RonB wrote:
I don't think Tiger can be blamed for doing what comes naturally. If
we search the depths of our souls, if we apply the "rational man"
test, we'll agree that Tiger was the one most abused.


Holy Crap!. I'll just go tell my grand-kids that if they work hard,
become successful and make tons of money, its OK to screw around on
your family.

Not what I'm saying. All events must take into account two things: The act
itself and the motivation behind it. Shooting someone in self-defense and
assassinating someone for hire are two separate offenses even though the
result is the same. A drowning man is going to grab anything that floats,
even if it's another person. A Mormon dying of thirst is going to gulp down
a beer, even a warm beer.

These transgressions must be forgiven for two reasons: The actor lacked the
requisite mens rea, and the over-arching principle of 'exigent
circumstances.'

When a dog barks, the dog's just doing what dogs do. When a woman talks
incessantly about people you don't know and describes what everyone was
wearing at the local cat show, she's just doing what women do. Neither can
be faulted for doing that which is part of their nature.

Men and women have different reproductive strategies: The job of the female
is to get the best sperm possible. The job of the male is to impregnate as
many females as he can. These are innate, inherited, biological, and
evolutionary mandates. You violate millions of years of imperatives at
peril. Further, in all mammals, it is the female that does the choosing of
mates. What we have here is a number of tarts and strumpets selecting ONE
male.

Nope, not his fault.