I’m not interested in blogging the particulars of the Tiger Woods story; countless folks are already doing just that. We have a fondness for Tiger in my family, mind you; my late grandmother, who died in 1998, sometimes enjoyed watching golf on television in her final years. Woods was just emerging as a major star as she declined into her final illness, and she often mentioned to the family the pleasure she got watching him play. And so since her death eleven years ago, we’ve all had a bit of a sentimental attachment to the fellow. The only thing I’ve ever held against him is his refusal to use his considerable heft to nudge the Augusta National Golf club to admit women as members; Woods is, to my eye, excessively reluctant to advocate for social change. (And as a Cal alum, I note that Tiger is a passionate supporter of his alma mater, Stanford — and thus a fair target for derision during Big Game week.)
The issue that I’m interested in is infidelity, particularly those that come about following the arrival of a new child. We don’t know how far back Woods’ “transgressions” date (he and his wife, Elin, were married in 2004 — and their first child born in 2007), the evidence seems to be that they either began or increased in frequency after he became a Dad. Certainly, it’s a familiar story in heterosexual marriages: the husband is discombobulated by his wife’s response to the birth of a child. Suddenly, he perceives that which was rightly his has been withdrawn, transferred to someone else whose demands trump his own. Even the wealthy change diapers and nurse (the issue of breast-feeding and class has been a hot one in the feminist blogosphere); a great many women, in the first year or two following the birth of a baby, experience an understandably diminished libido.
If a man has been inculcated with the unfortunate notion that it is his wife’s job (a la the execrable Laura Schlessinger) to take care of him, he may imagine himself neglected once the child appears. That sense of neglect is rooted in a false sense of entitlement, and that latter sense can often act to justify an “affair”. Of course, it’s the myth of male weakness again — the notion that men have irrepressible needs that can only be met through sexual relationships with women. If a wife or a girlfriend (even for the excellent reason of having just become a mother) reduces her attentiveness to those supposedly overpowering needs, than the myth suggests that a “normal, red-blooded guy” is at least somewhat justified in seeking sexual satisfaction (and soothing) elsewhere.
When a Roman general was given a “Triumph” following a victory, he would be paraded through the streets, feted by the magistrates and worshipped by adoring citizens. It could, of course, all go to his head. During the parade, a slave would famously stand just behind the general, whispering in his ear memento mori – “Remember that you are mortal.” In the face of the temptations that come with fame and wealth, it may be necessary to outsource one’s conscience to trusted professionals. If I were Tiger, I’d use some of my wealth to assemble a team with whom I traveled everywhere — bodyguards whose job is as much to protect Woods from his impulses as it is to protect his person from those of others. I’d let trusted family members (including Elin, his wife) select the “accountability team”. And they’d be empowered to escort the superstar back to his hotel room lickety-split if he starts canoodling with a cocktail waitress. “Remember your vows”, these bodyguards might murmur with polite but forceful tones. If one’s own moral voice is too still and too small to be heard in the face of temptation, why not hire one or several such voices to be with you at all times? There’s no shame in acknowledging one’s vulnerabilities — just in refusing to take reasonable measures to protect oneself and one’s family from the harm those vulnerabilities can bring.
And what of men who aren’t Tiger, but who are experiencing the familiar, if not universal frustration that many men feel when their partners become new and distracted mothers? There’s a lot to be said for self-soothing, about which I wrote at length at the beginning of this year in a guest post at Feminist Mormon Housewives. That post concluded:
So, practical tool: when feeling anxious or angry or frustrated as a result of sexual rejection, write down what emotions undergird those surface feelings. Acknowledging that horniness is real and that lack of release is annoying, push deeper. What other need isn’t getting met? What deeper part of ourselves feels ugly, dirty, clumsy? How can we find a way to ask for affirmation without pressuring our wives? Or, better yet, what else can we do to merit that kind of affirmation? Talking about this writing with other men helps, as embarrassing and awkward as it sometimes is. The payoff is undeniable, even if our sex lives at home don’t improve at once. The reward of seeing how it is that we so often use sex to cover for the myriad other hidden needs we have is an immense one. And if we uncover those hidden needs, and learn to ask for affirmation in new ways, we may find that our anxiety and our frustration is far less debilitating than it was.
