Tiger Woods

[Anonymous]

[quote=gn][quote=Bristol Chicken]Take a hard look at Tiger. Take away the money, the fame, The pro athlete aura and your left with Eldrick Tont Woods, plumber.

Take a look at his wife, model, stone cold fox, could attract and conquer most any man.

You do the math. It always was the money. They might have been breifly blinded by love, family, children and now more than ever the molded public perception …….but it was always about the money.[/quote]

I disagree. Tiger is a very talented athlete. And that’s pretty rare. On the other hand, there are a large number of models who are as beautiful as his wife.

So, if you are talking about strictly “trading his assets with her assets”, I would argue that it would be easier for Tiger to find somebody “equivalent” to his wife than for his wife to find somebody “equivalent” to him.

This is the main reason why rich men can have their picks of beautiful women. The number of beautiful women far exceed the number of rich men. It’s about supply & demand.

Regarding the prenup, when they got married, I suspect it was something like this:

His view: He comes into their marriage with a lot of money. And nobody knows what the future hold, so he has to protect his assets.

Her view: That’s fair. But what if, in the future, when she’s no longer beautiful, he decides to dump her for someone younger.

Their agreement: After a certain number of years, she gets a certain amount of money if he divorces her.

Post-scandal, I suspect it’s something like this:

Her view: He has proven to be untrustworthy (in the area of marriage fidelity), so she needs more financial security to compensate for the higher risk she takes by staying with him.

His view: He needs to maintain/repair his image as a family man for the corporate sponsors. So he’s willing to “pay for his mistakes”.

Their agreement: re-write the prenup.[/quote]

Prenup = money

To the best of my knowledge none of us here have any first hand knowledge of the personal history, family matters, love life of Cheetah or his lovely wife. We only can deduct from what we see on the surface, the media, and our own personal experiences.

Tiger was in the 100 million plus club long before the Nordic fox entered the picture. I would find it very difficult to beleive that the existing and future piles of cash did not have some bearing on the decision making process of the fox when he came courting.

Perhaps the current rage attributed to the fox is based on her finding out and realizing she is, in the eye of the Tiger, nothing more than another member of his worldwide brothel. Yes for better or worse, a very well paid member with benefits and responsiblities above and beyond the average Cheetah girl.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Posner from the Daily Beast reports on “The Secret World of Golf Groupies”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/the-secret-world-of-golf-groupies/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Russ: There’s a great term I learned in Analytical Psych back in college, Elite Deviance. This was used an explanation for the wealthy, politicians, professional athletes and others in similar circumstances, who felt that they could flout the law, social conventions, etc with impunity and all based on either their success, money or station in life.

I doubt very much that Tiger is feeling “conflicted”. He’s very sure what he wants and his marriage and family are nothing more than window dressing; part of the “Tiger Woods brand”, if you will. Undoubtedly, some corporate consultant explained the benefits of wife and family, especially as they contribute to the good, wholesome image Tiger projects and how this would help in acquiring all those lucrative endorsement deals.[/quote]
I hear what you are saying Allan. Could be. I tend to think we are more alike than different from these people. That is, unless they are secretly sociopaths or deeply under the influence of them for so long that they are lost. To his credit,even Dave said he would not lie about having fun on the side.
I tend to think that with all this golf and publicity since he was a kid, Tiger never had a chance to learn like the rest of us because he was steered completely clear of any girl that might cause him grief. I promise you, the females he is finding on his own, would give him a bunch of grief if he tried to have a “serious” relationship with them. He is an immature,hapless goof ball when it comes to the opposite sex, due in part to his other successes.It’s not that he doesn’t want something different than his bimbo fetish, he couldn’t pull it off if he tried. This issue with success causing more harm than good with women/relationships, is not uncommon even in more common men. If a guy really should spend some time unraveling a few things from his past and charges head on into salvation through “success”, like a good boy instead or in Tigers case a Sports Hero, even worse. Of course I am imagining all this with respect to Tiger,but it is possible maybe even probably true. There could be some overlap with your theory.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Posner from the Daily Beast reports on “The Secret World of Golf Groupies”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/the-secret-world-of-golf-groupies/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Russ: There’s a great term I learned in Analytical Psych back in college, Elite Deviance. This was used an explanation for the wealthy, politicians, professional athletes and others in similar circumstances, who felt that they could flout the law, social conventions, etc with impunity and all based on either their success, money or station in life.

