Even those of the puritanical mindset should agree that it's better for a dog to just be a dog, rather than a dog who pretends to be the devoted husband and father, inflicting all this distress on a wife and a two-year-old and a ten-month-old.

Someone on an AOL message board supplied a link to a Tiger Woods game. You use the up and down arrows to navigate Tiger Woods in his SUV around the various obstacles in the road. Hit too many of them, and the wife eventually catches him.

Yes, it's not that hard really. If you want to sleep with grotty skanks, feel free, but don't get married and father kids and keep doing it. Only hope he was wearing protection. Shudder.

News reports say Mrs. Woods is shopping around for a divorce lawyer. Why am I not surprised? o.O

Q: What's the difference between Santa Claus and Tiger Woods?

A: Santa stopped after three "ho's"

He's as asshat for cheating. I like his comment though, that transgressions against family don't require or need a public comment. We need to get away from caring so much what people do in private (unless it's a crime) and worry about whether they do their damn job-politicians especially. I can not BELIEVE we spent so much money on Ken Starr.

Puritatical people do not think everyone should be married, or have kids, so yes, I think we'd all agree people incapable of commitment should not make one.

Definately proves that no matter how beautiful you are, someone will tire of you :(

Alison, apparently Tiger tried to get out of wearing protection on several occasions. (And I really hope no one tries the, "Oh, he probably wasn't having sex with his wife anyway" argument I heard when Eliot Spitzer was exposed. They have two children under three; their sex life was still active.)

Anyway, ITA with Amy, but with a caveat. I'm wondering if Tiger doesn't really like having sex with skanky hos, at least not the way one likes, say, winning a major golf tournament or eating great ice cream. The affairs all occurred in the context of his father -- his role model and hero -- having cancer and dying. With him gone, one of the few people in Tiger's life who loved him even when he wasn't famous and rich was taken out. I kinda wonder if it's not that Tiger loooooves skanky hos -- it's that he needed the thrill that came from doing something illicit.

If we had just found out that Tiger had had the occasional one-night stand when it was convenient, I wouldn't have been shocked -- he's a pro athlete with infinite opportunity. What I was shocked by was the magnitude of his actions. A globetrotting pro golf player with 14 mistresses is sacrificing time somewhere else -- and in this case, pretty much the only thing that could go would be time with his kids. Who he's probably not going to see much of after this -- European countries are notoriously bad about respecting U.S. custody rulings when a European parent is involved. That is, of course, wrong -- kids should be able to be with both (non-abusive) parents even if one is a massive cheater -- but it's a reality that isn't likely to change overnight. Also, no one forced him to market himself as the omnipresent squeaky-clean symbol for our times. I have no idea how many mistresses Charles Barkley has had, but since he's never claimed to be a role model, no one cares.

Anyway, as I said, I agree with Amy -- too bad that Tiger couldn't be as honest with himself as George Clooney, OR that he couldn't work through his issues without involving a lot of Barbie knock-offs while married. That having been said, I feel sorry for him. Not the way I feel sorry for his kids, but sorry. All he really knows how to be is a pro athlete. His wife will divorce him and move on; he's stuck in a mire of his own making. Right now, he either has to be honest with himself or stay stuck -- we'll see which way he goes.

>I like his comment though, that transgressions against family don't require or need a public comment.

Unless you're a very public person who craves and demands the attention of the media and who has done your best to sell your squeaky clean image to the public over the last few years. In which case, take what you have earned - and not just the money this time.

His wife chose the public attention too. Only the children are actually deserving of privacy.

I read that the wife has bought a house which can only be reached by sea? Near her home town? I might be rambling, but, if so, good for her. Just hope she lets this fool visit his poor children, even if she doesn't want to be in the same room with him.

"Definately proves that no matter how beautiful you are, someone will tire of you :("

Oh, that's not true, momoffour. It doesn't sound like he grew tired of her. He simply never stopped sleeping with hos...because he thought he could have his cake and eat it too.

Some men, who are sex addicted, and also have very kinky desires, think they can't be that way with the wife. I was reading his texts to one of these skanks and I suspect he is that type. He wanted a pure, more innocent wife, to be the mother of his kids, and these wild, naughty women to feed his dirty side. Men like him can keep things separate like that, and they justify it in a Jekyl and Hyde sort of way. In their minds, they're "protecting" their familes from this ugly side of themselves. Show that to the hooker. Be the ideal family man at home.

Definately proves that no matter how beautiful you are, someone will tire of you :(

This made me think of a few conversations I've had over the years, whenever a celebrity is caught cheating on his beautiful wife. People are always saying, "But she's so pretty! How could he cheat on her?" Like it's OK to cheat if she's a dog.

We need to get away from caring so much what people do in private (unless it's a crime) and worry about whether they do their damn job-politicians especially.

Yes! I can't believe people are still surprised when a formerly squeaky-clean celebrity is proven to be a dirtbag. Everything I know about this story is stuff I read or saw accidentally as I was passing a newsstand or TV. Because it's boring. This happens all the time. People with extraordinary amounts of money, power and ambition often cheat on their spouses because the drive that pushes them toward success in athletics and politics isn't always positive.

"People are always saying, "But she's so pretty! How could he cheat on her?" Like it's OK to cheat if she's a dog."

Wives, listen: Cheating has nothing to do with looks. Men can have steak at home and still chase chopped liver. It's the thrill of the chase, not necessarily the catch.

As if we haven't seen this a million times, but it still shocks people. Beauty is no security against cheating.

The same is true for females, also. The best-looking guys get cheated on too.

"They have two children under three; their sex life was still active."

Um, I think that fact suggests quite the opposite, actually. My guess is mom is not slinking into Tiger's bedroom with naughty on her mind like she did a few years ago.

But it sounds like Mr. Woods' issues are larger than normal neglected, new-dad blues and they apparently predate his marriage.

Oh, Mildred. It's all so ... sordid.

Uck. It's bad all around. I feel badly for wife and children, who didn't deserve any of this, and even a little bit for Tiger, although the mess is of course all of his own making.

"You can't choose your consequences, just your actions"

I am just curious how in the world he thought he'd get away with it. In this day and age of reality shows and tabloids, where EVERYBODY wants their 15 minutes--Did he really think this would not explode at some point?

George Bush jr. showed the way--be an alcoholic and drive drunk, snort coke, dodge the draft, don't serve in your country's war--and then become President.

Tiger Woods ups the ante: Have a wife and lots of drop-dead gorgeous girlfriends, and ace your profession.

Th lesson: Drink a lot, snort coke, shirk your duties, have ribald sex whenever you can--you will rise to the top!

I like it.

Drop-dead gorgeous? You must be snorting something. The wife, yes. Girlfriends, not so much.

I haven't read the stories much because while the number keeps going up, its basically the same story and still none of my business. He made no vows to me so let his wife handle it how she wants. What sickens me is the mistresses selling the stories of their cooch like they have actually accomplished something great with their lives. They prove exactly why a paid escort is the way to go. Discretion!

I don't see any reason to make nasty comments about the other women, and their looks. As for public and squeaky clean? Hmmmm, didn't notice that he came out and said on national TV that he was squeaky clean. He was marketed by companies that he represented as this golf guy, who was really, really a competitive. I don't recall him suggesting he was perfect, not even in his golf game. It is in the mind of the consumer where that got decided.

Meanwhile a rich type A guy just cratered his marriage for reasons unclear to anyone but himself. Is he going to learn anything from it? That's his problem. Sucks for a lot of people, but they aren't us, the audience. All we really need to do is point it out to people, and say: "don't do that." Basically if you're rich, don't get married and/or have kids, unless you have the fortitude to turn away all the people who will be gunning for you. Because they WILL be there.

I actually think Clooney is a pretty good example of that too. Ultimately the number of people who are actually like this is quite small, even though we see them a lot on TV. Essentialy they are a special class.

Clearly Tiger was in the wrong and should not have cheated. If your unhappy in your marraige get out.

I'm kind of at a loss that no one has questioned her.

As Dr. Laura says- Was she a pleasant person to come home to? We don't know. I know many men who avoid going home because as soon as they get there it's nag,bitch,bitch nag. Clearly we don't know if she is a wonderful person to come home to.

I always like it when I listen to Dr. Laura on the radio and she tells a women who is full of complaints- "Would you want to come home to you?"
This question is usually followed by a long silence.

Just because she is nice looking doesn't mean he/she is a nice person.

