Tiger Woods

[davelj]

[quote=scaredycat] What the groupie wants is the power and money of the mark; the stalker wants the womb. [/quote]

And that’s the principal difference between a groupie and a stalker.

A groupie “is a person who seeks sexual and/or emotional intimacy with a celebrity or other authority figure.”

Far more often than not, the stalker isn’t interested in the celebrity/authority aspect of the mark. I’m guessing that out of all the stalkers out there – let’s assume they’re mostly men just for argument’s sake – that the vast majority focus their psychosis on “normal” folks they see in their everyday life, as opposed to celebrities.

So, I would agree that a male stalker of a female celebrity would definitely be analogous to a female groupie. But I suspect that the former is a very small number in comparison to the latter. Thus the analogy is a bit weak.

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]Sorry to the football fans, but aren’t a large percentage of the 60,000 or so men who go to football games every week groupies of a sort? How about a boy or a man wearing an extremely popular players shirt and number? What is up with that? Does anyone ever wear a bench warmer’s number?Tiger doesn’t command a mulit-billion dollar brand because of women, it is because of men.[/quote]

Let’s get back to the definition of groupie (via wikipedia): A groupie “is a person who seeks sexual and/or emotional intimacy with a celebrity or other authority figure.”

In my post above, I should have distinguished between SEX-focused groupies and just run-of-the-mill groupies. That was lazy on my part. I’ll agree with you that if you remove the sexual element, plenty of guys act like groupies with respect to their favorite athletes/teams. Which I find more than a little bizarre. But, I digress.

However… you’re not going to find too many guys who will offer themselves sexually to female celebrities just because they’re celebrities. It’s not that they don’t exist, but their numbers are de minimis in comparison to the number of females who will do the same for male celebrities. Thus, the SEX groupie is overwhelmingly a female phenomenon.

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]Sorry to the football fans, but aren’t a large percentage of the 60,000 or so men who go to football games every week groupies of a sort? How about a boy or a man wearing an extremely popular players shirt and number? What is up with that? Does anyone ever wear a bench warmer’s number?Tiger doesn’t command a mulit-billion dollar brand because of women, it is because of men.[/quote]

Let’s get back to the definition of groupie (via wikipedia): A groupie “is a person who seeks sexual and/or emotional intimacy with a celebrity or other authority figure.”

In my post above, I should have distinguished between SEX-focused groupies and just run-of-the-mill groupies. That was lazy on my part. I’ll agree with you that if you remove the sexual element, plenty of guys act like groupies with respect to their favorite athletes/teams. Which I find more than a little bizarre. But, I digress.

However… you’re not going to find too many guys who will offer themselves sexually to female celebrities just because they’re celebrities. It’s not that they don’t exist, but their numbers are de minimis in comparison to the number of females who will do the same for male celebrities. Thus, the SEX groupie is overwhelmingly a female phenomenon.

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]Sorry to the football fans, but aren’t a large percentage of the 60,000 or so men who go to football games every week groupies of a sort? How about a boy or a man wearing an extremely popular players shirt and number? What is up with that? Does anyone ever wear a bench warmer’s number?Tiger doesn’t command a mulit-billion dollar brand because of women, it is because of men.[/quote]

Let’s get back to the definition of groupie (via wikipedia): A groupie “is a person who seeks sexual and/or emotional intimacy with a celebrity or other authority figure.”

In my post above, I should have distinguished between SEX-focused groupies and just run-of-the-mill groupies. That was lazy on my part. I’ll agree with you that if you remove the sexual element, plenty of guys act like groupies with respect to their favorite athletes/teams. Which I find more than a little bizarre. But, I digress.

However… you’re not going to find too many guys who will offer themselves sexually to female celebrities just because they’re celebrities. It’s not that they don’t exist, but their numbers are de minimis in comparison to the number of females who will do the same for male celebrities. Thus, the SEX groupie is overwhelmingly a female phenomenon.

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]Sorry to the football fans, but aren’t a large percentage of the 60,000 or so men who go to football games every week groupies of a sort? How about a boy or a man wearing an extremely popular players shirt and number? What is up with that? Does anyone ever wear a bench warmer’s number?Tiger doesn’t command a mulit-billion dollar brand because of women, it is because of men.[/quote]

Let’s get back to the definition of groupie (via wikipedia): A groupie “is a person who seeks sexual and/or emotional intimacy with a celebrity or other authority figure.”

In my post above, I should have distinguished between SEX-focused groupies and just run-of-the-mill groupies. That was lazy on my part. I’ll agree with you that if you remove the sexual element, plenty of guys act like groupies with respect to their favorite athletes/teams. Which I find more than a little bizarre. But, I digress.