I doubt very much that Tiger is feeling “conflicted”. He’s very sure what he wants and his marriage and family are nothing more than window dressing; part of the “Tiger Woods brand”, if you will. Undoubtedly, some corporate consultant explained the benefits of wife and family, especially as they contribute to the good, wholesome image Tiger projects and how this would help in acquiring all those lucrative endorsement deals.[/quote]
I hear what you are saying Allan. Could be. I tend to think we are more alike than different from these people. That is, unless they are secretly sociopaths or deeply under the influence of them for so long that they are lost. To his credit,even Dave said he would not lie about having fun on the side.
I tend to think that with all this golf and publicity since he was a kid, Tiger never had a chance to learn like the rest of us because he was steered completely clear of any girl that might cause him grief. I promise you, the females he is finding on his own, would give him a bunch of grief if he tried to have a “serious” relationship with them. He is an immature,hapless goof ball when it comes to the opposite sex, due in part to his other successes.It’s not that he doesn’t want something different than his bimbo fetish, he couldn’t pull it off if he tried. This issue with success causing more harm than good with women/relationships, is not uncommon even in more common men. If a guy really should spend some time unraveling a few things from his past and charges head on into salvation through “success”, like a good boy instead or in Tigers case a Sports Hero, even worse. Of course I am imagining all this with respect to Tiger,but it is possible maybe even probably true. There could be some overlap with your theory.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Posner from the Daily Beast reports on “The Secret World of Golf Groupies”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/the-secret-world-of-golf-groupies/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Russ: There’s a great term I learned in Analytical Psych back in college, Elite Deviance. This was used an explanation for the wealthy, politicians, professional athletes and others in similar circumstances, who felt that they could flout the law, social conventions, etc with impunity and all based on either their success, money or station in life.

I doubt very much that Tiger is feeling “conflicted”. He’s very sure what he wants and his marriage and family are nothing more than window dressing; part of the “Tiger Woods brand”, if you will. Undoubtedly, some corporate consultant explained the benefits of wife and family, especially as they contribute to the good, wholesome image Tiger projects and how this would help in acquiring all those lucrative endorsement deals.[/quote]
I hear what you are saying Allan. Could be. I tend to think we are more alike than different from these people. That is, unless they are secretly sociopaths or deeply under the influence of them for so long that they are lost. To his credit,even Dave said he would not lie about having fun on the side.
I tend to think that with all this golf and publicity since he was a kid, Tiger never had a chance to learn like the rest of us because he was steered completely clear of any girl that might cause him grief. I promise you, the females he is finding on his own, would give him a bunch of grief if he tried to have a “serious” relationship with them. He is an immature,hapless goof ball when it comes to the opposite sex, due in part to his other successes.It’s not that he doesn’t want something different than his bimbo fetish, he couldn’t pull it off if he tried. This issue with success causing more harm than good with women/relationships, is not uncommon even in more common men. If a guy really should spend some time unraveling a few things from his past and charges head on into salvation through “success”, like a good boy instead or in Tigers case a Sports Hero, even worse. Of course I am imagining all this with respect to Tiger,but it is possible maybe even probably true. There could be some overlap with your theory.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Posner from the Daily Beast reports on “The Secret World of Golf Groupies”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/the-secret-world-of-golf-groupies/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Russ: There’s a great term I learned in Analytical Psych back in college, Elite Deviance. This was used an explanation for the wealthy, politicians, professional athletes and others in similar circumstances, who felt that they could flout the law, social conventions, etc with impunity and all based on either their success, money or station in life.

