Is Tiger Woods a *good* husband/dad even though he cheated on his wife?

[Trader]

Ron Artest and Clinton Portis run out to defend Tiger Woods.

But Jim Rome shoots straight from the hip

"I know a number of you are asking, if you are a good husband and you are a good dad, what's the big deal if you 'get a little on the side'? That's the thing, if you're getting a little on the side, you're neither a good husband nor a good dad. That's the whole point."

"I'm not saying this guy is the devil, or he won't bounce back. Just don't tell me what he did wasn't wrong, because it was. If you have that kind of game off the course and you want to kill it fine, just don't get married, fine. If you did get married and you realized that it was the worst mistake you ever made, then OWN it, cut your losses short and get a divorce. Just don't tell me this guy is the victim here and everyone is out to get him."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF7EvRqLnMk

 

[Warrior74]

The only people who can tell you if your a good father or not is your children. And they really can't say until they grow up. This could just be a barely a blip in their lives...we don't know yet. So on that case i won't pass judgment.

As for the rest...yah, he should have never got caught or married. Part of being a good husband is not getting in unnecessary bull****, so no points there.

 

[grayclif]

The public's awareness of his treatment for sexual addiction must be incredibly humiliating for all who are close to him.

Just a mention - It seems extramarital affairs are a way of life in my country (somewhere in the Caribbean). I have no statistics to support this claim but percentages are high. Fathers here may openly have 2 families. One with his wife and one with his lady on the side (sweetheart).

I work with two families like this. These families have kids from different mothers that are the same age. In fact one set of boys, who are from different mothers, were born days apart. I know these fathers, they are very successful businessmen, and incredibly alpha. All four moms, all pushing 50, are very attractive women. One of the women even represented my country at Ms. Universe.

These men are great fathers. Their kids adore them. Their women adore them. I have even seen these "families" travel together, the father, the 2 mothers and all the kids. It's the most incredible thing to see because the men seem so perfectly comfortable. The woman in these arrangements are friends and do get along.

I'm not saying Tiger is alpha. I don't know the guy. I have never met him and its certainly not the way he is being marketed. But he is the best at what he does professionally.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Greycliff,
Yours is a lovely story a balanced story,like many on this forum as well as Tiger Woods, your alpha male has a high sex drive....In our Western Societies such men are hounded and persecuted...Your Island People have a much more mature and realistic attitude.

 

[Blue Phoenix]

If you want to hunt don´t settle down!

 

[HalfAddict]

Who gives a **** who Tiger Woods is banging. He's a golfer with a hardon and a bunch of money.

Get a life.

 

[Trader]

Who gives a **** who Tiger Woods is banging. He's a golfer with a hardon and a bunch of money.

Get a life.

This is not about Tiger Woods per se. This is about your value system.

Do you believe that you can be a good husband if you cheat on your wife?

This also brings about the larger question

Can you be a good president, CEO, or sports coach, if you cheat on your wife?

 

[Warrior74]

This is not about Tiger Woods per se. This is about your value system.

Do you believe that you can be a good husband if you cheat on your wife?

This also brings about the larger question

Can you be a good president, CEO, or sports coach, if you cheat on your wife?

America has always had this mentality, if you cheat on your wife you can't do your freaking job. It's one of the stupidest ideas ever as every man in this country should know. Getting some on the side doesn't necessarily affect your job performance. Many other countries around the world expect powerful men to have mistresses and to do their damn job. Yay puritanical religious holdovers! Yay!

 

[Trader]

America has always had this mentality, if you cheat on your wife you can't do your freaking job. It's one of the stupidest ideas ever as every man in this country should know. Getting some on the side doesn't necessarily affect your job performance. Many other countries around the world expect powerful men to have mistresses and to do their damn job. Yay puritanical religious holdovers! Yay!

It's not so much that if you cheat on your wife, you are not capable of doing your job, it's more of an integrity issue.

If you were a betting man, would you expect a politician to act with integrity if he cheats on your wife?

All things being equal, would you expect a high school football coach to treat his players fairly and justly if he was cheating on his wife? Why not just hire a coach who has a clean record of marital fidelity?

My point is, you can't just compartamentalize integrity: oh I'll just be a scoundrel in this area of my life, but every other area I'll be an upright man. Your sins will spill over into other areas of your life.

