Wounded Tiger

By Richard Cox

The Feed


10:04 P.M. February 18.

It’s around 10 o’clock on Thursday night, about twelve hours before Tiger Woods is scheduled to give a highly controlled statement to the press about “transgressions” against his family, and I’m wondering how to feel. Some of you may remember I wrote about Tiger’s minor “traffic accident” on this site a few days after it happened. This evening I read that post, two-and-half months old now, and one paragraph in particular caught my eye:

“Let’s say for a moment the worst rumors are true: He angered his wife, she attacked him in some way, and even chased the SUV with a golf club as he tried to flee the scene. All he’s done since then is blame the accident on himself and ask for privacy.”

Hmm… “worst rumors,” eh? Undershot that one a bit. And “ask for privacy?” While I believe Tiger—like anyone having problems that do not involve the law—deserves privacy, in the real world that’s not a reasonable expectation. Even the average person falls victim to local gossip when he’s caught cheating on his spouse, and this is Tiger Woods, the world’s most elusive billionaire athlete. No way the public is going to leave him alone.

You’d be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of Tiger the golfer than me. Not only are his nerves made of steel, not only is he arguably the most dominant athlete in any field of sport ever, but he has also modeled his swing after my favorite player of all time, Ben Hogan. Mr. Hogan, “The Hawk,” is the author of modern golf swing theory, was a fierce competitor, and eventually became a dignified ambassador of the game of golf. Tiger has taken Hogan’s swing to another level, and by the end of his career, will likely have won twice as many major championships.

And yet…

We all know what the “and yet” is. Sordid stories of multiple mistresses. Fantastic errors in judgment. An angry wife, a stunned PGA tour, millions of disillusioned fans. The man has clearly screwed up, and he’ll spend his life regretting the choices that led him to this place.

But I wonder how much of this is Tiger’s story and how much it is really a tale of modern communication. Put John Kennedy under the 2010 media microscope, expose him to Twitter and the blogosphere and the worthless trash that is TMZ.com, and how would he have fared? Men with the power or charm to do so have been committing infractions of this sort since the beginning of time. In some parts of the world, taking a mistress isn’t even considered unusual. Are we angry with Tiger because of the egregious nature of his crimes? Is it the number of women that matters most? Is it the former squeaky clean image? Or is he simply the first high profile person in this unfavorable position to be taken apart by a world where anyone with an Internet connection can be a media outlet?

* * *

10:21 A.M. February 19.

Tiger finished his prepared statement only a few minutes ago, and it went pretty much how one might have expected. He apologized to his family, his friends, to his corporate partners, and his fans. Even in a controlled, friendly environment—no questions allowed—he seemed overwhelmed by the occasion. Tiger is talented in many ways, but he is no actor. I think his words, while carefully selected and choreographed, were sincere. He appeared vulnerable, a side of him unknown to most of us.

And isn’t that what we want? To know he’s human? As much as we respect and admire the talent and determination of champions, we have a need to know they aren’t that far removed from us. We don’t want to root for robots. We want to root for humans.

Ben Hogan, though one of the top players of his time, was not a fan favorite for much of his career. He was seen as too disciplined and competitive and cold…which is part of what made him a champion. At the age of 36, a car accident left him with a double-fracture of the pelvis, a fractured collar bone, a left ankle fracture, a chipped rib, and near-fatal blood clots. He suffered lifelong circulation problems, and doctors were worried he might never walk again. Instead, he returned only a year later to win the U.S. Open in an eighteen hole playoff, and went on to win six of his nine major championships after the accident.* He might have won even more, become the greatest golfer of all time, had he not dealt with such severe injuries. But would he be remembered any more fondly than he is now? His return from disaster turned him a hero, universally loved by fans. Why? Because somehow he seemed more knowable to them. More human.



Tiger’s self-inflicted injuries are not physical, but the damage is nonetheless severe to both his psyche and his public image. These problems will follow him around, literally and figuratively, for years to come. But the public will eventually forgive him, and hopefully his wife and family will, as well. Whatever else happens, he’s already considered by most to be golf’s best-ever player. And if he’s truly sorry for his actions and learns something from them, perhaps he will emerge from this fall from grace as an even better human.

In the end, what is most important? To him and to us?

* Courtesy of Wikipedia

TAGS: , , , , , , ,

RICHARD COX is the author of The Boys of Summer, Thomas World, The God Particle, and Rift. He can be reached on Facebook or at his personal web site, www.richardcox.net.

150 responses to “Wounded Tiger”

  1. Becky says:

    I think it was the squeaky-clean image, to an extent. Not that there’s a problem with having one but to have it turn out that your “real” persona is such a wild contradiction of that image creates a sense of betrayal, I think, especially for people who looked up to him, whether it was personally or as an instance in which they thought they had found an insanely famous and wealthy person who remained a “good guy.”

    I mean, people don’t do well with betrayal in general, real or perceived. So there was a certain amount of head-hunting.

    And the sheer number of women, the graphic accounts of unwholesome kinkiness, was incredible. Certainly not normal for a guy who is just “taking a mistress.” He had a harem, basically.

    So, I don’t know about people being likely to forgive him on the grounds that he appeared vulnerable and human. I mean, if a person cheats on his/her spouse, the spouse’s immediate reaction to waterworks and apologies upon being caught is rarely immediate forgiveness. Everyone is sorry they got caught.

    Granted, he is not the whole country’s spouse, but I think a lot of the same feelings and processes are at work. Shit, man. I’m still pissed at Brad Pitt and even Jen Aniston is not. He disappointed the hell out of me.

    I think the public thought he was a relatively normal–if insanely wealthy–person before. Now he’s sort of a groveling philanderer of absolutely epic proportions.

    • Richard Cox says:

      I won’t defend him taking a harem. And there’s no point in debating his DNA’s desire for immortality, haha. But I’m nevertheless fascinated by the effect of taking harems before and after the Internet gossip culture and 24-hour news.

      Let me ask you this: Would have rebuffed advances from a married Brat Pitt?

      • Becky says:

        Somehow, in that situation, I do not think Brad Pitt was the one making advances. He doesn’t strike me as the sexually aggressive personality in the Jolie-Pitt relationship.

        For the sake of argument, though, I have to say that I really hope and believe I would. But I have a superhuman ability to shut off my sex drive or become turned off in the presence of unreasonably attractive people. I find them intimidating and distrust just about everything they do. It’s a peculiar neuroticism. Probably not one I should go around bragging about.

        • Richard – just to chime in here – I think that married guys making “advances” are gross – even Brad Pitt.