I tell younger guys I know- "Pamela Anderson might be the bomb to look at but I bet you would get sick of her with in 6 months when the novelty of the sex wore off."

I want to play Devil's advocate here. Tiger's skanky behavior aside, how many people really believe that his wife after three years of dating did not know that she was getting a "player" and very likely made a calculated decision that either "she could change him" or if he continued to play, the financial rewards of marriage to/ divorce from Tiger Woods would be well worth the risk if he continued to play? IMO, either she has a room temperature IQ or she went into this with her eyes wide open. Isabel

Oh, fuck all that. Let's GOSSIP, people!

Anyone remember that French girlfriend he had a few years ago? Stunning. The kind of bloom that has a short afternoon, and he was there for it.

"the nice Swedish woman"

The what? That little piece of white is a contract prostitute - what was she doing when she met him, and how is she living now? And she thinks she's entitled to exclusivity? Maybe when she can buy it like he bought her with his money and fame and glamor. Marriage is supposed to be the union of equals - how close is this arrangement to anything like a union of equals? His mistake was in not making clear to her and insisting she understand her real position.

Ah... This one.

Remind me to become a famously good-looking actor.

I don't recall Tiger ever claiming squeeky-cleanness. He was intensely private.

The "nice Swedish woman"?!

I'd look elsewhere too, if I had a wife who likes to solve problems with talons to the face and a golf club to the head...

When a man commits felonious assault on a woman, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. When a woman commits a felonious assault on a man, we bend over backwards to find reasons why he "deserved it."

She gets no sympathy from me, even if TW is a skank-chasing slut.

> I'm wondering if Tiger doesn't
> really like having sex with skanky
> hos, at least not the way one
> likes, say, winning a major golf
> tournament or eating great
> ice cream.

There's something wonderfully naive about this.

I remember in the late '60s/early '70s, just before electrification came to America. Back in those days in Indiana, the nasty thing that would be said about some girls was that they were "sluts!" (Usually with an exclamation mark! Oh, the people in those days were just horribly, horribly judgmental....)

One of the most exciting (but comforting) days of my life was when I realized their was no such thing as a slut. Some women liked to fuck a lot, and liked to fuck different guys. But their was no weirdness to their psychology, or freaky arithmetic in their morality, or weird Star Trek features to their bodies. They were just getting their needs met.

Althouse –not the sort of person to whom we usually look for insights about this– almost nails it: "The Tiger women are all made-up for nighttime, indoor work, and they are not all that pretty. Tiger’s wife is the Barbie. Tiger’s women to cheat on Elin with are all getting away from Barbie/Elin. It strikes me as a touchingly ordinary search for sex that feels dirty."

The part she gets wrong is the "feels dirty"... Because "a touchingly ordinary search for sex" is plenty of motivation for infidelity all on its own. And a guy who's chasing as much tail as Tiger did isn't looking for peak experiences, he's looking for work-a-day comfort.

Young beauty is young beauty, and it'll always hold special territory in the human heart (see my comment Clooney's girlfriend, above). But fascination with beauty always wears down eventually (see Amy's comment about how Clooney always eventually moves on). The old saw: Show me the most beautiful woman in the world, and I'll show you the guy who's tired of fucking her. (And of course, Nordigren-caliber beauties are famous for being a pain in the ass.)

The thing about feminine nature which few women (except Paglia) understand at a visceral level is that it's smothering and corrosive. No matter how much a man loves his wife, eventually he's going to want a break. He's going to start spending time in the garage, or meeting his buddies for beer too much, or involving himself in boring hobbies or whatever. Because no matter how honest and intelligent and sincere and heartfelt her thoughts and expressions are, he just doesn't want to hear it anymore. (So then she tries to be even more honest&intelligent&sincere&heartfelt, and he runs faster.)

This applies to the greatest beauties, too. Name a movie star who married a beautiful young woman and stayed married to her for the whole ride... For each one you can name, I'll dwarf their fecundity with examples like Quincy Jones and Clint Eastwood (each with seven kids by five wives). And then I'll ask if your example (Paul Newman, maybe) was on his first marriage (no).

Friends, the sad part about the Tiger scandal is that it's more about the 60% loss to the huge golfing industry when he's off the tour than about any sexual insights. He's just the new boy on the stack (Sanford Letterman Spitzer Edwards [and who am I leaving out?]).

Carolla once mocked the "list" articles on the front of Cosmo magazine: Ten Ways to Drive him Crazy with Joy in Bed! "Hey ladies, you wanna make him happy in bed? Invite your best friend for a three-way at the Hyatt."

Whoops!

"Seven kids by five wives" above should probably be "seven kids by five women".

What was I thinking?

"So then she tries to be even more honest&intelligent&sincere&heartfelt, and he runs faster."

Am I the only woman in the world that DOESN"T want to be all sharey? My man gets plenty of space because damn it, I want space from him too! I dont care to talk about feelings (unless it's my kids). But with an adult? Blugh, stop being so needy!

>>The thing about feminine nature which few women (except Paglia) understand at a visceral level is that it's smothering and corrosive.

Sexist rubbish from Crid.

(Nice try at getting a rise from one end of the bar, and a tipsy cheer from the other though!)

"Marriage is supposed to be the union of equals - how close is this arrangement to anything like a union of equals?"

Who is he supposed to marry then? He's a BILLIONAIRE. He's not likely to find an "equal". Look at the Forbes 500 and pick out a wife from that - ick! A few 70 yr old Walmart heirs?

His wife was a nanny for another pro-golfer when they met. She comes from a good family. Her mother is a respected politician in Sweden; her father a radio correspondent, and her twin sister is an attorney. It's unfair to make her sound like a prostitute.

And, Jay R, there's no proof she abused him. That's all been speculation because of the golf clubs, but there was a golf cart, with clubs, sitting by the crashed car. So, that's where they came from - she used them to break the back window because the SUV doors were locked.

Ok, this is plain and simple a bunch of horse shit.

Look, he's a RIDICULOUSLY RICH ATHLETE.

Unless his wife is completely mental, she HAD to expect 24/7 temptation from every hot girl looking for a romp & a story to tell her girl friends.

Now, unless she is completely mental, she knew exactly what the outcome of that was going to be, no matter how pretty the lady love may be, he's on the road all the time.

You can lambast him all you like, but it doesn't change one ounce of human nature. He's Tiger Woods, not Father Tiger Woods, not the pope, he's just a man who has everything women want in a man.

Or are you going to try to tell me that women don't want athletic young rich men.

Gee, why not lambast the chicks who threw themselves at him?

OR...are you going to pretend he actually had to work to get laid?

This is why American women annoy me. NO concept of reality. Damn the 60s & 70s.

> (Nice try at getting a rise from
> one end of the bar, and a tipsy
> cheer from the other though!)

I'm not that clever; you're just wrong, so I only seem superhuman.

Poor TW. Little did he know that one day he would take the place of Octomom and Jon & Kate.

Good Cosh, with proper emphasis on the business considerations, but no slight to the sex & morality.

> Little did he know that one
> day he would take the place
> of Octomom and Jon & Kate.

Good lord you're cruel. Funny, and correct, but cruel.

"OR...are you going to pretend he actually had to work to get laid?"

It seems he had to pay to get laid, which is even more pathetic. At least two of those girls were hookers.

Yes, there are temptations, but he had to be pretty stupid, with all these endorsements, and a beautiful wife and two small children, to risk all that for a few skanky temptations.

I definitely blame the girls too. They knew he was married and were only after his money(honestly, what kind of aphrodisiac is that?)

If he couldn't control himself, he shouldn't have gotten married. It's that simple. He certainly had the option to stay single and be one of the world's most sought after bachelors (after Clooney).

I guess the most revolting thing about the Althouse passage cited above is the implication that sex with plain women is "dirtier", and sex with Swedish beauties is clean.

I'm ashamed for having missed that on the first and second reading.

Does Althouse dye her hair blonde? I forget.

(OK, enough, enough.)

It's just my nature, Crid. Can't change it. (As I'm sure Mr. Woods would agree. Heehee!)

Tiger and his money do nothing for me. He looks like a pouty little boy. I'd take a spin on George Clooney's bike anytime, though, without regard to his money.

Robert, Tiger took a vow. If he couldn't live up to it, he shouldn't have been made it. He could have been Clooney -- I've got no problem with Clooney tomcatting around because he's always been honest about it. But Tiger chose instead to get married and have kids. And if Tiger made a vow and then found he couldn't live up to it, the very least he could have done is 'fessed up to that and given his wife the option of divorcing him or playing around on her own.

