12.02.2009

Thoughts on fame, Tiger edition

So my first thoughts on reading Tiger Woods's mea culpa were sympathetic. After confessing to "transgressions," he says:
But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don't share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.

Whatever regrets I have about letting my family down have been shared with and felt by us alone. I have given this a lot of reflection and thought and I believe that there is a point at which I must stick to that principle even though it's difficult.

And there seemed something right about that. Just because the man happens to be excellent about golf, does that entitle me to know anything about him? Being good at something (acting, sports) should not mean you must submit to idiots going through your trash.

But two things bother me about this position. First is that he claims he is not going to talk to the press about his personal affairs on principle in the midst of....a press release about his personal affairs. If he really wanted to stand on principle, he could continue to say nothing. He doesn't really want to say nothing, because it would be bad for him image-wise. So he'll bitch and moan about having no privacy, while exposing just as much of himself as he needs to in order to maintain his image.

Which leads me to the other problem I have with his statement. As a golfer, I think he's entitled to some privacy. But he does not make the majority of his money playing golf. He has decided to accept hundreds of millions of dollars in endorsements because people believed him to be a certain kind of person: talented, driven, controlled, classy, thoughtful. Obviously, he turns out not to be some of those. If you are being paid based on the kind of person you are, on your image, and not on your talent alone -- I do think it should open you up to greater scrutiny.

On a side note: are there any men who could sleep with whomever they want, but actually choose not to? Here's hoping that no steamy text messages from Tom Hanks and Paul Newman are released!

4 comments:

  1. Elizabeth, of course there are men who could, but don't. Why would you ask such a thing?

    Q: Who said "The pleasure is momentary, the position undignified, and the consequences damnable."

    ReplyDelete
  2. A different question, are there really any men who can sleep with any women they want? I am sure there are any number of women who would turn down sleeping with Brad Pitt, Clooney, etc. I am sure everyone of them has experienced rejection at some point (except for Paul Newman who seems to have been faithful so had no reason to experience rejection). Now it might be true that there are men who can sleep with every woman they want to that they can, like Donald Trump, but I really don't think it is as much as you might imagine.

    gadfly, I don't know, was it John Holmes? (I am kidding)

    charo

    charo

    ReplyDelete
  3. oh yeah, about Tiger, I have made every effort not to care and I have been pretty successful. As long as he doesn't beat her I file this under the "not my business" heading.

    charo

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, yes. I myself would turn down Tiger Woods. But he could get a lot of women of a certain type. And I'm wondering if there are any who regularly get women throwing themselves at them who stay loyal.

    ReplyDelete