          Though, I agree with you, Tiger Lady, that I don’t think Angelina was a victim of Brad’s prowess. I see him as kind of not very “alpha”. I’m not trying to blame woman and say oh poor Brad – whatever – but she definitely did the seducing. And maybe they’re really soulmates, fine. And maybe Jen wasn’t wanting to adopt enough babies for his super ego to feel satisfied – c’mon – all the do goodery they do must assuage the guilt they have for making so much cash.

        • Richard Cox says:

          You think they are gross, okay. But I’d be willing to bet a significant percentage of women would be flattered and possibly smitten with a flirtatious, married Brad Pitt. You might call them whores, but I think until you are presented in real life with a certain situation, it’s hard to say exactly how you might respond to it. Right or wrong, I think our perceived choices and the ones we actually make–especially when it comes to lust and love–are not always the same thing.

        • Becky says:

          Hey now. I think I’ve done a pretty good job of not calling anyone a whore or even alluding to it so far. Don’t put those words in my mouth.

          It’s not like I’m a person who has never made a bad love/lust decision or is claiming to, even if not with Brad Pitt. Of course what you’re saying is exactly true love/lust is powerful.

          My point was that if Brad Pitt was coming on to me, it would raise any number of red flags that would indicate to me that something was not quite right, far beyond any knowledge that he was married. That’s not a declaration of a lack of self-esteem, just a fact. It’s a rather tough situation to even talk about seriously in the hypothetical.

          I took him of my laminated celebrity list after this Jolie business. I’m not allowed to dislike him? It is a pretty normal thing for people to become unattractive to you when you feel they may be ugly on the inside, whether you’re right or not. At least as normal as giving into love or lust.

        • Becky says:

          Wow. Typos. I apologize for the hideousness.

        • Richard Cox says:


          My bad. The first few sentences were meant for Stephanie because she said married guy advances were gross. You certainly haven’t called anyone a whore. Didn’t mean to insinuate that at all.

          But the balance of the comment applies to you and anyone. Take away for the moment whatever red flags you think would be raised by him hitting on you. Just think about it in the most animal sense. A man like Brad Pitt wants to ravage you. Do your knees not get weak? Do you not even consider what it might be like?

          I hate to say something so terribly shallow, but I think the propensity for infidelity is directly correlated to the opportunities presented. If you’re super hot, if you’re famous or rich or onstage or whatever, you are tempted so much more often than someone who isn’t. And you can’t ignore the percentages in any situation, particularly this kind.

        • Becky says:

          Yet so many seem to with no real problems at all.

        • Becky says:

          Alright, okay. I can give a better answer than that. Less pithy, anyway. But it stands. I mean, Tiger wasn’t just having women thrown at him. He was soliciting. Going out and finding them and in some cases, purchasing them. But that aside.

          Do my knees get weak when attractive men threaten to do sexy things to me? In the broad sense, yes. I am a straight woman. This happens from time to time.

          However, and maybe I’m a freak (or maybe just a woman? Maybe this is the point of our misunderstanding), as in many situations in which strange men clumsily appear out of nowhere asking for sex, I have a feeling that, good looking or not, the behavior in and of itself would be a turn off.

          I mean, how well do I know Brad Pitt in this scenario? For how long? Are we friends?

        • wait – I never called them whores, either. jeeeze.
          In fact, I said nothing about the women at all.
          I don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone else does.
          I was stating that I, me, I find even the most attractive of men who are married, to be gross
          when they are slimey enough to be hitting on women.
          And I do not include Brad in this even, really, as I wrote, for all I know
          AJ is his soulmate.

          Never said whores.

        • Becky says:

          I think there must be some gender issue at work. Causing a communication breakdown.

          Granted, there are women who do not care as much whether a man is married, whatever one wants to call them, but by and large, I think you will find a greater adverse reaction to being hit on by married people among women.

          I can think of evolutionary reasons for that, but I’m not sure. It would only be a theory.

        • Not that I want to open myself for another possible communication breakdown…
          but I think that the reason when I have seen or have experienced a married man who should be swooning me/flattering me with his looks and charm, but instead I find it sad – meaning – his looks go out the window – his character goes out the window – if there is an evolutionary reason – it may be that I see him as weak and therefore a menace to society – something not good for all that are concerned. Again, no judgment for anyone who’s ever done that – I’m just sayin’. Just making conversation. We’re talking me – we’re talking my opinion.

          Never said whores.

        • Becky says:

          Sister, I’m with you.

          But the fact of the matter is, the herd need not come into it.

          If you’re a monkey, knuckle-dragging it around the savannah, you want some good-looking, genetically superior babies, yeah. They’ll get laid a bunch and pass on the family likeness. But your eggs are finite in number and those babies are no good for the family legacy if the dad won’t hang around and help keep them fed and alive. If his allegiance is elsewhere, that’s a liability, not a boon.

          That’s the impromptu short answer off the top of my head.

          On a non-evolutionary, personal level, yeah. It’s mostly just fucking gross. Most of the time, married men trolling for chicks don’t even have the decency to woo. They just say things like, “wanna fuck?” to which the answer is, “not even a little bit.” I don’t care what they look like.

        • Richard Cox says:

          I’m on my phone and running out of battery, but I’d ask you to substantiate your assertion that married men don’t court women. Not defending the practice, not at all, but from what data do you conclude that married men are so uncooth as to simply ask to fuck? Becky?

        • Becky says:

          Well, it’s not necessarily the way things go, but it often is.

          Most married men are not in the position, strategically or financially, to woo a girlfriend.

          I mean, the ones in the movies always are, and certainly there are men who do maintain something like a 2nd relationship, but by and large, that’s not how it plays out in real life. 9 times out of 10, if you’re propositioned by a married man, he is not looking for another drain on his time and/or wallet.

        • Richard Cox says:

          Your reasoning isn’t necessarily wrong. Just seems a bit emotional and unsubstantiated.

        • Becky says:

          Well, I don’t think I was emotional, but I’m ’bout get to be.

          Are you calling women moody and illogical?

          Why don’t you come back with some phone batteries and we’ll hug this shit out. And by hug, I mean I’ll kick your ass.

          I said it was a theory.

        • Anon says:

          Not picking any horses in this race but, Rich, you’re not married are you? Because I found myself instinctively saying, “Honey, you’re right. I was being an ass and I’m sorry.” as soon as I read the word “emotional” in your post. Especially funny because my wife is away for the weekend so I’m reflexively apologizing to the ether.