Speaking of which, Robert, do you really think Tiger's drop-dead twenty-something year-old model wife couldn't sleep with whatever man she wanted? I'll bet far more men would sleep with her than women would sleep with Tiger. (Like I said, Tiger doesn't do squat for me and never did. I'd be curious to know what other ladies on this thread think. Would an affair with Tiger have tempted you?) I'll bet not a man on this board wouldn't have slept with her. So given her gorgeousness, was it therefore "completely mental" for Tiger to expect to live up to her marital vows? Of course not. But she did live up to them (I'm sure we would have heard otherwise by now if she didn't).

This is why American men -- ok, just Robert -- annoy me.

Move overseas. 'Bye now.

Okay, Gail. Knee-jerk reaction, no knee-jerk at all. I do not find Tiger Woods attractive. Maybe he's a real charmer when you talk to him, but he doesn't do it for me. Neither does golf.

It's not all about looks with me, though. Give me Gene Wilder in his Blazing Saddle days, or Charles Bronson. Or Toshiro Mifuni, or yes George Clooney, or Steve Reeves, or--ahem.

Anyway, Tiger Woods...meh.

Just a guess, but perhaps the reason TW paid for it was because he may have had a sense that somehow they'd be more discreet (obviously seriously misplaced trust). Like it was a business deal for them, an exchange of goods for services rendered, and some measure of discretion was implied. Boy, did he peg that one wrong. Guess the desire to be the cover girl on the National Enquirer (at least for a day) won out.

On a totally unrelated note, it amazes me that our friend BB manages to bring Bush into even this conversation! Never pass up an opportunity to bash, I s'pose....

> it amazes me that our friend BB manages
> to bring Bush

Earth was a verdant paradise until Boosh taught the little children how to hate.

I have theories about this. See Alkon's (and Matt Welch's) tweets from earlier this afternoon: Basically, life is real good, so people get confused about how they're supposed to feel and why they don't feel good.

Oh, that's right. Crid annoys me too.

For the record, American men don't in general annoy me (except Crid. And at least in this particular instance, Robert). I was just making fun of Robert's "this is why American women annoy me". Whenever a guy gratuitously dumps all American women into a single basket, I assume he's one of those pathetic guys who goes trolling for foreign mail order brides because he can't get a date here.

OK -- we have two thumbs down on Tiger's supposed irresistable hotness. Any other votes?

Jay R, marriage is a points system. Beauty=more points, money =more points. That's why rich people tend to be with beautiful people, or rich and beautiful people. They were equals on the desirability and marriage market.

My guess is he was probably happy with his wife, loved his kids, and married her and had kids because he wanted a wife and kids. He also wanted to mess around with a lot of other women, so he did that, too. He is used to getting everything he wants. Consideration of other people is not necessary in his equation.

heh, Gail... Women might sleep with a very rich powerful man, men are prolly way more interested if a woman is willing...

:shrug: dunno that I think Elin is drop-dead anything, but that isn't the Q? really. Seem like most of the pictures are of similar women, similar to her.

"Whenever a guy gratuitously dumps all American women into a single basket, I assume he's one of those pathetic guys who goes trolling for foreign mail order brides because he can't get a date here."

Yup. And watch for accusations of "shaming language," whatever the hell that is. They have their own strange lingo.

Or Harvey Keitel or Yul Brynner or Craig Ferguson or Gerard Butler(sigh) or Alice Cooper (you heard me) or Richard Chamberlain (I could have changed him! yeah, right) or Christopher Lee or James Earl Jones or Pierce Brosnan or...

geez pricklypear, you need a drink... ;)

News reports say Mrs. Woods is shopping around for a divorce lawyer. Why am I not surprised? o.O

I hope she gets her $300 million from that asshole. That is apparently what she is due, according to a formula in their pre-nup.

Well, I need something.... but back to topic, it ain't Tiger Woods.

@Brogdin Buttlesworth:

I see your point. For example, you can do drugs, associate with bomb-throwing leftists, promise some nebulous "hope" and "change," and WHAMMO! -- you too can be President!

As for Tiger being hot: Back in my heyday, maybe not. But now, If we connected when we talked, and he looked at me like he thought I was hot, ohh yeaa. He is not bad looking and is in great shape. He has a lot of clout too. You never know. I met Garth Brooks. I thought that he was decidedly unhot - until he put his arm around me for a picture.

I agree with those who say, he made an agreement - stick to it.

I do kind of hate these talks about looks. They really are a matter of opinion. When people judge looks, I tend to see racism. Many people value "anglo" appearances and judge the people that have them pretty. It is a sensitive point with me, but that is another subject.

It does bother me, that the issue of domestic abuse has been shuttled. If we want to stop the abuse of females we had better not tolerate the abuse of males. And NO, there is no excuse.

>>My guess is he was probably happy with his wife, loved his kids, and married her and had kids because he wanted a wife and kids. He also wanted to mess around with a lot of other women, so he did that, too.

Finally - good, sharp sense without weird-o projection!

(I agree with Pirate Jo.)

> I was just making fun of Robert's
> "this is why American women annoy me".

Oh. Sorry. I missed that. Everybody appreciates a good slapback... I just hadn't read that comment.

I do too. (So there.)

He was like other men, and eventually suffered the consequences that other men would suffer for this misconduct.

Nothing to learn here. A fun scandal to talk about, but nothing to learn.

The "I do too" was for Jody... Don't you just hate it when blog posting mechanics interfere with sarcastic intention? I hate that.

Gail, Tiger does nothing for me, not his money, not his own self. But then again, he hardly qualifies as Flynnebait.

This would be more like it: http://tiny.cc/cJ9D0

Or Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall. Or Robert Plant circa 1974. But that's just me, I'm a slut for tall boys with long blond hair. o.O

Ya know, I also like men in kilts. Does Tiger wear one? Nah, that still wouldn't do it for me.

Josh?

Robert?

Brad?

Come to think of it, Ewan MacGregor looks hot in a kilt: http://tiny.cc/ewan

I could see Josh in one too.

Okay, no more wine for me tonight!

I quite frankly don't care who Woods, Clooney, or any other media person is shtooping. If you come out of media or fan blitz into the public eye I quite frankly don't care who you are.

As far as Ken Starr or any other special prosecutor -- I consider politicians to a higher standard.

They make changes that have a more profound effect. I don't agree that Scooter Libby or some others deserves prison for the fallibility of human memory, but they have a responsibility that normal people don't have.

Viggo Mortenson. I watched Lord of the Rings just for him. Harrison Ford. Gotta dig Harrison Ford. Sean Connery -- hot young or old.

I do agree with those who've noted that chemistry and mojo and such make all the difference in attraction -- I've fallen for some men who were definitely far from gorgeous. But since it was put out there that no woman could resist Tiger Woods's on a purely superficial level (looks, money, athletic talent), I had to note that I could. If he were a fabulous guy with a wonderful snide sense of humor, sure, I might want to go there. But, gotta say, his text messages don't impress me.

And it's true, there's nothing new here and nothing to learn. But man, it's a freaking train wreck, isn't it?

You know, if a man gets a 90 on a typical test, he gets an "A."
It should be that way in marriage. If 90+ percent of the time you hump your wife, then you get an "A." At 80+ percent, you get a "B." At 70+ percent, a "C."
Below that, you do not get a passing grade, unless you have been married for along time, at which point you have built up credit from earlier years, when you were more faithful.

So you get to carry those points forward in your marriage,

This would save a lot of marriages, including Tiger's. His wife could have said, "He gets a "B' this year, which is not a bad grade."
Affirmative nodding all around, and everyone is happy.

> it's a freaking train wreck, isn't it?

For that, it's glorious. Knowing of and caring nothing for the sport, I found myself wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt... Like, Well gosh guys, the interior lives of others' families are always a mystery... And silly women would be crawling out of the woodwork to claim to have been with him ANYWAY... Then someone at work said dude, they got texts and emails and (essentially) witnesses; Boyfriend was outta control.

But he was fun to admire just as a freakishly talented guy. Sports are like any field: As systems develop, deviations from the performance norm become ever-less likely. Our disappointment that his exceptional nature wasn't reflected throughout his life is our problem, not his.

Whats pathetic about paying for sex? Obviously it wasn't the only way he could get what he wanted.

Some just happen to be very hot pros, so what? We're the only country that finds that even remotely disgusting, go anywhere else, its just a weekend activity.

