Tiger Woods & Alpha Males

[August1991]

For some reason that I can't quite fathom, this story (fascinating in itself - flip through the comments too if you have time) somehow seems germane to this thread:

During a year-long gambling binge at the Caesars Palace and Rio casinos in 2007, Terrance Watanabe managed to lose nearly $127 million.

The run is believed to be one of the biggest losing streaks by an individual in Las Vegas history. It devoured much of Mr. Watanabe's personal fortune, he says, which he built up over more than two decades running his family's party-favor import business in Omaha, Neb. It also benefitted the two casinos' parent company, Harrah's Entertainment Inc., which derived about 5.6% of its Las Vegas gambling revenue from Mr. Watanabe that year.

WSJ

Like Tiger Woods' story, the truth here is so much more fascinating than fiction.

[maple_leafs182]

Hey, doesn't anyone else have a problem with the media portraying this scandal as news.

It really isn't news.

Privacy should be kept private, I don't understand why so many people care about this in the first place.

[M.Dancer]

Hey, doesn't anyone else have a problem with the media portraying this scandal as news.

It really isn't news.

Privacy should be kept private, I don't understand why so many people care about this in the first place.

Really? You don't understand?

If only from a consumer marketing point of view, it is newsworthy. Woods makes about $100 million US per year from endorsements. Gatorade (Pepsi) just announced that they have dropped Woods as a product....

This may be the last time to see their ad.

[maple_leafs182]

I guess so.

Why does this whole world revolve around money.

It's always Profit before People.

[Guest American Woman]

I guess so.

Why does this whole world revolve around money.

It's always Profit before People.

You'd have to ask Tiger that, since he's the one who made the decision to become a public spokesperson for profit.

[ToadBrother]

Hitting a little ball with a stick does not a King Male or alpha male make...we are such jerks - we figure if a person has gathered up the most money then some how they are the most masculine and most powerful and the most fit to breed? That's a joke - there are tons of little weasils with billions who need a pill to gain an errection - at least Tiger seems to be assistance free - good for him...but - He really does not know how to control woman ...a true alph gains their loyality though love - not dick.

Is this some sort of variant on penis envy? Let's try a thought experiment. We put you and Tiger Woods in a room full of single heterosexual women looking for a mater from ages 18-35. Which of the two of you will the vast majority of those women flock too?

As to the alpha male, in general, the notion is of a male who tends towards the top of his social pack, the leader if you will. Some alpha males may get there by love, but most get there by basically winning enough pissing contests and exhibiting enough charisma to get the rest of the social group to fall in line. Look at chimps. The alpha male don't get to the top of a chimp tribe by batting his eyelashes and eating the lice of the other chimps, he gets there by scarring off, and beating the snot out of any potential competitor... over and over again, until one day he's too damned old and crippled by his battles, and he's knocked off the top spot.

I'll agree that Woods isn't really an alpha male, save within the limited sphere of golfing (not exactly known as a masculine-heavy sport like football, rugby or hockey). But he has one key trait that will always assure he can sleep with lots of women, and that's an extremely large bank account. Wealth has always been a major attractant, even where other aspects of an individual might make them wholly unsuitable.

Edited December 9, 2009 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

But he has one key trait that will always assure he can sleep with lots of women, and that's an extremely large...

ooohhhh, I had goose bumps until I got to the end of that sentence.

[bush_cheney2004]

Woods' behaviour is not that unusual save for the scope and breadth of the surrounding wealth. Many marriages fail after the arrival of children and the fundamental change that means to the relationship. Sorry, but that "sex kitten" he thought he was marrying (for life) has moved on from the courtship and honeymoon phase....Elin appears to be more mature and understanding of this, as so often is the case for a mother with children and a cad for a husband.

[August1991]

I somehow managed to wander into a "Game Store" today where I found this: Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10. Now, what exactly does this "Tour 10" involve? (BTW, I don't play computer games and I hate shopping malls.)