          And, um, Becky? My mentioning my wife’s absence is not a subtle “Wanna fuck?” even though I am now smokin’ hot with my skinny new gravatar.

        • Becky says:

          Yeah, but your understanding of the female mechanism might get you wooed, anyway.

          Just kidding. I’m not like that.

          I prefer my dudes with eyes.

        • Anon says:

          Hey, not that I’m inviting anything but don’t be so closed-minded! Haven’t you heard that blind dudes’ other senses are more highly developed to compensate? Well, just extrapolate that to a dude with no facial features at all! Once you go stick figure, you never go… um… something like “back” but that rhymes with “figure”. Or maybe something particularly naughty like “stick figure/stick bigger”. Yeah… I’ll work on that.

        • Becky says:

          Ahhh hahahaha

          That is all.

        • Richard Cox says:

          I didn’t mean “emotional” as a woman flying off the handle for no reason. I meant how can you say, scientifically, that 9 out of 10 married men are not looking for another drain on his time and/or wallet. That’s all.

          Certainly I am wise to the female brain enough to not blindly accuse them of being emotional. I meant that in the logical, cause/effect way that Becky normally adheres to. Either way, I’m glad my “transgressions” provided the platform for a bit of Internet flirtation. Just don’t tell Tiger!

        • I never said whores, Richard.

          Is that it? No acknowledgment of anything I wrote after the “those few sentences were meant for Stephanie”? I guess I’m done anyway with this subject and with being on this comment board.

          Bon weekend!

        • Becky says:

          “9 times out of 10” is a figure of speech. You may substitute “mostly” or “more often than not” if that makes you more comfortable.

        • Anon says:

          “Internet flirtation platform” sounds wonderfully geeky. Seems appropriate since the web is an evolution of ARPANET, which was just an excuse for nerdy little DoD scientists to discretely share “Dear Penthouse” stories and, later, encrypted pics. Of course, it eventually was opened to commercial and civilian use since it’s hard to be productive when you spend all day looking at 0111000001110101011100110111001101111001….

        • Richard Cox says:

          Stephanie, my apologies for that. I wrote some of these comments from my phone, at a bar, and it wasn’t easy to read and reply to everything that way. Also, I was fairly intoxicated when I made it home to write a final few comments. Brain wasn’t working. Still isn’t, really.

          I totally get what you mean about the character of the person making them vastly less attractive. When the married guy makes advances, for you he loses whatever attractiveness he might have had before. And I’d guess most women feel that way in most situations. But I am still interested in this “leader of the pack” thing, where a celebrity or powerful person does it. Tiger said in his speech that he felt like normal rules didn’t apply to him, and he realizes he was wrong. That sounds like something they’re teaching him in sex therapy. Bill Simmons pointed out in his piece on ESPN that he’s wrong–different rules do apply to celebrities. You see it all the time, everywhere. And some women out there who take your position toward married men might look at it differently if it were a sufficiently famous person. You wouldn’t, but some would, I suppose.

          Sorry again for not more thoroughly responding. To be perfectly honest I had to go back and see what I wrote in those last few comments because I couldn’t remember. Groan.

        • Becky says:

          But that’s what I’m saying.

          You do see it a lot. What we don’t see are stories like, “Nothing new really going on with famous couple.” That’s just not news. “Everything kind of business-as-usual in celebrity marriage.”

          No one would pay to read that.

          I think there are plenty of celebrity marriages where none of this even applies. Not because the people aren’t attractive or rich or famous, they’re just not philanderers. They have the extra opportunities and they reject them. Or if there is some issue of infidelity in these non-news making marriages, it is the rather average sort that any marriage, in the course of a long run, is at risk of encountering.

          This was a spectacle. What Tiger did is absolutely outrageous for any human being, even a famous one. Even a VERY famous one. This is rock-star type stuff. At least rock star wives go in knowing what they’re getting into. It’s sort of part of the culture and there is often some sort of understanding.

          (I remain, however, in rejection of the notion that circumstances like celebrity earn you some kind of adulterer’s pity card.)

        • Becky says:

          And I did think you were becoming unusually prickly, but it was nothing I couldn’t attribute to sort of average frustration over the course of an extended debate. If you wouldn’t have said anything, I’d have never suspected a thing.

        • Richard Cox says:

          Yes, no one would pay to read that. Just like you can’t write fiction without conflict. Conflict is the engine that powers any storytelling.

          And I suppose it drives human nature to a degree somehow as well, because we seem to end up in personal conflicts all the time, particularly of the self-inflicted kind. Of which Tiger’s is an especially brazen example. As you pointed out.

        • Richard Cox says:

          “And I did think you were becoming unusually prickly…”

          Yes, apologies to you also, and anyone else I was too prickly with. I’m amazed there weren’t more typos in those posts. Jesus.

        • Becky says:

          Hey now. Unusually prickly for you isn’t the same as “too prickly.” Look who you’re talking to. I know prickishness.

          I was trying to tell you that you were fine. Really not a big deal. I’m sure you’re mortified, but all I know is that I’m the whitest person on earth, and I said “I’m ’bout get to be.”

        • Richard Cox says:

          Okay, thanks. And really, even with an iPhone it’s not easy to read and leave comments with a mobile device. That “too emotional” comment is a prime example. I honestly meant that in the strict scientific sense, but trying to write that in the most concise way possible only made it look flippant and rude. Hence Anon’s suggestion that I wasn’t married/didn’t understand I was offending women. Haha.

          Also, Anon, that binary code bit is funny. Well done.

        • Becky says:

          I honestly didn’t actually take offense.

          It was mock indignation. Hence the ridiculous urban throw down.

        • Richard Cox says:

          I didn’t think you did. It’s not like we haven’t had heated debates before. I think I have you pegged well enough by now to tell the difference. However, I’m feeling a bit step 9 hungoverish.

        • Richard Cox says:

          P.S. Loved the throw down, by the by.

        • Becky says:

          I think the mock indignation really plays better face-to-face. It’s something I do in normal conversation, so I automatically try to convey it in type. Gets me in trouble a lot.

        • It’s ok, RC – I didn’t even care about the prickleyness – I’m a grown up, I can handle a prickle – I just don’t like being ignored. But I get it – iphone – bar- drunk commenting – yada.

          I’m still singing Xanadu, btw.

        • Tawni says:

          Xanadu, your neon lights will shine for YOUUUUUU, Xanaduuu-uuuuu-uuuuuuu!!!!

        • Now that I’m here
          Now that you’re near in Xanadu (repeat until death).