The fact is that there is always a price for sex, we don't talk about it that way, but its there nonetheless.

If he couldn't control himself? Oh come now, that is a little unforgiving isn't it? What, you're never tempted, you never give in to temptation?

He's just a man like any other man, nothing unique, and quite frankly, by NO account was he ever neglectful or failed to perform his obligations to provide for his family, what, you want him to be a saint as well?

---------

Oh I'm sure she could have done exactly that...but you're sort of making my point for me. MEN and WOMEN are NOT identical, we don't feel the same level or drive of desires in any form or fashion. Yet you expect him to act like a chick? How fubar is that? He didn't neglect his wife by any standard, hell he provided a damned fine life for her that allows limitless comfort & ease in anything she desires...and you're getting pissy that he has the same failings every single man since the mythic Adam has had?

A man with money, and power doesn't need looks, a woman with looks needs neither money nor power, to get exactly what they want from another person.

And by the way, Tiger could never tell the lie "Its your baby" to a woman, the same...well its the opposite when the positions are reversed. SO yeah, he gave the woman the perfect life and she's shocked or angry that an ordinary man gave into the temptations of great beauty's throwing themselves at him?
----------------------------

And by the way Gail...the reason I "lump" American women into one basket, is because I've seen the difference between how women overseas behave and expect men to be, vs. women in the U.S. And yes, there is a HUGE difference. None of this would surprise a woman in Germany. In France she'd expect him to be home late because he's spending an hour or two relaxing with the mistress before coming home, in Brazil you have as many red light buildings as churches...around and around the world none of these parts of human nature and the resulting differences between the sexes shocks women.

But American women...such as yourself, are generally VERY quick to condemn and whine about the differing expectations for men vs women. No appreciation for the impact of bing opposites. And yes, my wife is a european raised American woman. Surprise surprise, she has a complete understanding of the all to human differences between men and women. An understanding lost from modern day American culture.

-----------------------

Seriously, 300 mil? Well, no skin off his nose, he's worth billions. A bit much really, frankly he was stupid enough to provide an infidelity clause that ludicrously generous, he deserves to lose it.

> Whats pathetic about paying for sex?

1. It suggests you have too much money.

2. It encompasses a superficial expression of the most powerful day-to-day human connectedness.

3. People paid for sex are distracted from work & ventures which might enrich the lives of third parties, whatever their hourly rate (porno stars excepted).

4. Porno stars are almost always cokeheads or alcoholics or whatever; their lives are quite often pathetic.

5. Those fuckers never pay taxes.

6. Other stuff.

Yes yes, damn us American women who expect men who vow to be faithful to, I don't know...be faithful! Can't do it, don't vow it. Easy enough. Women like sex too, Robert (although not always with the man providing the lifestyle). After all, mistresses come from somewhere. One imagines the french ladies are probably too busy doing the poet down the hall to worry about where their hubby is, if in fact they're ok with the "being late" like you claim they are. As is, no doubt, your oh-so-understanding wife.

Robert. Wow.

I love traveling myself (33 countries and 6 continents so far), and your generalities about Europe are truly breathtaking and a tad off. I lived in Germany for quite a while, and I completely disagree with your generalities about the Germans. The married and coupled-off Germans I knew (they seem to date for about a decade before they get married) seemed like a pretty faithful and serious lot overall -- there absolutely did not seem to be an expectation of cheating. I've also spent lots of time in France -- I go every year to visit friends. I'd agree that many (not all) French people's attitudes about infidelity are more relaxed than many (but not all) Americans', but (a) what the French tend to be willing to countenance are quiet affairs that don't interfere with family life, not 14 wild flings with whores. (b) Also, from what I've seen, both married men and married women are having those quiet affairs. Tiger Woods's mess wouldn't go over well with any French woman I know. You sound like you're talking about the middle east or third world countries, not Europe.
By the way, you do know that Tiger Woods' wife is Swedish, right?

Do men cheat in America, Europe and elsewhere? Sure they do. So do women. But it still sucks. It comes down to this -- don't make a promise you can't keep. If you want an open marriage, ask for it up front, and I won't have a word to say against you -- well, as long as you don't mess up your kids' lives. Once you have kids, it's not all about you and your sex drive anymore.

Speaking for myself, I don't want a dude's freaking money and I don't want him to provide a "damned fine life allows limitless comfort & ease". I can provide that for myself, thanks. I want a man who plays straight with me, as I will with him -- whether we're just goofing around for the short term or settled in for a long haul.

I'd add to Crid's list:
(7) you could catch a disease, for Pete's sake, who knows where that thing has been.
(8) it suggests that you can't get anyone to have sex with you unless you pay her, which is kinda, well, sad.

Look, whatever. I suppose if we legalized and regulated prostitution, there'd be less risk of disease and more tax dollars in the till. If you're single and sad and lonely and no one will touch you, I won't get up on a moral high horse and condemn you for getting your rocks off with a prostitute. But I still find it a little sad and yeah, pathetic. And if you're not single and you're exposing an unknowing significant other to whatever diseases your prostitute might be harboring, you suck.

Cheers momof4. You are spot on as usual.

Surprise. Women are tempted too. An athlete 20 years my junior started making passes at me. I thought we struck up an unusual friendship. I thought of him as a friend of our family and a mentor to our children. We had never touched or been alone together. I was shocked (and a bit flattered) when he approached me.

My husband and I were going through a rotten time in our marriage and this young guy was easy to be around. But the bottom line is I would never betray my husband (or my own values).

I feel strongly that we owe our partners our best. Instead of getting my thrills outside of marriage, I invested the same energy into my own relationship. I made an effort to treat him the way a would someone new - someone with whom I had no baggage.

It takes a lot of effort to carry on an affair. Just think of the dividends that could have come if Tiger had invested the same amount of energy into his own family (even though his wife may be tired, postpartum, sick, or boring and all people are at some point).

Investing in my own husband has definitely paid dividends.

Re - is Tiger Woods attractive? Good grief no. Absolutely not, to me anyway. Even less so now! You would want a bottle of dettol and a wire brush to scrub him down with just to shake his hand.

And I get that he couldn't care less what I think, but the question was asked so there's my tuppence worth.

The thing about feminine nature which few women (except Paglia) understand at a visceral level is that it's smothering and corrosive.

Sexist rubbish from Crid.

(Nice try at getting a rise from one end of the bar, and a tipsy cheer from the other though!)

He's all praise for femininity when it comes to denouncing gay parents. I wonder if he's told his mother how "smothering and corrosive" she was. No wonder he's such a mess now.

I'm not annoyed by American men or American women. American beer, however, is very annoying. What was it Monty Python said? American beer is like making love in a canoe. You're fucking close to water.

Patrick, you're insulting my mother. That's your comment about Tiger Woods.

How old are you?

A famous athelete who cheats! What a shocker. Definitely newsworthy.

"Yup. And watch for accusations of "shaming language," whatever the hell that is. They have their own strange lingo."

Here you go, Jo. This is what it is. It's a low-down, underhanded, bitch-ass form of manipulation and abuse. Just so you know.

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

I'm with you on the Bud and Miller, Patrick. I think there's some decent beer here and there from microbreweries, if you can get it (and want to pay extra for it). But by and large I agree.

I was chatting with a French friend last night (planning a trip -- yay!) and mentioned this thread. She opined that in general the French do not think affairs by married people are acceptable. However, in general the French are less likely to think it's worth ending a marriage over an affair than an American would be.

That said, she agreed the Tiger train wreck is another kettle of fish entirely, whether you're a French spouse or an American spouse. It would be hard to stay married to a dude who not only was sleeping with at least 14 other women, but also was telling some that he only got married for his image, telling others that he wishes he'd met them before he got married, and just plain getting skanky with them all. I mean, have you seen those text messages? We're talking serious train wreck here.

Yeah, Tiger leaves Bill Clinton and David Letterman and just about everyone else in the dust. I'd say Eliot Spitzer's thing was worse though -- a whole hell of a lot worse. Eliot was not only breaking the law -- the law he was supposed to uphold -- but he'd prosecuted men for doing what he was doing himself, the freaking hypocrite. Tiger sinned against his wife and family. I'd say the same was true of Letterman and Clinton (yeah, Clinton's a politician, but it's not against the law to sleep with an intern, it's just a little skanky). But Eliot sinned against the public at large. Now THAT, my friends, was a train wreck.