I doubt very much that Tiger is feeling “conflicted”. He’s very sure what he wants and his marriage and family are nothing more than window dressing; part of the “Tiger Woods brand”, if you will. Undoubtedly, some corporate consultant explained the benefits of wife and family, especially as they contribute to the good, wholesome image Tiger projects and how this would help in acquiring all those lucrative endorsement deals.[/quote]
I hear what you are saying Allan. Could be. I tend to think we are more alike than different from these people. That is, unless they are secretly sociopaths or deeply under the influence of them for so long that they are lost. To his credit,even Dave said he would not lie about having fun on the side.
I tend to think that with all this golf and publicity since he was a kid, Tiger never had a chance to learn like the rest of us because he was steered completely clear of any girl that might cause him grief. I promise you, the females he is finding on his own, would give him a bunch of grief if he tried to have a “serious” relationship with them. He is an immature,hapless goof ball when it comes to the opposite sex, due in part to his other successes.It’s not that he doesn’t want something different than his bimbo fetish, he couldn’t pull it off if he tried. This issue with success causing more harm than good with women/relationships, is not uncommon even in more common men. If a guy really should spend some time unraveling a few things from his past and charges head on into salvation through “success”, like a good boy instead or in Tigers case a Sports Hero, even worse. Of course I am imagining all this with respect to Tiger,but it is possible maybe even probably true. There could be some overlap with your theory.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Posner from the Daily Beast reports on “The Secret World of Golf Groupies”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/the-secret-world-of-golf-groupies/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Russ: There’s a great term I learned in Analytical Psych back in college, Elite Deviance. This was used an explanation for the wealthy, politicians, professional athletes and others in similar circumstances, who felt that they could flout the law, social conventions, etc with impunity and all based on either their success, money or station in life.

I doubt very much that Tiger is feeling “conflicted”. He’s very sure what he wants and his marriage and family are nothing more than window dressing; part of the “Tiger Woods brand”, if you will. Undoubtedly, some corporate consultant explained the benefits of wife and family, especially as they contribute to the good, wholesome image Tiger projects and how this would help in acquiring all those lucrative endorsement deals.[/quote]
I hear what you are saying Allan. Could be. I tend to think we are more alike than different from these people. That is, unless they are secretly sociopaths or deeply under the influence of them for so long that they are lost. To his credit,even Dave said he would not lie about having fun on the side.
I tend to think that with all this golf and publicity since he was a kid, Tiger never had a chance to learn like the rest of us because he was steered completely clear of any girl that might cause him grief. I promise you, the females he is finding on his own, would give him a bunch of grief if he tried to have a “serious” relationship with them. He is an immature,hapless goof ball when it comes to the opposite sex, due in part to his other successes.It’s not that he doesn’t want something different than his bimbo fetish, he couldn’t pull it off if he tried. This issue with success causing more harm than good with women/relationships, is not uncommon even in more common men. If a guy really should spend some time unraveling a few things from his past and charges head on into salvation through “success”, like a good boy instead or in Tigers case a Sports Hero, even worse. Of course I am imagining all this with respect to Tiger,but it is possible maybe even probably true. There could be some overlap with your theory.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Posner from the Daily Beast reports on “The Secret World of Golf Groupies”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/the-secret-world-of-golf-groupies/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Russ: There’s a great term I learned in Analytical Psych back in college, Elite Deviance. This was used an explanation for the wealthy, politicians, professional athletes and others in similar circumstances, who felt that they could flout the law, social conventions, etc with impunity and all based on either their success, money or station in life.

I doubt very much that Tiger is feeling “conflicted”. He’s very sure what he wants and his marriage and family are nothing more than window dressing; part of the “Tiger Woods brand”, if you will. Undoubtedly, some corporate consultant explained the benefits of wife and family, especially as they contribute to the good, wholesome image Tiger projects and how this would help in acquiring all those lucrative endorsement deals.[/quote]

In my view, running around with a bunch of women isn’t Deviant Behavior (although clearly that’s just my opinion – and if it is, so be it). The problem, again, is that he was doing it within the mirage of a committed marriage. If Tiger was single, none of this would be news, just as no one has a problem with Derek Jeter and his Girls of the Month.