        • Richard Cox says:

          I feel like I’m turning in my alpha male card by doing this, but screw it:

          The dream that came through a million years…!!!!

        • Tawni says:

          That lived on through all the tears… it came to Xanaduuuu-uuuu-uuu-uu-uuuuu!

        • Richard Cox says:

          I think the song we’re not honoring properly here is “Magic.”

          You have to believe we are magic, nothing can stand in our way…

        • Tawni says:

          Have to believe we are magic, don’t let your aim ever stray…

        • And if all your hopes survives, destiny will arrive – bring all your dreams alive…
          for youuuuuuuuuuuu…..
          (don’t get me started on that song – I sang it in my room with a hairbrush microphone
          everyday after school for like a year)

          Have you guys seen Xanadu recently – it’s a TRIP!

        • Tawni says:

          I really need to watch Xanadu again. I think I was actually pre-teen the last time I saw it. But will viewing it now ruin my fond memories of it, or did it trip you out in the good way?

        • Let me put it this way – I sang it for weeks afterward.
          True, there are some definite deficits that we perhaps did not notice when we were 12.
          Like, plot? Acting?
          But the music is soooo good, still – the roller dancing – and O-Newt is still stellar – I’m a big fan of hers – her voice makes me melt.

          Also, I’m thinking it might be a good movie to watch with the lil ones dancing, singing, fairly benign, as far as doing any kind of damage to the psyche.

          Plus – I’M ALIVE!!!

        • Richard Cox says:

          The exchange on “Dramatis Personae” the other day encouraged me to watch This is Spinal Tap this evening. I never noticed before that the venue were Tap gets lost on the way to the stage is the Xanadu Star Theater in Cleveland. I used Google to find out if that place was real, and one of the first entries I saw was for Rush, who played there in 1971.

          Talk about your SSE, Greg.

        • And, we’re just about to watch Spinal Tap tonite, as well.
          Obviously inspired by the recent exchange.
          I think enough years have gone by that we can see it again.
          Will keep a look out for that scene – SSE indeed!
          And Greg keeps wanting to sway this thread to the Rush Xanadu, so here ya go, Greg.

        • Greg Olear says:

          I’d like to, but I can’t, for I have heard the whispered tales of immortality…

        • Richard Cox says:

          Excellent! I hope you guys enjoy it again. I watch it at least once a year. Right now they’re about to play the Air Force base, or rather, to stand within the Pleasure Dome.

        • Anon says:

          Well, I’m glad you can hear whispers – I can’t make out a bloody thing over all these damned maples screaming, “Oppression!” or some such communist rot….

        • Greg Olear says:

          No, no, Anon. That’s “The Trees.”

          Richard – Did you notice that in Tap, the famous rock guy they meet in the lobby in Memphis is named Duke Fame? That made us chuckle.

          “How can I leave this behind?” = best double entendre of all time

        • Richard Cox says:

          I didn’t notice that bit about Duke. Nice. And yes, that is a magnificent double entendre. Their songwriting is really spectacular, if you take the context into account.

          “No one knows who they were, or what they were doing…”

        • Anon says:

          Ah, my apologies! After the Olivia-Newton-to-Rush segue, I thought there was to be a whole medley. I contemplated a “Working Man” reference but listening to my kids grump upstairs put me in an “unrest in the forest” frame of mind.

        • Here – just to have a visual aid for the song that still has not left my brain.
          O-Newt in all her glory.

  2. Greg Olear says:

    Nice account of the rise and fall, Richard.

    I think the issue here is bait and switch. His private life was so radically different than his public persona that when the truth came out, as it always does, people were pissed that they’d be sold a bill of goods.

    If Kobe Bryant did the same thing, no one bats an eyelash. Or Mike Tyson. A-Rod. Maybe even Jordan. Tiger is a conservative blue-chip stock in an insurance company that turned out to be trading derivatives in England. Not cool.

    Also, don’t discount the kids. That’s what makes this different than Aniston/Pitt. If they don’t have kids, two people get hurt — one, really. Which is bad, but not as bad as when it affects the kids, especially little kids. Not only is he a shitty husband, he’s a shitty father.

    • Gloria says:

      Everyone has skeletons Greg. I’ve known many of them. The more conservative, the more blue-chip stock, the more skeletons. I’ve got many data points on this issue. This, IMHO, is par for the course. Pun in intended.

    • Richard Cox says:

      Thank you, sir. I agree about the bait and switch for sure. And I also agree about the children, not just his own but those who had looked to him as a role model. Tiger is one who everyone thought broke the mold, someone we could point to and say, “Hey, that guys has it all and he’s still a good guy.”

      That he’s prone to the same mistakes as so many other rich athletes and politicians and rock stars says something about human nature that no one likes. Which is why I see Becky’s point about Brad and Jen. Lots of people, rightly or wrongly, looked at theirs as the fairy tale marriage. I know many women who, after they divorced, said, “Well, jeez, if they can’t make it, who can?”

      Also, there are a lot of shitty fathers out there. A bunch of them never bother to redeem themselves. I like Tiger’s chances in that regard.

      • Matt says:

        He might be able to redeem himself as a father; children can be the most forgiving of all of us.

        But as a husband?

      • Greg Olear says:

        Getting back to your comparison to JFK…his rampant infidelities were covered on the Seymour Hersh book The Dark Side of Camelot. The guy definitely put national security #2 behind getting his rocks off. There seems to be an issue with men of power to see how much they can get away with. Maybe the golf comes so easily for Tiger that he needs to challenge himself in other ways.

        • Richard Cox says:

          I think a lot of people put many things at risk to get their rocks off. Mainly dudes, but both sexes are guilty of it. I think it’s a matter of opportunity. And I think Tiger was being honest when he said he had worked hard all his life and thought he deserved to have whatever he wanted. The amazing thing is he could have taken steps to avoid getting caught, like hiring someone to run interference with the women. Having other phones. I mean, he is a billionaire. I imagine it has something to do with being so good at something and being universally revered for it that you think you aren’t going to get caught. You see smart people do this all the time. It’s strange.

  3. Gloria says:

    “And isn’t that what we want? To know he’s human?”

    You know, in some ways I think Celebrity is a bit like modern Gladiator Games. Seriously. I don’t think most of “us” want to know he’s human. I think the TMZ watchers and Perez Hilton watchers are circling his body like vultures watching an animal dying. The vultures don’t want to know the animal is alive; they want to know it’s dead.

    The only thing “we” love more than seeing a person’s star shoot high in the sky and shine brightly is to watch that star blink out – and the bigger the explosion, the greater the satisfaction.

