Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Why is there no female Tiger Woods?

Why are there no female sex scandals?

The question, raised by The Daily Beast's Rebecca Dana has preoccupied me ever since I noticed it. Everywhere I went over the long and much-partied recent weekend, I raised the question, and here is the answer I got:

Nobody knows.

It’s not that there are no women in the Tiger Woods category of professional sport. No woman makes Tiger’s kind of money, of course, but plenty make good money and become celebrities in golf or tennis, and you don’t hear about them hitting on every caddy, pool boy or masseuse. Why?

Nobody knows

Or take politics. There are now 90 women in Congress, and yet you don’t hear about them recommending their lovers to be a U.S. Attorneys or hiking the Appalachian Trail all the way to Buenos Aires. No female member of Congress is known to have offered the wife of her lover the chance to become a major lobbyist or, just for nostalgia sake, to have had a bit too many and gone for dance in the Tidal Basin. Why?

Once again, nobody knows.

Or take corporate America. Fifteen of the nation’s top CEOs are women and there are lot more women one ore two rungs down the cooperate ladder. Yet, you do not hear of them taking their lovers on the company jet and checking them in to resorts as their research assistants. I’m not saying these things never happen, I’m just saying they happen so rarely as to amount to not happening at all.

Even women entertainers do not carry on like the men do. Okay, Madonna was famous for bedding much of New York’s outer boroughs, but this was no scandal since she was intent on proving... something. Whatever the case, she was not married at the time. Men get caught with hookers and men have multiple lovers and men have groupies, but not women. Why? Why? Why?

We can guess. The first guess is that women are simply smarter than men. Say what you will about Woods, it’s not his wholesome image that has suffered, it’s his standing as a sentient being. A person with the wit of a mosquito knows better than to leave a voicemail message on a mistress’ phone or to text women who, from the angelic looks of them, would sell their own dear mothers for a chance to appear on Inside Edition. Few women are that stupid. Few men aren’t.

The other possibility that strikes me is that women seem not to have the evolutionary urge to couple with cheaply dressed strangers. They have a stronger need to mother — to have a child and then raise that child.

The male equivalents of the sort of women who have courageously come foreword to claim their reward money for entertaining Tiger are evolutionary bad material. No woman would want them as husbands and fathers. They are what Darwin called dreck, which is Yiddish for cocktail waitress. Since recreational sex can lead to diapers, women have to be prudent. As they say down at the Fed, they have to consider the out years.

This is why women more than men link sex to love and commitment. I'm not saying that all of them do or all of them do all the time. I'm just saying that there seems to be few women who behave as Tiger Woods did. Even women who have no moral compunction against multiple affairs draw the line at a number somewhat below Tiger’s.

Men, like the poor polar bear, have seen their ecology change. Their youthful aggression, so useful for wars of choice (not to mention necessity) or merely hunting saber-toothed tigers, is now just a social menace. Their urge to have sex with just about any woman with a pulse makes them crude laughing stocks. Tiger Woods has become a punch line -- and so have men in general. (Thanks, Tiger.) We are a sorry lot. Almost no one, save maybe lachrymose country western singers, will defend the cheatin’ man.

But it could be that the urge to get closer to cocktail waitresses and denizens of dimly lit hotel lounges is in some way linked to the drive to conquer, to prevail — to succeed. It could explain why all this time into the Age of Feminism, years after women were liberated, women make up less than 20 percent of Congress and only 3 percent of those top CEOs.

The reason the Glass Ceiling has not broken is that women have other priorities — maintaining relationships and being a mother. This is the way it is, and this is the way it has always been. As any of Tiger Woods’s cocktail waitresses could tell him, Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

N’est ce pas?

By Richard Cohen  | December 14, 2009; 10:43 AM ET
Categories:  Cohen  | Tags:  Richard Cohen  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Big-government Republican
Next: Ezra Klein's venomous slam of Joe Lieberman


C'mon now, let's not be simple minded. Evolutionary psychology makes a Tiger Woods possible and a female equivalent highly unlikely. Men are programmed to spread their seed widely and women are programmed to mate with alpha males and not the other way around.

Simple stuff.

Posted by: edbyronadams | December 14, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Woods has made his name a clique from a bad 60's movie, " Oh, you're a real tiger...." But beyond the clique is a sports machine that often has men who play games for a living away from home and family for extended periods of time and a hotel industry that as part of its accomodation provides these men with "nightime company". Why everyone that has discussed this has missed out on this elephant under the rug is beyond me. Throw in some human trafficked "nighttime company" and you have a view into the third biggest illegal business world wide.
No one seems to care that those who have come forward are much more dumb than Mr. Woods is. Twenty somethings that are morally bankrupt-that's the definition of the dumb women-sorry, men don't have the market cornered in this scandal for that.

Posted by: safiyah111 | December 14, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Coo coo ca choo Mrs. Robinson much?

Posted by: deepthroat21 | December 14, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

You would do better to ask why there is not a white male or female equivalent to the extraordinarily competent Obama? Please write a column on that rather than joining the neanderthal conservative radicals in bashing him before he has a chance to do anything.

