Tiger's Lilies

Hypocrites condemning Tiger Woods for doing what they do themselves.

This month's roaring scandal concerns the world's greatest golfer, Tiger Woods, and his apparently insatiable desire for the intimate companionship of nubile blondes not his wife.  Our Gentle Readers are, we trust, already sufficiently familiar with the extracurricular activities of Mr. Woods, as proclaimed from every TV and magazine for the last few weeks.  Not since Chappaquiddick has a car accident led to such earthshaking consequences for an individual of world renown.

Speaking of Chappaquiddick, we cannot help but notice the difference in reaction among the commentariat.  The question of the moment revolves around whether Mr. Woods should be drawn and quartered for his adulterous libertinism, or whether boiling in oil might be more appropriate.

Dare we mention, also, his shocking lack of politically-correct taste in drawing his bedmates exclusively from the ranks of the fair in face?  Not a sister to be found among them!  As the satirical and parodic email going the rounds has it:

"Why is it that a man who calls himself black can't bring himself to cheat on his wife with a black woman?" said Sharpton, speaking to a group of supporters in Harlem. "What does it say to young black girls everywhere when you pass them over? Shame on you, Tiger Woods. What would your daddy say?"

Far be it from us to question Woods' taste in the fairer sex - he having vastly more experience than we - but whither the national opprobrium?

So far as we are aware, all of Tiger's lilies were over the legal age of consent, entered upon their relationship with him (however brief or otherwise) entirely willingly, and if reports are to be believed, even found it surprisingly satisfying:

Porn star Holly Sampson, 36, bragged this May on the Internet talk show "Naughty America" that she slept with Woods at his 2004 bachelor party. "He picked me to go into the room," Sampson crowed, according to a video unearthed by TMZ. "I have to say he was really good."

Well, she ought to know...

The point is, have we not been told for decades that it's nobody's business what goes on between consenting adults?  Everybody involved did whatever they did entirely willingly.  Nobody was abused, assaulted, coerced, or harmed in any way.

Where Mary Jo Kopechne found herself trapped beneath the icy waters of a frozen stream to suffocate slowly in the dark, these girls need fear nothing worse than a hefty paycheck the moment The View or Jay Leno can make room for them in the schedule.  Yet while Tiger's entire future career hangs in the balance, Ted Kennedy's run as both senator and lothario suffered barely a hiccup and continued uninterrupted for decades.

"What about the wife?" you shout.  Well, what about the wife?  Have we not, as a society, decided that marriage means nothing - and, for the rich and powerful, even less?

There was a time when people took the words "Til death do you part" with all due gravity; any man who willfully broke his marriage vows was looked upon as a scoundrel and drummed out of polite society.  Today, how often do we hear the weak excuse, "We're just not in love anymore" as a couple parts to seek greener grass by playing the field elsewhere?  Why do we pretend to expect fidelity or exclusivity of Tiger Woods when we refuse to demand it of ourselves?

To a man and woman, there is not one member of the media now pummeling Tiger who truly believes in the sanctity of marriage; it's impossible to know, but odds are that each and every one of them has betrayed their own spouse (if any) in much the same way as he has.

Yet for all that hip moderns pooh-pooh the repressive mores of a bygone society, we all know deep down that marriage really is supposed to be forever - not just until you tire of a lover, but for life.  The collapse of American marriage has destroyed a generation of American children with an ever-decreasing number growing up with both biological parents despite ample evidence of the tremendous increase in poverty and abuse found in broken or single-parent homes - a term which we still use while accepting the behavior that leads to it.

If Elin Nordegren, on her wedding day, had the right to expect that Tiger would be "hers and hers only 'til death us do part," so do all of America's wives and husbands.  If not - if, truly, modern wedding vows are just so much meaningless archaic blather - then we have no right to condemn Tiger Woods for doing what, we suppose, anyone else with his advantages and opportunities would do.  Right?

There has always been adultery; there always will be.  There has always been murder, too, and yet as a society the mere fact of murder's existence doesn't stop us from condemning and punishing killers.  Yes, a lot of marriages are troubled; yes, a lot of people have failed to develop the most rudimentary self-control to remain faithful to their spouses.  That's no excuse - and the condemnation should be equal for all.

Alas, as with so many things in modern America, the political provides a free pass.  For years and years, the feminists of the world lauded Ted Kennedy even as he carried on with behavior that should have disqualified him from the respect of any woman, never mind political support.  Tiger Woods, though, has seemed to stand for traditional morality and discipline; now that the truth is revealed, he has no leftist protectors.

