Tiger Woods & Alpha Males

[August1991]

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.

No, the purpose of no-fault divorce was to avoid the complicated, arcane, costly, wasteful arguments to determine who was at fault.

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.

You're a puritan. So what? I quote Marlene Dietrich: "In America, sex is an obsession, in other parts of the world it's a fact."

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?

Once again AW, you strike at the heart of the matter. The law has everything to do with happy marriages.

I happen to think that two people, about to be married, should approach this decision in the fullness of the heart, mind and - as a Bulgarian woman once said to me - their soul. I don't think the State (or its courts) should alter this decision one way or the other. God knows that family, friends, potential in-laws and others will try to influence the decisions. IMV, the State should have no role in this decision.

Yet when a court orders Tiger Woods to fork over several hundred million to a wife of three years, it has intervened.

"Incentives"? That's what justice is all about.

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."

I have thought about your post for the past few hours and IMHO, this quote is key. I have to agree. If married men screw around, they should pay - as an incentive to keep other married men honest.

----

So, we're back into the world where men have to choose among women.

Edited December 19, 2009 by August1991

[Riverwind]

I have thought about your post for the past few hours and IMHO, this quote is key. I have to agree. If married men screw around, they should pay - as an incentive to keep other married men honest.

What about women who screw around, get pregnant and then trick their husband into believing the child is his? Should they pay too?

[blueblood]

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.

That's a typical leftist thing to say, when somebody has a certain amount of money it has no value anymore.

And any other schmuck on the street can afford to lose half of their assets as well. Tiger Woods' lifestyle is far different than ours. What if Tiger Woods decides to become an investment guru and needs as much money as he can to work for him?

That would be like all the dragons on the den because the fact that they are multimillionaires giving away money to every stupid idea they come across, hey they're multi-millionaires, fifty thousand is just pocket change. Dollars to donuts says Tiger Woods would rather buy an island than fork out alimony.

This is why I think divorce laws are in need of being scrapped. I'm not sure that this woman wasn't flat ass broke and needed Tiger to pay for her living needs. This isn't the 1800's anymore, women have jobs and are quite capable of making money. It works both ways, marriage has turned into a right to pillage a man's/woman's assets. It is redundant in this day and age.

[Topaz]

It seem MRS Tiger Woods is getting a divorce in california and she going for half of his billions and she got the best divorce lawyer in CA. and he's good at breaking a nuptial agreements that have been made. As far all the women he was messing around with, they all knew he was married even if he was telling them he was having wife problems. Yes, they ALL say they love him but would they love him if he wasn't a billionaire? Just wondering if Tiger ever had a "normal" teen life of dating or was it all golf.

[capricorn]

As far all the women he was messing around with, they all knew he was married even if he was telling them he was having wife problems.

The misunderstood husband excuse doesn't apply here I don't think. Misunderstood husbands seldom pay for sex. Those cheaters usually prey on women whose lives are also lacking in wholesome relationships.

After we concluded that ace golfer Tiger Woods might actually be dumber than a jar full of hair, news comes that the alleged serial cheater hired at least two prostitutes.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/12/mistress_tiger_paid_for_sex.html

Just wondering if Tiger ever had a "normal" teen life of dating or was it all golf.

Well, I suppose he could have been making up for lost time. In reality though, I think he was just horny and gave in to his urges.

I hope the wife wins her case and gets half of everything he owns. As my spouse said "Tiger Woods is a disgrace to the male species". I think he's right.

[Guest American Woman]

It seem MRS Tiger Woods is getting a divorce in california and she going for half of his billions and she got the best divorce lawyer in CA. and he's good at breaking a nuptial agreements that have been made.

Just because they have a house in California doesn't mean she can file in California. Their residence is in Florida, which is not a 50-50 division of property state, so she'll have to prove that she/they resided in California for at least six months in order to be able to file there, which remains to be seen.

[Guest American Woman]

Dollars to donuts says Tiger Woods would rather buy an island than fork out alimony.

Too bad for him. It's not about what he would "rather" do, but what the law will ultimately say he has to do. He made his choices, now he's paying the price -- and more than just monetarily, too.

[Guest American Woman]

What about women who screw around, get pregnant and then trick their husband into believing the child is his? Should they pay too?

Any man who questions paternity of a child should request a paternity test; in the absence of a test, if the man willingly assumes the father role, then he will have to pay child support in a divorce. The ball's in his court.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Florida, as I pointed out, isn't a 50-50 division of property state. Since that's apparently where they reside, it may be where she has to file.

But I must have missed your post on Madonna's divorce settlement, when she had to pay out $76 million dollars to her ex-husband ....

Trust me. Plenty of men "coo" over marriage too, and plenty of women don't. Furthermore, I don't think Tiger's wife is exactly "cooing" over their marriage. I think she would have preferred a decent husband and father to money, which would be why she signed a pre-nup.