Posted by: walden1 | December 14, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I agree with edybronadams.

Richard, your corollary female "scandal" is all the females who are willing to cheat with an alpha male.

Posted by: scott3 | December 14, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I would suggest that men in postions of power and fame have had longer to develop a culture of entitlement that blinds them to how stupidly they are behaving. It's not just sex, but money and other forms of power. Why does Dick Cheney think he can still mouth off? Why did Madoff think no one would notice? Why did the bankers continue to give themselves massive bonuses? The sense of entitlement and insulation from reality makes them stupid. I don't think women have been in postions of power long enough to become so self-deceiving. They will.

Posted by: JoeODonnell | December 14, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Wine = "inboard".
Dine = "outboard" much?

Anyway, why are more males born unto the world than females, year after year, century after century? Because, simply, .... Nothing ..... would ever get resolved.

Posted by: deepthroat21 | December 14, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

A tougher, less silly question would be- why are the National Basketball Assn. and the National Football League dominated by blacks? Clearly it takes a lot of very hard work to make it to either of these leagues-why don't blacks work as hard in the classroom as they work out on athletic teams?

Posted by: mhr614 | December 14, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

There is a movement of cougars rising so watch out. And why no prostitutes for women, maybe there should be. Heidi Fleiss was on her way to setting it up and it is too bad she didn't succeed! You have a point it is high time for real sexual equality.

Posted by: Wildthing1 | December 14, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The natural process explains this non-phenomenon.

Men are wired to spread their genetic material, allowing for as much chance to propagate the species as possible.

Women selectivity choose mates based on genetic predispositions, theoretically improving the genetic strength of their young as much as possible.

As many humans try to separate themselves from the Kingdom of animalia, they choose to discredit the natural tendencies that are ingrained in our subconscious.

However, an earth-based species survival generally requires two sexes and follows two rules:

Rule 1. Mate, mate, mate.
Rule 2. Have a selective process to weed out weak genes.


Rule 1. Served by males.
Rule 2. Served by females.

Any questions?

Posted by: trident420 | December 14, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Please. Evolutionary psychology, biology, whatever you want to call it, can be blamed for men's instincts and urges, but they can't be blamed for their conduct. Alpha male, my eye!

I'll tell you why so many men routinely indulge their basest instincts and women don't-- it's because men behave like irresposible children and women behave like adults. It's called self-control, and it's what true adults exercise.

There is no reason --- and no excuse -- for serial adultery.

Posted by: nwiese | December 14, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Um Richard woman are getting like men. Watch Cougartown. Don't worry they'll get to where we are some day.

Posted by: FLvet | December 14, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Simple. Men are ruled by their penises. Women are not. Case closed.

Posted by: retabroad | December 14, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"Dreck" isn't Yiddish for cocktail waitress; it's what Cohen writes. What a sexist.

Posted by: Connie3 | December 14, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I think it happens, Richard, but I just don't think there's been a huge scandal around a famous, influential woman yet. Over the course of history, there are such famous (and frequent) lovers as Catherine the Great and Cleopatra, and I'm sure people with inside knowledge of the women's sports scene could enlighten you to others. (There was a Olympic swimming sex scandal from a couple of years ago involving the best British swimmer, I believe, and an Italian or French competitor stealing her beau.)

There are cheaters in every occupation and every demographic... it's just that men generally dominate the spotlight and it's easier to get caught when you're in the spotlight. There are far more male leaders of counties than female leaders, and so it's far more likely that a male (like Berlusconi) is caught. There are far more male athletes in the bright spotlight, and so it's far more likely that a male (like Tiger or Michael Jordan) is caught, especially those are the people that the public care about. Let's say word got out to the paparazzi that one of the top Brazilian soccer players or US softball players was pulling a Tiger Woods. Everyone would just shrug their shoulders and go on with their day.

Posted by: jgoldbe4 | December 14, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

deepthroat21 - how sexist could your comment get???? I am the mother of 3 sons (1 daughter), happily married to a man and the boss to 20 men and 5 women. I tell you this because of your idiotic comment. More males are born each year because you are the weaker sex. Ask any doctor that if a child is to be born premature they pray it is a female. Why? Because premature females have a significantly higher survival rate. Take a look at the figures. Starting at birth and onward females have higher survival rates at each age bracket then males. There are lots of reasons and if I had the time I could easily name them for you. But I can tell you in my experience a woman can accomplish more in a day then most men can in a week; from the home to the office and back. Why? Because women are better multi-taskers then men are. And I'm not denigrating men, I find them in both my personal and professional life to be more focused on one subject than most women. This world needs us both - you wouldn't have gotten here without a woman. Clearly your mother "resolved" to have children... My answer to Cohen's question is easy - women only have one head to think with.

Posted by: BullyLover | December 14, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone read this column? Nobody knows.

Posted by: dwgbos | December 14, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I'll tell you why so many men routinely indulge their basest instincts and women don't-- it's because men behave like irresposible children and women behave like adults. It's called self-control, and it's what true adults exercise.

There is no reason --- and no excuse -- for serial adultery.

