THE APOSTASY OF TIGER WOODS (or how he missed a putt)

By Ian Hamilton

Of all bodily functions sex is best. After sex a man feels relaxed, exalted, grateful. To waken with a beautiful woman and see slow contentment light up her face and have her snuggle into you is one of a man’s greatest joys. I suspect it’s the same for a woman. To take away that look by saying you’re ashamed of what you’ve just done is the most appalling blasphemy. Now Tiger has insulted every woman he’s ever shared his body with. He’s said he’s sorry. What a wimp!

He should be pitied. He’s been caught in the nip of an opening door. Society is now a new bedroom. Women are free. Women can make love either for pleasure or profit or both. Men are not taking advantage of them but treating them as the equals they are. I’m not talking about the street corner drab driven by poverty or a pimp. I’m talking of women as free as you and me. That’s why I blame Tiger for saying he’s sorry.   

How dare he ! He should have said, ‘What a wonderful time I’ve had. I’ve loved every one of you. Now my wife has found out and given me a black eye so I’ve got to watch my step’. Once he was a credit to us all. That’s changed. A lean-faced Christian on telly warned him that his golf swing was the envy of young men and that he should set an example to our youth.

Is the man mad? Do ministers not realise that every red blooded young man is more interested in how Tiger pulls young women than in his golf swing? Young women too are attracted not because he can hit a ball with a stick. It may be a primitive attraction because he’s an alpha male. It may just be that he’d be nice to sleep with. Whatever it is women love him. Now he’s been away for rehab. Rehab from what? Poor lonely chap; denying himself the only thing that could comfort him: and so many motherly women are waiting to do so! The rehab won’t work. He now offers a perpetual challenge to every young woman to show they can beat the psychiatrists.

And then there’s his wife, the only person in his seraglio who’s made a great deal of money out of sex. Of course she’s angry but she’s supposed to love him. Love means forgiveness. If she expected marriage to give her a monopoly of Tiger she expected too much. She might have made some enquiry beforehand. Marriage doesn’t change a man. He must aye have loved sex. She should have looked the other way. It was her fault just as much as it would have been his had it been her at it instead of him. Wronged celebrity wives represent a class of young women who see marriage as a door to wealth. With the husband they have it. If it doesn’t work then divorce is there as a massive insurance policy. Let the husband put a foot wrong and in come the divorce lawyers looking for millions. Examples abound.

It’s reasonable that a wife, who’s fed up with her man, should have a small settlement for herself and a big one for the children. But is divorce necessary? Tiger is the same Tiger except he’s lonely. Maybe he’s said, ‘Thanks my dear, wasn’t that lovely’, to a couple of dozen women but life has changed. It’s changed for wives as well as for single women. Wives also can play away to the fury of their husbands. One wee pill has changed society for ever. The monogamous marriage may be finished. I have been married for nearly forty years and I affirm that while sex is important the daily life with someone you love and respect is more important still. Women should not be apologised for. They’re worth far more than that.
Margaret, Wilma, Joan, Irene, Jessie, Nancy, Jean, Mary and all you other lovely young women: through you I address all womankind. Given the chance would you spend a night of tenderness with Robert Burns or Tiger Woods? You bet you would!

There’s one big difference. Burns never insulted a girl by saying he was sorry. He loved you all too much for that.

Tiger has let the side down. Tiger has missed a putt.

8 Responses to “THE APOSTASY OF TIGER WOODS (or how he missed a putt)”

  1. James Dean Says:

    It is not the spoke (Tiger), in the wheel (family marriage), that is to blame for the demise of moral standards (the right path), in 21st century society, rather it is those who benefit most off divorce, yes lawyers, and courts (those parasitic stones on the path); in short, everyone connected to the benefits and continued rise of divorce, (the cogs, pistons and turbines), law-makers.

