Yesterday afternoon Facebook was jumping with posts, pics and snarky comments about the shirtless photograph of Tiger Woods soon to be featured on an upcoming cover of Vanity Fair magazine. In never been-seen-before Tiger fashion, the golfer bared his almost hairless chest wearing just scully hat and a scowl. Not surprisingly it was famed photographer Annie Leibovitz who shot the golfer so very much out of his element. The photograph did its job: One of my FB friends commented, "He just needs Thug Life tattooed across his abs," (A reference to an album cover of the late TuPac Shakur.) Another friend commented he actually looked attractive now. Another admitted that although she didn't wan to say it, she liked what she saw. Even I was like, hmmm. Woods is not looking half bad.
Which leads me to ask: what is it about thugs that excites grown, otherwise practical women? For the last 10 years, Tiger has been a staid, button-up golfer. He's image has been about as exciting as a cotton ball. Ironically, last month, Woods' squeaky clean reputation was catapulted to the playa, playa realms, when allegedly, he underestimated his wife's temper and it was revealed he was Biblically familiar with over a dozen women. This should be enough to keep any sane women from wanting Woods. But information about his sexual prowess coupled with this cover shot has gotten some of us hot and bothered. What happened to the street adage of a cornball is just a cornball, no matter how he tries to front?
Ladies, this has to stop. Woods - whether buttoned up, or shirtless - is the same dude. (That we know now is less than honorable.) We have to stop putting men up on a pedastal when they behave poorly. A sexy man should be one who is faithful to his wife. One who is honest and true. A scully and a grimace - except maybe on 50-Cent - does not a sexy man make. (Nor are all good men clad in khakis and Polo shirts, but that's another blog.)
I know. I know. Woods was photographed BEFORE the scandal broke. How was he to know he had a future in being poster boy for condoms? But that leads me to ask, if he has worked on this squeaky clean - not to mention, non-Ethnic image - for so long, why would he let Leibovitz shoot such a "hard" pic of him anyway? Was he tired of being seen as a good boy? Was Leibovitz experimenting with the authentic Woods? Basically, I'm of the belief there are enough thuggish photos of black men out there from album covers to mug shots. And if Leibovitz and Vanity Fair wanted to shoot a thug they should have brought their cameras to the corner of corner Broad and Olney. There they would find several subjects and at least they'd be authentic.