Posted by: nwiese | December 14, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The current Self-Control Giveaway currently has one male winner and 8 female winners (and counting?). Oh not THOSE women, huh?

Posted by: mattsoundworld | December 14, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Why is there no female Tiger Woods?

There are. Billy Jean King and Martina Navratalova come to mind.

Posted by: rcubedkc | December 14, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

If you really want to explore why women look at sex differently than men, please read The Descent of Woman by Elaine Morgan. Her logic is unassailable. Her position was never popular because her theory presupposes that early human evolution occurred near the seashore, which the conventional wisdom never accepted. Until now. The latest documentary about human evolution recently shown on PBS shows that the most recent discoveries indicate that humans actually did evolve near the seashore in Africa. Her book is an excellent read.

Posted by: BabeintheWoods | December 14, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Dreck is Yiddish for cocktail waitress? Dreck is Yiddish for filth. Is Cohen equating cocktail waitresses with filth?

Posted by: stancol | December 14, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cohen should at least consider the possibility that notable women are screwing around, but (1) the men they dally with have more discretion and decency than the women who come out of the woodwork when there's celebrity to be gained by revealing a powerful man's affair, and/or (2) the media employ a double standard that keeps women's dalliances on the DL (similar to the MSM refusal to cover John Edwards' love child for many months).

Posted by: Rob_ | December 14, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

All that effort and Mr. Cohen overlooks the story of Adam and Eve in the Hebrew Bible. The simple answer is that women are naturally evil.

Posted by: johnson0572 | December 14, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I was laughing a little right up until this:

"The reason the Glass Ceiling has not broken is that women have other priorities — maintaining relationships and being a mother. "

So close, yet so far. The glass ceiling hasn't been broken because so many men think that women can't handle more than motherhood. We often get mommy-tracked whether we want to or not, and we have to fight tooth and nail to break out. Mothers don't take much more time off than fathers, and yet the assumption is that they'll be taking months off "full-time" work and therefore useless in the office.

This was almost a good blog post. You're like the Redskins, man, you always blow it in the end.

Posted by: dkp01 | December 14, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Madonna go through dozens of bimbo males in the 80's and 90's?

Posted by: MHawke | December 14, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Consider the fact that most females in a position like Tiger (or Congress or Business) make a priority of power and success over mere physical attraction. Their potential targets have a lot to lose. Therefore, both by the numbers and with a priority of physical attraction alone , powerful men are more likely to bed women who easily disclose their relationship.

So if this is true, then why didn't Tiger's GF's make their escapades know immediately? In Tiger's case, initially his targets had more to lose by disclosing their relationship. When the dam broke, they had more to gain by exposing it.

Those actions certainly match the priorities of someone who is enamored with fame.

Posted by: dmorhar1976 | December 14, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

There are no female Tiger Woods? What exactly whas Jaimee Grubbs, one of his waitress companions who also supposedly bedded George Clooney!

ALL of these 13 or so mistresses knew Woods was married. They also knew he was RICH and FAMOUS.

Sorry, but women can be just as low as men.

Posted by: pgr88 | December 14, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

1. Not all women want to be mommies
2. Not all men are promiscuous
3. Not all cocktail waitresses are "easy"
4. Not all people are slaves to their biological urges
5. The Washington Post's standards must be slipping to let this article through.

Posted by: n_mcguire | December 14, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Why are there no female Tiger Woods?

It's because men by nature are competitive.

Women for the most part, do not have a competitive nature when it comes to sports, material wealth, game hunting, social status, etc.

In addition, women are also one of the primary things in which the male species hunts.

His competitive nature requires him to "WIN" at everything in the game of life.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | December 14, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Let me see, there is only one of Tiger Woods, but there have been how many mistresses that have come forward -- at least 11 or 12 -- and still counting? And that somehow makes men – all men -- the sole object of scorn and derision? The reason there are no female sex scandals is that there is a politically-correct double-standard for men and women. The male cad is held in contempt while the female gold digger is held up in praise. How many pro athletes or other celebrities have been caught up with women who purposefully get pregnant so they can ride the gravy train?

And it's not just poor trailer trash that uses men as a platform for their own personal gain, but even the so-called intellectual elite do so. Sally Quinn parlayed her affair with her married boss to become the doyenne of the inside-the beltway power social scene; Hillary Clinton, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, and Arianna Huffington have done similar. And what about Barbara Walters' confession that she had an affair with married Congressman? Not only is her story underreported, but I don’t believe anyone thinks any less of her as a result of it.

As my late-great mother used to say, "It's two to tango." So, for every sleazy man having an affair there is most likely a sleazy woman (or women in Tiger's case) doing likewise. Oh, but I know, men are just sex-crazed animals, but women do it for loooove. Yeah, right!

One last thing: Mr. Cohen speaks of men being a sorry lot. I know that misery loves company, but while his assertion most certainly applies to him, he shouldn't dare cast us all in with his kind of PC-whipped wuss.

Posted by: braunt | December 14, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Oh, quit. Women fool around as much as men do. Who do you think the men are fooling around with?