There are some affairs that are forgivable, but having been through this myself, I think the worst thing he did - the part that's absolutely unforgivable - was bringing the women to their home when his wife wasn't there. The family home should be sanctuary - it's where the children live and play, and you should protect the safety of that "nest". To violate that trust takes a certain level of narcissism that is irredeemable. When I heard that part, I knew his marriage was over. No spouse should be expected to forgive that breech of security.

Some French wives may overlook cheating (while cheating themselves - go, momoffour!), but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't forgive that. The family is supposed to come first. Tiger clearly put himself and his needs above his family.

"I think the worst thing he did - the part that's absolutely unforgivable - was bringing the women to their home when his wife wasn't there."

Agreed, lovelysoul. I also think the messages where he told at least one of the women that he wished he'd never married, or had only married for his image, were pretty damn unforgiveable. Far worse than just a physical fling with a skank. He stuck a knife into the heart of his marriage.

Well, so much for his image now. He's still a fine golfer, though. I don't have any doubt that his athletic career will survive -- and hey, so it should. But I doubt his marriage will.

"This would save a lot of marriages, including Tiger's. His wife could have said, "He gets a "B' this year, which is not a bad grade.""

That is what happens in most other cultures except Europeans.

The loser in this culture? The cheated wife. The winner? Children.

The children who grew up with a passing grade father and a faithful mother are the majority make up in Asian culture.

The children who grew up with a single parent with a boyfriend or a girlfriend are the majority make up in U.S. culture.

Only time will tell which children of either culture will come out ahead in the game of survival.

Jim, I finally clicked on that link you posted and it is the saddest website I've ever seen. I just love it -- if anyone suggests that your attitude towards women is archaic, one-sided, and unfair, they're "shaming" you and therefore bad people.

I've got news for you. There's a whole world out here -- right here in America! -- where men and women are friends. (At least half of my good friends are men.) And we have happy relationships too. We're not all regarding the opposite sex as enemies. If you are, that's a sad little place to be in, and I'm sorry for you.

It's 2009. I don't think that men and women are identical (I also don't think that all men are like each other, or all women are like each other, for that matter), and it's healthy to recognize that. But you cannot expect that a woman will meekly put up with your cheating and breaking promises to her left and right, and justify it on the grounds that you have sexual needs and she doesn't. Hello, speaking as a woman, that's not true.

It is ludicrous and unfair if one half of a couple is expected to adhere to her marital vows (bet she's a whore if she isn't, huh?), but the other is given free rein to break them. Just as, by the way, it is ludicrous and unfair to trap a guy into marriage by fibbing about your birth control and deliberately getting pregnant, or by passing off a kid as his that isn't his. The same principle applies -- you owe it to your partner to be fair, straight and respectful with him or her, and treat him or her the way you want to be treated. Tiger most certainly didn't do that.

"The loser in this culture? The cheated wife. The winner? Children."

Children don't win when their parents cheat. Usually, they know, at least as they get older. It's very sad for children to see one parent act so disrespectfully towards the other.

The best thing a father can do for his kids is to love their mother...and vice versa. Exposing your spouse to STDs and humiliation is never loving. It is always a selfish, unjustifiable act, especially when there are children involved.

on lovelysoul's point -- I was just reading an article yesterday talking about this specifically in regard to Tiger. Apparently his father cheated on his mother, and it was absolutely devastating to Tiger. One of his high school friends was astonished Tiger cheated on his wife when he was so devastated that his father had cheated on his mother.

"Children don't win when their parents cheat."

Are you telling me that a five year old living with his mother and her boyfriend and sees his father on the weekends are better off than a five year old living with his father and mother?

The feeling of unwanted will do a serious and lasting damage to a five year old child than to a 30 year old woman.

Only thing the five year old understand is that his own father does not want to be around him anymore. The children in U.S. culture lose their innocence real fast and do not develop into well balanced adult. That cannot be possibly good for them to compete some day in a global game of survival.

"The feeling of unwanted will do a serious and lasting damage to a five year old child than to a 30 year old woman."

There's no reason the child has to feel "unwanted" in that situation. It's not ideal, of course, but if the parents handle it well, and treat each other with respect, it can be vastly better than having one parent be a cheat and a liar. What message does that teach a child? What model is that for a happy relationship? You're teaching them to be dysfunctional.

It's far better for a child to see a parent being treated with love and respect, even if that's by a boyfriend or girlfriend. That is showing them what a good relationship looks like.

If you can't be faithful, don't get married and have kids. You're kidding yourself (just like Tiger), if you think this won't ultimately effect your children.

It's like someone else said, you promise to make an investment of time and energy in your marriage. If you're giving your emotional and physical energy to others, you are creating a deficit in your marriage. Kids feel that.

"Jim, I finally clicked on that link you posted and it is the saddest website I've ever seen. I just love it -- if anyone suggests that your attitude towards women is archaic, one-sided, and unfair, they're "shaming" you and therefore bad people."

Hmm. I think men get screwed by the legal system when it comes to paternity issues and child support. They are often viewed more as walking wallets than as fathers, and we've certainly seen more than enough examples of this. So I can see why men's advocacy groups get formed - they are trying to fight a true injustice. And when their attempts to right these wrongs are met with petty name-calling, they are correct to call bullshit.

However. The whole color-coding thing is just compulsive and obsessive. And what if the shoe does fit? Is anyone going to deny that there are in fact whiny, self-pitying men out there, drowning in their own sense of martyrdom and bitterness?

Of course there are women like this, too. Just like their are women who are fighting right alongside the men to try and correct the injustices that are happening in the first place. Why is this even a gender thing? To me, the people making it a gender issue are precisely the problem, whatever side of the coin they are falling on.

Where the hell does this get derailed into "feminists suck?" Or "American women suck?" That's about 150 million people of incredibly diverse backgrounds and beliefs being painted with one very broad brush. So now who is doing the name-calling?

There are some women calling themselves feminists who want to perpetuate the lopsidedness of our family court system, and THEY suck. On the other hand, past feminists have made it so that I can stay single and childfree, yet still get a decent job, support myself, live on my own, and not have to live with my parents or have interviewers ask me why I haven't found a man to support me yet.

In the end I must agree with Gail. I wish these men would focus on the real enemy - the system - and stop bitching about women. Shaming language, indeed.

"If you can't be faithful, don't get married and have kids. You're kidding yourself (just like Tiger), if you think this won't ultimately effect your children."

No one in their right mind is planning to cheat on their spouse on her/his wedding day.

When you change your mind someday and cheat on your spouse, yes, there will be consequences.

The point I am trying to make is that the consequences are a lot uglier to the children involved when you choose to leave, otherwise, fine spouses except his/her cheating.

Great post, Pirate Jo. I read that color-coded stuff and thought the same as you. What if the shoe fit? Under their rational, you really can't say anything, even it's true.

I hate to see anyone, male or female, drowning in bitterness. Sometimes, it's a healthy impulse to tell someone, "Get over your bitterness!"

These sites have a place, but when they start to support an isolated, all-or-nothing, hateful viewpoint, they become unhealthy.

That's actually how people are brainwashed. They're told that if anyone tries to get them to snap out of their extreme mindset, then they're the enemy. I see a parallel to that in this "shaming" language. Sometimes, we need to be "shamed" because we've taken things to an extreme.

That said, some comments are just mean and lazy. Saying personal things like, "You probably can't get laid!" is plainly wrong. I think we've all been in heated debates here and lost our cool, or at least felt the temptation, but it's best to avoid personal insults.

Chang I *might* agree with you, if the cheating spouse was at least discreet about it. Tiger has taken that concept so far off the chain, I no longer think his kids would benefit by him being around. This isn't just a quiet problem that Mommy and Daddy are keeping between themselves - this shows such blatant disrespect for the mother of his children ... no way. These Asian parents you are so proud of. Do the cheating men keep things on the down-low? Or are those kids simply being raised with the idea that it's okay for a man to treat his wife like crap?

Otherwise, your point is interesting. If I marry a man and have kids with him, and he then cheats, it's pretty much a slam-dunk that *I'm* better off ditching his cheating ass. But would the kids be? The reality for me at that point might be that I have to take it in the teeth and keep this awful creep as my husband, if only to do what's best for my kids. What an awful situation to be in. I am glad to be single and not have kids.

"The point I am trying to make is that the consequences are a lot uglier to the children involved when you choose to leave, otherwise, fine spouses except his/her cheating."