I'll agree that Woods isn't really an alpha male, save within the limited sphere of golfing (not exactly known as a masculine-heavy sport like football, rugby or hockey). But he has one key trait that will always assure he can sleep with lots of women, and that's an extremely large bank account. Wealth has always been a major attractant, even where other aspects of an individual might make them wholly unsuitable.

Toadbrother, wealth has NOT always been a major attractant. To my knowledge, baboons do not have bank accounts.

Male baboons fight each other to determine who is the "alpha male baboon". Male humans go into the jungle and build shopping malls to determine who is the "alpha male human". In a nutshell, that's Adam Smith's "invisible hand". In one case, you have tired, bloodied, half-dead baboons. In the other case, you have a world filled with shopping malls.

----

My point in the OP was a little different. One reason a male baboon might want to become the alpha male is to perpetuate his genetic code. (To be more precise, the genetic code wants to perpetuate itself.) Alpha males have many female partners.

This strategy makes sense when all the male is contributing is genetic code. Successful humans require more than genetic code; to succeed in life, children need to learn alot. Simply inheriting genetic code isn't sufficient.

I made another point too. I am clearly not the only person who has noticed that Woods seems to have a preference for white women, and blondes in particular. While some may say that this contrary to civil rights legislation, I am more curious about a society or species where the females signal their attractiveness. It is usually males that do this, while females discern among the males.

Edited December 10, 2009 by August1991

[M.Dancer]

I somehow managed to wander into a "Game Store" today where I found this: Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10. Now, what exactly does this "Tour 10" involve?

It's a quantum improvement over Tiger Woods PGA 09. For the Wii, it is probably the best golf game ever made and maybe the best sports video game ever produced.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a quantum improvement over Tiger Woods PGA 09. For the Wii, it is probably the best golf game ever made and maybe the best sports video game ever produced.

Yea, but can it help me pick up chicks?

[M.Dancer]

Yea, but can it help me pick up chicks?

Yes if you are into 17 year old geek grrls...

[RB]

Look Mr Tiger, you really want all you problems to go away quickly - GET A DIVORCE.

Marriages is a thing of the past. What I mean is that marriages should not make a man bend his head, fall to his knees and breed more misery.

No sooner we say we admit it is folly to be wise on the institute of marriage business; that we are arming a man with marriage entitlements: a secret impulse of what is a good man, what is good and great, that we find a quality higher than all possibles, that even if a man is unschooled, there is a right that feels and actions that do not fall behind, that these actions are clean and if we were to measure it would be deemed excellent; and that now we make a proud and healthy claim of this discovery of good e.g. a good husband.

Look there are high advantages set down for marriage as disadvantages that takes a toil on the wariness of men and consume their private moments. Other men recite the same avowal and disclose success at last, ahem, a reason they lose much of their hair .

So Tiger, GET A DIVORCE.

Forgive the failure you know, get un-married and entertain all the women of the world, hookers, bar-girls, madams, hook ups, porn stars, postitutes, have orgies, drink yourself silly at the gentlemen clubs - you will be the true product of the Western Society. The things longed for is arrived, and will shine on you since you can name the price..."Hey, it's Tiger, can you please take..."

Nothing is more worthy of being just vulgar, no suspicious behaviour to worry about, no flowers to bloom, no confusion, the right insanity of gloom with doses of folly, no societal pressures, more goofing about, f-buddies, and jokes. Indulge yourself in pop culture where one gives a damm, where more freedom exists to promote pop culture as your permanent guest. What you do is what is expected. All eyes are gazing now. Women who cum and go. Gain respect and become the hunk of the male species. You will be idolised, forget sports – you have done that bit, be a macho man. No pressure now.

No regrets. See an action until it is done and still

No worries

No media

No more repairing relations

No more damage control

No more taking breaks from being a healthy athlete

No more repair to character

No more gossip

It is only romantic fools who can detect and hold on to sentiments that a flower blooms and perhaps has open the eyes and I can see a face, that I might not soil my white hand with a touch because I am allowed to smell a flower, but that I recognise a bloom now, I will not forget and in the future I can certainly recognise its face.