    Infidelity is not something new, nor is it something necessarily wrong, all it means is that since the time of Adam and Eve, sins are human nature, and it is those sins we must repent upon for our own salvation. However, those than benefit from usury, the human form of taking and adding a financial penance of more misery, strife, and woe to all our lives are the ones Jesus threw out of the temple, casting their lots with them.

    What are lawyers? Self-interested advocates for their own financial benefits. In Auld Scots times, advocates were used to legally represent on of their own clan in clan disputes of civic nature. What are lawyers now, ambulance chasing, divorce forcing, strife bearing heathens that are nothing to society but a parasite and leech. The best lawyers are the rich ones, the best politicians are rich lawyers.

    I say give divorce back to its communal father, God, the church. I mean, after-all, marriage is a covenant made between husband and wife to God, in God’s church; it is in-deed a legal document in Scotland!

  2. JR Tomlin Says:

    I’m sorry that you consider telling the truth (by either men or women) such a negative. You apparently expected something exalted from an athlete which I must admit I don’t understand.

    Burns. Yes, he loved the ladies and the ladies, evidently, often–although not always–loved him. But did he LIE to his wife about it? From what I have read, no.

    Tiger Woods evidently did. I suspect she whacked him good with one of his nine-irons for it, and I have no sympathy (and no exalted opinion) of a liar who just happens to be an over-paid athlete.

  3. Robbie Says:

    At the art of houghmagandie, he was nae Robert Burns.

  4. Dougie Says:

    Yes, Tiger was a disappointing. He seemed to be obeying orders from his marketing strategists, not reacting in any human way. I have had a few girlfriends (as you know - shh!) but always speak affectionately of them all. I’d never want anyone to think that I dallied with trivial women - trivialise your partners, and you trivialise yourself.

    Rather like Tommy Sheridan, Tiger took a position when he should just perhaps have ignored the matter. He is not a poorer golfer, nor is Tommy a poorer socialist, because of allegations of irregularity in their private lives. I wonder if in both cases they were arranged victims. I know that Tiger’ professional success was viewed in some sections of American society as vexatious, and for a moment Tommy looked as if he was making something useful out of the inchoate mess of Scottish leftism.

    What a world we live in. Making love to women can threaten your career, but genocide in distant places arouses nothing beyond sickly reverence for the less successful assassins, with much waving of flags as their remains are freighted into Wootton Bassett. It can’t be long before there are English words to Horst Wessel.

  5. Ian Hamilton Says:

    Dougie uses the phrase ‘the inchoate mess of Scottish leftism.’

    All my life I have waited to see two things and done my best to promote them.

    The first is Scotland’s continued existence as a nation. We are on our way.

    The second is to see a country whose wealth was more equally distributed.

    Why have we failed in this? Labour, once the Party of the left, has betrayed us and no other party has taken its place.

    What has happened to deceent left wing people like myself that our longings have come to nothing?



  6. Dougie Says:

    “Why have we failed in this?”

    A short question with many answers. To list a few:

    (a) Infiltration.

    (b) Narcissistic intellectualisation. In the face of every outrage there is the ‘Life of Brian’ reaction: “This calls for immediate discussion.” Tommy Sheridan was refereshing (and dangerous?) because he proposed action.

    (c) Monopoly of all media by the right, with leftism defined as beyond the bounds of civilised discourse - the ‘loony left’.

    (d) Comfort. Things aren’t that bad - yet…

  7. Ian Hamilton Says:


    I am so disturbed that the election of a government can be decided or at least affected by how somebody does on TV. I have taken off the piece referring to the broadcast. My instinct was right to have nothing to do with the election. We are handcuffed to a counry of the ignorant.

    Comfort. You bring me none.


  8. Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers Says:

    I fight for the rights of the people and hate the ignorant sheep I fight for.

    Then I think, bugger that - that’s exactly what the politicians play on.

    So I, for all my flaws and failings, fight for the right to be right -and that’s enough.

Leave a Reply