I understand your point, Chang. Believe me, I've lived it. I was one of those long-suffering wives who stayed for the kids, overlooking the unfaithfulness.

That's why I don't think it ultimately works. Maybe when kids are very small, and don't understand. But, as my kids got older, they saw it, and it hurts them just as badly as divorce.

My ex and I are friends now, and he lives a more honest life, like Clooney. I think it would've been much better if he had just not tried to live a lie...pretend to be someone he wasn't. If we'd both just acknowledged it, even if that meant an earlier divorce. Kids are very accepting, but they don't respect dishonesty, especially when it brings pain to the people they love.

"These Asian parents you are so proud of. Do the cheating men keep things on the down-low? Or are those kids simply being raised with the idea that it's okay for a man to treat his wife like crap?"

I never said that I was proud of.

I have known many Asian family men who treat their spouses with love and respect but cannot stay away from the prostitutes. Also, I have known many Asian men, who abuse their spouses but never cheat on them.

It is simply different culture from U.S. culture. But I do think that Asian culture puts children's well being first in the case of crisis.

You know, personally, I don't find the prostitute thing to be that bad. In my (unfortunately vast) experience, it is the EMOTIONAL betrayal that is the worst. Banging a prostitute you'll probably a never see again, or don't care about, is one thing, but expressing feelings, and sharing intimacies about your marriage with another person can be impossible to forgive. That's what leads to divorce.

In my case, the last straw was a relationship that didn't even involve sex, but it was an intensely emotional betrayal like that.

If these Asian guys are just going to brothels, and are well-protected, it is probably...well, not admirable, but acceptable.

"But I do think that Asian culture puts children's well being first in the case of crisis."

Hence, I conclude you are proud of Asian culture. Nothing wrong with that! I just question whether it is really putting the children's well-being first when their mothers stay with abusive or cheating husbands. Certainly not in cases of abuse - cheating, I just don't know. That situation has a lot more shades of gray.

"In my case, the last straw was a relationship that didn't even involve sex, but it was an intensely emotional betrayal like that."

It makes me wonder which would be worse - my sweety betraying me with someone he loved, or betraying me with 14 sluts he didn't give a damn about. I would hate it either way. I appreciate your comments on this, lovelysoul. You know what you are talking about.

I have heard of women who say they have no interest in having sex with their husbands, and they would be FINE with him getting it elsewhere, as long as he was discreet about it and kept up his role as a father and provider. Maybe that works for some people.

"No one in their right mind is planning to cheat on their spouse on her/his wedding day."

Chang, you're really young, I'll bet. Yes, there are indeed people who get married and assume they're going to cheat. Or at least, think it's OK if they do. The problem is, they don't always tell their spouse about that intention. There are people who cheat on their honeymoon.

lovelysoul, you're right that it's not nice to sling the personal insults. But I get a little ornery when I've just been dropped into a generic bucket with 150 million other women -- especially when it's for the purpose of declaiming how unreasonable we all are to expect loyalty, truth and faithfulness from people who've promised to give us all that and expect it from us!

"I've got news for you. There's a whole world out here -- right here in America! -- where men and women are friends."

Gail, that's not news. Nor is it news that women have been using this kind of sexist shit forever, even the ones who swear they love men. Pull your head out of your self-satisfaction.

i have news for you. There are women who never use this kind of language. Those are the women who realy love men. They really do exist. It's just that their kind of matuirity is not very fashionable these days.

"(At least half of my good friends are men.) And we have happy relationships too. "

See, you even have men friends.

We're not all regarding the opposite sex as enemies. "

You may really think so, unitl some of this kind of thing pops out of your mouth. You, know, like the n-word slipping out, or some remark about "that" side of town.

By the way, why are you so defensive about this stuff? Why do you find it necessary to lie and misrepresent like this - where did you see anything like that in thie list:

"if anyone suggests that your attitude towards women is archaic, one-sided, and unfair, they're "shaming" you and therefore bad people.

"If you are, that's a sad little place to be in, and I'm sorry for you."

I'm not. some of my best friends are women.

Jo,

Now on to you:

"However. The whole color-coding thing is just compulsive and obsessive. '

"Uh, no; it's done for conveninence, and it signals the offender that her trite litle ploy has been reduced to a piece of jargon. So you can call it whatever little buzzword you like to minimize, it, but it won't wash.

"On the other hand, past feminists have made it so that I can stay single and childfree, yet still get a decent job, support myself, live on my own, and not have to live with my parents or have interviewers ask me why I haven't found a man to support me yet."

Translation: You got your rights, so fuck everyone else. Such a selfish, hateful attitude.

"Where the hell does this get derailed into "feminists suck?" Or "American women suck?"

Ask Monica. That bigoted pig launches an attack, and the person calling her worthless ass on is the one in the wrong. Real predictable. I notice how she has left you do the clean up work. That's predicable too. Is that what you call feminist solidarity?

Lovelysoul,

"These sites have a place, but when they start to support an isolated, all-or-nothing, hateful viewpoint, they become unhealthy. "

Indeed they do. It takes only about two seconds on a comment thread to tell if the site is like that or not. There are a lot of serious women-haters out there. Most of them had it beaten into them, but it was up to them to grow out of it. That kind of thing is sadly not so unusual though.

"Under their rational, you really can't say anything, even it's true."

Not really. There are lots of ways you can criticize someone without having to resort to gender sterotypes that work to your personal advantage. It justs takes some clarity on waht you are trying to say and some effort to overcome the bigotries society has primed you with. so what that really menas is that your criticism has to have some substance and merit. that can be a tall order for some people.

On another point:

"That's why I don't think it ultimately works. Maybe when kids are very small, and don't understand. But, as my kids got older, they saw it, and it hurts them just as badly as divorce."

Absolutely. It doesn't do them any good to see either parent being actively disrepsected, and in this country that's the only way anyone, your kids too, could have seen it.

"In the end I must agree with Gail. I wish these men would focus on the real enemy - the system - and stop bitching about women. Shaming language, indeed."

The system and the women it panders to are so thick with each other that they are basically indistinguishable.

Trust me, Pirate Jo, the 14 sluts are preferable (as long as you don't catch anything). Where Tiger went wrong was trying to have relationships with these girls - "sexting", bringing them to the house, and so forth.

None of it's great, but what really hurts is feeling replaced as your partner's best friend and confidant.

I also know several women who settle for that sort of "arrangement" - where their husbands have permission to cheat, as long as it doesn't intrude on family time. The couples who do this don't seem to be particularly close anyway. It's more like a business arrangement than a marriage. In that case, it probably doesn't hurt much, but it still seems like settling for less than one (or both) deserves.

To have a wonderfully close, loving, exclusive relationship, physically and emotionally, is the ultimate. I really feel badly for anyone who accepts less than that in this all-too-brief life, especially if they've never experienced it.

It's one thing to stay with someone when it's just a matter of the sparks are gone and you're bored, or he doesn't lift the toilet seat, or she got fat, blah blah blah. Then I'd say you owe it to your kids to work on your marriage.

It's another when the man has betrayed you to the degree Tiger did. If you can really get over it, well, OK. But if you resent and distrust him, and have solid grounds for that feeling, that's another matter. I'm not sure it's so great for the kids to have two bitterly unhappy parents fighting all the time, or to know that Dad or Mom is cheating, or to feel like their parents hate each other. Parents should never badmouth each other to the kids or in front of them, of course. But in some egregious instances -- like Tiger's -- it's going to be hard to keep up a facade until the kiddies are grown up. A peaceful, stable environment might be better achieved by a divorce.

I have to say, if I were Elin Woods, I'd never be able to get over it. I could shut up about it and be gracious if we were in separate houses and the kids spent weekends with Dad. If Dad and I lived together, though, I'm not sure I could keep my resentment bottled up for the next twenty years. How I'd hate him for bringing skanks into our bed.

""On the other hand, past feminists have made it so that I can stay single and childfree, yet still get a decent job, support myself, live on my own, and not have to live with my parents or have interviewers ask me why I haven't found a man to support me yet."

Translation: You got your rights, so fuck everyone else. Such a selfish, hateful attitude."

What the HELL??? How is it selfish and hateful to want to support myself financially, live independently, and not get married or have kids? How does that translate to "fuck everyone else?" I mean, with my attitude, I'm clearly not a woman who expects a man to donate his sperm so that I can have children, and who I can then kick out but continue to expect payments from. Who am I treating badly, just by wanting to mind my own business?