Posted by: jckdoors | December 14, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Some people are completely missing the point of this article and are highly sensitive.

Cohen's question is, why do you NOT hear about women in prominent positions being caught in scandalous relationships.

Everyone knows that there are gold digging women, and other harlots out there that are just as bad as some men when it comes to their affairs.

But the question was, why do you not hear about women CEO's, Congresswomen, and other women in highly public positions having these adulterous relationships outside of marriage.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | December 14, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Not only do we have feminists, politicians, and the popular media spreading misandry (hatred of men). Now we have popular columnists; our own brothers taking up the cause of gender fratricide.

As a general rule, it seems that Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) are resistant to the idea that men could be our worst enemy. It has all the hallmarks of political correctness. Indeed, society’s failure to recognize feminism as a political movement having less to do with women’s rights than with strategy and marketing (feminism could not have gotten off the ground without the concerted efforts of chivalrous, marxist men) suggests that we urgently need to get our priorities right.

A men’s rights movement, in the sense of fighting for men’s rights, doesn’t ring true. There is no basis upon which men should regard men as friends just because they are men. The gendercide that men are experiencing is of their own doing.

We should take comfort in knowing that we owe nothing to men just because they are men. The sort of “men’s movement” that we should have in mind is less of a men’s movement than it is a “democracy revival” movement.

Posted by: moebius22 | December 14, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Why not women? I'll tell you why. They are all a royal pain in the azz, that's why.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | December 14, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

All of the women that have come forward were not married. I have said this over and over - the bulk of the blame lies with Tiger as he was the one with the commitment. He was the one that made the promise to be faithful to his wife. He was the one that put his wife at risk of god knows what diseases without her knowledge. He is the one that lied to her.

All I can think is - why did he get married to begin with? He didn't have to.

And in all of the examples of women that people on this group are trying to equate to Tiger (Madonna, Cougartown) none of the women were/are married! That is a HUGE difference. Who cares if consenting adults want to engage in serial sexual relationships? It only becomes an issue when one of the partners makes the choice to make the commitment of fidelity to their partner.

I really am constantly amazed at how much people don't seem to get this.

And remember, it is the gays that are ruining marriage! Right!

Posted by: mwalkerg | December 14, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

DOES this columnists think EVERYONE is so
young, or so stupid,
they've forgotten his own indescretations?
That there was a movie made by one of the people involved? A very popular movie? Not because of him, but because of the
talented movie maker...

One has to wonder whether Cohen is trying to brag about his stud-ness in dwelling on all of this, and other such, or what?
It's too funny.

Incidentally, thinking of Cohen in the same corral as "stud" is more than my funny bone can handle.
A low and disgusting columnist, nonetheless pointless but not funny in that.

Posted by: whistling | December 14, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black BullyLover. If a man made these sort of comments about a woman, they would be immediately flagged as a sexist and chauvinist. It's amazing how people are hardwired these days to embrace and accept misandry, sexism, and chauvinism targeted towards this whole misandry piece penned by Cohen.


deepthroat21 - how sexist could your comment get????

Posted by: moebius22 | December 14, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The issue is that most male that excel do so due to a personality trait that helps them become successful. Some people call it competetiveness, but what it really is is a gutteral desire to dominate. It the same personality trait that makes them want to be the object of women's affection. The fact that the women are attracted to their money and power makes it even more appealing becuase this is something they personally acquired, not something they were born with. Some women have this trait as well. I would not be surprised at all if Serena Williams had a cadre of male lovers. Most women however are satisfied simply being successful. They don't have the need to dominate.

On a side note is it probabbly also the reason why female professional sports don't do as well as men. Its not that the women aren't talented is just that in general they lack that killer intinct that makes male sports so much more fun to watch.

Posted by: akmzrazor | December 14, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The aspect of this is the social couble standard. Women of cheating male celebrites have more to gain by going public. Men of cheating female celebrites, have more to gain by keeping quiet. Likewise socialy it is more acceptable to have a cheating male than a cheating female, therefore both parties to the cheating female are incentivized to keep the affiar secret.

Posted by: akmzrazor | December 14, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

But the question was, why do you not hear about women CEO's, Congresswomen, and other women in highly public positions having these adulterous relationships outside of marriage.
Posted by: lcarter0311 | December 14, 2009 2:05 PM |
As I stated earlier, I believe there is a new double-standard that is being applied. In past generations, philandering men weren’t necessarily held in such contempt – indeed it wasn’t spoken about much. The private lives of male celebrities were not such an open book as they are now. Compare the reporting of the peccadilloes of say Babe Ruth and John Kennedy to today’s celebrities and politicians. History tells us that Ruth and JFK were notorious womanizers; a fact known to the press covering them, but held in confidence because public reporting on such things was “simply not done”. However, with the advent of feminism and the 24-hour news cycle has come a change on the views of how men are perceived when involved in such trysts.

