Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception » Marriage, Infidelity, Jealousy

Tiger Woods, hypocrisy, moral condemnation of promiscuity

admin — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:25:41 +0000

an evolutionary perspective [...] helps us understand why sexual transgressions by successful males, as well as the seemingly irrational levels of moral outrage at those transgressions, are both "natural," regardless of whether you personally feel that either is intrinsically good or bad.

Finally an intelligent comment about the moral condemnation hysteria of Tiger Woods. Evolutionary Theory by Kurzban and deScioli

Men fantasize about novel women. Rich powerful man can actually get them

Tiger is a man with immense wealth and social status. Throughout history, men with wealth and status have tended to trade it for access to multiple mates. Evolutionary historian Laura Betzig has documented this pattern in modern societies and throughout history, as in the abundant cases of Roman emperors, Indian maharajahs, Arabian sheiks, and Chinese mandarins. Bhupinder Singh, the wealthy and powerful Seventh Maharajah of the state of Patiala, for example, had 350 wives, and he by no means held the record. European and North American states tend to be officially monogamous, but of course they are unofficially polygamous as well. Rock stars, famous athletes, politicians and even television evangelists are reliable sources of public outrage, which fires up every time we learn about their frequently overactive private lives.[...]

Kinsey found that the typical male masturbated with some frequency, during such activities men often fantasize about novel women. What if the man was sufficiently attractive that those fantasy women were actually ready, willing, and eager to turn desire into reality? The average heterosexual man would, under those circumstances, perhaps act like the average homosexual man (who is unconstrained by a more selective target audience), or like the average rock superstar: he would take hundreds of partners.

Psychology Today. December, 2009. Kenrick, D. T. “In "Defense" of Tiger Woods, AND of his critics." [link]

Moral outrage keeps others in check. So powerful men don’t monopolize too many women

Rob Kurzban and Peter DeScioli argue that moral reactions are not so much about checking our own selfish tendencies, as they are about keeping other people in line. [...] we are rather good at forgiving ourselves a few transgressions. But we have a much lower threshold for turning on the moral outrage when we see someone else [...] Our emotional brains want to hold powerful individuals to a "higher standard" of behavior because, in ancestral times, it would have been in our selfish interests to keep our more successful fellows from drinking too freely from the limited common pool of mating opportunities. And in modern societies, where some people acquire immense amounts of wealth and power, monogamy can still reduce intra-male competition.

So, an evolutionary perspective [...] helps us understand why sexual transgressions by successful males, as well as the seemingly irrational levels of moral outrage at those transgressions, are both "natural," regardless of whether you personally feel that either is intrinsically good or bad.

All quotes from
Psychology Today. December, 2009. Kenrick, D. T. “In "Defense" of Tiger Woods, AND of his critics." [link]

Video Robert Kurzban explains why everyone (else) is a hypocrite

Robert Kurzban explains why everyone (else) is a hypocrite

Repressive sex laws in the "Land of the Free". Polygyny in birds & human meddling in other people’s sexuality

admin — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 22:20:25 +0000

Why do we, in the land of the free, have a prohibition of polygyny, a victimless crime? Why does the law restrict people’s freedom needlessly? Why do consenting adults have many legal restrictions to their sexual liberty? Teenage sexuality is full of legal problems (Consult a lawyer before playing doctor. Perverse sex laws traumatize children).

Why do we feel a compulsion to meddle in other peoples freedom to form whatever form of marriage or sexual relationship they might want to engage in?

Many women would rather be the second (or fifth) wife of an attractive, rich, powerful man like Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt, then the first and only wife of boring, fat, jobless, broke alcoholic Joe Bloke in a Detroit ghetto. Even just being Tiger’s mistress is much more exciting then Joe Bloke. Why does our law restrict the liberty of these women, and of Tiger Woods?

Repression of other people’s sexuality is in the reproductive interest of older married women, of unattractive men. Even vor the successful alpha male it is advantagous to repress sexuality in others, while hypocritically pursuing his own promiscuous sexuality (remember Eliot Spitzer?).

In this post we show that evolutionary theory suggests evolution has created mental modules in our brains to repress sexuality in others, The gut feelings caused by these modules get rationalized into theories that give rise to repressive legislation.

Polygyny in birds

When good males are scarce, a female bird may prefer to become the second mate of a higher quality male with a bigger territory.

Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind by Robert Kurzban $27.95 0691146748
(all quotes are from Kurzban’s book. This book is a must-read to really understand this topic here)

mating pattern of certain bird species illustrates what’s known as the "polygyny threshold model," which has to do with how female birds choose a mate in certain complex environments. [...]
Is it better to be the only mate of a poorer male or share a better one?
I [a female bird] can either nest with one of the remaining single – but lower quality- males, or I can nest with a [better high quality] male who is already paired, becoming the second female on his [bigger and better] patch. [...]
When the payoff to being the second female on a patch is greater then the payoff to being the only mate of an inferior male, there will be polygyny. (Kurzban, pg. 208)

Morality for the birds?

To better understand how evolution could have formed modules for anti-polygyny morality, Kurzban analyzes a hypothetical bird population where moral rules prohibit polygyny. He asks

Which birds stand to gain reproductive advantage when polygyny is prohibited?

"Clearly, female birds already paired with the best male mates will do better. Their mates won’t be able to acquire secondary females whose offspring would compete for the man’s resources." (Kurzban, p 209). Women married with good males have reasons to be feminists. Hillary Clinton only loses if hubby Bill gets entangled with interns. In contrast, Monica Lewinsky probably would have fared very well as Bill Clinton’s second or even fifth wife.
"There’s a natural alliance between monogamously mated females and low quality males because they both gain by enforced monogamy". "low-quality males benefit, since they now might get mates who would otherwise wind up as secondary mates of high-quality males" (Kurzban, p.) In a polygynous animal, primate, or human societies, many low-quality get no wives and no offspring at all. "Low quality males would have a deep, abiding, even crucial interest in rules that force everyone into monogamy" (Kurzban, p 213). Remember, evolution selected for mental modules that gave us reproductive advantage in the EEA, in small groups of hunter-gatherers. It seems that for low quality males, monogamy is the only chance to get a wife, rear offspring and thus have reproductive success! Low quality males that successfully prevent the high quality males from monopolizing multiple females would have considerably more offspring then tolerant open minded men who would remain empty handed while the high quality males would get all the females.
Almost all males "benefit from all other males being monogamous, even if they themselves are not [monogamous]? [...] "it’s best to constrain others’ sexual behavior. We’re all in favor of moral rule that prevent others from doing things that harm our own interests, but it is to our advantage to not obey our own rule.
High quality alpha males can profit from imposing monogamy on other males. Powerful males have a better chance to remain unpunished if they violate these rules (at least in birds with no feminist dominated court system)
The losers of polygyny prohibition are un-paired females who have to settle for a lower quality male (‘a loser’) because they are deprived of the freedom to choose to be wife #2 of a high quality male (with better genes, bigger territory, and more resources).
The other losers of enforced monogamy are the "cads" the sexy good looking promiscuous players. They are attractive to women for having good genes, but they can’t win the battle over who brings the most worms. "Without promiscuity, sexy males can’t make the most of what they’ve got." (Kurzban, p. 211).
"Dads, however, win if the sexy males can’t be promiscuous. (They also benefit from keeping their females at home, rather than searching for the good-gene cads)" (p 211) "Dads" are mated male birds that invest in their family and bring home worms for their kids.

We have an "interfere in other people’s private sex life" mental module.

"Humans are extremely social, and our survival and reproduction are determined in large part by how well we navigate the social world. Given this, it’s reasonable to expect that our minds are designed to compete fiercely-if not subtly- for the benefits in the social world: the best mates, the best friends, membership in the best groups, and so on. The outcomes of these competitions would have had massive effects on reproductive success over the course of human evolution."

So birds, mammals, and humans that increase their reproductive success by restricting other people’s sexual access will out-compete the democratic, personal-liberty-respecting tolerant liberal individuals.

We will post more about Kurzban’s theory of the modular mind, and the evolutionary advantages of internal inconsistency, self-deception, hypocrisy to explain this further. But to get a deep understanding one probably needs to read evolutionary literature

Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind by Robert Kurzban $27.95 0691146748 |Amazon paperback or kindle version

Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List | Human-Stupidity

Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite (Robert Kurzban) |Human-Stupidity book review

Social Evolution by Robert Trivers $40.00 080538507X (Amazon)

Humans have "moralistic modules designed to favor rules that promote their fitness interests".

"The hypothetical birds would vote for policies that prevent others from engaging in sex outside mateships and anything else that goes along with promiscuity. "they probably would not know why they were opposed to these practices. Their decision would be based on the output of certain modules designed to limit other people’s promiscuity. They would be insensitive to arguments about freedom and individual choice, and unaware of being inconsistent. They would probably rationalize this as being ‘pro-family", pro-life. Their resistance against abortion might be based in the desire to punish the females for having sex, and not in the desire to save embryos or in theories about the beginning of life." (Kurzban)

"They might be opposed to abortion -the availability of which by reducing the costs of sex, might well be linked to promiscuity" (Kurzban)

Feminist anti-promiscuity sex laws are also in the reproductive interest of most (hypocritical) males

