Tiger and Barbie
Mar. 29th, 2010 10:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
purejuiceI missed all of this, being occupied elsewhere. I need to think about it more. Robinson, btw, is a senior black journalist with impeccable J credentials.
It would be sort of cool if we discovered that Tiger's kink was making these girls dress up asSarah Palin Barbara Bush and humiliating them, to avenge himself on his fandom. That would turn me on and I'm pretty picky.
But somehow I don't think that's what's up. This is the most singularly asexual sex scandal I've ever encountered. It just reeks of ...unsex.
NEWS | POLITICS | OPINIONS | BUSINESS | LOCAL | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | GOING OUT GUIDE | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE |SHOPPING
Tiger's validation complex
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Leave Tiger alone. Enough with the puns -- we get that he's really just a "cheetah" in disguise. Enough with the Barbie-of-the-Day revelations -- we get that he's attracted to a certain type. Enough with the whole thing -- we have far more important things to worry about.
Yeah, right. Sit down with a friend over lunch and try to have a conversation about health care, climate change, financial regulation or Afghanistan without straying at least once onto the oh-so-unimportant subject of Tiger Woods's philandering. I've given up trying to deny that the unfolding saga is compelling, even if paying attention leaves me feeling a bit disappointed in myself. Prurient interest is rarely something to be proud of.
I'm beginning to fear, actually, that the unfolding may never end. If you're the richest, most famous athlete on the planet, and you have an eye for cocktail waitresses and nightclub hostesses, the opportunities to cheat are probably limited only by the number of hours in the day. It's becoming clear why Woods's initial mea culpa was worded vaguely to cover any and all "transgressions." Wouldn't want to leave anybody out.
I'm not going to pronounce judgment on Woods's moral fiber, except to state that adultery is bad. I'm also not going to judge the women who have reportedly had affairs with him, except to point out how quick they've been, as soon as their names have surfaced, to retain high-priced legal counsel. I will suggest that Woods consider this possibility: Random women he meets in restaurants or bars may not be reduced to putty by his good looks or sparkling wit, but may in fact be aware of how wealthy he is.
I was going to critique Woods's technique of adultery, or at least his apparent selection of playmates, as measured against a theory about philandering developed by my colleague Roxanne Roberts, who has spent years covering the capital's libidinous social scene for The Post. Roberts postulates that famous, powerful men who stray would be smart to choose women who have just as much to lose if the liaison were exposed. Some ultra-rich tycoon's young trophy wife, say, would fit that criterion. Cocktail waitresses and nightclub hostesses, not so much.
In fact, Woods seems to have hooked up with the kind of women who save old voice mails and text messages -- giving their high-priced legal counsel something to work with.
But as more women surface with claims to have bedded Woods, one does begin to marvel at his capacity for multitasking. He is known on the golf course for almost superhuman powers of concentration. Who knew that between shots he was also juggling such complicated logistical arrangements? Or did he have an off-the-course caddie to help with that sort of thing, the way Steve Williams helps him choose between the seven-iron and the eight?
Here's my real question, though: What's with the whole Barbie thing?
No offense to anyone who actually looks like Barbie, but it really is striking how much the women who've been linked to Woods resemble one another. I'm talking about the long hair, the specific body type, even the facial features. Mattel could sue for trademark infringement.
This may be the most interesting aspect of the whole Tiger Woods story -- and one of the most disappointing. He seems to have been bent on proving to himself that he could have any woman he wanted. But from the evidence, his aim wasn't variety but some kind of validation.
I'm making a big assumption here that the attraction for Woods was mostly physical, but there's no evidence thus far that he had a lot of time for deep conversation. If adultery is really about the power and satisfaction of conquest, Woods's self-esteem was apparently only boosted by bedding the kind of woman he thought other men lusted after -- the "Playmate of the Month" type that Hugh Hefner turned into the American gold standard.
But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes -- some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an "official" standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive.
His taste in mistresses leaves the impression of a man who is, deep down, both insecure and image-conscious -- a control freak even when he's committing "transgressions."
