The Tiger Woods apology
Bookworm on Feb 20 2010 at 10:53 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
I caught teeny bits of the Tiger Woods apology, and was unimpressed. It was, to my mind, a canned speech. If I was in his shoes and was intent on making a real apology, it would have gone something like this:
Saying I’m a sex addict is a cop-out. I am, simply, weak. I used all of my enormous self-discipline and talent for my sport, and didn’t bother exercising self-control in other areas of my life. When you have my level of fame, and you don’t look like the back end of a garbage truck, you’re going to discover that hundreds, even thousands of women want to have sex with you. If I’d been a halfway decent human being, with some sense of loyalty and morality, I would have said no — but I didn’t. It was easier and more fun to say yes. Since I’m married, this was a violation of a very b asic duty of honor and loyalty that I owe my wife.
So why am I apologizing to you, the public? After all, I never promised you that I’d be faithful in my marriage. I’m apologizing to you, the public, because I played all of you for fools. You guys are savvy enough to know that most celebrities play around. We think we don’t have to live by the rules of ordinary people. Indeed, some of my fellow celebrities are pretty blatant about their bad habits, a blatancy that at least allows members of the public to feel a bit superior to the person who otherwise seems to have such a charmed and glamorous life.
What I did to advance my career was to fool all of you into thinking that, not only am I better athlete and richer man than you, but that I’m also a better person because, despite the fame and money, I was able to avoid temptation. I sold you a product — me, the perfect, all-American man — that was a complete lie. And for that fraud, I apologize deeply to you. I did it for my own advantage, both to drive my professional life and feed my ego, all at your expense. That was a terrible thing to do.
Even though these words are embarrassing, words are easy. Acts are hard. Aside from learning to say “no” to sex outside of marriage, I am also going to take active steps to show my contrition. I have decided that 40% of my earnings and prize money legitimately belong to me because I am a champion golfer. The other 60%, however, flowed into my coffers because I sold you, the public, a bill of goods. I am therefore taking this 60%, equal to ____________ millions of dollars, and giving it to ____________________.
Now that’s a better apology.
Related posts:
- A non-apology apology from a New Jersey school district
- The tiger plot thickens
- Semi-annual proofreading apology
Email This Post To A Friend
15 Responses to “The Tiger Woods apology”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t understand the fascination with the Tiger Woods story. As a matter of fact, I don’t get the whole celebrity worship thing — thru pubs like the National Enquirer, or People magazine, or television shows like TMZ or Entertainment Tonight.
These ‘celebrities’ are people who appear to live with no moral compass, people who amass an incredible amount of money on so-called talent. I could give a rats *** what Woods does. I suspect that most of these celebrity people are having sex with anything and everything they want to, anyway.
Someone help me understand the appeal by everyday folk of celebrity. I would include athlete hero worship in there as well.
I pretty well agree with ConnectTheDots’s comments. As a society, our
Sex-addict is certainly putting a nice label on old-fashioned philandering. During my youth I was fortunate enough to associate with a large number of high-testerone, wild men. All were very, very interested in sex. Most of the married men had the discipline and integrity to resist temptation.
Lost track of what I was trying to say. Just wanted to comment that our society’s obsession with celebrity and notoriety has to be pathological.
>>Sex-addict is certainly putting a nice label on old-fashioned philandering.>>
My thought as well.
Males having multiple female sex partners is pretty normal. Maybe there _is_ such a thing as sex addiction, but if so, I’m not sure what it is.
Funny thing is that on Friday – or maybe Thursday – there was an article about a muslim man convicted of having 6 wives, and being sentenced – among other things(which included memorizing 2 chapters of the koran [?] ) – to 160 lashes and some jail time. Now if I understand it correctly, he could have had a maximum of 4 wives. He could have an unlimited numbers of concubines – but could only marry 4 women. I didn’t hear that he made any apology to the extra wives – or why he didn’t simply divorce them before his trial, which is easy enough in islam.
In my opinion, the Judeo-Christian principles regarding faithfulness in marriage were an effort to limit mans wandering eye, and solidify the man’s responsibility to raise the family that a stable society needs.
Look at the glorification of sex in our society…
I just don’t understand the whole Tiger Woods thing. It’s between him and his wife. His golf had nothing to do with his private life, and his private life was none of anybody’s business. That doesn’t mean I think his philandering was a good thing – just that it’s hypocritical for anyone in our liberal society to condemn him. Homosexuality with multiple partners is just fine..but heterosexual multiple partners isn’t? Open marriages are just fine, but oh my…cheating on his wife??? _UNACCEPTABLE_!! We don’t know what his arrangement with his wife was (although as my husband said – her reaction made it pretty clear that “business” trips that included “funny business” _wasn’t_ part of her idea of what marriage was supposed to be) but we have the right to condemn him out of hand? If he had been seen as a playboy as soon as he turned 18, would he have played any less well? Just because no one _knew_ he was playing around – was that his fault? He should have broadcast the fact?? What about Hugh Hefner? No problems with his philandering??
