by one Sir John Scott, and Katherine was given a proper altar-tomb at last. And just think! It only took three centuries for the good lady to be allowed to rest in peace! Or rest in pieces.
Patrick at March 18, 2010 2:29 PM
As Chris Rock said, "Men are only as faithful as their opportunities." And that would hold true for Tiger. Like you said, he's rich, he's famous, he's talented and decent looking. That's four for four, which means everywhere he goes women are throwing themselves at him. (But I'm not excusing him, just stating a fact)
I just wonder why he got married in the first place?? Knowing what we all know now, that just doesn't compute??
Now he's a scoundrel.
One of The Guys at March 18, 2010 5:43 PM
That's 'divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived'.
Henry VIII's last wife, Catherine Parr, outlived him.
AntoniaB at March 18, 2010 7:27 PM
Momof4: You can have Tiger's quality women any night at closing time.
All women are quality women after 10 drinks.
mpetrie98 at March 19, 2010 7:40 AM
AntoniaB: Henry VIII's last wife, Catherine Parr, outlived him.
Actually, so did wife number 4, Anne of Cleves, but she was divorced from him by then, and much happier managing her own estates that her former husband had given her.
Patrick at March 19, 2010 10:02 PM
I said "That makes it all better". I didn't say YOU said it.
Poor Anne of Cleves. But at least she didn't get beheaded...
NicoleK at March 22, 2010 6:40 PM
I think the Tiger Woods case provides a cautionary tale to professional athletes with respect to levels of privacy. Traditionally (if you can call 30-50 years a tradition), pro athletes were limited purpose public figures - i.e., their personal lives were private but anything having to do with their sport was fair game (speculation about injuries, training regimen, etc.).
The game changes (pun intended) when you become so huge like Tiger Woods or Michael Phelps - especially when you get a lot of endorsement deals whose contracts inevitably have those ubiquitous "morals" clauses.
factsarefacts at March 23, 2010 9:24 AM
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Any woman that marries a rich, prominent, young athlete that must travel a great deal, and expects him to be faithful...is an IDIOT.
Nothing more. Nothing less. An IDIOT.
She should have seen it coming before they got married. If she were SMART she should have haggled over it.
"Every time you pounce on something pretty, I expect you to get tested, and I expect you to provide me with a new toy, trip, shopping spree...etc." He'd have probably been just fine with that.
Then, no surprises, no unpleasantness, no problems.
Robert at March 23, 2010 11:37 AM
"You can have Tiger's quality women any night at closing time."
Quality? These women RAN to the press with text, email, and vmail messages from Tiger so that they could make a buck off his back. They fucked Tiger because it gave them associated power and presteige, nothing more, nothing less. In the end, it wasn't just Tiger who looked like a skank.
Those wondering why Elin didn't haggle for position/power with Tiger are not thinking like a MOM... Elin and Tiger have 2 children, so she is tied to Tiger by more than just the marriage licence. She loves him (or did). The very thought that Elin should have demanded a yacht every time he fucked a waitress is disgusting. When you love someone, and you find out they are cheating on you, (no matter what their social position is) you can tend to go a little crazy, and that explains the "Teeing off on Tiger" incident, though we will never hear the whole, true story surrounding that, but -hey- that's private marital stuff, and if she really did knock out Tiger's teeth with a golf club, well, he shouldn't have tempted her. I'm guessing that it probably wasn't their first argument over his infidelities.
Why did he get married in the first place? Only Tiger can answer that question. Sometimes we're too soon old, and too late smart.
Yes, Tiger's tale provides a cautionary note for all high-profile people, but you'd think he would have known all this without having to be told by his parents. No matter who you are, when you marry, you are expected to keep the boys at home. The higher your profile, the more likely the press will be at the playground with you when the boys come out to play. It's not Rocket Science.
Bluejean Baby at March 23, 2010 12:50 PM
@ sardonic_sob... "The question is whether one can posit from the fact that two people are married that if one of them has sex with someone not a party to the marriage, that person is automatically breaking a promise. The answer is that one can not."
The mere fact that Elin came out swinging with a golf club proves that she took the marriage vows seriously, and that she loved Tiger, and that she expected him to remain monogomous. Had she been ambiguous, had she not loved Tiger, the golf club incident would never have happened.
Also, the very act of taking marriage vows (stated or unstated) means that you place your partner before all others, and, to quote one of my favourite movies "Braveheart" the wedding vows from their ceremony included the words "you and no other"... gives me chills just thinking of it. But those words do not have to actually be spoken in order for marriage vows to carry the meaning of the whole idea of having the ceremony: from that point onwards, a monogomous union.
Bluejean Baby at March 23, 2010 1:09 PM
"if she really did knock out Tiger's teeth with a golf club, well, he shouldn't have tempted her."
Seriously? Would you have made this argument if it were the reverse? Is it OK if men beat up their women for cheating?
She should have seen this coming a mile away, and is stupid for being blind to it.
Your disgust, such as it is, is part of the problem. You're impractical. Utterly and totally blind to an obvious reality and caught up in romantic notions of eternal disney style love. In the real world, when cinderella settles down with the prince, she does so knowing he's probably going to boff one or two belles at the ball.