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
© 2009 The Washington Post Company
It would be sort of cool if we discovered that Tiger's kink was making these girls dress up as
But somehow I don't think that's what's up. This is the most singularly asexual sex scandal I've ever encountered. It just reeks of ...unsex.
NEWS | POLITICS | OPINIONS | BUSINESS | LOCAL | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | GOING OUT GUIDE | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE |SHOPPING
Tiger's validation complex
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Leave Tiger alone. Enough with the puns -- we get that he's really just a "cheetah" in disguise. Enough with the Barbie-of-the-Day revelations -- we get that he's attracted to a certain type. Enough with the whole thing -- we have far more important things to worry about.
Yeah, right. Sit down with a friend over lunch and try to have a conversation about health care, climate change, financial regulation or Afghanistan without straying at least once onto the oh-so-unimportant subject of Tiger Woods's philandering. I've given up trying to deny that the unfolding saga is compelling, even if paying attention leaves me feeling a bit disappointed in myself. Prurient interest is rarely something to be proud of.
I'm beginning to fear, actually, that the unfolding may never end. If you're the richest, most famous athlete on the planet, and you have an eye for cocktail waitresses and nightclub hostesses, the opportunities to cheat are probably limited only by the number of hours in the day. It's becoming clear why Woods's initial mea culpa was worded vaguely to cover any and all "transgressions." Wouldn't want to leave anybody out.
I'm not going to pronounce judgment on Woods's moral fiber, except to state that adultery is bad. I'm also not going to judge the women who have reportedly had affairs with him, except to point out how quick they've been, as soon as their names have surfaced, to retain high-priced legal counsel. I will suggest that Woods consider this possibility: Random women he meets in restaurants or bars may not be reduced to putty by his good looks or sparkling wit, but may in fact be aware of how wealthy he is.
I was going to critique Woods's technique of adultery, or at least his apparent selection of playmates, as measured against a theory about philandering developed by my colleague Roxanne Roberts, who has spent years covering the capital's libidinous social scene for The Post. Roberts postulates that famous, powerful men who stray would be smart to choose women who have just as much to lose if the liaison were exposed. Some ultra-rich tycoon's young trophy wife, say, would fit that criterion. Cocktail waitresses and nightclub hostesses, not so much.
In fact, Woods seems to have hooked up with the kind of women who save old voice mails and text messages -- giving their high-priced legal counsel something to work with.
But as more women surface with claims to have bedded Woods, one does begin to marvel at his capacity for multitasking. He is known on the golf course for almost superhuman powers of concentration. Who knew that between shots he was also juggling such complicated logistical arrangements? Or did he have an off-the-course caddie to help with that sort of thing, the way Steve Williams helps him choose between the seven-iron and the eight?
Here's my real question, though: What's with the whole Barbie thing?
No offense to anyone who actually looks like Barbie, but it really is striking how much the women who've been linked to Woods resemble one another. I'm talking about the long hair, the specific body type, even the facial features. Mattel could sue for trademark infringement.
This may be the most interesting aspect of the whole Tiger Woods story -- and one of the most disappointing. He seems to have been bent on proving to himself that he could have any woman he wanted. But from the evidence, his aim wasn't variety but some kind of validation.
I'm making a big assumption here that the attraction for Woods was mostly physical, but there's no evidence thus far that he had a lot of time for deep conversation. If adultery is really about the power and satisfaction of conquest, Woods's self-esteem was apparently only boosted by bedding the kind of woman he thought other men lusted after -- the "Playmate of the Month" type that Hugh Hefner turned into the American gold standard.
But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes -- some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an "official" standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive.
His taste in mistresses leaves the impression of a man who is, deep down, both insecure and image-conscious -- a control freak even when he's committing "transgressions."