[Riverwind]

Any man who questions paternity of a child should request a paternity test; in the absence of a test, if the man willingly assumes the father role, then he will have to pay child support in a divorce. The ball's in his court.

So you are saying that a men should routinely get paternity tests just in case their wife neglects to mention that she has been sleeping around?

Your hypocrisy is appalling. A man screws around - you say he should pay. But a woman screwing around. Thats fine with you and the man still should pay.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

So you are saying that a men should routinely get paternity tests just in case their wife neglects to mention that she has been sleeping around?

Your hypocrisy is appalling. A man screws around - you say he should pay. But a woman screwing around. Thats fine with you and the man still should pay.

Hypocrisy? A woman screwing around is fine with me? Did you comprehend what I said at all??

Obviously, Tiger got caught. He didn't "mention that he was sleeping around." He, in fact, "neglect[ed]" to mention that. Again. He got caught. So, by the same token, if a woman gets caught cheating, and a man questions paternity as a result, then he should get a paternity test so he doesn't have to pay support if the child isn't his.

There's nothing in the least bit hypocritical about that, and I most definitely did not say anything so much as remotely insinuating that "a woman screwing around is fine with [me]," so what's appalling is your off-the-wall accusation.

Edited December 19, 2009 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

So, by the same token, if a woman gets caught cheating, and a man questions paternity as a result, then he should get a paternity test so he doesn't have to pay support if the child isn't his.

You just said that if a man does not find out about his wife's cheating until a few years later then the man is screwed. In your opinion, he has to pay for kids that are not his and pay the wife to be a mother to kids that are not his. It really does not make a difference how you rationalize such payments as being 'for the kids' the position you take is that women are entitled to screw around with no consequences as long as they can fool thier mate into caring for children that are not his. Edited December 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

You just said that if a man does not find out about his wife's cheating until a few years later then the man is screwed.

I most definitely did not say that. Is something different from what I type on my computer coming up on yours?

In your opinion, he has to pay for kids that are not his and pay the wife to be a mother to kids that are not his.

My opinion is what I clearly state, not what you say it is, and I think/stated nothing of the sort. I said, and this will be the last time I repeat it, that the man should get a paternity test so he doesn't have to pay support if child the isn't his.

It really does not make a difference how you rationalize such payments as being 'for the kids' the position you take is that women are entitled to screw around with no consequences as long as they can fool thier mate into caring for children that are not his.

Obviously I'm trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't have the ability to comprehend what I say, so to comment on that nonsense, that load of bull, is a pointless waste of time.

[Riverwind]

Any man who questions paternity of a child should request a paternity test; in the absence of a test, if the man willingly assumes the father role, then he will have to pay child support in a divorce The ball's in his court.

I bolded what the laws currently state. I did not parse your sentence correctly. Can I take your statement to mean that you feel the current laws should be changed and that a man has no obligation to children who he was fooled into believing were his even if he was their de facto father for years? If so I apologize for misreading your statement. Edited December 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[kimmy]

As far all the women he was messing around with, they all knew he was married even if he was telling them he was having wife problems. Yes, they ALL say they love him but would they love him if he wasn't a billionaire?

It's not *their* business to look after Tiger's moral compass. That's Tiger's responsibility, nobody else's.

I just did a little surfing and found that one of these women recently received a $100,000 "gift" from some other "sugar daddy"... it sounds like she's entirely clear what her business is in. Another of them is a popular porn-star... if Tiger really did hook up with her, I doubt it was because he had any illusions that she was in it for love.

Just wondering if Tiger ever had a "normal" teen life of dating or was it all golf.

I recently saw a terrific feature on Andre Agassi on "60 Minutes". Andre Agassi is one of the most successful tennis players ever... and Andre Agassi HATES tennis. His father was an immigrant who had the idea that if his son became a tennis champion, it would be his family's ticket to the good life. And it happened. It had made Andre miserable but he never quit because he felt such pressure from his father and a sense of duty to his family. His tennis career brought them more than they could have ever dreamed of, but Andre himself found his life so unfulfilling that he was depressed and experimented with drugs because he didn't know how to fill the emptiness he felt.

Things have worked out pretty well for Agassi, though. He met and married Steffi Graf, a kindred spirit (he hated tennis, she hated being famous, they're both much happier now.) And he's used his immense wealth for what sounds like some wonderful philanthropic causes. He got rich young, and figured things out later on in life. I don't know if it's easier or harder for someone to figure things out once they get rich... or maybe it just doesn't make a difference, and rich and famous people just figure things out (or fail to do so) in much more public ways than the rest of us.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

I bolded what the laws currently state. I did not parse yoiur sentence correctly. Can I take you statement to mean that you feel the current laws should be changed and that a man has no obligation to children who he was fooled into believing were his even if he was their de facto father for years? If so I apologize for misreading your statement.