    It makes me sick.

    • Richard Cox says:

      I know a lot of people here will disagree with me, and perhaps take offense, but I think anyone who buys a celebrity magazine is as culpable as the paparazzi when it comes to the vulture culture. I know there are writers here who have covered entertainment, but there is a way to do it honorably. You don’t have to be a vulture, and if you wouldn’t be a paparazzi yourself, maybe you should consider not paying them for their work.

      • Becky says:


        But hey.

        I’m only human.

        Except when I am superhuman.

        • Richard Cox says:

          I knew it. Since you’re still mad at Brad. Haha.

          Thank you for not pointing out that I incorrectly used the plural of paparazzo above.

        • Becky says:

          No problem. I will point out, though, that a ton of celebrities read celebrity gossip rags. Plenty of them the same ones who bitch about the paparazzi. I mean, one might be tempted to say they’re the rough equivalent of trade journals for those folks, but they read that stuff on the beach.

          I’ve seen it in the gossip rags.

          So my official stance is that the scene is indeed ugly but perfectly normal. A hairy mole on the nose of pop culture.

        • Becky says:

          And at least part of my distaste has to do with an intense dislike of Angelina Jolie that predated their relationship.

        • Richard Cox says:

          Yes, I believe you made that point before, that they read them and also want to be seen in them. So I reluctantly concede that.

          Still, though, the constant videotaping seems extreme to me. Following them everywhere. Really?

        • Becky says:

          Did I make that point before?

          You have a spectacular memory. Then again, it’s kind of an obvious point.

          I suppose it’s sort of like other types of wildlife documentary–taping any species; you won’t see much in the way of new behavior if you just hang out at the watering hole. In the end, the progression of events and circumstances that lead to the spectacle you describe is perfectly logical.

          At least part of the problem is that there are just SO MANY paparazzi. They have to clamor and whatnot. They don’t really have the luxury of behaving in a civilized manner if they want to get paid.

          Once one is unscrupulous, they all have to be or they have no jobs. Like I said, ugly. But, you know.

          At the risk of sounding like a class warrior, which I’m really not, my general feeling is that life is not without tradeoffs for anybody. Unlike a lot of people, celebrities get to make millions of dollars, do almost anything they want, and in many cases do the job of their dreams. One of the things they trade for celebrity (by definition, really) is privacy and a lack of recognition. It’s that I have no sympathy for the unique difficulties inherent in that kind of attention…

          I just think that as difficult as it is, celebrities are guarded from a lot of harsh realities. That’s the one they have to face.

        • Becky says:

          it’s NOT that I have no sympathy.

          Lord. Freudian slip?

        • Simon Smithson says:

          This has a lot of bearing on what you’re saying – spoiler alert for the finale of Ricky Gervais’s Extras, everyone!

          If you’re not familiar with the show, the setup is basically that throughout the series, Gervais (Andy Millman) has been pursuing acting fame:


        • Richard Cox says:

          Brilliant. Brilliant. Brilliant. Both of his series finales have left me overwhelmed and misty.

          I have a love/hate relationship with that bloke, though. Oh, well.

  4. Zara Potts says:

    Hmmmm. I don’t have any sympathy for Tiger. I can appreciate his sporting talent, but his talent for deception overrides everything else for me.

    • Richard Cox says:

      It’s a terrible thing. I doubt many people have sympathy for him. I’m not suggesting that anyone should, but I do think he could use a shot at redemption. He didn’t kill anyone.

      • Zara Potts says:

        You’re right, he didn’t kill anyone -but he sure broke a lot of hearts and the damage he has caused his wife and children and extended family is tremendous. I could maybe agree with him deserving a shot at redemption if it had been just one time, but the fact that his numerous affairs were conducted over a long period of time says to me that his remorse was at being caught, not for the actual deeds.

    • Greg Olear says:

      Zara: I don’t think he has much talent for deception. From what I understand, he didn’t cover his tracks well at all, and that led to his fall. Well, that and doing this stuff to begin with.

  5. zoebee says:

    I’m frankly pretty appalled that his wife is staying with him. One affair? Two? Maybe. Multiple? With hookers and strippers? And really skanky tarts? In Church parking lots? In her own house!?

    I have almost as little respect for her now as I do for him.

    • Richard Cox says:

      Maybe she won’t. We don’t know what’s being said privately.

      Also, as far as the claims made by the various women, none of them have anything to gain except attention by coming forward. Isn’t it possible some of them are lying? Trying to add more drama than is already there?

      That being said, there are probably women who haven’t come forward. Is there a certain number that’s too high? A threshold?

      • zoebee says:

        half of one is my thresh-hold.

        I kinda doubt they are lying actually. I wish they were. they certainly don’t raise the bar for intelligence, grace and beauty for my sex.

        I do think he was sincere in his apologies…. I just don’t think he deserves to be able to not totally face the music. Q&A. A proper, honest, laid bare, everything on the table interview or something.

        For me this wasn’t enough and I don’t even really care!

  6. Debbie Does Augusta says:

    I’ve never liked him. He’s a turd. That was the most self-important apology I think I’ve ever witnessed.
    It was no surprise to see him handle this whole thing the way he did. He should write a book…advice on dealing with the small people of planet Earth. Then again, he thinks he’s alone here, so who is there really to heed his advice. He’s forgetting that soooo many people are are interested because he’s a giant turd. Like we’re going to just forgive him and let it go. It’s too much fun to watch turds squirm.
    In his Presidential little talking to that he just gave us, he said all the questions and answers are private. Then he said there were accusations of performance enhancing drugs that were entirely false. So, some answers aren’t private. In other words, he’s choosing what he wants to disclose. F you. You don’t run the world. I’ve never rooted for gossip hounds, but in his case I have a styrofoam finger held high for the dirtbags who think it’s a living.

    No offense, but to compare him to JFK or Hogan in any sense is an insult to both. He’s not a murderer, but I’d be prouder to have one at my dinner table than Mr. Woods, only in that it’d be easier to keep my dinner down.

    • Richard Cox says:

      No offense taken. I hesitated including the Hogan thing. I realize it could be taken as sacrilege. But come on, JFK? I’m a fan of his but isn’t he exactly the sort of aristocracy you’re arguing against?

      I think Tiger’s assertion is that questions involving only him are valid, whereas questions that involve Elin are different.

      In any case, I understand your point. His method of apology isn’t necessarily going to win people over. Only a change of personality and behavior will do that.