Human-Stupidity was always baffled at how and why feminists managed to impose their sexually repressive laws onto society as a whole. Here is the answer.
- Almost everyone is interested in repressing other people’s promiscuity and young women’s sexuality.
- Hypocrisy was the missing link that explains why most men would have built-in "repress-sexuality-in-others" sexual repression modules. So most men are actually natural allies in the feminist war against promiscuity. All less successful men are strongly in favor of anti-promiscuity laws
- married female’s self interest at monopolizing their man’s resources explains the extremely strong knee jerk reaction that demands draconian punishment specifically for older men who have sexual relations with younger women.
- Young attractive women are the worst threat to established relationships of older women.
The main group that is not interested in monogamy and in repression of promiscuity, young women, is the target of strong repressive laws that curb their sex life.
- Young women are declared "victims" in consensual relationships.
- Human-Stupidity always found it strange that the "victims" often were vehemently opposed to being "protected". Just go and ask sixteen year old adolescents if they think they are "children" and need to be protected from their own sexual choices.
- in at least one case, the adolescent woman "victim" was jailed, for weeks, for contempt of court, because she refused to testify against her lover.
It seems that "Romeo and Juliet" laws, that allow young women to have sex with equally young men are not a threat to older married women.
- On the contrary, they help to keep the young girls sexually occupied so they are less of a threat to elope with the older women’s sexual partners
- Of course, it does not make sense at all why a 17 year old is incapable of consenting to sex with a 30 year old, but perfectly capable to consent to sex with a 17 year old immature boy.
- Or why sex with a 25 year old would be extremely damaging and traumatic to a 17 year old girl, while sex with a 17 year old is not traumatic.
- and of course, nobody sees the contradiction of these laws with anti age-discrimination laws. Why should a 17 year old boy have legal rights (to have sex with a 17 year old woman) that a 25 year old does not have?
The inborn mental module that makes older married women (and to a lesser extent most men) want to repress other people’s sexuality is the cause. The theories about victimization are the effect, the rationalization of a gut feeling.
- These theories are needed to justify that moralistic feeling and allow to enact repressive laws. Of course, questioning such unfounded theories is very unwelcome. Human-Stupidity was thus kicked out from change.org sucks
- First our "repress-other-people’s sexuality" modules cause us gut feeling that all extramarital sex is immoral. In the past we had adultery laws to jail such transgressors, but these laws seem not to be defensible in our liberal democracies.
- Then there is a "gut" feeling that an old man and a young woman are something even more "disgusting", vile, and immoral. At the first glance, older men and younger women are the real "enemy". The older men are those usually already married (very bad for the married women (feminists)), and usually more influential and powerful and thus often more attractive to young women then the young boys their age (so the low quality powerless men should feel especially bad about this). So it is quite likely that evolution created an even stronger revulsion against old men – young girl sex.
- Muslim countries are straightforward. They legally can stone people to death for sex outside marriages
- criminalizing both sides of a consensual relationships between an older man and a younger women was probably too illogical and too blatantly in violation of all constitutional guarantees of freedom.
- As lynching and stoning both parties is not possible, and as the repressive sex laws are clearly in violation of constitutional rights of liberty, some drastic rationalization needed to be found to justify such undemocratic and anticonstitutional measures. Thus, I surmised, originated the weird, unproven, but generally accepted theory, that young women were "victims" and their consent was invalid. All this in order to be able to justify the gut feeling and follow the instinctual drive to prevent promiscuous out of marriage sexuality.
  - In a later post we will report on Robert Kurzban’s research that people tend have a strong tendency to identify "victims" to justify their unconscious moralistic feelings.
  - For example, to justify the immorality of a victimless crime like peeing on a tomb stone the "victims" are the relatives of the deceased. Kurzban excluded all possible victims: "People still juged the acts wrong, and, when they did, they searched for a victim. [...] If the dead person had no family or friends, "society" was worse off." (Kurzban, p. 190) (Weeden 2003, DeScioli 2008, DeScioli & Kurzban 2009b)
it would be interesting to analyze if it is a mere coincidence and side effect of the "victimization hypothesis" that the young women don’t get punished for their sexual transgressions.
We reckon that historically, at times, women were also punished for sexual activities with older men
It seems that feminist women would love to "slut shame" and stone young promiscuous women.
But, once declared "victims", it is logical that adolescent women they can not be punished for their involvement with older men. After all it is none of their fault, they are pure victims.
Kurzban’s suspicion, that prohibition of abortion and even of birth control could be a method to unconsciously punish young women. Availability of birth control lowers the threshold to sex
The attentive reader might notice that sex with birth control is not really a threat to financial stability of the married women’s marriage. But 50 000 years ago in the EEA, there was no birth control. So our mental modules do not understand that sex with birth control has less pernicious effect.
It is interesting that there is no serious scientific support for all the feminist claims that adolescent women get victimized by consensual sex. In spite of repression of research to the contrary like the Rind Study and decades of brainwashing. In countries where the age of consent is 12, there are no huge numbers of girls that need life long psychotherapy. Nor are there reports that Charlie Chaplins
it is also interesting that feminists, desperate to rationalize their unconscious gut feeling and to reach their goal of eliminating sexual competitors, use manipulative language to confound the forcible penetrative rape of 6 year olds with consensual fondling of 16 year olds, by calling both activities by the same name: "child rape".

