Tiger Woods

[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.

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]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?[/quote]

This is solely about looks/sexuality – it has little or nothing to do with the “celebrity” of the person. If the woman is hot, the picture goes up.

Although there is a “novelty” issue…

[quote=Russell]
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? [/quote]

This gets to the issue of “novelty” – which is apart from Groupiedom. I’m sure a sex tape of Hillary Clinton would also do quite well due solely to its inherent novelty.

You’re really stretching…

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]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?[/quote]

This is solely about looks/sexuality – it has little or nothing to do with the “celebrity” of the person. If the woman is hot, the picture goes up.

Although there is a “novelty” issue…

[quote=Russell]
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? [/quote]

This gets to the issue of “novelty” – which is apart from Groupiedom. I’m sure a sex tape of Hillary Clinton would also do quite well due solely to its inherent novelty.

You’re really stretching…

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]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?[/quote]

This is solely about looks/sexuality – it has little or nothing to do with the “celebrity” of the person. If the woman is hot, the picture goes up.

Although there is a “novelty” issue…

[quote=Russell]
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? [/quote]

This gets to the issue of “novelty” – which is apart from Groupiedom. I’m sure a sex tape of Hillary Clinton would also do quite well due solely to its inherent novelty.

You’re really stretching…

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]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?[/quote]

This is solely about looks/sexuality – it has little or nothing to do with the “celebrity” of the person. If the woman is hot, the picture goes up.

Although there is a “novelty” issue…

[quote=Russell]
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? [/quote]

This gets to the issue of “novelty” – which is apart from Groupiedom. I’m sure a sex tape of Hillary Clinton would also do quite well due solely to its inherent novelty.

You’re really stretching…

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]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?[/quote]

This is solely about looks/sexuality – it has little or nothing to do with the “celebrity” of the person. If the woman is hot, the picture goes up.

Although there is a “novelty” issue…

[quote=Russell]
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? [/quote]

This gets to the issue of “novelty” – which is apart from Groupiedom. I’m sure a sex tape of Hillary Clinton would also do quite well due solely to its inherent novelty.

You’re really stretching…

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]That’s why I didn’t become a banker. What the hell would anyone become a banker for except to negotiate success against what gold diggers offer? No that’s not right. That is just a career for people following the most primitive instincts, and once under taken, is a sure fire stop to an individual’s social evolution.[/quote]

[quote=davelj]
You lost me at “why I didn’t become a banker.” I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.[/quote]

This bit remains baffling…

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]That’s why I didn’t become a banker. What the hell would anyone become a banker for except to negotiate success against what gold diggers offer? No that’s not right. That is just a career for people following the most primitive instincts, and once under taken, is a sure fire stop to an individual’s social evolution.[/quote]

[quote=davelj]
You lost me at “why I didn’t become a banker.” I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.[/quote]

This bit remains baffling…

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]That’s why I didn’t become a banker. What the hell would anyone become a banker for except to negotiate success against what gold diggers offer? No that’s not right. That is just a career for people following the most primitive instincts, and once under taken, is a sure fire stop to an individual’s social evolution.[/quote]

[quote=davelj]
You lost me at “why I didn’t become a banker.” I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.[/quote]

This bit remains baffling…

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]That’s why I didn’t become a banker. What the hell would anyone become a banker for except to negotiate success against what gold diggers offer? No that’s not right. That is just a career for people following the most primitive instincts, and once under taken, is a sure fire stop to an individual’s social evolution.[/quote]

[quote=davelj]
You lost me at “why I didn’t become a banker.” I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.[/quote]

This bit remains baffling…

[davelj]

[quote=Russell]That’s why I didn’t become a banker. What the hell would anyone become a banker for except to negotiate success against what gold diggers offer? No that’s not right. That is just a career for people following the most primitive instincts, and once under taken, is a sure fire stop to an individual’s social evolution.[/quote]

[quote=davelj]
You lost me at “why I didn’t become a banker.” I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.[/quote]

This bit remains baffling…

[NotCranky]

[quote=davelj][quote=Russell]That’s why I didn’t become a banker. What the hell would anyone become a banker for except to negotiate success against what gold diggers offer? No that’s not right. That is just a career for people following the most primitive instincts, and once under taken, is a sure fire stop to an individual’s social evolution.[/quote]

[quote=davelj]
You lost me at “why I didn’t become a banker.” I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.[/quote]

This bit remains baffling…[/quote]
Keep trying.

[NotCranky]

[quote=davelj][quote=Russell]That’s why I didn’t become a banker. What the hell would anyone become a banker for except to negotiate success against what gold diggers offer? No that’s not right. That is just a career for people following the most primitive instincts, and once under taken, is a sure fire stop to an individual’s social evolution.[/quote]

[quote=davelj]
You lost me at “why I didn’t become a banker.” I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.[/quote]

This bit remains baffling…[/quote]
Keep trying.

[NotCranky]

[quote=davelj][quote=Russell]That’s why I didn’t become a banker. What the hell would anyone become a banker for except to negotiate success against what gold diggers offer? No that’s not right. That is just a career for people following the most primitive instincts, and once under taken, is a sure fire stop to an individual’s social evolution.[/quote]

[quote=davelj]
You lost me at “why I didn’t become a banker.” I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.[/quote]

This bit remains baffling…[/quote]
Keep trying.

[NotCranky]

[quote=davelj][quote=Russell]That’s why I didn’t become a banker. What the hell would anyone become a banker for except to negotiate success against what gold diggers offer? No that’s not right. That is just a career for people following the most primitive instincts, and once under taken, is a sure fire stop to an individual’s social evolution.[/quote]

[quote=davelj]
You lost me at “why I didn’t become a banker.” I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.[/quote]

This bit remains baffling…[/quote]
Keep trying.

[Author]

Posts