On the other hand, feminism applauds women who likewise fool around. They are liberated women who can out-man men. They can work just as hard, drink just as hard, bust balls just as hard, cheat just as hard, and lust just as hard, if not harder, than men. Men and male behavior are mocked by feminists when carried out by men, but women who mimic or exceed (read: caricature) male behavior, especially bad behavior, are exalted. It’s bad enough when feminist women get away with this perverse thinking, but they are enabled by femimen like Richard Cohen who blind themselves to this hogwash. I wouldn’t doubt that Cohen believes that the reason he doesn’t hear about “female Tiger Woods” is that women are incapable of being as sleazy as men. I wonder if reporters like Cohen are not giving today’s women the same kind of break that men like Ruth and Kennedy got in an earlier era.

There may also be other apolitical causes for the disparity between men and women in this issue. In most cases, it takes many years for people to acquire the type of power and notoriety needed to be caught up in these types of scandals. The most common picture is that of an older man being caught in an illicit rendezvous with a younger woman. For good or bad, our culture does not look favorably on the reverse – an older woman cheating with a younger man. And while the feminist model hold s that women are capable of anything (good or bad), it is constrained by the “Supermom” image that holds women accountable for child-rearing on top of their career expectations. It’s these types of paradoxes that probably limit the opportunities for women to cheat who might otherwise do so.

Posted by: braunt | December 14, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I am completely amazed that this moron of a writer has actually written that men are programmed to conquer and win, and that thus the same stupid and irresponsible behavior that Woods exhibited is what has caused men to be more represented in Congress. What a stupid thing to write. I also can't believe that he wrote that women's priorities are to find an 'alpha male', have a child, and raise that child. This writing is what is 'DRECK.' The fact is that boys and girls are raised differently, unfortunately, and that there are different social pressures applied to women and men THROUGHOUT OUR LIVES, and that these pressures are socializing, and that's it. Evolution has nothing to do with cheating husbands--the fact that men face basically no repercussions for their irresponsible actions has EVERYTHING to do with cheating husbands. The proof is in the pudding--even this writer has effectively removed responsibility from Woods' shoulders by saying that Woods is not only evolutionarily programmed to cheat, but also destined to be a successful go-getter by the SAME evolutionary programming. What a ridiculous and sexist thing to write. What is this, the 1800's? Women don't do these things because no one looks at them admiringly when they do, end of story. When women do these things, people hold them responsible--people don't just say that they are 'programmed' by evolution. Give me a break.

Posted by: ForPetesSake | December 14, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Wow. This is incredibly dumb. I always thought Cohen was a fool but this is just crazy. (Super-lib, non-prude here). I mean, this week is the first time you ever noticed that men are more driven to act on sexual urges than women?? The first time? Have you ever noticed, say, that the porno industry - still the greatest source of revenue via the web - is catered 99% to men. Go to the video store porn section or the magazine stand porn section, it's all for men - straight or gay. Is this really the first time you've noticed this, Cohen??? Really? Also, the Madonna stuff is straight lies. She was connected with a few guys, that's it. Just like any actress or star. She created the sex image, but did not in any big way sleep around. It's not so much that you're offensive, it's just that you're dumb. Why don't you write an article exploring why dogs always seem to bark and cats not so much?

Posted by: Urnesto | December 14, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

hey square nuts cohen... maybe you should get around more.

i'm bopping quite a few of the ladies on the lpga.


the one in pink? grrrrrr.... course that little asian.. when she bends over to get that ball... ouch! and the legs on the young one? man, oh man!

Posted by: AuthoritativeAuthoritarian | December 14, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Britney Spears.

2 carreer harming marriages to the male equivalent of cocktail waitresses.

Levi Johnston is a good example of the male equivalent of the Tiger girls.

Posted by: ideallydc | December 14, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

C'MON, what do you mean there are no female sex scandals!!!! What about all those female teachers who who's libidos can only be satisfied by middle and high school boys!!! They're in the news almost daily! Get real!

Posted by: hypocritebuster | December 14, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Hey, this is pretty terrible journalism. Did you not notice that Tiger *wasn't* sleeping with just anyone who had a pulse? There were no fat, old or ugly women among his many mistresses. His trysts focused largely on the act of sex, and the women went out of their way to mention that Tiger was good at it. A much better description of his situation is that Tiger did what he wanted when he wanted it. It wasn't stupid, it was just impulsive. I'm sure it was fun.

What I find sad is that he deceived people, not that he mounted them. Just as Tiger could have had any woman he wanted, he could have married someone who would accept that he will not be monogamous. I don't know why he didn't. He also didn't need to lie to his mistresses, some of whom had also fallen in love with him.

Tiger should have never accepted the role of a traditional husband if he wanted to live like the world's most eligible bachelor and have "crazy Ambien sex" with debutantes. He didn't need to lie - and I'm sure the endorsements would have been there even if he didn't cultivate this "good boy" image and was more open about his appetite for sexual diversity - if he hadn't been married.

Posted by: kripkenstein | December 14, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

You left out one reason why there are no female Tiger Woods: the women at the top have worked too hard and for too long, to take a chance on throwing it all away. Trust me, they have all had to be smarter, more capable, and more dedicated to let a potential sex scandal derail them.