      • Debbie Does Augusta says:

        JFK, mostly as a conduit for RFK, had a positive agenda and was in a position to effect change on the world. Tiger plays golf. I’d guess JFK had an air of humility and service, mixed in with South Beach lothario/rich kid.
        I’ll take a bit of aristocracy from a civil servant. Not a golfer/celebrity. Tiger’s assertion was stop digging up dirt on me (shielded by his family).
        Plus, if you’re funny or a nice guy, I might respect your wishes to not publish the photo of you squeezing Affleck’s balls (currently why yours is vaulted). But, if you’re an ass… ha, good luck.

  7. Tawni says:

    My husband and I are both fans of Tiger the golfer. He just told me about the statement Tiger made because I hadn’t yet turned on the television. He said it was good–touching even–and that it seemed heartfelt.

    I asked, “Why is he making a statement? Didn’t he already officially apologize, with a promise to take a break from golf to work on being a better father and husband?”

    I am perplexed because I don’t understand what more the public might want from Tiger Woods. Blood?

    Why do we always need to tear somebody apart to make ourselves feel morally superior?

    He fucked up. He admitted it. He apologized. He has shown what seems to be genuine remorse for fucking up, coupled with what seems to be an honest attempt to fix whatever emotional/psychological flaws brought him to the point of fucking up.

    I’m impressed that he’s trying. He doesn’t have to. He has enough money to go away forever and live any way he wants to, and the guy is trying to fix himself anyhow. Leave him alone, already.

    Mostly I don’t understand why I should get to sit in judgment of the guy. I’m certainly not perfect. And I’m not in a relationship with him, so it’s not ultimately my business. I wasn’t married to Tiger Woods when he cheated, so I’m having a hard time feeling outraged, I guess.

    Can this new statement mean that the media and public will please stop talking about Tiger Woods and his life mistakes now? And can my older relatives please stop making awful, obvious Jay Leno-esque jokes about there being mistresses in the Tiger Woods golf video games now, too? Please? I don’t know how much more I can take.

    • Richard Cox says:

      Yes, Tawni, you know I agree. But I already wrote that in the last piece. However horrible his actions, they are between him and his family and the other women involved. But unfortunately the reality is a bit different than what you or I think. The public has a need for answers and they are going to get them one way or another. So he has to play ball to some degree.

      I think he could have been a little more, I don’t know, edgy with his statement. It was a bit too by-the-numbers (I had this whole prediction thing in the first version of what I wrote last night, but I cut it because that wasn’t really the point I was trying to make). He said pretty much what I thought he would say, which is too bad.

      I like what Matt said below about the Ty Cobb approach. “Leave me alone, fuckers!”

      Your point about him trying to fix himself is a good one. He could just give up. He has the wherewithal to do whatever he wanted. In the end only his actions over years will prove his intention to take a different path, but–

      But in the end his marriage and sex life are not our business.

    • Greg Olear says:

      We get to pronounce judgment on him (insofar as we care) because he’s been paid millions and millions of dollars a year to endorse products and show his toothy smile on my TV screen. It’s part of the gig. If you don’t want the scrutiny, Tiger, leave the money alone.

      • Tawni says:

        Yeah, I mean, I get that. I do. Like if my son was older and idolized Tiger, I’d be disappointed that he was having to watch his hero fall. It would probably piss me off more if I’d expected more from Tiger. But as a jaded old lady, I know Tiger Woods is a young man in a position of tremendous power, and power corrupts. It happens. I wasn’t even a tiny bit surprised to hear about the mistresses (I found the unattractiveness of them more surprising than anything),so maybe that’s why I’m not outraged? There was no build up for me, so the drop wasn’t very far.

        And of course, I feel sorry for his kids and wife. But it’s really hard to feel too sorry for someone who can afford to buy a multi-million dollar estate in her native country to get away from her cheating husband. Elin will never have to work as a waitress to support those kids.

        There are a lot of musicians, for example, that I don’t think are probably very nice people, but I’m still a fan of what they do. I don’t really care about them personally because I don’t listen to their music to support a lifestyle in which I believe. I just like the music.

        There are a lot of famous authors known to be sketchy humans, but we still read their works and respect them. I lived in the same city with William S. Burroughs for years. I knew of his troubled past, but it didn’t make meeting him less of a thrill.

        In the same vein, I don’t watch Tiger golf because of his personal life. Tiger has taken golf to a new level; he’s an incredible athlete. I don’t really care what he does in his free time.

        And because so many people of whom I respect the opinions are mad at him, I am starting to feel like there’s something wrong with me.

        Well, I already know there’s something wrong with me. But you know what I mean. I want my Marlboro Miles sleeping bag from God. 🙂

        • Greg Olear says:

          Oh, don’t get me wrong. I don’t really give a shit what he does. I’m not outraged, and I hope he goes into what the Sports Guy calls “eff-you mode” and shoots, like, five holes-in-one in a row or something and wipes that smile off Phil Mickelson’s face.

          But I will defend my right to weigh in. There are times when I read US Weekly and I think, “This has gone too far,” like when they rate what the celebrity toddlers are wearing. This does not make me feel the least bit slimy.

          Oh, and Tawni? Good morning. I see you and I are up early, as usual.

        • Tawni says:

          Oooooooh. Phil Mickelson. Now there’s a guy I can’t stand. Smug, spoiled bastard.

          Hey, look! I’m doing it! I’m hating on someone I don’t know personally!

          I am totally getting the sleeping bag.

          And good morning to you too, sir. Up since four this morning over here. Momma’s gonna be praying for a nap this afternoon.

          P.S. Bill Simmons is hilarious.

  8. Tawni says:

    “Why do we always need to tear somebody apart to make ourselves feel morally superior?”

    Not intended as a self-righteous question, by the way. I’ve caught myself doing it too.

  9. D.R. Haney says:

    This is the only thing I’ve read on the apology, RC. I figure I won’t have to read anything else, since I’m sure to catch any details you omitted via the grapevine. However, when you say: […] “the damage is nonetheless severe to both his psyche and his public image,” I would speculate (for the little it’s worth) that the damage is severe to his psyche only because of the damage to his public image. I personally don’t care about the private life of Tiger Woods, and I think it’s ridiculous that anyone would care, but he’ll bounce back. The American public can’t get enough of this sin/redemption drama, and he’s playing his part to a tee.

    Wait. I think I just punned.

  10. Matt says:

    Am I the only person who just doesn’t care, one way or the other? Among the numerous things that plague and diminish the quality of life for people on this planet, the fact that Tiger Woods can’t keep it in his pants rates pretty low on the list.