You can learn from your own mistakes or from others but really you have to have some standards, values, and character that you can own otherwise you are just part of this insane decaying society.

I mean what the heck is:

- F-buddies

- Friends with benefits

- Booty calls

- Easy sleeping with bar chicks et al

Edited December 12, 2009 by RB

[August1991]

Look Mr Tiger, you really want all you problems to go away quickly - GET A DIVORCE.

If Tiger goes the divorce route (breach of contract), he's probably going to have to fork over about $400 million or so - at a time when his earning power is rapidly diminishing.

I think the question is rather why Tiger Woods ever married. He should have remained single like George Clooney.

[Talk about unintended consequences. Our legal system now discourages men from making any commitment at all.]

----

As to the rest of your post RB, as usual, I think I speak for others when I say that your points are not entirely coherent.

[bloodyminded]

If Tiger goes the divorce route (breach of contract), he's probably going to have to fork over about $400 million or so - at a time when his earning power is rapidly diminishing.

I think the question is rather why Tiger Woods ever married. He should have remained single like George Clooney.

[Talk about unintended consequences. Our legal system now discourages men from making any commitment at all.]

----

As to the rest of your post RB, as usual, I think I speak for others when I say that your points are not entirely coherent.

He can afford 400 million dolars, so I don't see a problem. Any billionaire who complains about paying that amount to his ex-wife is a greedy little whiner. Think Donald Trump.

[Mr.Canada]

Tiger is only remorseful because he got caught. No other reason. If he hadn't gotten caught he'd still be doing it.

[Guest American Woman]

He can afford 400 million dolars, so I don't see a problem. Any billionaire who complains about paying that amount to his ex-wife is a greedy little whiner. Think Donald Trump.

Exactly. And not only that, but it's Tiger's fault; he's the one who broke his vows/promises.

Tiger is only remorseful because he got caught. No other reason. If he hadn't gotten caught he'd still be doing it.

There's not a doubt in my mind that he'd still be doing it if he hadn't been caught.

[bloodyminded]

Exactly. And not only that, but it's Tiger's fault; he's the one who broke his vows/promises.

Yeah...what kind of terrible world do we live in when a billionaire can't even cheat a million times on his wife without consequences? Shouldn't rich, promiscuous men be allowed to do whatever they wish without it affecting their lives in any negative ways whatsoever?

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah...what kind of terrible world do we live in when a billionaire can't even cheat a million times on his wife without consequences? Shouldn't rich, promiscuous men be allowed to do whatever they wish without it affecting their lives in any negative ways whatsoever?

It is terrible that the system doesn't allow for that, so of course if men refuse to take responsibility and make commitments, it's the legal system's fault!

a thousand times over ....

[August1991]

Exactly. And not only that, but it's Tiger's fault; he's the one who broke his vows/promises.

Most American jurisdictions have "no-fault" divorce. IOW, the settlement is not tied to finding blame in either party, and so people don't waste time blaming one another.

Tiger Woods' wife Elin Nordegren could get half the 337.5-million-pound fortune the sportstar has earned as she prepares to meet divorce lawyers, it has emerged.

...

Sources have claimed that Elin is planning to file for divorce in California - where the couple have a home - and not Florida, where they live.

A source said: "Mr Trope is the best divorce lawyer in the business and the divorce laws in California are much more favourable than most other states.

"Elin can fight for half of what her husband has earned since they were married. And Trope can bust through any pre-nup - he's done it many times before."

Some tabloid

I like that quote at the end. So much for pre-nups.

----

I think the point is that Woods was the famous golfer who earned the endorsements. If he can lose half this earned wealth through a divorce settlement, it creates a powerful incentive for other men to avoid marriage.

[Guest American Woman]

Most American jurisdictions have "no-fault" divorce. IOW, the settlement is not tied to finding blame in either party, and so people don't waste time blaming one another.

I wasn't talking "legalese," I was talking reality, as in 'too bad for him if he has to "fork over about $400 million or so" since he has no one to blame but himself,' ie: it was his fault.