However… you’re not going to find too many guys who will offer themselves sexually to female celebrities just because they’re celebrities. It’s not that they don’t exist, but their numbers are de minimis in comparison to the number of females who will do the same for male celebrities. Thus, the SEX groupie is overwhelmingly a female phenomenon.

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]Sorry to the football fans, but aren’t a large percentage of the 60,000 or so men who go to football games every week groupies of a sort? How about a boy or a man wearing an extremely popular players shirt and number? What is up with that? Does anyone ever wear a bench warmer’s number?Tiger doesn’t command a mulit-billion dollar brand because of women, it is because of men.[/quote]

Let’s get back to the definition of groupie (via wikipedia): A groupie “is a person who seeks sexual and/or emotional intimacy with a celebrity or other authority figure.”

In my post above, I should have distinguished between SEX-focused groupies and just run-of-the-mill groupies. That was lazy on my part. I’ll agree with you that if you remove the sexual element, plenty of guys act like groupies with respect to their favorite athletes/teams. Which I find more than a little bizarre. But, I digress.

However… you’re not going to find too many guys who will offer themselves sexually to female celebrities just because they’re celebrities. It’s not that they don’t exist, but their numbers are de minimis in comparison to the number of females who will do the same for male celebrities. Thus, the SEX groupie is overwhelmingly a female phenomenon.

[NotCranky]

How about the men who subscribe to playboy or put touched up silk screened, pictures selected from 1000’s of shots to get the very best one, of already beautiful women, who are almost exclusively in their best child bearing years. Aren’t these fellas sex groupies of a sort?

Perhaps closer to the point of Sex Groupie, isn’t it true that a pornographic video of angelina Jolie or whatever her name is would be much more of a sensation than an equal one of a much more beautiful but humble woman who isn’t in the lime light of fame and fortune? I find fascination with these women as equally bizarre as fascination with football players or other althletes and teams.Not that I don’t admire some athletic accomplishments or deny that an athlete could earn my respect or that an actress could be stimulating or earn respect too.

[NotCranky]

How about the men who subscribe to playboy or put touched up silk screened, pictures selected from 1000’s of shots to get the very best one, of already beautiful women, who are almost exclusively in their best child bearing years. Aren’t these fellas sex groupies of a sort?

Perhaps closer to the point of Sex Groupie, isn’t it true that a pornographic video of angelina Jolie or whatever her name is would be much more of a sensation than an equal one of a much more beautiful but humble woman who isn’t in the lime light of fame and fortune? I find fascination with these women as equally bizarre as fascination with football players or other althletes and teams.Not that I don’t admire some athletic accomplishments or deny that an athlete could earn my respect or that an actress could be stimulating or earn respect too.

[NotCranky]

How about the men who subscribe to playboy or put touched up silk screened, pictures selected from 1000’s of shots to get the very best one, of already beautiful women, who are almost exclusively in their best child bearing years. Aren’t these fellas sex groupies of a sort?

Perhaps closer to the point of Sex Groupie, isn’t it true that a pornographic video of angelina Jolie or whatever her name is would be much more of a sensation than an equal one of a much more beautiful but humble woman who isn’t in the lime light of fame and fortune? I find fascination with these women as equally bizarre as fascination with football players or other althletes and teams.Not that I don’t admire some athletic accomplishments or deny that an athlete could earn my respect or that an actress could be stimulating or earn respect too.

[NotCranky]

How about the men who subscribe to playboy or put touched up silk screened, pictures selected from 1000’s of shots to get the very best one, of already beautiful women, who are almost exclusively in their best child bearing years. Aren’t these fellas sex groupies of a sort?

Perhaps closer to the point of Sex Groupie, isn’t it true that a pornographic video of angelina Jolie or whatever her name is would be much more of a sensation than an equal one of a much more beautiful but humble woman who isn’t in the lime light of fame and fortune? I find fascination with these women as equally bizarre as fascination with football players or other althletes and teams.Not that I don’t admire some athletic accomplishments or deny that an athlete could earn my respect or that an actress could be stimulating or earn respect too.

[NotCranky]

How about the men who subscribe to playboy or put touched up silk screened, pictures selected from 1000’s of shots to get the very best one, of already beautiful women, who are almost exclusively in their best child bearing years. Aren’t these fellas sex groupies of a sort?

Perhaps closer to the point of Sex Groupie, isn’t it true that a pornographic video of angelina Jolie or whatever her name is would be much more of a sensation than an equal one of a much more beautiful but humble woman who isn’t in the lime light of fame and fortune? I find fascination with these women as equally bizarre as fascination with football players or other althletes and teams.Not that I don’t admire some athletic accomplishments or deny that an athlete could earn my respect or that an actress could be stimulating or earn respect too.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=davelj]

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…

[/quote]

Dave: Couple of things. The term “Elite Deviance” doesn’t define the behavior(s) as deviant, rather, it seeks to explain how those in positions of power and/or social standing come to believe that they’re different (and they are) and above the law. Tiger’s attitude and actions following the accident would certainly lend credence to this theory, especially his marked unwillingness to speak with the police or allow Elin to speak with them.

