Chocolate Chiq.com

Many medical professionals are extremely politically correct with their comments regarding the Tiger Woods' scandal. As I mentioned in a previous post, "Tiger Woods: Sex Addict or Hot-Blooded Male?” some doctors are implying that Tiger has a sexual addiction. While many people were surprised that this superstar, married athlete with a clean cut, "All-American" (and geeky) image would be involved with numerous salacious affairs, theorizing that he has a mental defect is the easy, safe way to go. Thankfully, Dr. John Gray of "Men Are from Mars, Women are from Venus" fame is refreshingly honest and caringly blunt.

Dr. Gray breaks down the answer to the question asked 7.5 million times in the last 4 weeks: Why would Tiger cheat on his beautiful wife? (Side note: while I think his wife is nice looking, personally, I don't really see her as incredibly beautiful. Wondering if the outrage is in part "this black man, who we consider one of us, repeatedly cheated on his blond haired, blue-eyed, European prize.)

In his Huffingtonpost.com column, Dr. Gray explains that when the pull of attraction fades, other aspects of the relationship will sustain the partnership. He states that "attraction, passion, respect, and trust are the four cornerstones of commitment. These traits are tested through time. They ebb and flow as we grow and mature. But if they stay in place during the stormy times, the marriage will last." He goes on to say that even if a committed person notices that someone else is attractive, that person will not stray if they are happy and secure in a healthy relationship (keyword is HEALTHY).

In a Tango.com video clip (below), Dr. Gray makes great four points:

"Attraction goes beyond beauty" Of course, physical looks are important, however, there needs to be a deeper level of connection to allow the relationship to survive and grow. As some modern words of wisdom go: show me a beautiful woman, and I will show you a guy that's tired of f*cking her!

"Having regular sex is the key" Regular sexual activity in a healthy relationship creates an incredibly strong bond. A woman should not be forced or guilted into taking part in any sexual activities in which she does not want to participate. (I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RAPE; I'm talking about regular relationship pressures.) However, women need to realize that rationing sex is an absolute deal breaker to most men, i.e. he will feel he has a right to go outside the relationship to find satisfaction. If a situation is so bad that you can not engage in regular sex, you need to seriously consider ending the relationship or taking a break.

"Successful men have more libido" According to Dr. Gray, "historically, it shows that the more successful a man is, the higher is libido. Because all that success stimulates testosterone. And those testosterone levels means he wants sex, he needs sex, he wants sex, and clearly he wasn't getting sex at home." I would just add "enough"...he wasn't getting enough sex at home.

"She needs to have an orgasm most of the time" Not only does the male have to be satisfied, it is paramount that the female is sexually satisfied as well in order to develop a deeper intimacy and closeness, which strengthens and maintains a relationship. Men must realize that a woman's feelings about sex are strongly tied to how she is treated in the non-sexual part of the marriage. So fellas, remember ATTENTION, AFFECTION, and APPRECIATION.

The bottom line is this: men can be faithful in marriages. The man must be committed to his partner, she has to be the right partner for him, and the relationship must be healthy (i.e. the blog post you just read!

Story source. Picture source.

Dr. John Gray on Tango.com:

So I was PRETTY proud of myself. After reading that shockingly bad and poorly written piece from New York Times' Maureen Dowd, The Lady and the Tiger, I decided to do a little critique of the critique-er. My gift to you, "EPIC FAIL: MAUREEN DOWD (NYT) GOES IN ON DESIREE ROGERS AND TIGER WOODS", basically revealed in that column, Maureen decided descriptive snarkiness was much more important than making a cohesive argument. Furthermore, the personal attacks came across as jealousy of Desiree "the most beautiful 50 year old woman in the world" Rogers and "I guess he is black - CHEETAH!" repulsion of Tiger Woods.

Now I know a little about the ins and outs of Google. After submitting my blog to the search engine a couple of years ago, my website did disappear momentarily, but I found out that was normal and it subsequently reappeared. However, this situation is a little different. I published the Dowd/Rogers/Woods piece on Sunday night and for the next 48 hours or so I received a HIGH number of hits for the post(at least high for my site) and consistently ranked very high (at least top ten) on the Google searches for: "maureen dowd desiree tiger", "maureen dowd lady and the tiger" and so forth.