Marriage was not always meant to be easy. To be married is to be in the crucible of the refiner’s fire. And paradoxically, we are never more in that fire than when we are in a marriage without sexual heat. When we grasp that, we are well on our way.
I wrote that piece on January 19, exactly one week before my daughter was born. Heloise Cerys Raquel will celebrate her first birthday next month, and I’ve had ample opportunity over the course of 2009 to take my own advice. Having a baby has turned our lives upside down, in very good ways. And yes, I’ve had to take my self-soothing ability to the next level. I’ve felt flashes of frustration, surprisingly intense; yes, Virginia, even male feminists, acculturated as we are, struggle against feelings of resentment and entitlement. But I’m smart enough to know that first of all, it’s not about me — it’s about this new and amazing creature called my daughter. And second of all, I’m blessed to recognize that the challenges a baby creates for a relationship are simply new opportunities to grow, to learn new techniques for communication, to develop new and ever-healthier ways of self-soothing.
I’ll still root for Tiger on the golf course. Right now, I’m rooting for him to find, in the midst of this public ugliness, the courage to transform. The incentive to change often only emerges from an experience of profound shame. Tiger has a tremendous opportunity now — and here’s hoping that he’s smart enough to surround himself with advisers strong enough to tell him the truth, and help him make the most of a chance not merely for redemption, but for reinvention.
Too much “self-soothing” will give you hairy palms, Hugo
More seriously, I feel for you — been there a couple of times myself and could have done a much better job of negotiating the changes demanded. I learned a few things that I’d be happy to share though.
It’s never too early to establish that the primary relationship in your family remains between you and your wife. I had an acquaintance who told me once that she had never been separated from her son’s for even one evening from the time they were born until they were 5 years old. Frankly, I don’t think that there is much left of her marriage, though they have not separated as far as I know.
Infants are very demanding, but their demands can be met by a surrogate/sitter for the time it takes to go for dinner or to a show. It is crucial to remember to be husband and wife first and never to let the parenting role become primary. Only those reckless about the survival of their marriage stop having at least a somewhat active sex life (regardless of whether the level of desire impedes spontanaety and you just have to plan a weekly … eh-hem, date…) for a time.
On the subject of desire, it is not just the new mother’s libido that can drop. Lack of sleep and the stress of role changes, etc. effect both parents. The physical intimacy of breastfeeding and caregiving for a child may make the thought of other physical intimacies of any sort overwhelming for some. The wonderful and natural function of the mother’s breast in sustaining the baby may interfere with their sexual associations with unfortuante consequences for one or both halves of the couple. Not to mention that the physical toll that a pregnancy takes on many women’s bodies can leave them feeling undesireable regardless of whether the changes effect their partner’s desire whatsoever.
Are we having fun yet. So – by all means soothe yourself. But don’t avoid the fact that you have couple needs that cannot be submerged completely in your parenting role without risk of waking up one day in a realtionship that feels like running a daycare with a friendly ex-girlfriend (for your own kids) in your own home.
How interesting that there is no mention of Tiger Woods’ wife physically assaulting him and terrorizing him enough that he crashed his car and then coming after him with a golf club. Even if one does find female-on-male domestic violence excusable, funny or deserved, to not even mention it in context to this topic is quite the dodge.
I think that the significant issues are more complex than are alluded to directly above! To expect a mother’s (or in some cases a father’s) bonds with her/his infant child to be “limited” or similar can be a slippery slope.
My partner’s ex – was also – as she is a woman. There were similar issues that divided the two of them as you allude to. My partner – the boys’ birth mother had a deep bond from birth on through now when they are 10 and 13. Her partner had a much more difficult time bonding deeply.
I agree that there needs to be quality couple time – apart from a young child. At the same time – particularly we men need to develop both more extended emotional support networks and the ability to “self-nurture” – in a more holistic sense than was alluded to in a joking way.