You judge girls in that way all the time. If she is a liar and a cheater in one aspect of her life (i.e. she totally uses her friends), you become a bit more wary, cause she might do the same to you, her bf. And you think that way with good reason.

 

[Warrior74]

It's not so much that if you cheat on your wife, you are not capable of doing your job, it's more of an integrity issue.

If you were a betting man, would you expect a politician to act with integrity if he cheats on your wife?

All things being equal, would you expect a high school football coach to treat his players fairly and justly if he was cheating on his wife? Why not just hire a coach who has a clean record of marital fidelity?

My point is, you can't just compartamentalize integrity: oh I'll just be a scoundrel in this area of my life, but every other area I'll be an upright man. Your sins will spill over into other areas of your life.

You judge girls in that way all the time. If she is a liar and a cheater in one aspect of her life (i.e. she totally uses her friends), you become a bit more wary, cause she might do the same to you, her bf. And you think that way with good reason.

Meh. A woman's integrity. I see you have a sense of humor. We judge each man on his actions, if he does what he says he's going to do then what he does in his personal life is none of my business. If you say you are bringing me a cake, and I find out you cheat on your wife and you still deliver a perfectly good cake, I could give two craps about you and your wife. Now if you don't meet your obligation then yes, I can use that 'shortcoming' to further denigrate you. Or if I don't like your race/politics and think you don't quite belong in my circles I can use that as ammunition to destroy your public image. But at no point do I really think it affects the quality of your actual work.

Example...all the republicans...including Moral Majority Leader Newt G. Who blasted the hell out of Clinton only to find out later he had a mistress of his own for years and years. These things are just tools of power.

 

[backbreaker]

i can just speak for my dad. cheated on my mom when I was 7, then cheated on her when I was 10, then cheated on her when I was 17. My dad has women problems, yet my dad tought me more about women and gave me more to work with as a young man in this world than the majority of these "fathers" I see.

The value of a dollar, getting your ass up and working for what you want, how to respect yourself and never let a woman run over you, these are things, values my father taught me. Had I not listened to my mom for 12 years tell me not to be like my dad when it came to women I would have never found sosuave in the first place.

while my dad has short comings, I don't think he did a bad job, with me or my brothers. My little brother is in college on a full ride and my other little brother who is 9 has straight A's in school.


Plus we should not get into these issues anyway. I know a little bit more as I am older to know that my mom had alot to do with why my dad did what he did. We don't know jack **** about what happened bedhind the doors of that house, what she was or was not doing. We don't know how good a father is, it's all pure speculation. all we know is he can fvcking hit a golf ball and we now are all qualified to tell him rather he is or is not a good father.

My point is, you can't just compartamentalize integrity: oh I'll just be a scoundrel in this area of my life, but every other area I'll be an upright man. Your sins will spill over into other areas of your life.

You then get into a more fundamental argument becuase I don't partially think cheating is a sin. If you don't morally think something is wrong you can't do wrong by doing it. As we know Tiger woods is not Christan and does not have the same beliefs as we have, we don't know what he beliefs are inside.

Getting some on the side doesn't necessarily affect your job performance.

not necessarily but it can. My dad for isntance.. is not stupid by any stretch..and could have done a lot more if he didn't spend every fvcking waking moment of his life.. hell.. i can call him right now at this very moment and I promise you he's out trying to get laid. No doubt in my mind. it's 1am in little rock.

I am getting married soon. I have had ample opprotunities to sleep around.. actually as recently as 2 days ago. while I didn't, it wasn't becuase I think it's wrong to do so.. I don't want to. If we got married and she cheated..


you know what.. i got it.



okay...


ask yourself this.

if she was on the LPGA and she was sleeping with the caddy... and her husband was at home..

do you think we would have ESPN making a formal statement for her on national TV or do you think we would have posts asking is she a good mother? Becuase how dare we call a woman a bad mother? she can suck a **** though awater hose by be a good mom.

 

[Warrior74]

A husband and wife were having dinner at a very fine restaurant when this absolutely stunning young woman comes over to their table, gives the husband a big kiss, then says she’ll see him later and walks away.

The wife glares at her husband and says, “Who the hell was that?”

“Oh,” replies the husband, “she’s my mistress.”