Modern birth control, social support, DNA tests render old moralistic modules unnecessary

Of course, nowadays Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, even attorney general Spitzer can easily afford 4 wives with 15 kids. Neither Elin nor Hillary even noticed the infidelity, much less suffered any serious disadvantages. But, our brain modules, formed in the EEA to condemn other people’s private behavior, behavior that victimizes nobody, remain strong. Even the most powerful man on earth (the US president) is being prevented by strong moral rules to have a second wife or concubines.

Additionally, the availability of birth control, abortion, and DNA paternity tests, and government handouts to the poor, make most old sex laws unnecessary. Virginity is no more the only way to make sure that the offspring is really the husband’s.

We are talking about mental modules that evolved in the environment of the EEA and get expressed nowadays. In the EEA ( in small hunter gatherer groups) the action of one person already can influence the availability of females.

Compare our tendency to love sweets, fatty meats, and to avoid exercise. These were useful in the EEA: 50 000 years ago, it was nearly impossible to get too much sugar from fruits or fat from lean, hard to hunt, wild animals. It was a good strategy to pick the sweetest fruit. These old predispositions are out of place in a modern supermarket full of sugar, ice cream, soft drinks, and hamburgers. But our predispositions are stronger then our intellectual understanding of good diet.

Hypocrisy, self deception: repressing victimless crime in the Land of the Free

And the amazing capacity of our brain to maintain contradictory attitudes remains unfazed:

"American independence from England began with the self-evident truth that people had certain ‘unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’. When Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, it is to a republic with libery for all. In out national anthem, we celebrate living in the "land of the free". Other nations highlight their commitments to liberty as well: the French, for example, put liberté first in the top-three list.

I don’t know what else ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ might mean if not the idea that I should be able to do as I please as long as it doesn’t harm your ability as you please." (Kurzban, p 218)

Clear enough? Freedom is our highest constitutional good, and we needlessly interfere in other peoples freedom all the time.

"For whatever reason, we seem to have modules designed to work very hard to prevent people from doing the things they want to do.. This is arguably one of the greatest inconsistencies of modern times, given that our press secretary modules at least in the West, are always going on and on about our deep fundamental abiding commitment to liberty" (Kurzban, p 213)

"some of our modules ‘believe in’ promoting others’ liberty and freedom, other modules simultaneously ‘believe in’ restricting other people’s liberty." (Kurzban, p.219)

Other victimless crimes are created through legal restrictions on issues like the right to sell our kidneys, the right to exchange sex for money, the right to use the drugs of our choice, the right to die.

"hypocrisy is part of the modular design. We condemn because our moralistic modules are designed to constrain others but there is nothing that keeps our behavior consistent with our condemnation. [...] We can be as inconsistent as others allow us to be. Because being caught in inconsistency is damaging."

Wayne Rooney (british soccer) cheated on wife. Open marriage is a solution!

Devils Advocate — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:26:55 +0000

Headline in British tabloids:

Wayne Rooney will travel to Switzerland for England’s Euro qualifier despite claims that he cheated on wife Coleen with a prostitute
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1309220/Wayne-Rooney-travel-England-for.html

Tiger Woods was equally shunned for his infidelity.

Why should sexual infidelity prevent Wayne Rooney from playing soccer?

Amazing. What would such a private problem have to do with his playing soccer? Visiting a legal prostitute? So what if he got a parking ticket, or a speeding ticket. At least that would endanger other people. But nobody would consider stopping him from playing soccer.

Yes. He broke his mariage vow

OK. Wayne Rooney had a “marriage contract” with his wife. He was dishonest and did not keep his contract. He cheated.

What damage is done if a very rich man visits a prostitute? None!

So why can’t men have fun? What damage is done if he goes out with a prostitute? Did he neglect wife and family? Spend so much money that his family suffers (He makes £ 100 000 a week, so spending a few thousands a week will not cause hardship to his family).

Women who actually introduce cuckold babies into her family, making her husband pay for her infidelity, are treated much more lenient and even are protected by laws that make it difficult for cuckolded fathers to do genetic testing. So there is a reason for double standards!

What damage is done if a woman cheats? 20 years of expense for her husband to feed a cuckold baby!

A cheating wife can make a man invest his life’s work and savings into a child that is not his. This is one of the worst frauds there can be. 20 years of work, a major part of a man’s life, stoled, due to fraud.

That is real cheating! Amazing, cuckolding a man with a child that is not his is not regarded high treason! And now we have the technology to prevent this, to protect men from the worst effect of their wive’s infidelity.

Feminist laws prevent routine DNA testing of children

Feminists already found out that DNA testing can be detrimental to female cheaters. So they make laws to make DNA tests in children dependent on the cheating wife’s permission. More in another post.

Change Sex Laws into “Baby Making Laws”: A new moral code

As a sexually liberated person, I once checked out all sexual morality laws

Morality Sex Law	New Offspring Law
No sex with young girls	Don’t make babies with young girls.
Though shalt not covet your neigbor’s wife: No sex with your neighbor’s wife	Don’t make babies with your neighbor’s wife
No sex before marriage	Don’t make babies if you are not married (except if it is planned, you are rich, or have someone to responsibly take care of the baby
Marry a virgin	Don’t marry a women if she already imight be pregnant, is (secretly?) pregnant or has a baby and wants to make you responsible for it. (unless you consciously want to adopt the baby)

Simply changing the word “sex” into “baby making” makes all these moral laws very palatable. When the moral codes, holy books were written, sex and baby making was all the same. Now we have choices. We can separate sex from baby making. It is time to update our moral codes to adapt them to the new reality.

(we might also write “condoms” into the new moral code, to prevent diseases. So a man is unfaithful if he has sex without a condom)

I repeat: all restrictive sex laws made sense in ancient biblical times. A man really wanted to be sure he would devote his life to offspring that was his. And these sex laws were the only way to assure paternity.

We could liberate sexual morality with DNA testing, birth control, and condoms

all these new technology items can liberate our sex laws.

Why is there no freedom of contract for marriage? Polyamory, open marriage, polygamy?

Did Wayne Rooney (or Tiger Woods, or any other male adulterre) have an option? Was the “marriage contract” freely negotiated? Of course not! There is no freedom of contract.

Why are there no options in marriage? Do you want to be faithful? Do you allow polyamory? occasional trysts? Open marriage? Or polygamy? How come, there are no options in marriage?

Nowadays, consumer protection law voids most consumer contracts, if they don’t give enough choices and freedom to the customer. Why is there only ONE version for “fidelity” in marriage? Why can we not analyze other ways of marriage?

We legalized gay marriage. Why not polyamory, open marriage, or polygamy, and prostitution?

Gays, like feminists, united and fought for their rights and liberties.

Regular heterosexual men are persecuted by feminist morality. Brazil, for example, fights all “sex tourism”, prohibits post-cards that focus on the rear end of bikini-clad beauties. But fought to proudly exhibit the title “best gay tourist destination of the world”.

Heterosexuals of the world, unite. Fight for your freedom.

Serial monogamy problems

Nowadays, men marry in youth. Then they get a “midlife crisis” which usually has to to with the fact that the old wife became unattractive, by sheer biology and age. Then he gets a divorce. Feminists make sure that he has to pay a lot to the ex-wife. And in spite of having lots of cash, his old wife probably stays alone. And he gets himself a younger wife, if he is a successful man.

Open marriage, prostitution or polgamy as alternative to serial monogamy

Where polygamy is legal, a middle age man gets a younger wife. Instead of divorce and separation, the old wife stays home, has friendly relations, is respected, takes care of the household, and keeps the young wife in line.

If the man can have lovers, or prostitutes, he just remains in his old relationship and gets his fun elsewhere.

In both cases, there is no need for separation, huge expenses, huge legal cost, and single divorced unmarriagable middle aged ladies.

Monogamy actually protects low status males, not women

There is a problem with polygamy. The “better” males pick up all the women. Nothing left for the low status males who are condemned not to get a wife. There just are no women left.

This is also happening in China due to the one child policy, plus the selective abortion of female fetuses. Too many men for to few women. It is pure math, there are not enough women for the men.

I believe that prostitution, or polyandry, are the only solutions. GIve some outlet to the unmarried and unmarriagable men. Lots of frustrated men who will never find women are a recipe for crime, upheaval, dissatisfaction.