""However. The whole color-coding thing is just compulsive and obsessive. '

"Uh, no; it's done for conveninence, and it signals the offender that her trite litle ploy has been reduced to a piece of jargon. So you can call it whatever little buzzword you like to minimize, it, but it won't wash."

I have seen websites that debug cult programming language. It's generally a list of logical fallacies, such as trying to assume cause and effect relationships that don't exist, or pretending to read the minds of other people. There's no harm in calling out this bullshit for what it is. But that entire color-coded list could have been summed up quite well by simply saying, 'Ignore name-calling. It is stupid and says more about the other person than it does about you.' Well, no shit. But belaboring the point in an entire rainbow of colors?

"The system and the women it panders to are so thick with each other that they are basically indistinguishable."

There are a lot of men who are part of that system, too. Most judges are men. Stick with the system itself as your target, and you focus on the PEOPLE who have created it, who perpetuate it, and who are the problem.

Pirate Jo -- you could have summed that all up with "What the HELL?"

"What the HELL??? How is it selfish and hateful to want to support myself financially, live independently, and not get married or have kids? How does that translate to "fuck everyone else?"

There's nothing selfish about that, but don't try to defelct, because that is not the issue here, is it? In the context of this conversation, where the issue was men's reproductive rights being dismissed as "whining" when someone comes along and defends women's chauvinism with an appela to the good they have doen in your personal situation, as if that soemhow offsets the harm they have done others - and let's not be coy here, the main vocal opponents of "male abortion", the opt-out option, have been NOW and NARAL - then that is a pretty self-serving defense of those groups and that movement.

I think it's wonderful that you or any other woman can earn her own living. In fact I think that any woman who can't or won't is sub-adutlt and unmarriageable, and mom4 has called me an asshole for saying that.

But I think it shoudl be obvious that you don't defend bigots against charges of bigotry just because you think you owe them something.

Oh, and one last word on the Shaming Language thing - what it comes down to is no longer deferring to - not ignoring, just not deferring to - women's judgements or feelings, and no longer submitting to those tactics. It's about nothing more than self-respect.

Gee.

-----

"I can not BELIEVE we spent so much money on Ken Starr." I can. The office was invented by Democrats and it came back to bite 'em, and then, every moment the office was held up by the White House cost money. Who really cost the money?

-----

Assorted people here have weighed in on the nastiness of reading the private messages of your spouse. I guess it's OK if it's the private messages of somebody else's, huh?

It's more evidence of the Two Faces Principle, exhibited by damn near everybody who does what they want without thinking about it. If it was Bill Clinton, it's personal. If it's Tiger Woods, it's fair game.

-----

See that, Crid? You can't have a philosophy of your own, because people who have read three lines of yours and got excited know better.

Radwaste -- Leaving aside the cheating betrayal, and focusing on the snooping betrayal: TW's text messages were willingly shared by the recipients of them, and printed in newspapers and on the web. The people who shared those private messages violated his confidence. However, the public reading those messages did not violate his confidence. Someone who snoops into his/her spouses or significant other's email account, on the other hand, IS violating a confidence. Whether our time could be better spent -- well, that's another issue. But it's hard to look away from a train wreck of this magnitude.

Jim -- For the record, I'm 100% in favor of men having rights with regard to their children. I do think men often have been shafted in the courts, and I think that sucks. But I'm not in favor of subordinating women (or men) into second class citizens, and I think that hating all women and lumping us all into a single stereotyped bunch is not the right way to go about making things right.

There's nothing selfish about that, but don't try to defelct, because that is not the issue here, is it? In the context of this conversation, where the issue was men's reproductive rights being dismissed as "whining"

I was the one who made the "whining" comment, and it was in a different thread, and I stand by it. Men have plenty of options. There's just no option that includes "have sex with anyone I please and weasel my way out of the consequences." My reply to you there got eaten by Amy's spam filter, so I'll try here.

The reason men don't have the option to abort is because it's illegal and unethical to force a woman to a gurney and shove medical instruments inside her against her will. You don't have the option to "opt out" of fatherhood once the baby is born because, as little as you want to support that baby, I promise, I want to support it even less -- which is what's going to happen when your girlfriend goes on welfare to support the baby you don't want.

I fully support men's rights to shared custody of their children and reasonable child support payments when they don't want joint custody. But "opting out" is not the same thing. If you don't want to be a father, opt out by wearing a condom or not having sex.

And for the people in the other thread who worried about my fiance, thank you for your concern, but he agrees with me: Life ain't fair.

Gail, I think the correlation Jim is making is not that he stereotypes all women, but all feminists. I part ways with him on this too, however, because some feminists do support male reproductive rights, just as they support my right to earn my own living. It comes down to quibbling over semantics, over what it means to be a feminist, and I'm afraid I'm not very interested in doing that.

> Eliot sinned against the public at
> large. Now THAT, my friends, was
> a train wreck

Worst was these photos of this woman.

> It is ludicrous and unfair if one half
> of a couple is expected to adhere to
> her marital vows (bet she's a whore if
> she isn't, huh?), but the other is given
> free rein to break them.

Listen, I agree, OK? But Alkon linked this a few years ago, and it's fascinating.

I'm not saying anyone gets a freebie!

I'm not saying anyone gets a freebie!

I'm not saying anyone gets a freebie!

But if men and women are truly different and have different feelings about sex, there's probably a nuanced judgment that needs to be made in protecting the interests of children.
______________

I'm not saying anyone gets a freebie!

> It comes down to quibbling over semantics,
> over what it means to be a feminist, and
> I'm afraid I'm not very interested
> in doing that.

PJ is a sister.

Quick question to al the feminists out there.

What is your first reaction upon seeing or hearing the word "sknhead"?

And in the mean yime here is a little argument palete cleanser

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX-6Ej2lnwg

"What is your first reaction upon seeing or hearing the word "sknhead"?"

I have never met an actual skinhead in my life. When I hear the word, I think of someone with a shaved head. Small town midwestern girl, me. Your mileage may vary.

"But if men and women are truly different and have different feelings about sex, there's probably a nuanced judgment that needs to be made in protecting the interests of children."

I agree with at least the second half of this, but I'm not sure that it's so easy to generalize about the first half. I have a couple of guy friends who were faithful to their wives, and the wives cheated on them. The (now ex) wives suck. Luckily, there were no kids involved in any of those couples. But anyway, is whatever slimy quirk that drove those women to cheat so different from what drives men to cheat? Even if it is, does it matter? I don't think female and male cheating should be treated differently.

I do agree that couples with kids need to think carefully about disrupting their home. Their welfare comes first, and that might mean mom and dad sacrifice some personal feelings. But I do think there are some instances when divorce might be better for the kids. If Dad (or Mom) really had an Eliot-level train wreck, and his/her spouse can't forgive it, the kids are going to pick up on the hatred and anger if the parents are together in the same house. Watching mommy hate daddy might be worse for the kids than divorce. It's easier to forgive a transgression when you don't have to look at her over pancakes every morning or wash his socks.

For a lesser transgression, I'd say try to work it out if you can. Like Letterman -- if I were his wife and we didn't have any kids, I might show him the door. But with a kid in the picture, I'd be pretty pissed off, but I'd get some marriage counseling and try to work things out. But with Tiger, and for sure, Eliot -- I dunno that I could. (I cringed at those photos of the press conference. Ugh, no way could I do that.)

lujlp -- Skinhead = neo-Nazi, is my snap reaction. But why would a feminist (however you define it) react differently to the term than someone else?

"But if men and women are truly different and have different feelings about sex, there's probably a nuanced judgment that needs to be made in protecting the interests of children."

I agree with at least the second half of this, but I'm not sure that it's so easy to generalize about the first half. I have a couple of guy friends who were faithful to their wives, and the wives cheated on them. The (now ex) wives suck. Luckily, there were no kids involved in any of those couples. But anyway, is whatever slimy quirk that drove those women to cheat so different from what drives men to cheat? Even if it is, does it matter? I don't think female and male cheating should be treated differently.

I do agree that couples with kids need to think carefully about disrupting their home. Their welfare comes first, and that might mean mom and dad sacrifice some personal feelings. But I do think there are some instances when divorce might be better for the kids. If Dad (or Mom) really had an Eliot-level train wreck, and his/her spouse can't forgive it, the kids are going to pick up on the hatred and anger if the parents are together in the same house. Watching mommy hate daddy might be worse for the kids than divorce. It's easier to forgive a transgression when you don't have to look at her over pancakes every morning or wash his socks.