Oh, and by the way, don’t you remember that VP at a brokerage firm, who had an affair with her superior? She resigned, he stayed (because boys will be boys), they eventually married. But she was vilified. None of us forgot that lesson.

Posted by: padre1957 | December 14, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

agree. must be more diverstiy in ALL sports. cannot wait for the supremes to mandate football has to have a quota of female,hispanics,muslims etc etc etc in the QB position,as well as the O and D line,RB,TE,WR. media doing well on this non story

Posted by: pofinpa | December 14, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Yes, we, men that is, are simply programmed differently. To edbyronadam's point, we are visual creatures and subconsciously or otherwise, want what we see. There is NO emotional attachment typically, simply the desire for passion. 99.9 out of a hundred guys would opt to have sex in the parking lot of a bar with an attractive girl he met 5 minutes prior....that other .01 guy was passed out!!!

Posted by: davemichelle07 | December 14, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: | December 14, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

There's one in training... it's Miley!

Posted by: whocares666 | December 14, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"Mr. Woods has made his name a clique from a bad 60's movie, " Oh, you're a real tiger...." But beyond the clique is a sports machine that often has men who play games for a living away from home and family for extended periods of time and a hotel industry that as part of its accomodation provides these men with "nightime company".

Perhaps you meant cliche? Who would care what anyone as obviously stupid as you are thinks?

Posted by: Hairless | December 14, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

You would do better to ask why there is not a white male or female equivalent to the extraordinarily competent Obama?
Posted by: walden1 | December 14, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse
Are you serious? Did you even read the article? Cohen already mentioned Ensign, and Gov Sanford. Then there is Bill Clinton, of course. There are plenty of white male counterparts to Tiger Woods. Get your head out of the racists gutter. This isn't a black or white issue.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | December 14, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

You left out Lee Ann Rimes, she, too was married, and had an affair with another married man with 2 children. At first they deny it only to be caught at an motel down the street from his house (pictures proves their infidelity). Typical glossing over facts of life for both sexes.

Posted by: beeker25 | December 14, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Most men out philandering are, well, gosh, y'know, pretty much...married? What could drive so many married men out in search of some action? What?

Posted by: Davidd1 | December 14, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I think Cohen is being condecending to women by saying they are too smart to engage in these affairs. ("they are too good to do that.") He knows exactly what the reason is. Why are there very few prostitutes that cater to women? Why are their very few women Hefner's age with very young men? Where are the strip bars that cater to women? (very few in comparison to ones that cater to men). The answer is simple. Women, in general, are not interested and men have a much more focused sex drive which can be separated from a relationship. Large numbers of women are interested in the Alpha or wealthy male which is their "bimbo." Status means is much more attractive to them than appearance. The average man does not have access to large numbers of beautiful women and, therefore, has far less opportunities to stray.

Posted by: eardery | December 14, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

The reason you don't hear more about women philandering is simply a matter of discretion. While men that have multiple partners and affairs have always been looked upon as cocksmen of the first order, a woman of similar disposition is considered a w-hore or worse.

As a woman, you can't be taken seriously if you behave in a manner that is universally loathed by both men and women. Is this a double standard? Of course it is.

Therefore women are smart enough to seek out companions with more to lose and the good sense to conduct the affair within the confines of privacy than the public spectrum.

It's also highly unlikely that a woman of superior means or intelligence would engage in an affair with a "cocktail waiter" or wanna-be actor or other climber. That's simply a recipe for disaster and generally not nearly as interesting as bedding a man of means.

Posted by: JenAZ | December 14, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Of course there are famous women who are promiscuous. It's just that your reporters don't write about it.

Ask around your Sports Department if they know of female athletes who have multiple sex partners. You'll be singing a different tune after that.

Posted by: summa_corda | December 14, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I think Britany Spears has made a splash in recent years with ill-thought boyfriends and husbands.

Also Levi Johnston comes to mind as a male version of Tiger's women.

Posted by: ideallydc | December 14, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cohen, please allow me to attempt to rescue you from your state of naivete. A woman's vagina is an object of value. Men pay for access to that object through marriage, money, or other considerations, while women use this object to obtain a variety of advantages for themselves. Very few women choose to give away for free what they can use for personal gain. A previous poster noted that some famous female athletes have multiple sexual partners, but they left out the fact that these women are going after other women, not men. The cougar is only a slightly less mythical beast than the unicorn.

In Tiger Woods' case, we can see several variations on this theme, including the former nanny turned billionaire by a fortunate marriage, who is somehow seen as a victim here, and the legions of women who have decided to divulge personal details of their private relationships with Mr. Woods for their own personal gain.

Tiger Woods may be the greatest golfer ever to play the game. Why is he not entitled to have sex with any woman who will have him? He's no rapist -- these women agreed to have consensual sexual relationships with him. He has a contract with his wife, but that is a private matter between himself and his wife. He owes you, me, and the rest of the world NOTHING...

