By Donald
B. Ardell – December 27, 2009
Next to
religion, golf seems to me one of the silliest ways to waste time ever invented. Unlike religion, golf does not have
toxic side effects that poison the waters of liberty, destroy human faculties
for reason and incite tribes into murderous assaults against each other. But, it is not harmless if, due to
years of dedicated training, natural ability and favorable circumstances, the
golfer excels and achieves celebrity status. Tiger Woods has done that and more - he has reached not only
a billion dollar level of wealth from golf-related income - he has attained a
deity-level of fame. The public
demands a great deal of posturing from its fabled celebrities. And therein lies a big hazard.
Celebrities
are expected to follow the moral codes that religious and other social
pressures extol. A married celeb
of the male gender is at special risk. Mr. Woods, like other celebs, must face
the ultimate sand trap - fidelity.
Fidelity
comes easily to black vultures, but it is contrary to human nature. It's a wonderful thing if, somehow, a
human male either pulls it off (fidelity, that is) or at least does not get
caught "transgressing" from the "no one else, ever" norm
associated with marriage. (Why in
hell gays want to bring this burden down upon themselves is a mystery that
eludes me - though I think they should be allowed to do what they like, even if
it's self-destructive.) We know,
from the never-ending outing of disgraced politicians, that the male's chances
of marital bliss are not "Las Vegas odds" good. The reality is that deeply entrenched,
non-negotiable desires of males shift with the passage of time. With initial love and excitement, they
will promise anything - including fidelity, and believe in said promise. But nature is more potent than early
intentions. It is simply unlikely
that males are capable of enduring lust of an exclusive nature for their wives
over time. A mate may still be
good company over the years as both evolve, but based on changed opportunities,
circumstances and modified preferences of one kind or another, ingrained early
ancestor-fueled desires for some other caveman's woman is going to override
religious teachings - and one's own professed code of exclusive commitment.
Tiger
Woods is a better golfer than anyone else on the planet, but he is still a
human male with characteristics that evolved over millions of years. Don't look
for fidelity-related changes anytime soon, for celebrities or the rest of us
instinct-driven males.
While I
was tempted to rest my case after writing this, I sent it around for comment,
just to get some initial reactions. All came back with notes of much interest and benefit, but one was truly
special. It came from Bob Ludlow,
familiar to TPJ readers as a mystery columnist writing under a clever pen name. I’m pleased to include Bob’s remarks,
for they add several perspectives I suspect you will find a considerable
interest. Enjoy – take it
away, Bob.
Ludlow’s
Comments
Don - You
are surely correct on almost all counts, plus you make some sage and witty
observations. I love the implication that not getting caught belongs right up
there on the wonderful-thing pedestal along with true fidelity. Also liked your
statement that Nature is more potent than early intentions. That's really well
said!
(Human
nature has been called the tyranny of the genes. And I'll tell you what: poorly
managed sexual impulsiveness is far from the worst problem that results from
blind submission to the dictates of our Stone-Age genes.)
But I
digress.
Yes,
fidelity most certainly does not come naturally, especially not for males, and
most especially not in the long run (the perception of which varies over a wide
range from male to male). And married male celebrities are surely at high risk,
especially in this infantile twenty-first century U.S. culture. Why are male
celebs at special risk?
Let me
begin to count the ways:
* They
have almost unlimited disposable income.
* Most of
them travel a lot without their wives and families.
* They are
wealthy, famous, and frequently very attractive. (Sorry if I sound cynical or
sexist, but from my perspective, celebrity and wealth seem to make almost any
male attractive, at least to a depressingly high percentage of good-looking
young women.)
Wherever
wealthy male celebs go, beautiful, eager women are strewn in their paths. I am
reminded of the expression, Women are sex objects, men are success objects. In
the case of wealthy and famous men, gorgeous young women are almost literally
throwing themselves at them everywhere they turn. And one thing that means to
me is that the Tiger Woods scandal does not speak well for a lot of women.
But hey,
the villains here are not Tiger Woods, men, or women. The villain, as always,
is an immature, shallow culture that keeps us mired in an unrealistic worldview
that we can't live up to short of imposing a totalitarian theocracy. And
anything would be better than that, including a perpetual drunken orgy.
But I
digress, so back to why married male celebrities are at special risk . . .
* Their
genes relentlessly urge them to get their rocks off at every opportunity and to
fuck every nubile woman they can.
* There's
more, much more; but this is not supposed to be an essay, just a brief response
to your column.
So I say
well done, and let me make one more comment. As you say, circumstances change.
To that I would say any fool knows that morality is circumstantial. Thou shalt
not kill? Give me a break. There are even circumstances where it would be
immoral not to kill.
When it
comes to adultery, I think many of us should at least be less judgmental about
what is a common human failing. If Tiger Woods had forced himself on unwilling
women as some sports heroes have done, then moral outrage would be mandatory.
As for
Tiger Woods, I'm hardly surprised. I am disappointed, though, mainly because I
thought he was too smart to recklessly destroy his carefully -- and expensively
-- crafted image.
The
question that really bugs me is just how in the hell was such a great athlete
unable to do what even an average octogenarian can do, i.e., keep his car on
the road? That's almost as puzzling as George Bush's sitting in that classroom
reading The Pet Goat and doing nothing for five minutes after being told, Mr.
President, the country's under attack. GW has been characterized as incurious.
If he didn't know anything more than the country is under attack, then
apparently he wasn't even curious if his wife and daughters had been vaporized
in a thermonuclear attack. There are just some things I'll never understand.
I loved
your comment wondering why gay citizens want to bring the burden of fidelity on
themselves. But if that's what they want, I fervently want them to have that
right.
The only
downside was your gratuitous disparagement of the great sport of golf. That was
a cheap shot at best. What makes golf worse than any other sport? The only
thing I don't like about it is the damn golfcarts. If able golfers were
required to walk the course, it would be a decent fitness activity.
Don Ardell
is the Well Infidel. He favors
evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over
spirituality. His enthusiasm for
reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (513
editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen
other countries. 