For a lesser transgression, I'd say try to work it out if you can. Like Letterman -- if I were his wife and we didn't have any kids, I might show him the door. But with a kid in the picture, I'd be pretty pissed off, but I'd get some marriage counseling and try to work things out. But with Tiger, and for sure, Eliot -- I dunno that I could. (I cringed at those photos of the press conference. Ugh, no way could I do that.)

lujlp -- Skinhead = neo-Nazi, is my snap reaction. But why would a feminist (however you define it) react differently to the term than someone else?

I don't get the skinhead/feminist question, but, to me, a skinhead is a bigot with a shaved head. Maybe swastika tatoos. Usually a young, ignorant person.

lujlp -- Skinhead = neo-Nazi, is my snap reaction. But why would a feminist (however you define it) react differently to the term than someone else?

The point gail was that skinheads didnt start out as racists and neo nazis, their movment was co-opted by a small minority which has completly changed the way in which people associate the word.

The piont I am making is many people no longer associate feminisim with voting rights and equality for women. The associate it with female supremecists like the leader of NY NOW who equated male school children to gang rapists.

They associate it it with women groups who tell men calling for help with dometic violence they they deserve what they get, the associate it with the lie that 25% of all women in america have been sexually assulted before they are old enough to vote.

Feminism was take over by jackbooted man haters who seem to think that all men should be punished for things a small minority of men did nevermind the fact that they did the majority of those thing to other men.

They associate the word feminist with a social worker who is willing to rip 12yr old abuse victims out of their mothers arms and put them in jail because having a male in a battered womens shelter is too hard for a woman who isnt the childs mother. And the 12 yr old "might molest" any of the other womens female children.

This is what is being associated with the wor feminism because these things are being done by feminists. Is it really any wonder so many people have come to view it as a dirty word?

That's an interesting point, lujlp, and I think you've probably got something there. There are certainly some unreasonable psycho feminists, and they muddy the water for women who just want equal rights, pay, etc.

But the silly behavior of a few doesn't necessarily make it fair to paint a whole group with the same brush. Like, I know a whole passel of guys with shaved heads (most were balding, some just like the look), and I don't think of any of them as neo-Nazis. Just a plain old shaved head doesn't make me assume anything about a person. I take a look for swastika tatoos and racial slurs before I assume anything negative. Or for that matter, if the guy specifically identifies himself as a skinhead, I'd probably assume the worst. These days, I think the term skinhead is used pretty much exclusively to mean a neo-Nazi type, right? So if someone self-identified as a skinhead and not as just a dude with a shaved head, I'd draw some negative inferences. If he'd done the same thing in 1967, though, maybe I wouldn't have.

My point, gail, is that feminists have let their movment be overrun.

Just as you equate some one claiming to be a skinhead with the worst of what the word has come to mean, so to are others starting to assume the worst of those claiming to be feminists all calims of "classical feminist" "equity feminists" & "but I'm not like those feminists" aside.

> is whatever slimy quirk that drove
> those women to cheat so different
> from what drives men to cheat?

Dunno... Might be.

You never hear a story of a business woman like Hillary Clinton (on the board of directors of Wal-Mart) screwing around with a schlubby intern.

You never hear a story of a business woman like Hillary Clinton (on the board of directors of Wal-Mart) screwing around with a schlubby intern.

Posted by: Crid

Does that mean women are more dicerning abot whom they have an affair with? or does that mean women are that much more easily aroused by powerful partners then men are?

I think it says that women don't cheat just because the opportunity is there. We almost always have the opportunity, so that isn't what excites us. We've been trained, through years of evolution, as well as by our culture, to be more selective. We're not going to screw the male assistant just because he shows up in our office at quitting time and gives us a flirty smile. There has to be more to it than that.

I think women cheat almost as much as men. It's not true that women don't care as much about sex as men - we just don't care about it for its own sake. We want sex more for what it symbolizes - that someone loves us or finds us attractive - so we tend to cheat for emotional reasons.

But it's just as devastating to a family, if not more, because when women cheat, it's usually for "love", and, like I said, those are the most hurtful affairs.

LS this is precisely why so many people get pissed at you durring arguments - how many time have we discussed the fact that the majority of cheating men did so for an emotional connection and not just for sex in and of istelf?

And yet even though we have had this conversation at least a dozen times you ignore it and imply that men cheat just because they have an opening in their schedual that affords them the time to fuck.

Luj, really. We just had Change here talking about Asian men going to prostitutes. How often to women go to prostitutes?

There is a difference between males and females. Sure, there are some men who cheat for emotional reasons - my ex was one of those. SC Governor Sanford too. But I think the majority of the time, when you see men like Spitzer, Clinton, or Tiger, they are not looking for the warm an cuddly romance of it.

If they were, they'd fall in love with ONE of these women, not fuck 20. For every Gov Sanford, cheating with his "soulmate," there seems to be many more guys just looking for easy, casual sex.

By contrast, women almost always cheat with one man at a time. You rarely see a female politician brought down by a cheating scandal, and if you did, it wouldn't be with more than one lover.

I don't think it's wrong to recognize that the vast majority of men can separate sex from emotion, whereas the vast majority of women cannot. This is just a difference in our natures, which easily explained from an evolutionary standpoint.

My point isnt that men cant seperate sex from emotion. My statement was the majority of men in relashionships cheat for emotional reasons.

My point is you constantly deepmathize anything done by men in comparsion to the same acts done by women.

Just a few posts ago you implied men cheat because they have spare time and women do so because they need emotion fulfillment

Well, Luj, I think ultimately all cheating has emotional reasons at its core. Most often, deep insecurity.

But I don't see why you are so sure that most men cheat for emotional reasons...in the sense that they are looking for love.

Like I said, some are. No doubt. Men like Sanford, and my ex, are more into forming emotional connections. Not necessarily love, but adoration. My ex needed to be adored and admired constantly. He craved that sort of attention, which is certainly an emotional reason, but, to me, it seems almost more feminine in nature. When I see Sanford crying about his "soulmate," it gives me deja vu. You don't typically see that.

I could be wrong, but I don't think those men represent the norm as far as cheating. The guys who visit prostitutes, or take advantage of the power or prestige they may have in a work situation, generally aren't looking for love. Many men simply cheat for variety.

Whereas, I think every woman I've ever known who cheated swore she was "in love". It's almost never the case that women are looking solely for sex.

> or does that mean women are that
> much more easily aroused by powerful
> partners then men are?

A favorite line: Love laughs at locksmiths.

Tiger shows us that people with great wealth and great sobriety are no better at hiding their voodoo love than are drunken dockworkers on a Saturday night. Governor Spitzer (Princeton) couldn't keep his secrets from Silda (Harvard).

This ain't about power or brains or any metric, this is about human souls, and girl spirits are different than boy spirits.

If women wanted sex the way men do, we'd know by now.

> My point is you constantly deepmathize

Word. Lotta goddam deepmathizing motherfuckers on this blog!

What about the apparent epidemic of female teachers having sex with their underage students. Some of them lately are accused of having more than one at the same time.

I think they are a special type of narcissist. That personality disorder is often typified by promiscuity. These are borderline personalities, with no sense of self. They crave attention all the time, from almost anyone, even when it's completely inappropriate.

"You don't have the option to "opt out" of fatherhood once the baby is born "

Women do by law. There are adoption drop boxes in many states.
And Gail, I am not stereotyping women ar eeven all feminists - there are feminsits like Wendy McElroy and Chrstine Summers-Hoff who say the same htings as I do only mor eharshly - but oddly enough these feminists have been thrown out p the movement- not feminist enough. But that's not the real issue.

The real issue is a egla and culturla system that systematically worlsk to deprive men of equal rihgts to raise thier children, that treats their livess as disp[osable and I could og on and on and on. You would be bored and this has been a long thread.

Speaking of a father's right ot raise his children, did oyu see where tiger's Swdish whore wants full custody of his children, to punish him probably - oh, and she wants 50% of all the money, although of course she was nowhere around when he was earning most of it - he was only attractive after he had becme successful and famous and rich. But she feels entitled to it. Like I said - a whore.

LS,your point is well taken, and Tiger may well fit in with that, but there may be something simpler and on some level worse - the sense that a man at his level was just entitled to as many women as his eye lit on. This is different from a personality that will seek out sexual attention regardless of his or her personal wealth or power. In Woods' case, it looks like the women were just tokens of success, like cars or houses or whatever. That to me is even worse.