What Tiger was thinking

The headline “what was Tiger thinking” betrays the worst kind of naiveté. It’s not that I expect men to commit adultery. But it is certainly no surprise. Men are inclined toward pleasure and power. Money and fame facilitate pleasure and power. But love, the real thing, is made of tougher stuff.

Often rich and powerful men who stray say they did it simply because they could. Not because they wanted to in any calculated way. The opportunity was just there. Available. For men without such means, those opportunities are a fantasy, or passing fancy. Even Jesus of Nazareth was tempted in every way common to man.

What makes a man submit to such an opportunity? Or perhaps a better question is what makes a man resist. Years ago a friend told me he was presented with just such a pretty scenario. He was in a position of trust, she was of legal age. The liaison would have been legal, but not moral or ethical. And besides, he loved his wife. He told her, “Sorry, it’s just not worth it.”

Do men operate on a value system, ranking relative risks and rewards? Do men make choices based on danger? Do they just respond to “the feeling,” act on the passion of the moment, and pursue the brief desire of the eyes? Another ancient reference comes from the Apostle John who wrote about “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the boastful pride of life.”

Would our Favorite Golf Star been better off flying his family (or his wife) to the final day of all his tournaments? Ah, hindsight. (Or was it “hindsight” that got Tiger in trouble in the first place? Sorry, last joke.)

(photo by thelastminute/flickr)
Tiger’s well-crafted apology  was one part contrition, one part plea for privacy. His tone was sorrowful. His account was sufficiently specific without dwelling on the details. Surprisingly, he approached the concept of repentance, as in “I will strive to be a better person…” This raises his score on the apology index (as opposed to, “I’m sorry if anyone was offended”).

Married men who freelance are basically childlike. Note Tiger’s playful banter 12 years ago, when he was just 21. The April 1997 GQ cover story “The Man. Amen”  caught the sports billionaire on his way to the top of the sports world.

"What I can't figure out," Tiger Woods asks Vincent, the limo driver, "is why so many good-looking women hang around baseball and basketball. Is it because, you know, people always say that, like, black guys have big dicks?"

…being ferried by a limousine and being handled by beautiful women and being photographed for a magazine cover that will get him laid 296 times in the next year, if he so chooses, can be very exhausting work.

The story exalted young “Tiger of the Woods” as a sort of golf messiah. It is a lofty, precarious perch. Seven years after it was printed, Tiger was married, but it appears he never lost his appetite for women… until now.

Writer Charles P. Pierce concluded in GQ, “Can he blaspheme against his own public creation, his own unique role, as determined by his father, his management team and his shoe company? Can he blaspheme against the image coddled and nurtured by the paid evangelists of his own gospel?”

Yes, apparently.

As the world mutters and meddles in the Woods’ home life, I think they need a few of us to pray and hope that they work things out. I wished that for NASCAR glamour boy Jeff Gordon, NFL icon Tom Brady, Brad Pitt, Eddie Murphy and other guys I kind of envy, even though I have a 29 year marriage and they do not, yet.

The amount of the pre-nuptial terms ($300 million?) is wholly irrelevant. There is so much money on the table, neither he nor she has to worry about provision. Beware the lawyers who will be more than happy to handle the dissolution, and endless revisions to any settlement, and the most painful custody hearings to follow.

What is the price tag of true love, mutual respect, fidelity, a lasting marriage? Who values such things anymore? What are people willing to pay for such things? May the Woods couple work things out, God help them.

El Tigre is not yet the world’s greatest golfer (his 14 major victories, as compared to Jack Nicklaus’ 18), but verily he shall be. Unlike normal humans, I believe that great performers employ stress and off-field “distractions” to drive them in to their game. Pure anger over the tabloids, anger over the cheap women who betrayed him, and anger over his own stupidity will clarify things for him on the course. He will focus more deeply to overcome the chattering noise of gossip-mongers all over the world. Did you know that celebrities can literally hear the things we are saying about them?

If Mr. Woods meant what he said about “I have not been true to my values,” then his values have changed, and he may have discovered something as valuable to him as his game: family.

Political marriages - for better or worse

Just for the record, a couple of quick thoughts on political marriages.

John Edwards’ late-coming admission of his affair shocks the political soul, again. (But nothing really compares to the former president’s dalliance.) It’s not just “boys will be boys.” Edwards was a big-time political leader who earned millions of votes in various national primary races. He was a major voice for class envy, class warfare even, and some people were listening.

Even though he talked it through with his family years ago, the public revelation opens the wounds afresh. And there’s still the open paternity question. (My goodness, that child deserves to know who her father is.)

No matter what the apologists say, the marriage vow still carries weight – and the breaking of that vow kills credibility with the public. Lying outright to gaggles of reporters at a time, well that can’t be good for one’s political future, can it?

John McCain, asked by pastor Rick Warren at Saturday’s Saddleback Civic Forum about his worst moral failure, said it was the failure of his first marriage. After “extramarital affairs,” he divorced, then remarried, and eventually regained good relationships with his first wife and their children.

Political marriages are unique and difficult for their own reasons: the unrelenting visibility, the pressure on the kids, all those parties. Maybe, like Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts, some of these guys should retire “to spend more time with their families.”

All the more reason to “pray for those in authority.”

It's cheaper to keep her!

Associated Press reports that divorce creates more households, and therefore, more consumption. So it's not just painful to break the marriage bond, it's pricey! No news there, but I hope it gives couples at the brink another reason to get back to the counselor's office and try again to work things out.

Love has never been rational, and in most cases, neither is divorce. In fact, marriage has not always been about love. A fair portion of marriage relationships since the beginning of time have been about sharing resources to build a family and build prosperity, if not posterity as well. How unromantic!

But if today's loose-knit marriages are ever to stand a chance of making it to the 20-30-40-50 year mark... if families are ever to build generational wealth... if couples ever hope to build the trust and actually grow in affection toward one another... (rated "R" version - if you ever want to experience the mind-blowing intimacy of long term monogamy...) then as a culture, we couples have to figure out how to "stay in the ring."

Man, I'm challenging you to get a "rocking chair" vision for your relationship. You dig?

Marriage - one long wrestling match - actually, that sounds kind of sexy.

Study: Single households consume lots more