After seeing that the hits dropped off quite a bit this morning, I decided to check out my ranking using the previous queries logged by my web hosting company, Squarespace. My page did not show up anywhere! So I decided to search "chocolate chiq maureen dowd" and "EPIC FAIL: MAUREEN DOWD (NYT) GOES IN ON DESIREE ROGERS AND TIGER WOODS" which would have surely pulled up that specific page...NO DICE. What I did get was the post title as a part of another blog post on my site, but not the actual web page, and a result listing from Global Grind where I posted the article yesterday.

So now my ego is expanding...was my piece that good that it had to be yanked from the great portal to the internet? Was it New York Times or Maureen Dowd herself? Or was it simply a glitch in the ginormous machine we call Google? I don't know, but I'm gonna find out. Stay tuned.

**Update** About 8 hours after I first noticed the web page was missing, it reappeared in Google's index. I did submit a question to the Google Webmaster's Help Forum, so that may have corrected the situation.

Picture Source

I guess Maureen Dowd's editor didn't have time to review her latest column, The Lady and the Tiger. It was a nonsensical, catty, AND petty attempt to slam Desiree Rogers and Tiger Woods. The phrase to best describe the piece is simply "WTF?" I've read her column from time to time, mainly during the 2008 campaign season. While not especially deep and moving, she occasionally was entertaining. However, this week she definitely scraped the bottom of the barrel.

She accuses both Tiger and Desiree Rogers of being "perfectionist high-achievers brought low" who "mistakenly think the rules need not apply to them" and that they "broke the first rule of scandal: Don’t stonewall. Admit your mistake before others piece together the embarrassing facts." A bit dramatic, don't you think? Maureen did you forget you had a deadline and threw this together in a matter of minutes or were you really tired and wrote this with one eye closed and the other drifting towards REM?

Errahh, Tiger is an ATHELETE who cheated. Not a priest nor a Congressman, but a young, attractive, world-adored, MALE player of sport. Surprising? Kinda. Earth-shattering? No. Of course, he was wrong because he was married. However, the amount of disgust spewed in that article is over the top, calling Tiger a "golf diva" with a "puffed up ego" with his "string of buffed and puffed babes". Isn't that a bit much?

As far as the unforgivable sin that he committed by refusing to talk...he supplied a statement within A FEW DAYS. Actually, previous to statement, it had only been a week or so since the stories about his infidelity began to leak, so it's not as if he took a whole tour season to come clean. With all the hoopla and intense media focus, it is not surprising that the Woods would need more than an hour or two to decide how they would move forward.

And while there is no doubt that Desiree Rogers shares some responsibility for Crashergate, Dowd seems to be downright appalled that Ms. Rogers didn't conduct an apology tour, and that she is "sashaying around and posing in magazines as though she were the first lady." Errahh, she is the fashionable, popular SOCIAL SECRETARY for the fashionable, popular Obamas. Remember the election...it ushered the new Camelot and a snazzy, jazzy new Washington. Ms. Rogers is the epitome of the new vibe.

There has certainly been some discussion about whether Desiree should have appeared before Congress, however, there is little doubt that she was advised on which actions to take by her close, long time friends, THE PRESIDENT AND THE FIRST LADY. I really can't understand why Dowd, while complaining about the use of executive privilege by the White House, is trying to rip Desiree a new one and lay the bulk of the responsibility at her feet. As if Ms. Rogers would ignore the wishes of the First Couple and do her own thing.

I do recall hearing some complaints about the childish nature of Ms. Dowd's writing style, however, I am still shocked about nature of the personal attacks. Ms. Dowd, what did they ever do to you?!?! "It was the assertion of personal privilege by Tiger and Desiree that was so off-putting." Really? In what way compared to other politicians, celebrities, and numerous privileged persons who have been involved in scandals?