I just don’t understand it. It’s a little like children who grow up and find out their parents actually “did it”…and are unduly shocked by that fact. Maybe that’s it. Another symptom the Lefties haven’t grown up yet…!
I didn’t see the entire confession, just a few embarrassing moments. I don’t get it. Tiger’s not Jewish or Christian so he owes no allegiance to the Judeo-Christian concept of staying true to a vow. I am not a lawyer but doesn’t one need to what he promised to his wife upon marriage to find out if he’s even in default. And who are we, the marriage police?
I looked up Buddhist ethics and the only thing I could find on marriage vows was – to do no harm. Maybe Book could offer an interpretation of THAT via a vis infidelity but it seems like quicksand to me.
This whole multicultural thing we were sold a “bill of goods” on. How diversity would make us stronger, yada yada. Well, how does one enforce a code of either law or ethics in a multiculti world? If he were Islamic and could have multiple wives, would we even be as shocked and appalled? Puhleeze.
How can we judge a Buddhist on Christian morals? Why is Tiger even taking his 40 lashes? Who is advising this guy? I am Christian and I know exactly what I swore a vow to – and I know why. Why do we judge everyone by our own (admittedly) high standards? And why did Tiger take the drubbing? I have been to plenty of “new age”. non-christian weddings where they promise to “take care” and “cherish forever” and all that easy stuff. Don’t we all sign up for different things?
Call me confused…jess
Ya know…
Thinking about this…there has to be some rationale for the response. Remember the “kid in the balloon” thing? and how angry people got – even though the boy never was in any danger? People found out it was a fraud, and they’d been fooled. They _felt_ like fools. And _that_ – being made to feel like fools who’d been taken advantage of – is what made them angry. Nobody likes to feel like a fool.
Tiger has sort of been adopted…the public has watched him grow up and taken him in as one of their own. _He_ didn’t pretend to have any particular morals/ethics that I remember, but a part of “adopting” him meant that the public _assumed_ that he shared the same standards that they – the public – had. It’s a bit like finding out that one of your beloved children has violated the standards you’ve raised them with.
I don’t know that that’s the answer – but the response just seems so irrational to me… I’m just trying to figure out why. It does go to show that the majority of the population is more conservative than most give them credit for, I think.
Every cable news network dissected every word, every nuance, what was said, what wasn’t said – a full staging of analysts, doctors, in fact anyone who had a pair of lips to flap offered up their opinion.
Me, all I could think of is why don’t they take the same head on, all out approach with the staged speeches of people who actually have an impact on our lives. Of course, those folks never attempt even a lame apology.
I agree with Suek on the fraud aspect. But I still think we offer way too much credit – and air time – to silly old celebrities, be they sporty or theatrical or whatever. I’ve been rolling my eyes at Hollywood for better than thirty years, every time some star comes out with one of their gems. I guess it’s a cultural thing too, we do all share the same culture, although it’s getting pretty uncomfortable around the edges.
I agree also with Sadie’s point, that is the people who really matter got the same amount of scrutiny and good the wood put to them for nonsense, would make a lot more sense.
By the way, I am a several year lurker here – I really enjoy everyone’s (mostly) sane POV. I keep losing my password to comment but, for now, I have it again so I hope to participate a little more. I am out of Austin TX. Cheers, jess
Heh…
Jess…I use Firefox. When you sign in, it asks you if you want to save your password. You can answer yes, not this time, or never for this site. For blogs, I always answer yes, and then don’t worry about it. To log in, I just hit the login button and Firefox fills in the user name and password for me.
I also have a file – not identified as passwords, but just a Word file with a different file name – in which I keep all the sites, plus user names and passwords in. I order stuff online for our office, and every one of the sites has a password requirement – as do EDD and the Franchise tax board, both of which I have to do online as well. If I didn’t have a file to put the names in, I’d be a cooked goose! And a good thing! I swapped out one hard drive for another and the Foxfire tool utility didn’t transfer the passwords…if I’d had to start from scratch, I’d have gone nuts!
If you have a need for inexpensive business cards, envelopes (with an imprint) or sales receipts (also with an imprint) – I have names!!! (but I won’t give you my password!)
“’m just trying to figure out why. ”
They were just as irrational when Bush the Savior turned into Bush the Nazi. People become idiots when they can’t handle their own problems and need to outsource them to Tiger Woods or another strong man.
suek #4:
> His golf had nothing to do with his private life, and his private life was none of anybody’s business. That doesn’t mean I think his philandering was a good thing – just that it’s hypocritical for anyone in our liberal society to condemn him. Homosexuality with multiple partners is just fine..but heterosexual multiple partners isn’t? Open marriages are just fine, but oh my…cheating on his wife??? _UNACCEPTABLE_!!
