5 Comments

As sad as the whole Tiger Woods situation is, perhaps it might prompt us to re-evaluate the institution of marriage, and whether it is still a viable institution. Assuming, for purposes of argument, that there is no biological component associated with cheating, then simply examining the conduct of golfer Woods, Albert Einstein, Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Ensign, inventor Henry Ford, Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Clinton, would strongly suggest that many do not respect the institution as presently constituted or evolved.

The frequency with which infidelity occurs suggests a systemic problem. Society might consider starting a discussion about a modified or different institution to serve the functions previously served by marriage.

I beg to differ. The fact that Sir Isaac Newton and the Rev. Gregor Mendel both cheated with the numbers when they wrote their theses does not imply that science as such should be discarded. The ideal is still there, and we strive to reach it although there are slippery rocks along the way.

The Slate Article is terrific. Once activists get involved in law making, any sense of balance goes out the window. Mandatory arrests in domestic disputes unnecessarily strains marriages.

Monogamy is rare in nature. Birds are interesting in this regard. Some birds have no long term bonds, others, such as a stork do. The determining variable is the amount of effort needed to raise the young. When DNA testing became available the parents of a bird could be determined exactly. It was found that many monogamous species cheated a lot. They were dirty birds.

I was faithful to my wives, not because of my character, but because I was not a handsome athlete. Lets hope the Woods will work out their problem and have many years of happiness.

The bigger problem with mandatory arrest and prosecution statutes is that they are self defeating. A number of studies have shown that they discourage abused women from seeking help in the first place, resulting in more abuse.

among all the bits in the Slate article, one thing leapt out for me, the author’s phrase “mythical Female abuser”.

Say what? After working ten years in the DA office, my experience is that assertion is nonsense. Yes, females are not the majority of instigators and yes, when women are victims they suffer greater injuries; however, male victims are very reluctant to report when their female partners (married or not) attack them… not the least of which is that the female abuser threatens the male that if he defends himself at all she will report HIM as the abuser.