Why is it that Steven Gerrard can covort on the beach with a sexy-blonde-not-his-wife while his wife stands by laughing her pretty ass off:



While Tiger Woods wood gets in the way:



Is it something about them, or is it more about US?

Europeans don't have sticks up their ass the way we do. The way the Tiger Woods incident was responded to was like Groundhog Day. How many times have we seen athletes/celebrities involved in extra marital affairs??? Yet when the scandal breaks its a shock. The problem is with people putting athletes/celebrities on pedestals and idiots who assume that someone they have never met "appears" to be a great husband. And everyone who assumed looks like an ass to me because its nothing that should've ever been assumed. So over it already.

Liftng someone up in the surf is not adultery. Having serial sexual encounters with cocktail waitresses is.

True SFT. But doesn't it seem odd that Woods has never been seen doing the kind of cavorting in public that Gerrard and his wife seem so comfortable indulging?

Woods had to maintain an image and do everything in the dark. Gerrard plays in the light. Maybe for that reason he doesn't need to do more in the dark.

Could their different cultural backgrounds have affected their behaviour?

Or maybe it's just a personality difference between the two individuals.

I think it could be some combination.

Just curious what others think.

I think you're trying to hard. Gerrard is not "indulging" in anything wrong, at least from the picture that you posted. Maybe it's his sister, for all we know, and he's simply going to dunk her. There's nothing to hid. Woods, on the other hand, was cheating on his wife, which is something that people generally hide. It's just common sense. I don't see what culture, background, or personality have to do with it.

Or maybe not hard enough.

I'm trying to imagine what Tiger Woods would have been like had he been born in Europe.

Do we know that Tiger was cheating? They had an agreement to be monogamous?

Based on the golf club to the head (which he reportedly had plastic surgery for), I'd say Elin was out of the loop on his activities.

Athletes are indulged from high school (sometimes even earlier) and, like politicians and other celebrities, think they can have a bigger piece of the pie than anyone else. That said, I believe there are alot of celebrity spouses who put up with such escapades for the fame and money.

In this case, kudos to Elin for not forgiving him - so it seems anyway.

I have been trying to not pay attention to the details and hadn't heard that she actually hit him with a club. Lots of assumptions of their relationship are being put out there when we don't really know what their agreement was.

It's really interesting to me that many people, especially gay people, buy into the monogamy model. Monogamy is a religious construct that was historically a way to control women. As a species we aren't supposed to be monogamous. It's cool if that's what people agree their relationship is going to be; and, it's frustrating when it's just assumed that it's the way it's "supposed' to be.

Monogamy has clear advantages, such as stability, the reduced spread of STDs, and the long-term deepening of an emotional connection. Many people find the advantages of monogamy more than outweigh the freedom to act on temporary impulses. It elevates those who practice it.

Such a judgment! Those lower people who aren't monogamous. Is it not possible to have deep emotional connections outside of a monogamous relationship?

It's the assumption that monogamy is the "norm" and "better" that I think misses the boat. Many people have great, supportive, lasting, deeply connected relationships, AND have sex with partners outside their primary relationship. I never assume that every relationship has an agreement to be monogamous.

Interesting. The French, and other western Europeans, seem to practice a de facto serial monogamy that often has men making marital commitments while having affairs.

We saw a fantastic Belgium classic called Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles which I consider the feminist answer to men's notion that they control women's bodies. It is probably the best French-language film I've ever seen, though not for the faint-of-heart cinema fan. It is long slow and never pedantic - all things Americans tend to hate in their films.

As for the only problem I have with Woods behavior; it has nothing to do with his infidelity per se. What I wonder is how this will affect his son. Gerrard only has daughters - so far - and will not have to think about being the default first role model for his children.

But here are some questions that Woods must be asking himself:

Who will catch Charlie?


Will his son miss a father's kiss?


How does this affect his early development?


Does he have Tiger's eyes?


Psychological challenges to your son is the highest price a cheating male celebrity can pay for violating his own voluntarily-taken oathes.

I hope, for Charlie's sake, that this will not mean a confrontational relationship between Tiger and Elin in the future.

Looks like my kind of movie Sportinlife. I TOTALLY agree that the real "at risk" relationship is Tiger and his kids. Hopefully they'll be told that there are many different types of relationships and that everyone needs to find what works best for them. And that he and Elin will be able to be civil with and supportive of each other.

My guess is Tiger is probably not well suited for a monogamous marriage and should just own that and go with it rather than trying to conform.

Trust me, my dad's extracurricular affairs had a major damaging affect on my perception of him. It literally took me years (w/ lots of therapy) to finally forgive him for the shyte he put my mom thru (including the 4 half bros & sis I grew up w/). Just sayin...