Often – we men – need the support of other men, which isn’t always easy to find beyond stereotypical “bonding” in extremely limited ways.
The path of being a “good father” isn’t easy and unfortunately we often lack the resources, because we don’t do enough to create them and support what there is. Thanks!
No one finds it excusable or funny, Toy. What they do find is that it’s significantly rarer, and when it does happen, it’s more likely to be this kind—situational—and much less like the domestic violence plaguing millions of women in our country, which is where a man uses a regular dose of berating and beating, interspersed with phony praise and love, to induce learned helplessness in his victim, to obtain her submission and break her spirit. That kind—where beatings are administered regularly and for “infractions” such as stepping this way when he wanted you to step that, talking too much or too little, or whatever the excuse is—are much more of an epidemic than someone losing their temper—inexcusably, of course—over being cheated on. The fight over Something Big that explodes into violence is easily remedied with divorce. Women who are subject to battering, however, have bigger problems. Attempting to leave often means risking your own life. And even if your abuser doesn’t kill you, he often turns into an MRA and tries to batter and control you from afar by using lawsuits over child support and custody arrangements. That kind of systemic, overwhelming problem requires a different solution.
There are plenty of studies to show that women commit just as much domestic violence as men and that male victims are just as impacted by the violence, but that is beside the point. We have no idea how frequently Elin resorts to verbal or physical violence when angered, particularly in front of their daughter. What we do know is that she physically assaulted Tiger and threatened him with a weapon and the most anyone has said about it is to mock it, downplay it or completely dodge it.
I cannot see you saying that this was just a one-time fight over something big that exploded into violence and the easiest remedy is divorce if the situation were reversed. I am certain that if anyone said that Elin could just divorce Tiger because he assaulted her when he discovered her infidelity you would find that sort of comment an excuse for Tiger’s violence.
What I find curious is that Hugo did not mention the assault at all, not even to offer the excuses for it you did. I cannot see him talking about Elin’s infidelity, what her commitments to marriage ought to entail or hope that she finds the courage to transform if Tiger came after her with a golf club.
Toysoldier, this is thread drift. The infidelities are admitted to; the assaults are unproven allegations. MRAs are one-note-Charlies in their insistence that domestic violence works both ways. If you want to push that angle, go elsewhere. Not the subject of this post.
It’s “thread drift” but you still want to get that “one-note-Charlie” shot in and repeat the old party line, huh…
I think what bugs me most about the “feminist” analysis (and I use the quotes only because it is the analysis found on particular websites (like this one), but may not be feminist in any technical sense) of this incident is how dogmatic and sexually oppressive it is.
So what if he “cheated” (a sex-negative term, if there ever was one)? Maybe he was horny. Maybe she was not satisfying him, whether it be physically or emotionally. Maybe he was just bored. Maybe he felt neglected. There could be any number of reasons for his urges. It seems we are getting excessively moralistic about the interactions between these two people. We condemn him for not being monogamous.
At the same time, Amanda, for instance, says the easy remedy for a bad situation is divorce. This is troubling. We take the monogamy vow very seriously, but not the wedding vow (“’til death do us part”).
Isn’t the condemnation of Tiger for his infidelity just part and parcel of the “Patriarchal” control of sex? (Okay, there I am using the quotes because I do not believe in the Patriarchy, but am trying to look at this from a feminist perspective.)
Because, when you get down to it, I am not sure it is a concession of male weakness to talk about these urges as the basis of action. Looking at your situation with your wife, you acknowledge that her libido has been affected. That is understandable; it happens. Sometimes, the same thing will happen to the father. But, we do not look at the mother as weak if her libido decreases and she does not summon the urge to have sex. We understand that her hormones (presumably) and the changes in her body are affecting her moods and actions, but we do not demand that she be any other way (and we certainly do not look at it as a weakness); the same is not true of the father.
-Jut
After reading this column I am amazed about the great sacrifices men have to do to make a marriage work.
You are a good man Hugo, I hope all men have your commitment, because if not marriage is doomed.
keep up the good work.