Secondly, if you read Posner’s article, you’ll see that Tiger was a sexual player dating back to his earliest involvement with the PGA. So, this is nothing new and, for those in the know, completely expected and understandable. Given that, I would argue that I’m not being overly cynical when I point out that “Tiger” is an established brand and he has corporatized himself, much in the same way that Michael Jordan did. The Tiger brand we as consumers are sold has been buffed, polished and burnished so as to eliminate any imperfections. The Tiger “team” went into full political spin mode following the accident/incident and Elin’s immediate move to renegotiate the pre-nup would certainly indicate that she was an active participant in the show and expected increased remuneration for the added aggravation and increased (negative) attention. At the center of all this is the Tiger brand and the millions upon millions of dollars it throws off. In that sense, I think Tiger (the person) is keenly aware of the calculus involved, right down to the penny.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=davelj]

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…

[/quote]

Dave: Couple of things. The term “Elite Deviance” doesn’t define the behavior(s) as deviant, rather, it seeks to explain how those in positions of power and/or social standing come to believe that they’re different (and they are) and above the law. Tiger’s attitude and actions following the accident would certainly lend credence to this theory, especially his marked unwillingness to speak with the police or allow Elin to speak with them.

Secondly, if you read Posner’s article, you’ll see that Tiger was a sexual player dating back to his earliest involvement with the PGA. So, this is nothing new and, for those in the know, completely expected and understandable. Given that, I would argue that I’m not being overly cynical when I point out that “Tiger” is an established brand and he has corporatized himself, much in the same way that Michael Jordan did. The Tiger brand we as consumers are sold has been buffed, polished and burnished so as to eliminate any imperfections. The Tiger “team” went into full political spin mode following the accident/incident and Elin’s immediate move to renegotiate the pre-nup would certainly indicate that she was an active participant in the show and expected increased remuneration for the added aggravation and increased (negative) attention. At the center of all this is the Tiger brand and the millions upon millions of dollars it throws off. In that sense, I think Tiger (the person) is keenly aware of the calculus involved, right down to the penny.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=davelj]

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…

[/quote]

Dave: Couple of things. The term “Elite Deviance” doesn’t define the behavior(s) as deviant, rather, it seeks to explain how those in positions of power and/or social standing come to believe that they’re different (and they are) and above the law. Tiger’s attitude and actions following the accident would certainly lend credence to this theory, especially his marked unwillingness to speak with the police or allow Elin to speak with them.

Secondly, if you read Posner’s article, you’ll see that Tiger was a sexual player dating back to his earliest involvement with the PGA. So, this is nothing new and, for those in the know, completely expected and understandable. Given that, I would argue that I’m not being overly cynical when I point out that “Tiger” is an established brand and he has corporatized himself, much in the same way that Michael Jordan did. The Tiger brand we as consumers are sold has been buffed, polished and burnished so as to eliminate any imperfections. The Tiger “team” went into full political spin mode following the accident/incident and Elin’s immediate move to renegotiate the pre-nup would certainly indicate that she was an active participant in the show and expected increased remuneration for the added aggravation and increased (negative) attention. At the center of all this is the Tiger brand and the millions upon millions of dollars it throws off. In that sense, I think Tiger (the person) is keenly aware of the calculus involved, right down to the penny.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=davelj]

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…

[/quote]

Dave: Couple of things. The term “Elite Deviance” doesn’t define the behavior(s) as deviant, rather, it seeks to explain how those in positions of power and/or social standing come to believe that they’re different (and they are) and above the law. Tiger’s attitude and actions following the accident would certainly lend credence to this theory, especially his marked unwillingness to speak with the police or allow Elin to speak with them.

Secondly, if you read Posner’s article, you’ll see that Tiger was a sexual player dating back to his earliest involvement with the PGA. So, this is nothing new and, for those in the know, completely expected and understandable. Given that, I would argue that I’m not being overly cynical when I point out that “Tiger” is an established brand and he has corporatized himself, much in the same way that Michael Jordan did. The Tiger brand we as consumers are sold has been buffed, polished and burnished so as to eliminate any imperfections. The Tiger “team” went into full political spin mode following the accident/incident and Elin’s immediate move to renegotiate the pre-nup would certainly indicate that she was an active participant in the show and expected increased remuneration for the added aggravation and increased (negative) attention. At the center of all this is the Tiger brand and the millions upon millions of dollars it throws off. In that sense, I think Tiger (the person) is keenly aware of the calculus involved, right down to the penny.

[Author]

Posts