    Turns out he’s a lying, cheating twit who fucked around. He got caught. End of story.

    The dude plays golf. Plays it well, sure, but…golf. He wasn’t engineering new sources of power or working to put mankind on Mars or ending world hunger.

    And speaking for myself, I don’t find the big penitent public apology all that “humanizing.” I think I would have respected him more if taking the stand in full Ty Cobb mode: “This is my private life. Fuck you busybodies.” etc.

    • Richard Cox says:

      “Fuck you, busybodies!” Hahahahahahaha. Yes. Exactly.

    • Becky says:

      Have we considered that getting on TV and acting like it’s our business in order to tell us it’s not our business is somewhat confusing?

      I mean, “I’m scheduling a press conference to indicate to everyone in the world that I don’t want anyone in the world paying attention to me at this time.”

      This is where celebrities asking for privacy starts to get even more tedious than normal. We wouldn’t be talking about him right now, let alone thinking about him, if he hadn’t done this press conference.

      • Matt says:

        Yes, it does seem to be self-defeating behavior, doesn’t it?

        I imagine, in this case, it was done so he could hang on to the few endoresment deals that haven’t been uncerimoniously yanked. If he makes himself seem apologetic and remorseful, it will help improve the idea of “Tiger Woods” as a saleable asset.

        • Becky says:

          Like in the video Simon posted above. “They decide to go to rehab and they call their publicists before they call a taxi.”

          Granted, Tiger has already been to rehab, but similar thing. The second we start to forget about what happened, here he is reminding us. If YOU’RE milking your own misfortune (if we can call it misfortune, technically) for publicity, who the fuck are you to tell other people not to?

          And I don’t mean that it was his idea or his decision to do the conference, necessarily, but that’s effectively what is happening here.

        • Richard Cox says:

          Understood. But even though I don’t know Tiger the person, I would bet my net worth that he didn’t want to make this statement. I think he has no interest in sharing his personal life with the public. Of course he made horrible decisions that invited the public’s attention into his life, and no one can excuse that stupidity, but even now I bet he would have chosen to never discuss it publicly. I think he and his handlers felt compelled to do it because of the media and public outcry. As Duke pointed out, America loves the sin/redemption story, and now that Tiger has sinned, he cannot possibly continue to be a professional golfer without redeeming himself to the public. Sure, he could choose to move to Bali and never play professional golf again, but are his transgressions so terrible that he should give up his livelihood–however trivial golf may seem to some? Surely he has not sinned so horribly that he has no chance for redemption?

        • Becky says:

          I’m saying that maybe the press conference wasn’t a good idea. Validates the outcry and public opinion that he owes us that sort of thing. I mean, if someone says them I owe them $20 bucks and I don’t, I’m not giving that person $20.

          I’m also saying that it would not be unheard of for this to be someone’s idea of making good use of negative publicity.

  11. Simon Smithson says:

    God, this whole situation is like throwing a bunch of laxative-dosed angry monkeys into a disco and turning on the strobe light. No matter what angle you look at it from, it’s going to be a big, confusing mess. And everything’s going to get shit on it.

    Specific notes:

    1. I was hanging out with a friend last night and he told me about how he’d been watching the Winter Olympics. I wish – I WISH – I knew the name of the athlete, but in the post-event interview, after the athlete had failed to win gold, the interviewer asked ‘So why did that happen, do you think?’ and the athlete replied ‘Because I hate shit, that’s why.’ The raw, cartoonish humanity of that is something I will forever love. Apocryphal though that story may be – and I hope to God it isn’t.

    2. Oh, man, the chicken and the egg… in so many ways. Do paparazzi create the need, or does the need create the paparazzi? I can’t stand the tabloid nature of so much of this bullshit, but at the same time, my distaste for it in no way impacts on its sales and power. Which is a crying shame, as far as I’m concerned.

    3. I think it’s the fall from grace appeal. In a perfect world, it shouldn’t be such a source of car-crash fascination, but, clearly, it is. Where do you draw the line between a celebrity’s right to privacy and what the public feels is their right to know about the intimate details of their life?

    4. The guy fucked up, and fucked up badly. And got caught, and the details were exacerbated no doubt by the fact that a private matter played out in the public eye. If it’s something that his wife can forgive him for – if he can forgive himself for – then good luck to them both. At the same time, I have to weigh that against the fact that at no point would Tiger have just forgotten that he was a celebrity; only gross stupidity or a total lack of foresight could have prevented him from thinking ‘If this goes public, it’s going to be hugely damaging to a family that bears no responsibility, and yet will nevertheless have to bear the consequences.’

    • Matt says:

      That is one horrifically disgusting metaphor there, Simon. One to be proud of.

      • Becky says:

        It’s so good, I don’t want to compliment him on it.

        I feel like that’s what he WANTS us to do. I feel like it’s written in. Some kind of monkey poop siren song. Some kind of cue. Gotta resist.

        I want to go to that disco in the worst way. In a haz-mat suit.

        • Simon Smithson says:

          Matt: thank you. I am indeed proud of it.

          Becky: you poor sap – you just did.

        • Becky says:

          Shit. You can hear me? Oh NO. This is my worst day ever.

        • Richard Cox says:

          Re: chicken and egg: I think it’s definitely on the public’s side. I think we create the demand. It’s written into our core programming, though I’m not sure how our DNA is supposed to benefit from the embarrassment of the most well-known members of society. I would suggest that Becky should answer, but the last time I did that she ignored my post completely.

        • Becky says:

          I didn’t ignore anything. When? I thought you were blowing past it in favor of other perspectives, so I didn’t offer anything.

          And besides, I feel like I covered this elsewhere, for some other reason.

          Gossip? Social tool. Monitoring the hierarchy, social strategy, social ladder climbing, etc. Utterly crucial once upon a time and arguably (or maybe unarguably) still crucial.

          Celebrity Gossip in this day and age? Same thing on a massive scale. The “community” is absolutely huge.

        • Richard Cox says:

          Somewhere in the Bewitched/Xanadu/Santa post I suggested you answer someone, George, I think. I don’t remember exactly. You could go there and search for your name if you care. Ha. I hate discussing anything regarding anthropology or evolution on TNB because you will own me in any discussion. It seems pointless for me to talk about those subjects at all.

        • Becky says:

          Well, yeah. At some point I lose track of various conversations in different posts. I can only keep up with 2 or 3 at once.

          At some point, when the threads get long enough, I stop getting emails, so I don’t even know that the conversation is still happening.