On the other hand, lots of women prefer to be Tiger Woods lover or fourth wife, to marrying a fat dumb poor loser. These women would greatly prefer polygamy. Of course, the first wife thinks differently. But, if there was freedom of contract, I have no doubt that Tiger Woods (or Wayne Rooney) could find a find a first wife that would sign a contract that she agrees to 5 more wives in the future, as long as she can get US$ 10 000 per month for herself and her kids’ spending money.

Tiger Woods: Breach of (Unfair) Contract? Hypocrisy & (Self)-Deception

admin — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:20:17 +0000

Tiger Woods: a free man?

The Tiger Woods scandal has many facets. I wrote that Tiger Woods is a free man entitled to have fun and Tiger Woods sex addiction treatment is an absurdity.

Tiger sold his freedom to have fun & right to privacy for US$ 100 Million

People countered: Tiger sold his freedom for 100 Million dollars, He made advertising contracts as being a “good boy” athlete: Hey, Tiger, Lack of Privacy Is Part of the Deal. Tiger Woods has destroyed $12 Billion in Stock value So maybe, after having charged huge amounts of money for his “clean boy” image, it is his moral and legal obligation to keep up to moral standard he himself agreed to. Like a catholic priest who signed a celibacy vow and now has to keep it.

Why Is Tiger Woods in Trouble? It’s Not His Steamy Sex Life; It’s His Family Values Hypocrisy: Woods made most of his fortune through his “squeaky-clean model athlete” reputation. Last year, of the $117 million Woods made, $7.7 million was on the golf course; the rest came from endorsement deals. And that endorsement empire is built on the image of a hardworking, clean-living family man with wife, kids, dogs, and “values”.

Tiger Woods And Global Media Hypocrisy
Tiger Woods, Linford Christie and the stars who are sworn to the Hypocrisy Oath
Bob Schieffer To Tiger Woods: Stop Whining (VIDEO)

Breach of contract. But is the contract fair?

Of course, he also signed a marriage “contract” with fidelity vows. He broke the contract. I think it is unfair that the terms of a marriage are non-negotiable. Consumer and tenant law has invalidated many such one-sided contracts, but “feminist” law-makers make sure that men cannot easily negotiate freedom in marriage contracts.

So men who want to retain their freedom have only the choice not to marry, or do what men (and apes before them) did for millions of years: cheat and lie to cover up. Promise what women want to hear, and then secretly do what the man himself wants to do.

Deception

Deception is huge part of human social life. Our education and social norms demand honesty, and in contradiction to that they also demand politeness, courtesy, …. From “I am fine” when I feel bad, to “your dress looks great” when I think it is awful, to “I have eyes only for you and love you forever”. In spite of us lying constantly, we feel we are honest. We deceive ourselves that we are honest.

Self-Deception & Self-Deception

You deceive better if you yourself believe in it.

So Tiger probably believed in his wedding vows. He also believes he is an honest person. Which usually he is. Except for white lies. And lying to spouses. Well and to sponsors and the rest of the world.

And before you throw the first stone: think of your own secrets. What if the press published your photo nose-picking? or about some secret sexual urge you once followed?

And now all these hypocrites condemn poor Tiger Woods. Of course, if you are a public relations manager for Nike, your job is to worry about Nike’s sales and corporate image. Not about hypocrisy, or if the same people who condemn Tiger (and Nike for promoting him) are hypocrites. Try YouTube to see some Tiger Woods commercials: they all manipulate your unconscious: they don’t really sell you superior merchandise, they associate Tiger’s image with the product, thus making you buy the product.

Maybe the problem is that we demand unrealistic role models, who are supposed confirm unrealistic moral norms?
Maybe the problem is that society demands that we lie about romantic “transgressions”.
Most healthy adolescent boys or adult men would probably admire Woods for his sexual conquests. When talking to their peers. But, of course, would not admit this to their wives.

Should male promiscuity be repressed or sexual freedom be tolerated?

There are of course philosophical questions: is monogamy better? there will be less fights, less diseases? or better family life?
Is male promiscuity something that should be eliminated by therapy, drugs etc because it causes problems?
Or do repressive laws, false morality cause the problems? People should just be honest, open and be allowed to have fun without any need to hide. Why can’t everyone have their sexual freedom, and we devote out resources to avoiding unwanted pregnancies and diseases, instead of spying after celebrities’ private life.

Hypocritical double standards about domestic violence

Tiger Woods’ wife Elin should be under investigation for domestic violence: The first news stories sounded suspicious: How can an intelligent man total his car and get face injuries when backing out his car from the garage? And require a women with a golf club to break the windshield to free him?

If the suspected victim were a women, police would investigate, even if the victim denied violence having happened. But Elin is a woman, and police and law are biased in favor of women. If she were innocent, they should have demanded an investigation to dispel any doubt.