Posted by: jerkhoff | December 14, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

There are a number of female "stars" who have "active" sex lives. I just doesn't seem to draw the attention like Tiger. Of course this is all very complex, hormones and all that stuff. As has been mentioned, males who are engaged in illicit sex with women almost always have a willing partner. How smart are women who lay down for married men? In Tiger's case there appears to have been about 10 times (or more) stupid women for one stupid male.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | December 14, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

C'mon now, let's not be simple minded. Evolutionary psychology makes a Tiger Woods possible and a female equivalent highly unlikely. Men are programmed to spread their seed widely and women are programmed to mate with alpha males and not the other way around.

Simple stuff.

Posted by: edbyronadams


All the psychologists in the world just can't undo evolution. This is how we are; it'd be nice if people who stayed monogamous were given an extra nod and people who behave as they're wired to do aren't demonized. Women's lib can't change it, Freud can't change it, and it'll continue till the end of human existence.

Posted by: theobserver4 | December 14, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Vive le difference!

Posted by: carygee | December 14, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

You said masseuse. Did you mean that? not masseur? Not that it is important, of course! Cheers, Henry6

Posted by: henry6 | December 14, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Meg Ryan certainly spent some of her credibility in an affair with Russel Crow.

Posted by: ideallydc | December 14, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

men bed down,women bed up. that's why there are willing participants for tiger. truisms sometimes are true.

Posted by: dem4evr | December 14, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: rlj1 | December 14, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Another reason is that to play competitive golf the brain of a mosquito is all that is required. After all, what is the big deal of hiting a litlle ball countless times until it is close to the hole and then you push it in. Basically a moronic game.

Posted by: coratony | December 14, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Why does this twit get to have a column in the Post?

Posted by: turningfool | December 14, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I've studied this subject for a long time. I've had serious sexual harassment conflict in academia, about which I've posted pretty explicitly and openly here on the Washington Post (as recently as earlier today).

The fact is that men project idealized expectations onto certain iconic men they admire. Men who do little to deserve or even demonstrate that they have the kind of character that others who admire their talents in one narrow area, are imagined (by other men) to have all manner of virtues and character that they do not possess, simply by this fact of our readiness to hero-worship males.

You see an extraordinary number of undeserving male archetypes ranging from bubble-headed face men to brilliant but one-sided talents like Tiger Woods, projected to be much more than what they are, simply because other men would like to believe iconic males are great men. Only seldom are these iconic males' full range of true character flaws and strengths ever tested in the public eye. In the meantime, many acquire great reputations, undeservedly, based on this dynamic of projection of great expectations and assumptions of great character where some talent lies.

On the other hand, women professionally or character-wise, get no credit or positive expectations projected onto them. Consistent with the dynamic that they must be twice as good as a similarly situated male to be deemed half as worthy, women not only have to prove every positive attribute they get attributed to their reputation, but they have to overprove themselves and defend against underminers and challengers. Not only do undeserving women not make the cut past real public scrutiny professionally, but many deserving women are crapped upon and cast out by their less-talented male peers for not measuring up to some imagined standard (that males don't apply to themselves).

If males don't have to see any evidence to be persuaded that some talented or iconic guy is actually a great man, it takes a mountain of evidence to persuade some males that a female even deserves professional respect or faith in her greatness of character.

When I was younger, I thought equality was winnable. As I get older, I see male idiots and poseurs get opportunities, credibility and positive expectations akin to faith in them heaped on their shoulders while females and certain minorities labor against negative biases that become quicksand.

The simple fact is, if Tiger Woods was a female, no one would have projected all the hero-worship and character idealizations onto him, that others have. He would have just been a freakishly talented woman.

Posted by: ephemerella | December 14, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

I agree with turningfool. How could you be so obtuse as not to understand that the biological differences between men and women is the one and only simple answer as to why men do what they do and very few women do the same. Where have you been all of your life?

Posted by: jpdibuono | December 14, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

For the record, its not a popular thing for males to talk about their "Summer of 42." Your so-call serial fling is done with the same person or young boys thats the only difference. Its just not cool talk about it on television although the thought of getting paid by the media to do so may generate some stories in the future.

Posted by: MILLER123 | December 14, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing original in the column.

Posted by: byxnet | December 14, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey cohen, I am amazed that you get paid to write such drivel. There is much news to report and Tigger ain't part of that. You must be trying to work for People Magazine, or USA Today. These reporters love this kind of worthless crap. TFL, Ken

Posted by: kentigereyes | December 14, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Good heavens what a piece of scandal-sniffing tabloid trash this once reputable paper has descended into.

I don't give a freaking rats behind about the sexual affairs of the rich and famous. Give us real news. You are a NEWS paper still, are you not?

Posted by: B2O2 | December 14, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Is this column's central question genuine? Surely Mr. Cohen learned as a young man that men's and women's sexual urges are vastly different.

It's amazing what passes for analysis these days.

Posted by: cali_snowboarder | December 14, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

To insure the survival of the species, men were given plenty of testosterone. This is why we have two brains. Women were smart enough to start the oldest profession. Men were the hunters and women were the gatherers.

Tabloid journalism is now an accepted practice, ever since Gary Hart got nailed on the Monkey Business.

Posted by: alance | December 14, 2009 9:10 PM | Report abuse

The evolutionary biology guys... what a goof. So, you study a group of babboons and figure out that men are meant to act that way. Sure, if you are a babboon.