Smart women who recognize the nature of men work with that. NOT smart women make both their men & themselves unhappy in perpetuity.
And before you say "Its impractical to expect a man to be faithful/keep his promise/etc" let me make this perfectly clear:
If you happen to be a healthy, WEALTHY FAMOUS, athlete who travels all the time...HELL YES it is impractical.
I don't know Tiger, but you obviously know nothing about male sexuality. You are treating it as if it were a slightly hornier female sexuality, and applying the same standard.
You're treating a screw driver like a hacksaw, and wondering why it doesn't work.
If this woman had been smart, she'd have said before she got married:
"You're Tiger Woods, a rich prominent athlete, women are going to throw themselves at you, and whatever your intentions now, sooner or later you're going to give in to them. So if you want to play, you're going to pay." and then given him her conditions. Women might be horrified by that prospect, but only the most feminine man will even be slightly disturbed.
Most men would say, "fair enough." And been fine with it.
She gets a luxurious life of wealth and ease and a fantastic upbringing for any children she has, provided by him, and he doesn't have to lie about getting laid.
Robert at March 24, 2010 12:31 AM
Robert, I wonder if you would apply the same standard had the situation been reversed: Elin is a gorgeous, independently wealthy SUPERMODEL. I'm sure she has countless opportunities for extramarital affairs. So if it came out that she had been screwing a dozen bartenders behind Tiger's back, would you say, "Well, it's Tiger's fault for marrying a supermodel-he should have expected this"?
I think that when you get to a certain level of wealth and celebrity, the equation of women trading looks/sex for money/security goes out the window. The women are already rich, and the men have sex handed to them daily on a silver platter. You have to assume that when two such people get together, it's because they love each other and want a normal, committed relationship. And this isn't impossible: there are hundreds of successful celebrity marriages that you DON'T hear about because happy relationships are too boring to make the news.
And while I'm sure that there's plenty of women out there that would have jumped at the condition of "if you want to play, you're going to pay" proposed above, Elin clearly wasn't one of them. Tiger should have figured that out and not misrepresented himself so spectacularly.
Shannon at March 24, 2010 6:55 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/03/crouching-tiger.html#comment-1703980">comment from ShannonElin is a gorgeous, independently wealthy SUPERMODEL.
Sorry, but wasn't she somebody's nanny who did some modeling?
Amy Alkon at March 24, 2010 6:57 AM
Robert, you fell into a trap, not intentionally set by me. When i said that Tiger shouldn't have tempted Elin, i did not mean that i approve of spousal assault or violence in any way, shape or form. All i said was that he most certainly misbehaved and brought on her wrath.
Also, you are using such incredible stereotypes about male sexuality, it is enough to make one's head spin! There happen to be kajillions of women out there with very highly functioning sex drives too. For you to say that when a woman marries a man, she should expect him to stray, well then, the reverse also must be considered and adopted as reality. Therefore, what may i ask, is the basis for marriage???
Let's say that Cinderella is the one who boffs the footman, the stable boy, or the head servant. What then is society's view of her???... of course, she's a slut. But when Prince Charming boffs the belles at the ball, he's just doing what's expected of him. Yeah, right. It's the old "boys will be boys" shit. Sorry, but your argument is just so lame.
Further, how do you know what Elin did or didn't say to Tiger before they married? They did, as was reported in the press, have a prenuptual agreement. Again, your argument here is very lame, purporting to know what Elin said to Tiger.
Healthy, wealthy, famous people who do a lot of travelling AND ARE MARRIED have no business boffing anyone but their spouse. Period. That's the only argument i was trying to put forth, and i stick by every word i said now, and previously.
Bluejean Baby at March 24, 2010 11:23 AM
Elin is a gorgeous, independently wealthy SUPERMODEL.
Sorry, but wasn't she somebody's nanny who did some modeling?
She was Jesper Parnevik's nanny and he introduced her to Tiger. He has since gone on the record saying he regrets it now.
She is not a supermodel. She did some modeling when she was about 20 and then worked in a clothing store to finance her schooling. She met Parnevik's wife at the store and then was hired as a nanny. And I don't think she is independently wealthy. She is gorgeous, though.
NumberSix at March 24, 2010 2:46 PM
Yes Patrick, I know Anne of Cleves outlived him, you'll see above that I was correcting the little ditty that NicoleK got wrong and I did get it correct. Anne of Cleves is the second divorced in the ditty.
AntoniaB at March 25, 2010 6:51 PM
I am so sorry that I did not discover advicegoddess sooner. My comment is very late in the game but...
Women love sex just as much as men. In many cultures, especially western, the belief was that women were unable to control their physical desires which is why women had to be parented throughout their lives. A woman's judgement could not be trusted which is why she could not be a religious leader or government representative (apparently our love of sex meant we could not concentrate and achieve a higher mind). It has only been in recent years that the tables were flipped and suddenly men were the ones who needed sex and women supposedly don't. (case in point, some african cultures mutilate a girls genitals in order to prevent them from cheating on their husband)
I am a woman and I have a high sex drive, as do many women I know. I have often wondered why our society believes that men are more likely to sleep around when experience has shown me that women are more likely to have had more sex partners than men.
Ingrid at May 4, 2010 1:00 PM
Leave a comment