So I'm aware of the no-fault divorce option; however, just because one can claim "no fault" and be granted a divorce, ie: one doesn't have to prove the other is at fault in order to be able to obtain a divorce, it doesn't mean issues such at adultery and abuse aren't a factor.

Florida is a "no fault" divorce state.

Nevertheless, the adulterous conduct of one spouse can impact other important issues raised in a divorce. In child custody battles, for instance, a court considers the "moral fitness" of a parent seeking custody. This "moral fitness" question opens the door for an introduction of the parent's adulterous behavior. [...]

The division of marital property and liabilities is another issue that may be impacted by adultery. [...]

Under Florida Statutes adultery is specifically listed as a factor to be considered in determining the amount of alimony awarded, but courts have struggled to reconcile the consideration of adultery with the "no fault" concept. The bottom line is that the amount of alimony awarded a spouse is only increased if the adulterous conduct increases the spouse's monetary needs. But, remember judges are only human and evidence of adultery could conceivably color the judge's view of the parties. link

I think the point is that Woods was the famous golfer who earned the endorsements. If he can lose half this earned wealth through a divorce settlement, it creates a powerful incentive for other men to avoid marriage.

And I think the point is that Woods could have done the right thing and then he wouldn't be in the position where he could lose half his wealth through a divorce settlement.

But if the fear of losing one's wealth is "more powerful" a force than the desire to make a commitment to one's family/children, and blame for that choice is put the legal system rather than the man's screwed up priorities, it is indeed just a terrible, terrible world for men who want to have their cake and eat it too.

[August1991]

Nevertheless, the adulterous conduct of one spouse can impact other important issues raised in a divorce. In child custody battles, for instance, a court considers the "moral fitness" of a parent seeking custody. This "moral fitness" question opens the door for an introduction of the parent's adulterous behavior. [...]

I don't disagree that all manner of issues can get involved in a divorce. The idea of "no fault" was to put the question of blame on the periphery in an attempt to make divorce suits less ugly and costly to both parties than they were previously.

Under Florida Statutes adultery is specifically listed as a factor to be considered in determining the amount of alimony awarded, but courts have struggled to reconcile the consideration of adultery with the "no fault" concept. The bottom line is that the amount of alimony awarded a spouse is only increased if the adulterous conduct increases the spouse's monetary needs. But, remember judges are only human and evidence of adultery could conceivably color the judge's view of the parties. [/i]link

I'm no expert in Florida family law but at first glance, that strikes me as a reasonable compromise given the constraint of the Florida Code.

And I think the point is that Woods could have done the right thing and then he wouldn't be in the position where he could lose half his wealth through a divorce settlement.

But if the fear of losing one's wealth is "more powerful" a force than the desire to make a commitment to one's family/children, and blame for that choice is put the legal system rather than the man's screwed up priorities, it is indeed just a terrible, terrible world for men who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Here you get to the heart of the matter, AW. And you sound like a puritan Protestant woman. (Since I'm making grotesque generalizations, I might as well continue. IME, Catholic women approach this question differently. I digress.)

I suppose in an ideal world, divorce wouldn't exist. Neither would bankruptcy. And both parents would love all their children equally. Unfortunately, we live in a world where business ventures go bad and partnerships must be dissolved.

In general IMHO, the law should not aim for fairness but rather to set the right incentives. For erxmple, the law on bankruptcy should neither encourage nor deter two partners intent on starting up a new business venture. IOW, divorce settlements should neither encourage nor deter two people from marrying.

The world doesn't need more children; it needs more educated children. Similarly, the world doesn't need more marriages - it needs more happy marriages. I wonder how forcing Woods to fork over $400 million to his wife of three years encourages this.

Edited December 17, 2009 by August1991

[JerrySeinfeld]

... The other men in the group instinctively seek this man's approval... not necessarily in an obvious and obsequious way, but if they have a good story to tell or some hilarious zingers to dish out, they make sure he's hearing it.

I think this is the sort of Wild Kingdom definition that people usually associate with the phrase Alpha Male. It's not about money, it's largely a function of confidence and personal magnetism. Other men instinctively sense that this man is the leader of the pack. Women sense it too.