“Well, that’s the last straw,” says the wife. “I’ve had enough, I want a divorce!”

“I can understand that,” replies her husband, “but remember, if we get a divorce it will mean no more shopping trips to Paris, no more wintering in Barbados, no more summers in Tuscany, no more Infiniti or Lexus in the garage, and no more yacht club. But, My Dearest, the decision is yours.”

Just then, a mutual friend enters the restaurant with a gorgeous babe on his arm. “Who’s that woman with Jim?” asks the wife.

“That’s his mistress,” says her husband.

"Ours is prettier," she replies.

 

[WaterTiger]

It's not so much that if you cheat on your wife, you are not capable of doing your job, it's more of an integrity issue.

If you were a betting man, would you expect a politician to act with integrity if he cheats on his wife?

All things being equal, would you expect a high school football coach to treat his players fairly and justly if he was cheating on his wife? Why not just hire a coach who has a clean record of marital fidelity?

My point is, you can't just compartamentalize integrity: oh I'll just be a scoundrel in this area of my life, but every other area I'll be an upright man. Your sins will spill over into other areas of your life.

I'm going to back up Trader on this one.

Marriage is very much a LEGAL agreement. If you marry a woman you are cutting yourself off from having sex with any other woman. You swore to it, infront of your friends & family, her friends and family (and in front of God if you believe such things)

This is NO DIFFERENT than a man signing a contract in a bank for a loan. Six months down the road he suddenly decides he's not thrilled with the loan and defaults, refuses to pay because another bank gave him a lower interest rate. Do you just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well! He wasn't happy so it's okay for him to do that. But he's a great guy otherwise!"

It's justifying bad behavior.
Liars will always justify as reason to lie
Theives will always justify a reason to steal
Sluts will always justify a reason to get laid
Abusers will always justify a reason to hurt some one

Either you have strength of charactor in all aspects of your life, or your a justifier

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

If a woman lets herself go, gets fat, starves her husband for sex and/or uses her sexual agency to covertly manipulate him into expensive and damaging life decisions while making it seem his responsibility, is she still a good wife and mother?

Who will society view more harshly, the shrew-wife or the cheating husband?

Once again, the problem with your absolutist position is that you make the mistake of directly associating integrity with commitment. A condition of integrity will always be much more broadly defined than the very specific condition(s) of commitment.

There's a popular saying amongst some SS members here that goes,..

"Anything you cannot say 'No' to makes you it's slave."

I happen to agree with this, however, by this definition, does not commitment make you a 'slave' by default? If by the circumstances of a commitment you cannot, figuratively, say "no" to the terms of that (or due to that) commitment, are you not then a slave?

Take marriage out of the equation; if I'm in a committed LTR with a GF and over the course of that relationship I realize that she's not what I'm looking for (for any number of reasons), even though she's 100% faithfully committed to me and the LTR, should I then break that commitment? If I do, am I then being unethical for having broken that commitment? Should the commitment to my own personal well being and future happiness be compromised by another commitment?

What's the primary moral obligation; commitment to my own well being or to the principle of commitment itself?

My take is that commitment 'should' be a function of genuine desire. Ideally, commitment should be to something one is so passionate about that the limiting of one's own future opportunities that come from that commitment is an equitable trade. This is unfortunately rarely the case for most people in any form of commitment because people, circumstance, opportunity and conditions are always in flux. A commitment that had been seen as an equitable sacrifice at one time can become debilitating 5 years later depending upon circumstance.

So what I'm getting at is where do you draw the line? If I have one life to live and one precious lifetime to do it in, what is more important; a commitment to oneself in learning and securing the best options for a lifetime or being committed to the principle of self-sacrificing commitment?

We tell freshmen AFCs here all the time to dedicate themselves to self-improvement - to seek out and accomplish what's best for them - in other words, to uncompromisingly commit themselves to their own cause in as positive a manner as possible. I'd argue that genuine desire is a necessary precursor to this, but in advocating this self-concerned improvement, are we not then doing them a disservice if their moral duty ought to be focused on the principle of commitment, even when that commitment is (or becomes) contradictory to their commitment to a positive self? Should we not hold AFCs in the highest respect when they selflessly sacrifice their futures due to their devoted commitment to a ONEitis girl who'll never reciprocate (much less reward) that commitment? Maybe they've got it right, you can't doubt their (albeit misguided) dedication to their emotional (and I'm sure they'd say moral) commitments.