Posted by: steveboyington | December 14, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Recent polls show that close to 44% of women and 52% of men have had an affair while married. You would think by Cohen's post that women are chaste - far from it according to the figures. Women simply choose a different type of person to have affairs with and are much more discreet about the same. They also have affairs for different reasons than men in general. Men tend to look for excitement and the thrill of it, while women tend to look more for a connection that they may not be receiving in their marriage. To imply, however, that women avoid "tawdry" affairs is misplaced and also uninformed.

Posted by: fwillyhess | December 14, 2009 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Why don't women work in public professions in some religiously fundamental countries? Why do women on average make less than men in America? Why were so many darn women treated for "hysteria" 100 years ago?

The answer to every one of these questions, for an evolutionary biologist, is evolutionary biology. Really? I can think of many better explanations. Please immerse yourself in some gender studies literature before ignorantly pontificating in a public forum.

When you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Posted by: vivzig | December 14, 2009 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Could someone please find Cohen a cold shower?

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | December 14, 2009 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Am I reading this right? Cohen's so clueless, sexist, and elitist he assumes all cocktail waitresses are trash? Unbelievable.

Posted by: historian_nan | December 15, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"No woman makes Tiger’s kind of money, of course..."

Well, actually, let's see. Oprah Winfrey? And, according to Forbes, at least 72 others -- some of whom are way better known for their sexual appetites than their portfolios:

Posted by: Mara_Seaforest | December 15, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

And furthermore:

This whole article is so offensive to women on so many levels that I wish I could conjure Kay Graham up out of her eternal resting place so she could put him in his rather more temporary one, as only she could.

Posted by: Mara_Seaforest | December 15, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I didn't realize you were a humorist. And a bad one at that.

Posted by: giff | December 15, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Easily the worst column I've ever read. Astounding that Richard Cohen gets paid to write this, by the Washington Post, no less!!

How does this happen? How do I get in on this? I would like to be paid to write.

Seriously, if nothing else, honor the memory of Kay Graham and fire this guy.

Posted by: outstando | December 15, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Who reviewed this column, clearly written by a creepy prepubescent boy, and gave it an O.K.? In 2009? Someone's got mom issues.

Posted by: nadia2 | December 15, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Maybe women are just better human beings?

Posted by: better1 | December 15, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

The article is sexist, but its a good question. Seriously, The reason that women who are high achievers and the few that have garnered fame, have great power and/or wealth don't lust for trashy male strippers and cocktail servers on the side is that women generally think with one brain, not two.

Also, perhaps this is sexist, but having two teenagers, one boy and one girl, it appears that though both of them were raised in the same environment, my young woman is more forward thinking and thinks about the consequences of her actions; whereas the young man lives more "in the moment" and generally engages in more high risk behavior-and she is more the achiever.

Also, women who had to break the glass ceiling have developed a different skill set of discretion that even if they were sex addicts, they would better plan, be more discreet and be smarter than creating a physical, cyber and media trail that press hound dogs love. They would not be cowards and would be the first out on Oprah telling the exclusive story...

Also, absent Mother Theresa, there are no women I can think of who have been built into a God-created miracle of a man manufactured by Team Tiger. Too many eggs in the Tiger basket, too much of Tiger's sperm in the basket of others.

Posted by: BabyYouCanDriveMyCar | December 16, 2009 12:09 AM | Report abuse

This particular blog post is incredibly short-sighted. I think the answer to your question, Mr. Cohen, lies in your own argument of bio-reductionism. Perhaps there isn't a female Tiger Woods because women are better at hiding their promiscuity. You said it yourself - women are programmed to want babies more than anything in the world by their genes. And nothing trumps genes. Especially good ones. It stands to reason, then, that a woman would do anything to get the best genes she can find. Promiscuity - whether she has a long-term mate or not - is the best way to achieve this goal. So, women probably cheat. Especially high-powered women, if one assumes they have better than average genes themselves, and are compelled to at least match their own grade.

This still leaves the question of why women don't get caught, however. Well, Mr. Cohen, you also refer to men's genetic programming. Perhaps "hunting saber-toothed tigers" wasn't the only way pre-historic men took out their "youthful aggression," and pre-historic women had to evolve better tactics to hide their extra-curricular activities.

Posted by: soulwriter | December 17, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Evolution schmevolution. It is always cheap to explain human behavior using evolution because you don't have to think! Bad male behavior! Evolution. Males controlling females! Evolution! People killing each other! Evolution!

On the other hand, why there are no Tiger Woods in the female world might have something to do with the fact that there aren't enough women in positions of power to throw out a person who is like Woods. Women in positions of power have a lot more to lose if they are publicly promiscuous. If a female golfer behaved as Woods has, she would probably never get another sponsor, whereas Woods will get the wink wink nudge nudge boys will be boys treatment. Women in the public eye (except probably actresses who seem to be pretty promiscuous) work hard at keeping their private lives private to avoid the loss of power that would come with revelation.

Posted by: carolcarre | December 17, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company