In response to my article Elin Nordegren Demands $750 Million in Divorce, one of my favorite readers, cynthia, wrote:

i agree with bernie - a rich virile young sports star with outrageous sex drive like woods should never have married as long as he still intended to sleep around.

I would like to add to the discussion: Elin knew what kind of guy she was marrying. A woman who marries a doctor should not expect him to always be on time for dinner or be at family outings. A woman who marries a cop should not expect him to share what happens on the job because sometimes it's too unbearable to relive. A woman who marries a race car driver should not expect him to drive slower on the circuit just because they are now married. A woman who marries a rich and famous sports star should not expect her husband to be faithful. Certainly it would be nice if he were faithful, but it is unrealistic to expect that.

Notwithstanding all that, yes, it is all good and well when men are faithful to their women, but the reality is that men are biologically programmed to mate with many different women. It is against nature for man to be sexually monogamous. I'm not saying we shouldn't be married to one person - as a society we should encourage genetic monogamy for the orderly and legal application of the laws of succession, but having sex with other women does not mean that the marriage should be dissolved.

The average American woman will purposely destroy her family if her husband has sex with another woman. But why? Suppose in all other respects he's an excellent provider, a loving father to their children, and a gentle and loving husband. Why should sex, which has nothing to do with love, family, or home ruin a marriage?

Sadly, our society does not teach that there is a difference between sex and love. Anyone who has traveled the world knows we are a sexually repressive society. What we would call soft-porn appears on regular broadcast TV in Swedish homes. In France, keeping mistresses is a way of life. But in America we are not a tolerant culture in regard to sex. We do not celebrate sex as its own reward, instead we conceal it in shame.

Here I have to blame my Jewish ancestors who declared in Genesis that sex was mainly for reproduction and that there was something wrong with nakedness. This prudish view is somewhat ameliorated in the Song of Solomon, a poem about erotic love between two unwed young lovers; a poem so sensual and erotic at the time that later Rabbis put a PG-30 rating on it - that is, no one under 30 should read it.

Later on, St. Augustine wrote about sex and shame which influenced Christian thought on the matter for the next 1600 years. In On Christian Doctrine St. Augustine states that the only love that is not evil is the love of God, that to enjoy oneself with bodily pleasures is lustful evil.

I believe we would all be better off if we could advance past the 4,000 year old beliefs regarding sexuality in the Bible. Thousands of years ago, before the influence of Christianity and Islam, India had the right view of sex; but before I ask you to click on the thumbnail image below to see the larger view, I have to warn you that it is Not Safe for Work and may offend some of my readers. What does the photo show? It is a sculpture outside a holy temple. But what was holy and proper a few thousand years ago, today would be considered pornographic by most Americans.

So, a few thousand years ago, little Hindu children would pass these places, look up and see a naked woman having some great sex. It wasn't shameful, it wasn't dirty, it wasn't wrong. What is shameful, what is dirty, what is wrong, is that in the year 2010 I have to warn my readers about an innocent image of people making love.

In conclusion I would like to paraphrase Gordon Gekko, "Sex, for lack of a better word, is good."