It's very easy to make ethical judgements when your options are right & wrong, but they're very difficult when they're right vs. right or wrong vs. wrong. It'd be pretty ƒucked up of Christopher Reeves' wife to have bailed out on him after he became paralyzed - that's an easy call. But what about the husband who was sold a bill of goods prior to marriage that his wife bait & switched him on? Is he obligated to stick by her in spite of a deception for commitment's sake? Would it be less an offense if she we're only a live in GF who never cheated on him, but made him miserable?

Is the never married, rich, famous, George Clooney more moral for not marrying and instead entertaining a string of lovers over his lifetime than the pre-shake up Tiger Woods and his committing to marriage? Does Clooney's commitment to himself make him a better man than Woods' or vice versa?

 

[SexxiKing777]

A husband and wife were having dinner at a very fine restaurant when this absolutely stunning young woman comes over to their table, gives the husband a big kiss, then says she’ll see him later and walks away.

The wife glares at her husband and says, “Who the hell was that?”

“Oh,” replies the husband, “she’s my mistress.”

“Well, that’s the last straw,” says the wife. “I’ve had enough, I want a divorce!”

“I can understand that,” replies her husband, “but remember, if we get a divorce it will mean no more shopping trips to Paris, no more wintering in Barbados, no more summers in Tuscany, no more Infiniti or Lexus in the garage, and no more yacht club. But, My Dearest, the decision is yours.”

Just then, a mutual friend enters the restaurant with a gorgeous babe on his arm. “Who’s that woman with Jim?” asks the wife.

“That’s his mistress,” says her husband.

"Ours is prettier," she replies.

what exactly does this silly story have to prove? Other than the man is a scumbag and the woman is a gold digger?

 

[Reyaj]

I think cheating for a male is wrong just as lying is wrong for everyone.

However both are human nature... and when you are dealing with someone of prominence like Tiger Woods it's damn near impossible not to commit infedelity.

We should be criticizing him more for not covering up his tracks better.

 

[squirrels]

The only reason this is a big deal is because it jeopardizes his "clean" image for future endorsement deals.

The Tiger Woods scandal was old news a long time ago. The only reason it's even still being discussed is because football season is over and the NCAA B-ball tourney hasn't started yet, so they need something to go on about.

I don't know the circumstances surrounding the man's decision to marry...whether it was genuine or also part of his "image"...and I don't give enough of a f*ck to investigate it. So I can't make that kind of value judgement. And neither can you. Everyone seems to think that they have the right to dictate what's right and wrong for everyone else based on scattered information and assumptions from some newspapers on a slow-news-day.

I actually agree with a lot of what Rollo said.

 

[Trader]

If a woman lets herself go, gets fat, starves her husband for sex and/or uses her sexual agency to covertly manipulate him into expensive and damaging life decisions while making it seem his responsibility, is she still a good wife and mother?

Obviously not, she is not a good wife.

Who will society view more harshly, the shrew-wife or the cheating husband?

I know where you are going with this. Of course society is always gives a *lighter* sentence to girls than men. I agree it is BS.

Once again, the problem with your absolutist position is that you make the mistake of directly associating integrity with commitment. A condition of integrity will always be much more broadly defined than the very specific condition(s) of commitment.

Integrity is commitment, in other words, integrity is honoring your word. To do what you say, to mean what you say.

Take marriage out of the equation; if I'm in a committed LTR with a GF and over the course of that relationship I realize that she's not what I'm looking for (for any number of reasons), even though she's 100% faithfully committed to me and the LTR, should I then break that commitment? If I do, am I then being unethical for having broken that commitment? Should the commitment to my own personal well being and future happiness be compromised by another commitment?

What's the primary moral obligation; commitment to my own well being or to the principle of commitment itself?

In your example, you are NOT married to her. You made no commitment to be with her for richer or for poorer, etc. The only commitment you made was that you will not cheat on her while you are still with her. But you are free to dump her and end it if you so please.