I've actually heard of cases where a man, who had been paying child support, no longer had to pay after proving the child wasn't his. The children in question were young, so I don't know if the number of years is a factor, but I believe if a man would rather sever ties with a child that he assumed the father role with and had a loving parental relationship with for years than pay support, then he shouldn't have to pay; and to the best of my knowledge, in the States he doesn't have to-- the mother has to go after the biological father for support.

[Riverwind]

in the States he doesn't have to-- the mother has to go after the biological father for support.

In Canada the mother can get support from multiple men for the same child. i.e. she can stick it to her ex(es) and while getting money from the biological dad too. Edited December 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

In Canada the mother can get support from multiple men for the same child. i.e. she can stick it to her ex(es) and while getting money from the biological dad too.

I think it's insane that step-dads have to pay support for step-children in Canada.

[bloodyminded]

That's a typical leftist thing to say, when somebody has a certain amount of money it has no value anymore.

And any other schmuck on the street can afford to lose half of their assets as well.

And of course that's a "typical right-wing thing to say"--and it also happens to be objectively false. Half of, say, a few thousand dollars is a lot MORE money than half a billion dollars.

Tiger Woods' lifestyle is far different than ours. What if Tiger Woods decides to become an investment guru and needs as much money as he can to work for him?

Even given your terrible example here (as if half his money isn't enough for even the most extravagant "lifestyle")...I would love to hear some investment guru whining that half a billion dollars is plain insufficient to get started. Hell, what can one do with half a billion? It's such a tiny little bit of money.

In this bizarre scenario, there would literally BE no such thing as investment gurus.

That would be like all the dragons on the den because the fact that they are multimillionaires giving away money to every stupid idea they come across, hey they're multi-millionaires, fifty thousand is just pocket change. Dollars to donuts says Tiger Woods would rather buy an island than fork out alimony.

Well of course; and Tiger would rather bang everyone in sight rather than be faithful to his wife; and perhaps Tiger would rather make more money thahn he does. So what?

The dragons are offering investment money for a potential financial return.

This is wholly distinct from a marriage. You don't marry a woman based on the pre-existing notion that you won't have to give alimony no matter what.

You can always get a pre-nup, if that's the case. If you don't, then you have signed a CONTRACT.

Which is a PERSONAL CHOICE.

No one made Tiger get married; and no one forced him to avoid a pre-nuptial agreement.

Even the rich and powerful are subject to things like personal responsibility. (Heresy, I know.)

Edited December 20, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

No one made Tiger get married; and no one forced him to avoid a pre-nuptial agreement.

His wife did sign a pre-nup. From what I've read, the pre-nup entitles her to $20 million.

[bloodyminded]

His wife did sign a pre-nup. From what I've read, the pre-nup entitles her to $20 million.

In that case, the cries of "unfair" (TO Tiger Woods!) ring even more hollow.

[August1991]

I'm flipping through the news and I see this report about Tiger Woods going off in his yacht to the Bahamas:

It also has a 12,000 gallon fuel tank that gives it a range of 4,000 miles.

Link

12,000 gallons means about $50,000 for a full tank. What's Tiger Woods' carbon footprint?

So I wonder. Why is everyone talking about his girlfriends and no one (in Copenhagen) talking about 40,000 litres of gasoline in his yacht?

Moreover, does Al Gore own a yacht, and how does David Suzuki get to his second home on the other island? Does Suzuki also own a yacht?

I reckon that Alpha Males want to win, and they try to change the rules if they can't.

Hypocrisy? A woman screwing around is fine with me? Did you comprehend what I said at all??

Obviously, Tiger got caught.

And there we have the American puritan reflex.

America, what a country!

Edited December 22, 2009 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

And there we have the American puritan reflex.

America, what a country!

Because every other country's citizens think screwing around on one's spouse is fine? I must have missed that 'non-puritanical' attitude everywhere but in the U.S.

again.

Edited December 22, 2009 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Because every other country's citizens think screwing around on one's spouse is fine? I must have missed that 'non-puritanical' attitude everywhere but in the U.S.

again.

Well, i live in Canada, and salacious reporting about Woods' affairs has been heavily covered. So I guess Canadians are partners with Americans in "puritanism."

Man oh man...I've been as critical of America as anyone...but I can't understand this singling it out for every sin, real or imagined.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, i live in Canada, and salacious reporting about Woods' affairs has been heavily covered. So I guess Canadians are partners with Americans in "puritanism."

Man oh man...I've been as critical of America as anyone...but I can't understand this singling it out for every sin, real or imagined.

It's crazy, really. We are criticized for lacking morals, and we are criticized for having morals. And it seems to be that way for just about everything. We are seriously damned if we do and damned if we don't by some. By too many, actually. But to criticize us for being "puritanical" because we believe in marriage vows is probably one of the craziest criticisms that I've seen thrown at me/America.