Poor Tiger!  If only he'd kissed up to the Racist Reverends and staunchly promoted abortion!  Had he taken those elementary precautions, Elin Nordegren, the mother if Tiger's child, would stand condemned as an old-fashioned prude, and Tiger would be off to his next triumph on the shoulders of his admirers.

Read other Scragged.com articles by Hobbes or other articles on Society.
Reader Comments
Oh please, you had to go as far back as Kennedy for an example of a philandering leftist? Couldn't find a more recent example, huh? We on the left have a veritable panoply of so-called "conservative" philanderers to jaw about.

Marriage in the traditional has been used to indicate ownership. As in, of a man over a woman. Kinda like, oh, I don't know...slavery.

Racist Reverends indeed, isn't it just typical of a self-righteous white person to characterize a black man -who advocates for his race- as a racist?

America suffers because of seemingly sensical nonsensical scribblings from writers like we find at Scragged.

Wouldn't your righteous indignation be better vented at the entrenched elites who have enslaved us to a rotten system, are robbing this country blind (can you say "bailout" -the first demanded -not requested- from your "conservative" bunch) and sticking it to the middle class, than at feminists, poor people, and blacks? As if they're the ones who have ruined this country...?

You blind mice are as much to blame for the state of our nation as those in halls of power.
December 15, 2009 12:03 PM
this seems more like a tirade against the deceased senator from Massachusetts than a review of Mr Woods' sexual addiction. Perhaps there are two topics here, and Mr Hobbes' vitriol is best suited for making that distinction. And then he drags abortion, the private business between a woman and her doctor, as though that explains things- some things are best left outside the scrutiny of reporters and the public; Kennedy's unsavoury behaviour some 40 yrs ago is not one of them- Mr Woods' obsession with blondes is neither, as long as he has sponsors and fans who hold him on a pedestal.
What this has to do with left- and right- wing lunatics is unclear, other than to allow Mr Hobbes to vent:
Kennedy had a problem; those who apologised for him made that choice, but I believe we're talking consenting adults here?
Mr Woods has a problem, and the first step is admitting it; whether he acts upon it remains to be seen, but self-destruction is a benchmark of addiction.
Mr Hobbes sees political conspiracies and abortion advocates as insane, when in fact he wishes to interfere with private decisions made by citizens who choose to ignore their government in a civil-disobedience issue: more power to anyone who sees that the government should not be an arbitrator in one's personal life~!

December 15, 2009 12:20 PM
"...What does it say to young black girls everywhere when you pass them over..."

Unreal. This "Reverend" is more upset that Tiger had affairs with white women than that he had affairs at all.

What does that say?
December 15, 2009 1:56 PM
gChang, I don't think that was a real quote - like the article says, it was from a satirical parody email.

The point is, is adultery wrong? If so, why? And if it's wrong, it should be equally wrong for everybody. Do we really need to name more recent adulterous liberals? Clinton, Jesse Jackson, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, David Letterman...
December 15, 2009 2:26 PM
If you want a more recent example of left wing adultery you could go with Clinton. However, the point of the article, in my opinion, is not to berate the left for adulterous ways, at least not directly. After all you can find plenty examples on both sides of the aisle.

The point of the article was to state that treating Tiger's actions as a horror is inconsistent with current conceptions of marriage. It is to further point out that those who are casting the stones in this case have come to the defense of those who have done at least as much philandering.

Either adultery is wrong or it is not. As a society however we seem unable to decide which it is.
December 15, 2009 3:12 PM
If you hold yourself up as a paragon of perfection and righteousness, and then it turns out you were a lie through and through, that's hypocrisy and a horror. You made yourself out to be better than everyone else.

If you never made such claims, and just fucked up, you simply admit it and move on. You don't have a false hypocritical reputation built up that needs to be torn down.

December 23, 2009 8:31 PM
@Rearden Good Point, Hank... ur second paragraph reminds me of a few friends.. honest people who did move on

December 23, 2009 11:56 PM
I don't know of any time when Tiger claimed to be a paragon of morality. He's a guy that knows how to swing a golf club. Sure he never publicized any indiscretions but I don't think that makes him a hypocrite.
December 24, 2009 9:49 AM
I vote for the hypocrisy of the elite angle.

First, Al Sharpton is racist. To disagree with him makes me a racist. Thus begins the dialogue of the fascist. Using race to further an agenda.

Second. People like Tiger Woods are in an elite class. The expectation is that they are to misbehave without being caught.

The hypocrisy?

1. Furthering racist agendas by calling opponents racist.

2. Saying it's ok for the elite to misbehave, but God forbid they get caught.

Both scenarios are lose-lose.

I believe in the American people. They know what skunks smell like. I smell skunks.
December 29, 2009 8:11 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...