  12. Slade Ham says:

    I somehow missed your first Tiger post. Just read it and was happily surprised to find that we had a somewhat similar opinion. I wrote a piece for my website/Facebook (back when I was only posting here once a month or so). You beat me with yours by a day.

    I ramble all that to say this. I’m glad you beat me to the coverage of today’s press conference. I totally just want to see the guy with a club in his hand again. That’s all.

  13. Richard Cox says:

    Thanks, man. I want the same thing. I honestly don’t give a shit about his private life. However, it is unfortunately news, so I somehow feel compelled to comment. And at least this forum entertains a different crowd than the typical sports site where the comments skew to the “Dood. Fuck dem bitches!!!” variety.

  14. Simon Smithson says:

    It actually occurs to me that with so much coverage dedicated to Tiger (admittedly, yes, he is a big celebrity), the role of Elin Nordegren in all of this has been bypassed.

    I mean, what a fucking kick in the teeth for her.

    • Richard Cox says:

      Which is why Tiger defended her so vehemently in his statement. This is the confusing part about people cheating on partners they really love. Obviously he never wanted her to suffer. So what is it in our thought process where we convince ourselves there won’t be consequences for our actions when there almost surely will be?

      It’s easy to say “He’s an idiot,” but clearly Tiger is not stupid. He’s a very smart guy. Just like many rich and famous and powerful people are. Yet their basic instincts often override that powerful intelligence.

      It’s the most fascinating thing in the world to me. Knowing full well what the risks are, knowing consciously what will probably happen in the long run, and making bad decisions anyway. It happens too much in society to dismiss it as abnormal behavior. It’s not abnormal. It’s a major component of human nature.

      • Simon Smithson says:

        Oh, God, the bitter, bitter irony.

        Long story.

        But yes. And maybe it was a PR ploy, but I did regain some measure of respect for Tiger when he stood up for her in his statement.

        How do people do this? Just boom, paper over the idea of consequences?

        • Richard Cox says:

          I don’t know how they do it. I know I do things all the time where I basically fool myself about the consequences. With finances, for instance. Let’s say I know I can’t afford something, and in the end the purchase of it is going to come back to haunt me, but in the moment of decision I pretend like I don’t know that. It’s not so serious as adultery, but it’s still a form of self deception. I’m very good at math. So how/why do I delude myself? Again and again?

        • Simon Smithson says:

          It’s probably that damn sasquatch again.

      • Zara Potts says:

        Hmmm. I have to disagree with you on this Richrob…
        He must have known that his actions were going to make his wife suffer, and there’s no way around that. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say maybe he did love her, but I think if he really cared about her at all, he would never have behaved the way he did.
        I can’t conceive of loving somebody and then hurting them in such a terrible way. I think the only person Tiger really loves is himself.

        • Richard Cox says:

          I don’t know, Zara. I can’t possibly know what he really feels, but my gut instinct tells me he does love her. Based on the way he has defended her since the accident. Now, to what extent does he love her? Is she truly his “soul mate”? I don’t know. Depends on how you define love, I guess. He seems to want to make amends and hold onto his marriage. Why do that unless he really loves her?

          I think men and women think very differently on this. I’m not defending his actions. I’ve been very careful not to come across that way in any of my comments or in the piece. But we can’t just look at the many, many instances of this kind of behavior by so many people and say they’re all pigs and idiots. It wouldn’t happen if there weren’t some driver for it besides they are assholes. From a biological standpoint, I’m saying.

        • Simon Smithson says:

          This is an issue that strikes close to home for me (guess we’re lifting that rock a little after all…)

          Here’s the goddamn rub. How do you balance these things out? On the one hand, he’s been with for seven years, had two children by her – why would he do these things if he felt nothing at all? That would be ridiculous.

          On the other hand… what an asshole.

          What’s the missing piece here? How do you balance out a ledger like that – do you say ‘Well, he had true feeling for her, but some urge towards self-destruction prompted him to go outside of the relationship’ (or, as Tiger has said, a belief that the rules didn’t apply to him), or do you say ‘He knew the consequences, and acted anyway, thus affirming that he cared less for his wife and children and their potential harm than for the satisfaction of his own urges’?

          Goddamnit. People. Complicated, stupid, short-sighted, badly damaged, wonderful people.


        • Zara Potts says:

          And I think you have done an admirable job of not defending his actions on your piece!!
          No, I agree with you on the point, that nothing is as simplistic as it appears and there are always drivers behind every course of action taken, positive or negative. I can understand people (men or women) who perhaps have an affair, while still loving and caring about their partner – although it’s not ideal… But in Tiger’s case, it was the sheer volume of affairs and the length of them that makes me think that he didn’t really give a shit about anyone but himself.
          I know we shouldn’t judge other people unless we have been in their shoes, but I just am finding it very hard to take Tiger sincerely. I do of course, feel terrible sympathy for his wife and children, and I certainly wouldn’t judge her whether she stands by him or not.
          Oh, it amazes me how badly people screw up.

        • Zara Potts says:

          Thank you. I know this guy who is a whiz at creating them. His rates are very good too.
          If you like I can lend a hand and put you in touch with him, but just as a warning – I would suggest you keep a close eye on his arms.

        • Richard Cox says:

          Hahaha. The funny thing is that was a test comment. I couldn’t get my comments to show up on JMB’s post, so I tried over here. The whole point was to delete it after it appeared, but I forgot this post wasn’t under my log in. What a J-Hole.

        • Zara Potts says:

          And.. what’s a J Hole???

        • Richard Cox says:

          I forgot to tell you yesterday, but that’s your head, by the way. I cut it out of one of your FB pics!

          J Hole is short for Jackhole. Like asshole. Or jackstick. Or assface. Idiot. Resol. Etc.

        • Zara Potts says:

          It is?? And here I was thinking you had based it on an acorn!!
          I haven’t heard that before! That’s going to keep me laughing all day! Thanks Richrob – you’re the best!

        • Simon Smithson says:

          I also enjoy the derisiveness of ‘fuckbake’.

          As in ‘Somebody tell fuckbake here he’s not welcome in my house.’

          (I have neither uttered, nor been the recipient of, or party to, the previous sentence. It was for example only)

        • Anon says:

          What a fine way to wake up on a Sunday morning (:. “Fuckbake”. I love it.

          I am also partial to fuckwit, f-wit (when the kids are in earshot), fuckwad, fucktard and, when I’m feeling somewhat more forgiving but still grumpy, the traditionalist “dipshit”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *