So What To Think of Tiger Woods?
When it comes to matters of sexual fidelity, date rape, sexual acts, and divorce I am muted. It comes down to how I 'feel' about any of it, and feelings are not facts.
What is sex, taken from a disinterested viewpoint, but a universal, albeit individually unique, neurosis. I don't think , no matter what clergy says at the alter, that God cements or blesses any marriage or romantic relationship. If God did, those marriages/romances would never fail. God, by definition, doesn't make so many half ass mistakes. With sex there are really no logical standards upon which to get a good grip. That is exactly why people do not spend much time in social situations talking about the specifics of their sex life, or even their feelings about the hodgepodge behavior we call sex. Our own personal inclinations and interest change with time. Let's face it, for most people, just how likely sly sexual trysts are to occur depends a lot on the availability of such adventures. Youth, physical attractiveness, financial wealth, fame, power, are directly related to the odds of such sly sexual trysts. I wonder, if the government sent out bodies of beauty to entice all of us into a little hanky-panky on the side what percent of us would succumb? And for those who would not succumb why don't they? Perhaps they don't really enjoy sex that much anyway. Is that a crime, or at least an abnormal psychological state? I doubt it. LIke with so much about sex, it just is a part of that person. Neither bad or good. If they don't succumb because they take their commitment to their spouse or current lover serious, that is certainly commendable but hardly a high percentage decision. How do you really control just how much you continue to love someone? You may want to be the best at something forever, but life simply is not that way.
Perhaps the only solid ground available to us in these matters is that sex, whatever the nature of it, must be consensual between adults. Even here it gets complicated. I would absolutely refuse to serve on a jury regarding date rape. Solomon himself would be stymied with many of these cases. Somebody is lying or both parties are guilty of misreading the signals being sent by the other, or maybe one party is simply seeking revenge for genuine anger over their relationship. Such trials are often nothing more than just empathy contests. Which defendant appeals most to my empathy? No thanks, I'll pass on that. The one who looks or acts like the culprit surely must be.
I can't form an opinion about Tiger Woods or his wife. How the hell can any of us know the basis for that marriage? Many good looking women or men marry for money, prestige, a comfortable life style, etc. If Tiger Woods had been a caddy instead of a famous golfer, would she have ever remotely considered marrying him? Who knows? No one. It is clear why O. J. Simpson murdered Nicole. The dumb bastard really thought an 18 year old girl was genuinely attracted to a 50 year old aging athlete who looked like he had been tackled a few times too many. It must be hard to accept that your role in a marriage is provide a wealthy environment in return for sex. Was Jackie Kennedy an evil person because wealth and high society meant more to her than sex? I credit her with honesty. The marriage worked because Kennedy wanted to be sexually adventurous and Jackie probably was content to let him work off his sex drive elsewhere. She clearly did not have the same need to sex every willing good looking guy in sight.
When people work themselves up into a dither about other people's sex lives, I find it senseless. If a person can find a way to have a contented sex life with no victims or underagers then they have done well. And I really don't care if it involves hanging from a chandelier engaging in all kinds of unusual sex acts. BUT, one could argue when someone cheats on their spouse or 'significant other' there is a victim. There is the spouse, there are the kids. I agree and the whole matter is between the spouses, not anyone else. Sure kids are victims, just like kids can be victimized by the schools they attend, the neighborhood they live in, by divorce, by bad health, by being ugly, by lacking talent in certain areas, etc. Kids raised in a home where the parents can't stand each other are victimized also. Psychologists have long agreed that kids are often better served living with a single parent than living in a house where the parents detest each other.
The papers say Tiger and his wife are now renegotiating their prenuptial agreement, that he is going to have to put up front a lot of big money to keep the marriage intact. What kind of disingenuous marriage is that? Marriage as a lucrative business adventure? I think Tiger has enough lucrative business adventures. Marriages of convenience are not unusual in one form or another. Some marriages are simply held together for fear of ending up alone, or for financial reasons, or for the sake of the kids, or succeed because each lives their own lives with little serious interaction. Sex may not even be involved at all anymore. And if I am asked what I think about any of these marriages of convenience of this or that nature I just don't think about it at all. Nor do I think the government should think about it, or the courts get involved, or religion has any answers. You can't force compatibility, and you can't, for any particular relationship, find a solution that fits all.
Again, what is sex, taken from a disinterested viewpoint, but a universal, albeit individually unique, neurosis. Maybe human sex is an expression of God's sense of humor. Maybe that is why sex is the topic of so many jokes----and that may be exactly the best way to look at the hodgepodge of sexual behaviors prevalent all around us. I wonder, if I had Tiger Woods' fame, money, good looks, etc, what my sex life would be like? Feelings about sex just differ. Each person has to deal with their specific feelings and try to find a way to satisfy their feelings about sex in a way which is compatible with all the parties involved or affected.
What is the proper role of others in anyone else's sexual life? Does the public have a right to know about the sex lives of the rich and famous? Is this knowledge useful for us to judge them? If so, why can't the FBI maintain a data base on everyone's sex life? Maybe I have the same need and right to know about the sex life of everyone part of my life as I do the rich and famous. If I knew what you do in bed, with whom, how often, where, and whether it is licensed or not would certainly enable me to adjust my opinion of you accordingly. Maybe all citizens could take lie detector tests and have our deviancy ratings in various categories printed in the paper once a year like the taxes on our individual homes. When it comes to sex I feel dangerously uninformed about most people who I otherwise feel I know fairly well. Actually, I feel the same way about myself in this area---a hodgepodge of feelings, inclinations, and attitudes all wrapped up in a package that seems I had little control in assembling. Nothing---not laws, not religion, not prevailing statistics, not common sense, not scientific studies, provide much insight into how I or anyone else feel about sex. It is certainly not a level playing field---your choice for a partner is limited and anyone who went through the youthful dating game knows that. If there is a Devil, He/She certainly invented sex. In the last analysis sexual behaviors, like all other behaviors, is governed by the Golden Rule. Whatever anyone's needs are regarding sex, it must be consensual between adults. If that criteria is met, whatever the consequences of the resulting sex is a matter between the two or how many others are involved. Any 'crimes' or moral breaches occur between the parties involved. The rest of us are not involved and should not really be. When it comes to sex any of us are lucky if we can just once in a while know which end is up.