My take is that commitment 'should' be a function of genuine desire. Ideally, commitment should be to something one is so passionate about that the limiting of one's own future opportunities that come from that commitment is an equitable trade. This is unfortunately rarely the case for most people in any form of commitment because people, circumstance, opportunity and conditions are always in flux. A commitment that had been seen as an equitable sacrifice at one time can become debilitating 5 years later depending upon circumstance.

So what I'm getting at is where do you draw the line? If I have one life to live and one precious lifetime to do it in, what is more important; a commitment to oneself in learning and securing the best options for a lifetime or being committed to the principle of self-sacrificing commitment?

I see what you are saying. You made a commitment and you were willing to sacrifice X, Y, and Z because you feel it was quote 'equitable.' Now circumstances change, so should you now abandon honor and commitment and just walk away? The thing is, in any other area of your life, the answer is NO. For example, you take out a 30 year mortgage, because you had a nice job and could pay the interest. Now you lost your job and can't pay the interest, so you think it is ok to just walk away from the home and the mortgage? Of course not.

Same thing with marriage. Yes life is a one-shot game, that's why you must be careful about the commitments you make. Sometimes you get screwed due to "Acts of God." That's life. Live with it and roll with the punches.

We tell freshmen AFCs here all the time to dedicate themselves to self-improvement - to seek out and accomplish what's best for them - in other words, to uncompromisingly commit themselves to their own cause in as positive a manner as possible. I'd argue that genuine desire is a necessary precursor to this, but in advocating this self-concerned improvement, are we not then doing them a disservice if their moral duty ought to be focused on the principle of commitment, even when that commitment is (or becomes) contradictory to their commitment to a positive self? Should we not hold AFCs in the highest respect when they selflessly sacrifice their futures due to their devoted commitment to a ONEitis girl who'll never reciprocate (much less reward) that commitment? Maybe they've got it right, you can't doubt their (albeit misguided) dedication to their emotional (and I'm sure they'd say moral) commitments.

We should NOT hold AFCs to the highest respect when they quote "selflessly sacrifice their futures to a ONEitis girl" because they never entered the commitment on their own accord. No, it was because they wanted to please the girl. That's the whole problem with AFCs. The problem is not commitment, it's that AFCs let other people decide FOR them (i.e. girl, media, feminists) that they should commit when they really don't want to.

It's very easy to make ethical judgements when your options are right & wrong, but they're very difficult when they're right vs. right or wrong vs. wrong. It'd be pretty ƒucked up of Christopher Reeves' wife to have bailed out on him after he became paralyzed - that's an easy call. But what about the husband who was sold a bill of goods prior to marriage that his wife bait & switched him on? Is he obligated to stick by her in spite of a deception for commitment's sake? Would it be less an offense if she we're only a live in GF who never cheated on him, but made him miserable?

Christopher Reeves' wife bailing on him is just wrong. Remember the commitment, in sickness or in health...

The bottom line is, if you get married, the only way you can break the contract, is if she does something to VOID the contract: i.e. cheat on you, endanger your health. I agree with you that yes, there is a lot of grey area in there. But that's life.

Is the never married, rich, famous, George Clooney more moral for not marrying and instead entertaining a string of lovers over his lifetime than the pre-shake up Tiger Woods and his committing to marriage? Does Clooney's commitment to himself make him a better man than Woods' or vice versa?

George Clooney has more integrity than Tiger Woods. He kept it real, he never reneged on his commitment, he just simply refused to make any commitment. That is fair, everyone has the right to do that. You don't HAVE to sign on the dotted line. But if you do, you damn better know the requirements and what's expected of you.

There's a popular saying amongst some SS members here that goes,..

"Anything you cannot say 'No' to makes you it's slave."

I happen to agree with this, however, by this definition, does not commitment make you a 'slave' by default? If by the circumstances of a commitment you cannot, figuratively, say "no" to the terms of that (or due to that) commitment, are you not then a slave?

Again, you are not a slave to commitment if you willing entered into it. If you let other people decide for you (read AFCs) then yes you are a slave to commitment. The bottom line, is you are responsible for the commitments you get into, this is the essence of contract law.

 

[Commandante]

Who gives a **** who Tiger Woods is banging. He's a golfer with a hardon and a bunch of money.

Get a life.

This.

+ Who the fvck cares?

 

[typical]

Wow has this place become stale in the four years I've been absent !!!

EDIT: Not worth the words to explain read squirrels post.