Jut-
How do we know they vowed “til death do us part”? And, even if they did, violence is a 100% justifiable reason to break up, all the time, at any time, from any person.
Cheating is not about different libidos. Polyamoury is perfectly fine under feminist analysis (at least, some strains of it. Most that I’m aware of/ or follow). But what he did was lie and betray. You want to sleep around? You own it- you don’t lie about it. And to say that guys can’t be monogomous is they myth of male weakenss.
And, I don’t think you know what “patriarcy” means.
Antigone,
Okay, we do not know if they vowed “’til death do us part.” We also do not know they vowed monogamy for that matter.
And, yes, violence is a justifiable reason for divorce. I am anti-divorce, but I will concede that.
But, I think where we may agree is that this is a case about deception. So, when we say “cheating,” we mean “lying about sex.” The important thing is the lying, not the sex. But, part of my point was the question whether the term, “cheating,” is a form of “slut-shaming.”
But, I disagree: cheating CAN BE about differing libidos (even if it is not necessarily so); as I said, there could be many explanations for his actions.
As for whether I know what “patriarchy” means, you might be right. However, your conclusion is unfounded, because I did not elaborate on that. I know some people jump on the use of “scare quotes.” I was just trying to explain my use of them; I was not trying to get into a discussion about that.
-Jut
Cheating can be about different libidos. I don’t care two whits if any person wants to sleep with other people besides their primary partner. More power to you. But, I don’t find “cheating” to be in any way a sex-negative phrase- it accurately conveys what a person is doing which is “betrayal through lying about sex”. I don’t see how that’s sex-negative in any form.
Again, it’s not the monogamy I care about. It’s the lying. Hugo may care about the monogamy more, but I guarantee that’s more because of his Christian beliefs than any feminist ones.
Hugo, I am not a MRA and I am well aware of the one-note feminist insistence of the nonexistence of female-on-male violence. However, at least you now admit the apologist, denialist reason you ignored the other half of the Woods story. That said, I will keep in mind not to mention male victimization on your blog as you appear to believe it never occurs, particularly at the hands of women, or that whatever might happens should be taken as a chance for redemption and reinvention.
@ Toy Soldier, while it is true that most domestic violence is male on female, there is and have been many documented cases of violent women who abuse. Woman on Man violence although not as common is a reality.
@ Antigone, I can not speak on the reason for Hugo’s view against adultery, be it his feminism or his Christianity. But I am not a Christian and I happen to have very strong feelings against adultery. And feel it is a violation of trust and is unforgivable. I believe if one cheats not matter the reason it is evidence of a lack of love and respect for the partner. Cheating not only puts the cheater at risk for a plethora of disease, but puts the partner who has been betrayed at risk to life long if not deadly disease. If a man/woman really had love and respect for their partner they would not put their partner at risk. Cheating is infact an indictment that their is not relationship and no true love or respect in the relationship.. Just my opinion.
…
And there is never and excuse for violence the aggressor in domestic violence whether it was the women or the man should be tried, convicted and imprisoned. I think many times male victims of domestic violence by women are dirided and pushed aside by law enforcement and our justice system and to manytimes female abusers are allowed to hide behind the self defense arguement.
Okay, folks, what part of THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE are you not getting? Please, even if you don’t agree with me, can you respect my wishes to stay on the topic of the post, not on what you think the topic ought to have been? If not, feel free to cease commenting here.
Adam-
I’m not defending cheating in any way. I’m saying the phrase “cheating” isn’t sex-negative. Additionally, I’m saying if you agreed to be monogamous, be monogamous- but there’s nothing wrong with being poly.
I think people confuse sex with too many things. Hugo points out how a lot of times when guys think they want “sex” they really want soothing of some kind (ego, attractiveness, et cetera). This is definitely true of women, as well (I know about dozens of women who can’t have sex if they don’t “feel sexy”- myself included). Then, there are those who say sex is about trust, respect and fidelity- you can only have it with one person. So, sex (in marriage) represents: love, affection, attractiveness, lust, togetherness, reassurance, fidelity, and morality. Wow, that’s an awful lot of things that we’re making one activity be- not to mention to put on one person to provide for us!