I’m not quite as cynical as you, Allan, on the roots of this behavior. I don’t think Tiger sat down and said, “I bet I could pull in another $50 million per year if I just got married and had kids,” although I could be wrong. I think it’s more likely a case of just assuming he could have his cake and eat it too. But, who knows…

On a related but different subject, does anyone else find it interesting that there really is no male equivalent to Groupies – whether they be of the musician, athlete, or other variety? I’m not saying that there aren’t some dudes who would hang around Britney Spears’ trailer to try to get in her pants, but… in a general sense, the population of folks who would be considered groupies is probably comprised 95%+ of females.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Posner from the Daily Beast reports on “The Secret World of Golf Groupies”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/the-secret-world-of-golf-groupies/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Russ: There’s a great term I learned in Analytical Psych back in college, Elite Deviance. This was used an explanation for the wealthy, politicians, professional athletes and others in similar circumstances, who felt that they could flout the law, social conventions, etc with impunity and all based on either their success, money or station in life.

I doubt very much that Tiger is feeling “conflicted”. He’s very sure what he wants and his marriage and family are nothing more than window dressing; part of the “Tiger Woods brand”, if you will. Undoubtedly, some corporate consultant explained the benefits of wife and family, especially as they contribute to the good, wholesome image Tiger projects and how this would help in acquiring all those lucrative endorsement deals.[/quote]

In my view, running around with a bunch of women isn’t Deviant Behavior (although clearly that’s just my opinion – and if it is, so be it). The problem, again, is that he was doing it within the mirage of a committed marriage. If Tiger was single, none of this would be news, just as no one has a problem with Derek Jeter and his Girls of the Month.

I’m not quite as cynical as you, Allan, on the roots of this behavior. I don’t think Tiger sat down and said, “I bet I could pull in another $50 million per year if I just got married and had kids,” although I could be wrong. I think it’s more likely a case of just assuming he could have his cake and eat it too. But, who knows…

On a related but different subject, does anyone else find it interesting that there really is no male equivalent to Groupies – whether they be of the musician, athlete, or other variety? I’m not saying that there aren’t some dudes who would hang around Britney Spears’ trailer to try to get in her pants, but… in a general sense, the population of folks who would be considered groupies is probably comprised 95%+ of females.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Posner from the Daily Beast reports on “The Secret World of Golf Groupies”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/the-secret-world-of-golf-groupies/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Russ: There’s a great term I learned in Analytical Psych back in college, Elite Deviance. This was used an explanation for the wealthy, politicians, professional athletes and others in similar circumstances, who felt that they could flout the law, social conventions, etc with impunity and all based on either their success, money or station in life.

I doubt very much that Tiger is feeling “conflicted”. He’s very sure what he wants and his marriage and family are nothing more than window dressing; part of the “Tiger Woods brand”, if you will. Undoubtedly, some corporate consultant explained the benefits of wife and family, especially as they contribute to the good, wholesome image Tiger projects and how this would help in acquiring all those lucrative endorsement deals.[/quote]

In my view, running around with a bunch of women isn’t Deviant Behavior (although clearly that’s just my opinion – and if it is, so be it). The problem, again, is that he was doing it within the mirage of a committed marriage. If Tiger was single, none of this would be news, just as no one has a problem with Derek Jeter and his Girls of the Month.