I've no interest in an online spat but SeaCraig, you seem a bit defensive about defending open relationships. My post offered no judgment on open relationships...as long as partners actually KNOW they are in one which, at a far glance, seems as if Elin did not.

I have no problem with whatever works for people.

Yeah I think the key to open relationships is that both individuals have to agree to it. In the case of Elin (& my mom) they were victims of men who had uncontrollable urges.

Altho in my mom's case she was an old school Catholic woman who believed that one's 1st marriage was the only one she could have. & just when she finally had enuff & was gonna leave my dad for good, he literally begged for forgiveness, became ill w/ cancer soon after (which he survived for another 11 years cuz of surgery, it going into remission, & then coming back w/ a vengeance), &, as far as we know, he became a changed man. My bro's death in '68 during the 'Nam war also "changed" him quite a bit.

Thanks for the response. I don't see it as a spat, but more of a rational discussion of myths and vocabulary.

After re-reading your post I think the word that really struck me was "elevates" which implies a judgment. If one is "higher" than necessarily the other has to be "lower".

I don't think I'd be good in an open relationship. And I choose monogamy because it works for me; certainly not because it's what we're "supposed" to do. I think if you asked most people they would say that married couples are supposed to be monogamous.

Tiger's situation has also really shown how ingrained monogamy is in the US and yet do most people know why that is? We do so much in this country because we think it's the way it's always been when it really hasn't...it's just a matter of how big of a picture that you look at.

And here this guy is having to deal with a majority society that sees monogamy as the only acceptable relationship type in a marriage. And if Elin were "surprised" is that Tiger's bad, or her's for assuming? It's as possible that they never talked about monogamy and both had different views as it is that they did talk about it and have a concrete agreement.

I think its fair to say that when 2 adults enter into a marriage the expectation is monogamy. It is part of the vows after all. If you dont intend to be monogamous then dont get married, just find someone of like mind and shack up together

I also dont buy the excuses I often hear that men cannot be monogamous, that they are hardwired to screw around. Being an adult is all about having the ability to make choices. Being unfaithful is a choice. If you feel incapable of being faithful to someone either dont get married in the first place or end that marriage before entering into other relationships or live in some sort of mutualy agreed open relationship that is not marriage.

But legal marriage has benefits, why should people who don't want to be monogamous give up those benefits. And do all people who marry have monogamy clauses in the ceremony? I doubt it.

With benefits come responsibilities. I have yet to be to a marriage ceremony where the officiating person used anything close to the words "we are here to join these 2 people to a lifetime of benefits to enjoy while they screw anything that walks".
Again, life is about making choices and living up to the responsibilities those choices bring. If you dont want to accept those responsibilities chose a different path.

But different moral choices shouldn't prohibit you from getting government benefits......that's just not equality. And I've been to plenty of marriages where there was no mention of fidelity, and further, if there were whose to say that fidelity to them may not mean sex with 1 person each outside the marriage....or some such variation!

I don't personally give a rats ass what people do in their own relationships. What I do care about is that everyone have equal rights and that religion and religious practices be truly optional.

What exactly are you arguing in favor of? Marriage equality, great I am all in favor of marriage between 2 people and in fact am legally married to a man I have been in a committed relationship with for 7 years. And yes, monogamy is the expectation. Equality is a man and a woman or 2 people of same sex being married.

Now if you are arguing that any multiple group of people in any form of relationship should enjoy the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as those in a marriage do then we will have to agree to disagree.You can have what ever open. multi party set up you want outside of marriage but I do not think you should enjoy the same benefits or recognition as 2 people in a marriage or civil union or civil partnership do. To me those types of relationships equal being single and dating. To argue otherwise will set the quest for marriage equality in the US back decades and certainly plays into the hands of those who oppose same sex marriage.

As I said life is about choices and responsibilities and dealing with the outcome of the choices we make.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the marriage laws say that the 2 can only have sex with each other. And we don't take marriage licenses away from those who have sex with someone other than their legal spouses.

I don't know if groups should be able to get married, haven't really thought about it. But if two people are married and decide it's OK for them to have sex with other people who am I to say that then they're not in a marriage? And I know plenty of people in those type of marriages.

And I think the only "state" responsibilities have to do with financial matters, contracting, etc.. There's nothing in the law that says monogamy or you lose your tax break.

I have to agree that your point is rather obscure. The state grants people benefits if they are married based on the assumption that marital relationships are more stable and, thus, benefit society, especially when it comes to raising children. It's also traditional but not mandatory for people to be monogamous when they are married. But if one wants to be married and f**k around they are entitled to do that. That, however, does not diminish the rational reasons for the state granting benefits to married couples.