Whoever said “heterosexual multiple partners” is unacceptable? That kind of serial dating goes on all the time out there in the Friday night and Saturday night bar scene. Single guys date multiple women all the time – though certainly not on the same night! And no one claims it’s wrong, that’s just the dating scene as it is these days – with, of course, sex occurring probably far too soon within each relationship. But dating Pamela on Wednesday night, and Sally on Friday night, is certainly acceptable in America.
So Sam can’t date Alan on Wednesday night and Robert on Friday night? Condemning sex among the single – meaning, outside of marriage – for one group, but not for another, hardly seems fair.
Of course there is the flip side to the issue. For gays, a committed relationship does not have the sanction of the State. Therefore they’d better hold to it themselves. Unfortunately, if the studies have it correct, 50% of such “committed relationships” have their partners engaging in frequent sex encounters with others on a regular basis – the very definition of the behavior described by the “open marriage”. And if 50% cheerfully admit it openly, what does that say about the “cheating statistic” among the other 50% who deny it?
Among marriages for men and women, what do you think the rate of cheating is? The rate of “open marriages” is certainly quite low, because America is still broadly a decent nation, and marriage has traditionally always required monogamy and dedication to each other. So on this flip side of the issue, if 50% of “committed gay relationships” result in open and frequent sex with others, then it’s a compelling argument that even among the far-left, which composes most of what is called “gays” in this country, the concept of marriage, and their desire for a civil right of marriage in any traditional sense, is a complete joke.
Yet another reason I believe that in America, gay marriage is not an option. I might change my mind in the future, but the gay subculture would have to go through a transformation that, in no way, do I see occurring.
[...] You may not find it eschatology, At the end of a life of frivolity, But it is behoovin‘, As Tiger has proven, To wrap up with public apology. [...]
@Suek: You wrote:
“_He_ didn’t pretend to have any particular morals/ethics that I remember…”
Yeah, he did….he kept all of his philandering VERY quiet. He was a sneak about it, because he knew that his marketability in this country would be damaged if he did it openly.
He “pretend(ed) to have…morals/ethics” similar to those that most people hold (if not live up to). Now, I think that was a good thing — I would far rather have public figures engage in hypocrisy about shameful stuff than to flaunt it. It’s better for society, overall, although it would be even better if celebrities all behaved as (it seems) Paul Newman did. But Tiger was pretending to be something that he wasn’t, and THAT is why all of the HooRah over his sexcapades.
I pray for the man – I truly pray that his “repentance” was genuine, that he can reconstitute his family, and grow up a bit to become a better man. I couldn’t care less about his career, although if he can actually achieve the status of “mensch”, then salvaging and extending the career would be a nice topper to the whole experience.
Earl says in #12:
> He “pretend(ed) to have…morals/ethics” similar to those that most people hold (if not live up to). Now, I think that was a good thing — I would far rather have public figures engage in hypocrisy about shameful stuff than to flaunt it.
I agree completely. Woods recognized that his behavior was unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans, and hid it. At least he upheld our standards that much, for what it’s worth. As usual, though, he didn’t reform himself until after he got caught. *If* in fact his reformation is genuine.
I was a huge fan, and I’m disappointed to see “feet of clay” on someone I admired so much. There aren’t all that many famous people out there genuinely worthy of admiration in both their public and private lives – Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones still come to mind – so it’s a shame to lose one of the few. Maybe Woods can re-earn my admiration going forward, I don’t know. If he has reformed, he may emerge from all of this a better man and husband – and a more focused and concentrated golfer – but watching him compete in the majors won’t be the same.
>>Yeah, he did….he kept all of his philandering VERY quiet.>>
We disagree here. You’re right – he kept his philandering _very_ quiet. But he didn’t come out and make any statements about being a moral spiritual person. He just kept quiet. And obviously, nobody asked any questions. Maybe it’s a difference without any significance – but I’m thinking about the TV ministers who presented themselves as models of virtuosity, when they were out having affairs of various sorts. Tiger just did his thing and kept his mouth shut.
In this, it may be just that he lucked out – sort of. If the accusations had been made by his mistresses and the news picked up on them…would he have denied them? If so, then I’d agree with you. But as far as I know, there was never a whisper – so no one ever put him in a position to deny his affairs. And of course, when it came to light, he couldn’t deny them.
Actually – pretty amazing when you think about it. Apparently several of the women were prostitutes or at least “loose” women. You’d have thought _something_ would have been mentioned and the National Enquirer et al would have jumped on it…but it never happened. They seem to have been quick enough to jump on the “pay me to shut up” bandwagon after the news broke – why weren’t they there before it broke?