I think Tiger lied when he swore in public that no domestic violence has happened. If this could be proven to be a lie, then Woods would be proven to make false public statements . An explicit public lie, almost an oath, that could haunt him (like Bill Clinton).

But as now Tiger’s and Elin’s interest in cover-up coincide, nobody will ever admit the truth. Of course, this can cost him dearly. A domestic violence conviction would greatly favor Tiger in any potential divorce settlement. If he was intelligent, he made her sign something in exchange for his covering up the domestic violence.

Tiger Woods: why can’t he have open marriage and have fun?

admin — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:56:25 +0000

A domesticated Tiger Woods asks for forgiveness for being a man. Woods who could have thousands of women had a mere 14 women over a period of many years. Tiger’s mistake was to agree on a non-open marriage and to project the good boy image. Like most men, Woods got into the typical vicious cycle of false promises and deceit, instead of being honest and standing up for his rights as a powerful and highly desirable alpha male. And to add insult to injury, he now does “sexual addiction therapy” to rid him of normal male feelings and impulses. Maybe he ought to get castrated

What good is it for a man to earn US$ 100 Million if he cannot have fun? Here is Tiger’s truth:

I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn’t [...] have to go far to find them.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/19/tiger.woods.transcript/index.html

But then he went on asking for forgiveness. He disappointed his wife, his fans, his business partners.

I am also aware of the pain my behavior has caused to those of you in this room. I have let you down. I have let down my fans. For many of you, especially my friends, my behavior has been a personal disappointment. To those of you who work for me, I have let you down, personally and professionally. My behavior has caused considerable worry to my business partners.

He has not caused any pain to me. Actually, I found his behavior endearing. Of course, his business partners who profit from Tiger Woods’ squeaky clean image, they have reason to worry. Maybe Woods should settle for earning a mere 50 million a year and having fun, instead of making 100 Million.

Woods’mother put things into perspective:

Afterward, Woods’ mother, Kultida Woods, spoke to reporters, saying how proud she is of him.

“Golf is just like life, when you make a mistake, you learn from your mistake and move on stronger. That’s the way he is,” she said.

“I am upset the way media treated him like he’s a criminal. … He didn’t kill anybody, he didn’t do anything illegal,” she said.

“They’ve being carrying on from Thanksgiving until now. That’s not right.”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/19/tiger.woods/index.html

Sure, Tiger Woods did not keep his agreement, his vow of faithfulness. Maybe he should not have agreed to these condicions in the first place. Why does a rich powerful man abdicate his freedom and vow to be “faithful”, to never look at another woman again?

I’ve had a lot of time to think about what I have done. My failures have made me look at myself in a way I never wanted to before. It is now up to me to make amends. And that starts by never repeating the mistakes I have made. It is up to me to start living a life of integrity.

Don’t make vows of faithfulness, and you can live a life with fun and enjoy integrity. Did he not take good care of his family? Fed them well. Earned a lot of money for them? Just he was foolish enough to get trapped in a vow of “fidelity”.

Now here is a rare positive example of another famous “pervert” husband’s wife supporting a husband’s freedom:

The wife of Portsmouth manager Avram Grant has hit back at allegations her husband was caught in a ‘Thai’ brothel by claiming: ‘He can do whatever he likes with his body.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1248528/Avram-Grants-wife-defends-Pompey-boss-husband-brothel-visit-saying-He-likes-body.html

Tiger should have gotten himself such a wife. I envy Avram Grant, he got himself a great open minded liberal wife.

Evolution of jealousy

Jealousy and demand for faithfulness stem from our evolutionary past. There are flies whose sexual organ gets stuck in the female, so she cannot get fertilized by anyone else. This is a method that even the conservatives religious right would approve of, after all it also guarantees the male’s faithfulness, as his sexual organ is gone.

Men are extremely jealous, because their paternity is never certain. “Mother’s baby, father’s maybe”. And it is very costly, evolutionarily, if a cuckolded man dedicates years to feed and raise a kid that does not carry his genes. Females, on the other hand, don’t have this risk. A woman is always sure of her maternity. So why did evolution equip women with jealousy and possessiveness?

Women evolved to make sure that a man does not squander his resources with other women and children, but rather spends them on her and her children. But Tiger Woods’ has enough riches to take care of 20, or 200 women and their children. Historically, powerful men had the right to marry several women. Many women would rather be Tiger Woods’ 7th wife then the first wife of a poor loser.

Deception, dishonesty are pervasiveUnfortunately, men resort to deception, pretend to be “faithful” and monogamous, in order to conquer women and appease society. President Bill Clinton, Jerry Falwell, everybody does this. Dishonesty is built in tightly into our society. We say “I am fine” when we are not fine, and “you look great” when we think you look terrible. And men say “I have only eyes for you” when, of course, their eyes wonder whenever they are not under surveillance.