Sorry Kimmy, I gotta disagree here. Your observations are partly right, but I think you're limiting your analysis to social settings and mating, which is natural as you are a woman observing the male culture from the outside looking in. I actually used to feel this way too, however as I matured and met more succesful, well respected and purely dominent males, I started to realize many other aspects of a "lead male" which relate to respect and status (such as achievement, intelligence and, yes, money for example), which had nothing to do with how a particular male performs in a social setting.

The best example (although it's not a perfect match) I can think of is a general manager of a hockey team. The players down on the ice are the young boys and the behavior to which you refer in your post. Beating eachother up, performing best in their given limited venue is what matters to them. But everyone in the entire arena knows who's really in charge. And he doesn't have to speak loud or carry a big stick to try to prove it.

Another exmaple? How about James Bond. Not the centre of attention. Just classy, cool, and in charge.

I guess what I'm saying is, in a more mature environment outside off a bar full of youthful testosterone laden boys, there is another, higher level of Alpha male.

In today's world, the Alpha male you describe in college often ends up washing someone else's car in his 30's.

Make any sense?

Edited December 17, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[Guest American Woman]

I don't disagree that all manner of issues can get involved in a divorce. The idea of "no fault" was to put the question of blame on the periphery in an attempt to make divorce suits less ugly and costly to both parties than they were previously.

The purpose of it was giving people unhappy in their marriage a legal out, the ability to obtain a divorce, even if no one committed a "fault," such as adultery.

Here you get to the heart of the matter, AW. And you sound like a puritan Protestant woman. (Since I'm making grotesque generalizations, I might as well continue. IME, Catholic women approach this question differently. I digress.)

Let's just strike that out and pretend you never said it so I can at least keep the illusion that I'm engaged in an intelligent discussion.

I suppose in an ideal world, divorce wouldn't exist. Neither would bankruptcy. And both parents would love all their children equally. Unfortunately, we live in a world where business ventures go bad and partnerships must be dissolved.

Yes, we do. And when "business ventures and partnerships go bad and must be dissolved," it's done in a way that doesn't leave on partner with the lion's share of the assets.

In general IMHO, the law should not aim for fairness but rather to set the right incentives. For erxmple, the law on bankruptcy should neither encourage nor deter two partners intent on starting up a new business venture. IOW, divorce settlements should neither encourage nor deter two people from marrying.

That the law shouldn't aim for "fairness" is a ludicrous notion. It's not up to the law to "set the right incentives" for two people who want to get married/start a family. Why in God's name would the law have anything to do with "incentives" in people's personal/private decisions? If someone wants to get married, they know the law. They aren't going into it blind. To think one partner should be able to get out of it to their advantage is as ridiculous as thinking one business partner should be able to dissolve a partnership unfairly.

The world doesn't need more children; it needs more educated children. Similarly, the world doesn't need more marriages - it needs more happy marriages. I wonder how forcing Woods to fork over $400 million to his wife of three years encourages this.

Since you seem to think forking over millions would be a deterrent to marriage, it stands to reason that it should also be a deterrent to committing adultery; and a marriage without adultery is certainly a "happier marriage." Tiger certainly doesn't seem to be happier for having committed adultery; seems to me he's a much unhappier man and father, and I think money is the least of it.

But to think that the law should be part of "making marriages happier" is, again, ludicrous. The law isn't in the couples therapy business; it's simply the legal end of things. Furthermore, I'm sure if the law said that Tiger didn't have to give a substantial part of his wealth to his wife, only one half of that marriage would be "happier."

And in case it's escaped you, many women have had to pay men millions in divorce settlements, too.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yes, we do. And when "business ventures and partnerships go bad and must be dissolved," it's done in a way that doesn't leave on partner with the lion's share of the assets.

I love that phrase "the assets" - is if to imply that Tiger Woods didn't earn the entire lot.

No wonder women coo about marriage so much more than men do - what's the downside to marrying Tiger? It doesn't work out and he forks over half of his money to you? Geez. Tough decision.

lol