I’m not quite as cynical as you, Allan, on the roots of this behavior. I don’t think Tiger sat down and said, “I bet I could pull in another $50 million per year if I just got married and had kids,” although I could be wrong. I think it’s more likely a case of just assuming he could have his cake and eat it too. But, who knows…

On a related but different subject, does anyone else find it interesting that there really is no male equivalent to Groupies – whether they be of the musician, athlete, or other variety? I’m not saying that there aren’t some dudes who would hang around Britney Spears’ trailer to try to get in her pants, but… in a general sense, the population of folks who would be considered groupies is probably comprised 95%+ of females.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Posner from the Daily Beast reports on “The Secret World of Golf Groupies”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/the-secret-world-of-golf-groupies/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Russ: There’s a great term I learned in Analytical Psych back in college, Elite Deviance. This was used an explanation for the wealthy, politicians, professional athletes and others in similar circumstances, who felt that they could flout the law, social conventions, etc with impunity and all based on either their success, money or station in life.

I doubt very much that Tiger is feeling “conflicted”. He’s very sure what he wants and his marriage and family are nothing more than window dressing; part of the “Tiger Woods brand”, if you will. Undoubtedly, some corporate consultant explained the benefits of wife and family, especially as they contribute to the good, wholesome image Tiger projects and how this would help in acquiring all those lucrative endorsement deals.[/quote]

In my view, running around with a bunch of women isn’t Deviant Behavior (although clearly that’s just my opinion – and if it is, so be it). The problem, again, is that he was doing it within the mirage of a committed marriage. If Tiger was single, none of this would be news, just as no one has a problem with Derek Jeter and his Girls of the Month.

I’m not quite as cynical as you, Allan, on the roots of this behavior. I don’t think Tiger sat down and said, “I bet I could pull in another $50 million per year if I just got married and had kids,” although I could be wrong. I think it’s more likely a case of just assuming he could have his cake and eat it too. But, who knows…

On a related but different subject, does anyone else find it interesting that there really is no male equivalent to Groupies – whether they be of the musician, athlete, or other variety? I’m not saying that there aren’t some dudes who would hang around Britney Spears’ trailer to try to get in her pants, but… in a general sense, the population of folks who would be considered groupies is probably comprised 95%+ of females.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Posner from the Daily Beast reports on “The Secret World of Golf Groupies”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/the-secret-world-of-golf-groupies/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Russ: There’s a great term I learned in Analytical Psych back in college, Elite Deviance. This was used an explanation for the wealthy, politicians, professional athletes and others in similar circumstances, who felt that they could flout the law, social conventions, etc with impunity and all based on either their success, money or station in life.

I doubt very much that Tiger is feeling “conflicted”. He’s very sure what he wants and his marriage and family are nothing more than window dressing; part of the “Tiger Woods brand”, if you will. Undoubtedly, some corporate consultant explained the benefits of wife and family, especially as they contribute to the good, wholesome image Tiger projects and how this would help in acquiring all those lucrative endorsement deals.[/quote]

In my view, running around with a bunch of women isn’t Deviant Behavior (although clearly that’s just my opinion – and if it is, so be it). The problem, again, is that he was doing it within the mirage of a committed marriage. If Tiger was single, none of this would be news, just as no one has a problem with Derek Jeter and his Girls of the Month.

I’m not quite as cynical as you, Allan, on the roots of this behavior. I don’t think Tiger sat down and said, “I bet I could pull in another $50 million per year if I just got married and had kids,” although I could be wrong. I think it’s more likely a case of just assuming he could have his cake and eat it too. But, who knows…

On a related but different subject, does anyone else find it interesting that there really is no male equivalent to Groupies – whether they be of the musician, athlete, or other variety? I’m not saying that there aren’t some dudes who would hang around Britney Spears’ trailer to try to get in her pants, but… in a general sense, the population of folks who would be considered groupies is probably comprised 95%+ of females.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]

On a related but different subject, does anyone else find it interesting that there really is no male equivalent to Groupies – whether they be of the musician, athlete, or other variety? I’m not saying that there aren’t some dudes who would hang around Britney Spears’ trailer to try to get in her pants, but… in a general sense, the population of folks who would be considered groupies is probably comprised 95%+ of females.[/quote]

I have a theory about that, actually. IMHO, female groupies are the equivalent of male stalkers. They become obsessed with a particular person (usually someone they don’t really know), and oftentimes imagine they have an acutal relationship of some sort with that person. At some point, they try to act out that relationship in real life.