Tiger Woods lied, about something that could be downright dangerous to his partner (like Adam pointed out re: STDs). He did something that is really common, but since he’s had a squeaky-clean image, and is a celebrity, people are going to talk about it, if only by proxy. In the list of betrayals this is not the worst thing in the world he could have done, but it is pretty terrible.
I tend to use “cheating” to mean “lying about sex and not living up to your sexual agreements” and “adultery” to mean “having sex with someone other than your spouse if you’re married,” so that I can distinguish between what’s excluded by an ethical rule that says spouses should only have sex with each other, period (and are asking
for trouble if they do, even if they think their open
marriage will work out fine), and an ethical rule that says that
people shouldn’t lie to their sex partners.
1) The two of you aren’t married, but you have an agreement to sleep
only with each other, and one of you sees someone else on the sly.
Cheating.
2) The two of you are married, and you have a completely consensual
open marriage. Your families are appalled. Adultery.
3) The two of you are married, and you did make the usual
promise that you’d sleep only with each other, and one of you broke
it. Both cheating and adultery.
4) The two of you have an agreement that you’re perfectly free to
have sex with other people, but must use condoms when you do so.
One of you goes out and has sex with someone else without using a
condom. Cheating.
I think the distinction between cheating and adultery works. I just don’t see adultery as something that bad as long as you’re not cheating. (It works a lot better than people seem to think. About as much trouble as any relationship. Families have been appalled at me since I turned liberal, so don’t much care).
There’s a few things that I think, rather surprisingly, have gotten lost in the analysis of this whole imbroglio.
Let’s not forget who Tiger Woods is, or, more importantly, what he has represented throughout his sporting career: an African-American man who has been the pioneer in breaking the color line into what was in many respects the biggest “white man’s sport” of all: basically golf’s Jackie Robinson. (Yes, admittedly, his background is more than just African-American, much like President Obama’s is. That doesn’t change the way our culture assesses such things, beholden to the one-drop rule as we still are). That can’t have, and I think hasn’t, been without some significant degree of pressure on Mr. Woods, much in the way it was with Jackie Robinson or any other African-American who charts such a course, to mind his public image. It matters very much that he not be like one of “those” famous African-Americans who we too often, whether we admit it or not, aren’t too surprised when they are caught up in some sort of disreputable public behavior. (That this involves allegations of sexual indiscretions with possibly multiple women while he has a wife and child at home invokes a number of particularly painful stereotypes of black men as well.)
It may be that Tiger never was ready for marriage and a child, but felt that he had to, in part, for his image. More than most athletes, he relies on keeping a squeaky-clean image, something that no doubt is taking a beating right now. He was 29 when they married, right at the transition point of his career, when his initial “surge” decade had worn off, and he was maturing as a player. Perhaps no image was more important to him than his image of himself. He married at a time when the health of his father Earl Woods, who famously played such an outsized role in shaping Tiger’s growth both as a man and as an athlete, was in its final decline. His daughter was born a year after his father’s death, and was named “Sam”, the name that Earl Woods had most often called his son. It’s not too far a step, I think, to expect that Tiger was, metaphorically, seeking to step into the big shoes that were being left empty by his father’s death, shoes that he may have not been yet ready for.
For many accomplished athletes in general, particularly one who was a prodigy as Tiger was, their life from a very young age is their game. The normal social surroundings, milestones, and history of ups and downs that most of us take for granted in our adolescent and young-adult years, and that teach us about how to live in the push-and-shove of the messy social world, are very often very much attenuated and warped for accomplished athletes, a factor which, I believe, accounts in large measure for the troubles that we see very many of them having in later life. I believe that many of them do suffer something of an “arrested development” that we force on them. They must segregate themselves into the regimen that developing their talent requires on the one hand. On the other, as they come to accomplish and reach that level of performance on the field, we lift athletes up and set them apart, very often again and again, from high school on, and put them into a different social space altogether. I believe that, too often, makes for significant gaps in understanding and being fluent in the social world and its various pitfalls that the rest of us are forced to learn by default early on.