Honesty, deception, self deception are very common, and most people are self-deceived considering themselves honest.

Domestic violence

There are strong reasons to suspect domestic violence, that Tiger’s wife attacked him and thus caused the strange car accident. But Tiger is a gentleman and denies it. Of course, if he can be proven wrong, then his credibility will be tainted, he will be a proven liar.

She never hit me that night or any other night. There has never been an episode of domestic violence in our marriage. Ever.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/19/tiger.woods.transcript/index.html

Sexual addiction Therapy

Tiger is already undergoing therapy for doing what every normal healthy man dreams: boinking some gorgeous blondes. I wrote about poor Tiger’s sexual addiction therapy.

It is hard to admit that I need help. But I do. For 45 days, from the end of December to early February, I was in inpatient therapy, receiving guidance for the issues I’m facing. I have a long way to go. But I’ve taken my first steps in the right direction. [...]

As I move forward, I will continue to receive help because I have learned that is how people really do change. Starting tomorrow, I will leave for more treatment and more therapy.

It seems that Tiger might not get sex from his wife, these days. He cannot get other women either. I wonder if he is allowed to jerk off, while looking at his wife’s photos?

Castration works wonders for such “disease”.

Tiger Woods’ girlfriend photos

The guy has good taste in women and is quite successful. Check out some of the photos. http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/[...]

Tiger Woods a domesticated kitten (Sex Addiction treatment)

Devils Advocate — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:21:26 +0000

Tiger Woods can afford a Harem

Tiger Woods, super-rich, super-powerful man being a man? He could have thousands of women, and only had 14 over many years? Maybe there should be an option for marriage without “fidelity” vows! Wasn’t he faithfully taking care of wife and family? Just having a little fun on the side? This is a disease?

Multiple sources confirmed to RadarOnline.com that Tiger is being treated at the clinic which features a sexual addiction program created by Dr. Patrick Carnes, who has pioneered treatment for sexually compulsive behavior.

The Enquirer broke the world exclusive story of Tiger’s five-month affair with Rachel Uchitel. After that report appeared, more than 14 women were linked to Tiger as his secret life of cheating became public.

Source: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/01/world-exclusive-photos-first-pictures-tiger-woods-sex-rehab

Poor Tiger is paying 40++ k$ for a program to make him a domesticated kitten. Why can’t poor Tiger just have fun like any rapper or basketball player? Doesn’t he devote time to his family, take excellent care of his kids?

Didn’t his wife commit acts of domestic violence against Tiger without punishment? “A double standard that excuses female violence is not “common sense” but common sexism.” http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/04/tiger-woods-and-domestic-viole

And people resenting Tiger getting special treatment, a single room and a cleaning maid? Come on, the guy is worth almost a Billion, why can’t he pay for a maid?

Tiger is believed to have booked in for a six week Gentle Path “behaviour modification” programme designed to purge him of sex addiction.

The courses, which include “shame reduction” sessions cost around s40,000 He is having individual counselling and is not expected to attend the usual group therapy sessions.

Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/21/tiger-on-the-loose-115875-21983616/

I know some good “shame reduction” training. He should stand up for being an alpha man, as he is. No shame! Stand up for enjoying some extra fun with other women. What else is power, fame, and money good for? Did he suffer? Does he need treatment?

Maybe he should convert to Islam, at least this would allow him to have 4 wives. Maybe there should be an option for “open marriage” vows!

Mel Gibson, who endured one of the bigger Hollywood scandals of recent years, said the Tiger Woods affair has been blown way out of proportion — but that it wouldn’t do the golfer any good to whine about that now.

“I feel sorry for Tiger Woods,” the actor-filmmaker, 54, told Britain’s Mail on Sunday’s Live magazine. “Why are we talking about this when we’re sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan? … He’s being used as a diversion, and it just drives me crazy.”

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/01/11/gibson.sorry.for.woods/index.html

I think sex addiction treatment should be reserved to people who spend 30 hours straight on internet sex sites. This is life disrupting. Even these people, maybe they could be healed by visiting prostitutes, maybe this would stop them from phantasizing on the web.

Sex addiction is an illness of escape, explains therapist Joy. “At its most extreme, I’ve treated men who’ve used internet porn for 36 hours straight,” she says. “Orgasm is quite a small part of it.

“‘The bubble, the pleasure, is the bit they seek. It distances you from the world and lets you forget problems.”
Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/22/tiger-woods-had-treatment-for-it-this-week-we-look-at-the-reality-behind-sex-addiction-115875-21985605/