With male stalkers, female victims react as though they’re being attacked (which they are). With female groupies, men will often go along with what the girls want to do — if they’re hot. Most men who have groupies also have a security detail, so they’re better able to keep the undesirable groupies away. Female victims of stalkers usually don’t have that same luxury, unfortunately.

Personally, I think female groupies can be just as dangerous as male stalkers, but are less likely to commit physical violence (though it definitely does occur from time to time). It certainly seems to be the case that there are more female groupies than male stalkers, though.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]

On a related but different subject, does anyone else find it interesting that there really is no male equivalent to Groupies – whether they be of the musician, athlete, or other variety? I’m not saying that there aren’t some dudes who would hang around Britney Spears’ trailer to try to get in her pants, but… in a general sense, the population of folks who would be considered groupies is probably comprised 95%+ of females.[/quote]

I have a theory about that, actually. IMHO, female groupies are the equivalent of male stalkers. They become obsessed with a particular person (usually someone they don’t really know), and oftentimes imagine they have an acutal relationship of some sort with that person. At some point, they try to act out that relationship in real life.

With male stalkers, female victims react as though they’re being attacked (which they are). With female groupies, men will often go along with what the girls want to do — if they’re hot. Most men who have groupies also have a security detail, so they’re better able to keep the undesirable groupies away. Female victims of stalkers usually don’t have that same luxury, unfortunately.

Personally, I think female groupies can be just as dangerous as male stalkers, but are less likely to commit physical violence (though it definitely does occur from time to time). It certainly seems to be the case that there are more female groupies than male stalkers, though.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]

On a related but different subject, does anyone else find it interesting that there really is no male equivalent to Groupies – whether they be of the musician, athlete, or other variety? I’m not saying that there aren’t some dudes who would hang around Britney Spears’ trailer to try to get in her pants, but… in a general sense, the population of folks who would be considered groupies is probably comprised 95%+ of females.[/quote]

I have a theory about that, actually. IMHO, female groupies are the equivalent of male stalkers. They become obsessed with a particular person (usually someone they don’t really know), and oftentimes imagine they have an acutal relationship of some sort with that person. At some point, they try to act out that relationship in real life.

With male stalkers, female victims react as though they’re being attacked (which they are). With female groupies, men will often go along with what the girls want to do — if they’re hot. Most men who have groupies also have a security detail, so they’re better able to keep the undesirable groupies away. Female victims of stalkers usually don’t have that same luxury, unfortunately.

Personally, I think female groupies can be just as dangerous as male stalkers, but are less likely to commit physical violence (though it definitely does occur from time to time). It certainly seems to be the case that there are more female groupies than male stalkers, though.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]

On a related but different subject, does anyone else find it interesting that there really is no male equivalent to Groupies – whether they be of the musician, athlete, or other variety? I’m not saying that there aren’t some dudes who would hang around Britney Spears’ trailer to try to get in her pants, but… in a general sense, the population of folks who would be considered groupies is probably comprised 95%+ of females.[/quote]

I have a theory about that, actually. IMHO, female groupies are the equivalent of male stalkers. They become obsessed with a particular person (usually someone they don’t really know), and oftentimes imagine they have an acutal relationship of some sort with that person. At some point, they try to act out that relationship in real life.

With male stalkers, female victims react as though they’re being attacked (which they are). With female groupies, men will often go along with what the girls want to do — if they’re hot. Most men who have groupies also have a security detail, so they’re better able to keep the undesirable groupies away. Female victims of stalkers usually don’t have that same luxury, unfortunately.

Personally, I think female groupies can be just as dangerous as male stalkers, but are less likely to commit physical violence (though it definitely does occur from time to time). It certainly seems to be the case that there are more female groupies than male stalkers, though.

[Author]

Posts