Sex and the Powerful - LJ Idol, Season 6, Week 13 (Sexual Ethics)
As sdaisyk wrote in her Current Events entry about sex scandals, people of today are incredibly interested in the sex lives of celebrities and people of power. Millions of words have been written about it while Jane and Joe Everyday lap it up, knowing more about what's going on with Tiger, Elin and his 8 mistresses than they do about what's happening on Capitol Hill.
But affairs of the rich and famous aren't something new. As Sex with Kings: 500 Years of Adultery, Power, Rivalry and Revenge by Eleanor Herman and it's follow up Sex with the Queen: 900 Years of Vile Kings, Virile Lovers, and Passionate Politics shows, affairs have been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
In the 17th and 18th century, it wasn't only common but expected for those in power to have someone on the side. The position of Royal Mistress was one sought after by commoners and courtiers alike. One of King Charles II's most famous mistresses was Nell Gwyn, a comedic actress on the stage. He had 12 children by these women and none by his wife, Catherine of Braganza. Most, if not all, of these children were not only acknowledged but given titles to give them an air of legitimacy.
The change in view point is something that many people choose to ignore when speaking about sexual ethics. People like to think that the way ethics are is the way they've always been and put anything outside of that "norm" as evil, shocking, strange or anything in between and feel safe passing judgment on it because "That's the way it's always been and who am I to say that those that came before me were wrong?"
I'll freely admit that I haven't done as much research into sexual ethics through out the ages as I would like to. I do know that part of the reason for the sexual freedom of 17th Century England was due to the non-permissiveness of Cromwell's Puritan reign. But I don't know the reason why the changes occurred to make sex outside of one's marriage anathema. It's something I would like to research further, though.
My own personal feeling on sex outside of ones marriage is somewhere in between the expectations of it happening of the 17th century and the condemnation of today. I don't believe that everyone, powerful or not, should be expected to have someone on the side. I also don't believe that everyone is meant to be with one person only for the rest of their lives. Trying to fit everyone into the same mold, regardless of whether that mold is restrictive or permissive, is setting up unhappiness for a large number of people.
My ideal world would have people following their own path to sexual fulfillment and partnering with someone who is either on that same path or is at least is understanding enough to let the one they love follow their own path. It seems to me that there would be a lot less pain if people could just be honest with one another rather than following what society says their sexual ethics should be.
And we'd end up with more important news articles than who is screwing who.
This week is another intersection, and the lovely sdaisyk and I have teamed up. Make sure you read her entry as well as mine as the voting for both our entries are combined.
But affairs of the rich and famous aren't something new. As Sex with Kings: 500 Years of Adultery, Power, Rivalry and Revenge by Eleanor Herman and it's follow up Sex with the Queen: 900 Years of Vile Kings, Virile Lovers, and Passionate Politics shows, affairs have been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
In the 17th and 18th century, it wasn't only common but expected for those in power to have someone on the side. The position of Royal Mistress was one sought after by commoners and courtiers alike. One of King Charles II's most famous mistresses was Nell Gwyn, a comedic actress on the stage. He had 12 children by these women and none by his wife, Catherine of Braganza. Most, if not all, of these children were not only acknowledged but given titles to give them an air of legitimacy.
The change in view point is something that many people choose to ignore when speaking about sexual ethics. People like to think that the way ethics are is the way they've always been and put anything outside of that "norm" as evil, shocking, strange or anything in between and feel safe passing judgment on it because "That's the way it's always been and who am I to say that those that came before me were wrong?"
I'll freely admit that I haven't done as much research into sexual ethics through out the ages as I would like to. I do know that part of the reason for the sexual freedom of 17th Century England was due to the non-permissiveness of Cromwell's Puritan reign. But I don't know the reason why the changes occurred to make sex outside of one's marriage anathema. It's something I would like to research further, though.
My own personal feeling on sex outside of ones marriage is somewhere in between the expectations of it happening of the 17th century and the condemnation of today. I don't believe that everyone, powerful or not, should be expected to have someone on the side. I also don't believe that everyone is meant to be with one person only for the rest of their lives. Trying to fit everyone into the same mold, regardless of whether that mold is restrictive or permissive, is setting up unhappiness for a large number of people.
My ideal world would have people following their own path to sexual fulfillment and partnering with someone who is either on that same path or is at least is understanding enough to let the one they love follow their own path. It seems to me that there would be a lot less pain if people could just be honest with one another rather than following what society says their sexual ethics should be.
And we'd end up with more important news articles than who is screwing who.
This week is another intersection, and the lovely sdaisyk and I have teamed up. Make sure you read her entry as well as mine as the voting for both our entries are combined.