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
© 2009 The Washington Post Company
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 07:35 pm (UTC)So Tiger had a type he found hot. BFD. But no, Mr. Enlightened has to show off his love for all women here.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 08:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:11 pm (UTC)to give the ridiculous answer to your ridiculous question, yes.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 08:59 pm (UTC)i don't think it's in line with the forward movement of civil liberties to piss on somebody who is pansexual, either.
i speak as someone who has a type. which is the most paleolithic idea i ever had.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:10 pm (UTC)it is an enormous privilege to have a type and to be allowed to procure it, and to be cute enough to do so. it's a luxury, and i wonder if that's what tiger and the sexual community typists are enacting. in other words, gay love or salt n pepa love has been denied us for so long that to have it just the way you like it, to the [unethical] exclusion of all the other kinds of love in the world, is a luxury to which we can now treat ourselves and insist on our right to reduce the Other to such a thing.
???
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:19 pm (UTC)Someone who tells me I need to be attracted to women or men I am not attracted to because otherwise I am either somehow a broken human being, or somehow I am leading us all to doom, simply gets no currency from me. It diminishes everyone's happiness.
You can tell me who I need to be nice to. That's fine. But not what makes my blood flow. Nuh-uh, it's been done to sexual minorities for centuries and it leads to teen suicides and brokeness.
Tiger liked big busty white blond women. He got them, consensually. Good for him.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:41 pm (UTC)and, i have confidence in your integrity or else i wouldn't have even broached the subject here.
but where you start talking about imprinting, i get nervous.
there's also a sense that "the type" is the reward for .....minorities? now allowed into the board room? because, as you rightly say, oppression has existed for centuries and now i get to say what's what? and what i say, because now i am finally in the saddle, is pretty reductive? so the type is revenge fucking?
i don't want to get into the ethical pissing contest either, but where such exclusionary and objectification practice exists, i'm afraid i smell a rat.
i'm going for the ethical slut in you. as i say, if i didn't know that was you to the core, i would never have broached this topic.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:54 pm (UTC)It is spoils, it absolutely is spoils, every man knows it: if you get rich or hot enough, you get what you want. But this one in particular is so... pedestrian. The man has the same tastes Hugh Hefner has been pushing worldwide for the last 50 years.
Give me enough time and I could, just as easy as Mr Enlightened shows off how wonderful he is for seeing the real beauty in every woman Tiger is too impoverished to notice, write a screed on how Tiger is such an American Patriot for chasing The American Dream Everygirl Pin Up.
And neither rant would have anything to do with how Tiger's brain actually works. The exercise of judging type ends up so empty.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 01:18 am (UTC)It's absolutely disgusting that white women should be considered pawns and 'spoils' in a black man vs. white man pissing contest.
White women and black women have every right to puke on it.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 03:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 06:37 am (UTC)Tiger lied to them about his feelings and intentions. Seems like they aren't feelin' that as no one would.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 07:26 am (UTC)But the word 'naive' comes to mind right now.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 08:03 am (UTC)I think the words in love, hyped up on oxytocin after sex, dreamers, hopeful, wishful come to mind.
As do the words cynical and misogynist.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 08:42 am (UTC)Sorry, I am not buying all these women as that starry eyed.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 03:54 pm (UTC)i certainly can't tell you who should make your blood flow. and i appreciate the point you make about having one's gender or racially appropriate sex partner proscribed, and appreciate it deeply.
but is there not rather a wide abyss between telling somebody what their gender should be, that is proscribing peoples' gender, and calling people on the civil liberty which allows objectification and exclusionary practice? to conflate gender proscription with ethical questions about insisting on the right to a type seems to me to be missing the point.
i mean, i really don't care whether one can only Do redheads with green spots under their left ear. i worry for such a person's happiness. i worry for the hemorrhage of such objectification and exclusionary behavior as a civil liberty into the arena of civil liberties.
my personal ethical and aesthetic feeling is basically that slavery should not be enacted in public. one can be a slave to the green spotted people, but i will worry about you and worry that you are applying those most compelling personal standards to the public arena of civil liberties as well as to the universe of all people to whom one has ethical obligations.
my personal experience in mentoring people with kinks is that fully permitted, ethically slutted out, deeply experienced and inventoried, they Go Away.
xxx
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 03:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 01:16 am (UTC)I don't think it's a coincidence on the validation tip that Tiger chose the traditionally white boy sport of Golf either.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 03:49 am (UTC)