The New York Times obviously has some job openings and is in need of columnists. Maureen, before you write your next vicious drivel interesting commentary, could you put in a word for me. Thanks. XOXOXO

Picture Source
Story Source

A text comes to Tiger's phone at 2 a.m. Since Tiger is under the influence of pain medication, he does not notice the text while it awakens his wife. Elin turns over grabs the phone to see what is so important at this late hour. It's a racy text about how Tiger made a woman climax violently and how she is looking forward to more of the same. After years of rumors and his vehement denials, Elin lounges at Tiger. Filled with rage, she starts screaming and slapping him awake. Through his drug-induced fog, Tiger hears "phone", "text", "fucking around", "Rachel" and decides to make a break for the door. He lurches out of the driveway only to be distracted and run into a tree and fire hydrant when he hears the crack of a golf club against the SUV's rear window.

At least that it what "THEY" say...but a lot of people say it though. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in that alleged scenario.

All in all, I think Tiger handled this situation very well. After years of (alleged) cheating with multiple partners, Tiger decided to take full responsibility for the 2 a.m. incident. And in an effort to save his marriage and family, he supposedly gave his wife $5 million to stay and upwards of $80 million if she decides continue the marriage. Of course they will have to deal with the jokes and the continuous internet/tv coverage, but with great celebrity and wealth comes a lot of attention. It's really all kinda hilarious...

And the people say: BUT WHAT ABOUT CHRIS BROWN?!?!?!

Here comes the nifty "Theory of False Equivalency"...as politically incorrect as it sounds, no, the Chris Brown/Rihanna situation is not the same as the Tiger Woods episode and here's why:

First, while one strike from any person is bad, it's the result of the ESCALATION of domestic violence that causes the most harm: hospitalization, serious injuries, and/or death. You can also add isolation from family/friends and the woman staying in the relationship because of the threats of serious bodily harm or death. In the Chris Brown case, Rihanna feared for her life, was choked, and received a litany of injuries including bites, a black eye, scratches, and head contusions. Witnesses from the neighborhood and the hospital recount Rihanna repeatedly screaming, most likely out of pain and fear. As for Tiger Woods, his wife allegedly scratched his face and struck THEIR automible with a golf club. Immediately after the incident, Tiger was sleeping (probably from the medication) and told a friend that his wife had "went ghetto" on him and said he would have to get her a "Kobe Special." There was practically no way that Rihanna could have stopped that beating, whereas Tiger could have most likely restrained his wife. So why is there so much focus on the men in these scenarios? Because OVERWHELMINGLY (upwards of 85%), women are on the receiving end of serious harm or death, which leads me to the second point...

Feel free to blame God/Yahweh/Allah, the universe, or who ever you believe to be responsible for difference in biology between males and females, but men are generally much stronger physically than women, PERIOD. (I've been restrained by a male in a few situations and it was not even a contest.) It is not a "fair" fight between a man and a woman and to perpetrate that myth is a horrible disservice to women who find themselves in these sometimes life-threatening situations. This is why you don’t see men boxing women in the ring. Women who are raped, severely beaten, or killed do not end up that way because they refuse to use their strength to stop these men...those men physically overpower them. PERIOD. While females are not always on the receiving end of the serious injuries, I am speaking of most likely scenarios. Any woman who seriously harms a man (short of self defense) should be treated just as harshly under the law.

Still having a hard time wrapping your head around the "false equivalency"? Suppose you have a young black male in an altercation with a police officer. During the struggle, the young man strikes the police officer. The cop can: (1) immediately slap the cuffs on the young man for assaulting a police officer--BEST, (2) strike the offender, slam him on the ground, then cuff him or (3) shoot the young male because he says his life is in danger--WORST. In most cases, the young man will not have a weapon and the police officer has a weapon and the law behind him. If the officer over reacts and uses his "full strength" (which includes the gun), this can never be a "fair" fight. The young man and the officer are not similarly situated.

The bottom line is a man getting hit multiple times by a woman is not the same as a woman getting beat up by a man. To say otherwise, while easy and somewhat popular, is simply ignoring reality.

Picture Source