Not the usual meaning! The kind of sex for sale I’m thinking
of is the kind that sells newspapers. I’m talking about the continuous stream
of exposes about the sexual practices of prominent and not so prominent people.
One’s sexual preferences are nobody’s business. It may be that John Edwards was
indiscreet at best by falling in love with someone outside of his marriage. It’s
likely that a more severe term than indiscreet would be inappropriate. But does
this expose really warrant his entire character and career being devastated? Was
it necessary to forever and irrecoverably damage Eliot Spitzer’s life because
he went to a prostitute, along with a substantial percentage of the male
population? Does Anthony Weiner’s indiscretions or even perversions justify
ruining his life and the life of his family? He was a fine congressman now lost
to us and to himself and to his family forever. The list could go on and on. I
don’t think this would be upsetting to Rupert Murdoch; he became a billionaire
in part because of his scandal-mongering tabloid papers. Whether the allegations
are true or not matters little. This carries over into entertainment as well:
Does John Travolta’s sexuality have any effect on his acting ability? If only
there was more empathy and less salacious curiosity, we’d be much better for
it. In the days of John F. Kennedy, his liaisons were numerous but the press
did not pursue them. Had it, we would have lost him more quickly than we did. Newspapers
and reporters were a little more decent then. But today we live in a
monstrously cruel society…. Shame on you, Mr. Murdoch, and your likes!
Reflect!! Comments please.
