Max Mosley has won a vote of confidence from Formula 1’s governing body despite the revelations that he had an alleged Nazi-style orgy with 5 prostitutes.
Reaction has been quick. “Mad Max should go ” is one comment on the BBC site, while another describes the FIA as “sport’s most amoral organisation” .
Others say “what he does/did behind closed doors is/was nothing to do with anyone else” but another comment asks to those who think that Mosley should stay :
“What if it was the headmaster of the school that your children go to ? would it still be acceptable ?”
And here’s where the debate gets interesting;
Should your private life be private ? : well, i’m sure most people would say yes (otherwise how is it “private” ?)
Does it affect your job ? Or does it depend on the job you do ? If there’s a moral responsibility to your work, does that make a difference ? But if we say that, then it means a sheet metal worker can use prostitutes, but not , say, a minor MP.
Does it make a difference of you do a job where you need to be elected / Or does it only matter if you’re caught ?
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
Should your private life be private ? : well, i’m sure most people would say yes (otherwise how is it “private” ?)
Yes it should be private. But if someone is doing illegal activities in their private life, that life has no right to continue on in the private sector. A private life when kept in accordance with the law deserves to stay private. A private life when lived outside the law without regard of reprocussions loses that right.
Does it affect your job ?
If I drink too much which is very rare, and have a rough morning at the office. But then again, thats not my sex life, its my social life.
Or does it depend on the job you do ?
My sex life? No.
If there’s a moral responsibility to your work, does that make a difference ? But if we say that, then it means a sheet metal worker can use prostitutes, but not , say, a minor MP.
Prostitution is illegal in the US (almost everywhere). so, no, no one should be able to use prostitutes. Someone in a key position of leadership will come under greater scrutiny than an unkown person, thats just the way it is, welcome to media hype. It doesn’t make it right just because someone of a lower social, political, or class stature ‘gets away with’ not having to deal with the personal-life reprocussions of their actions because the media skips them over.
i would say it depends on the job. If you work in the public service, such as a politician, or government employee, you really belong to the people as the people are paying you with their tax money. You should be held up to a certain standard, because you chose to get into public service.
Kind of funny how freaky people can be. I personally believe you should never do anything you wouldn’t want other people to know about, especially your parents/family.
I think we have to let private life be exactly that, private. Im not exactly sure of this but few of us would enjoy reading about our private lives in the tabloids, worse still, watching it broadcast. Whoever brings up any other person’s private (read sex) life into the open needs to tell the public exactly why s/he chooses to do so.
But then again, public figures (MPs, ministers, artists…) can always expect some souls to track them right to their beds, ad not for the best reasons. I think the only time anyone’s sex life should be placed under public eye is if that person is suspected of committing a crime right there; in the bedroom. This is where paedophiles, sexually-busy Catholic nuns and ministers and their ilk fall in. If what Mosley did is not a crime where he did, then why bother? I think Mosley’s critics are just a bunch of idlers who are best at nothing but casting stones. I’m almost sure they would have kept their mouths shut had he not won the vote.
Of course it matters. It seems all the Big Shows are run by mentally deranged people.
Is this where we want to be?
Me not.
Slime and Politics, and F1 is politics, because of the enhanced communication system we all enjoy, you are looking at it, thanks to a mistake by the US military, creates an unwanted transparency.
It becomes increasingly clear that we are literally ‘governed’ by perverts.
In 1939 you could ignore it, but today there is no excuse.
Get rid of them before they get rid of you.
Malc
Steve:
Kind of funny how freaky people can be. I personally believe you should never do anything you wouldn’t want other people to know about, especially your parents/family.
Haha, exactly!
But Steve:
If you work in the public service, such as a politician, or government employee, you really belong to the people as the people are paying you with their tax money. You should be held up to a certain standard, because you chose to get into public service.
Do you belong to the public while you are working and serving them, or all of the time, even in the bedroom? Is it just an openness and moral standard you need to accept with the position/s?
Everybody has the right to have a privacy of his/her own.But World Stars seem to be under microscope every single second .People all over the world want to know more a bout their favourite stars and any negative character trait of the Star is very likely to damage his/her reputations and dignity.
Recently we have heard the Brazillian Soccer Star Ronaldo reported to have slept with a prostitute in a certain Hotel and it has been heard all over the World unfortuanlity no Media Organisations find interest in reporting the Hunger,Starvation and how life is turning to be very difficult for people who live in the poorest continent on Earth-Africa
Of course it shouldn’t matter as long as the sexual activity is not illegal. I think the calls for Max Mosely to resign probably stem from the fact his father was British fascist leader & Nazi sypathiser, Edwin Mosely. Secondly he his fairly wealthy and head of FIA and there is the usual socialist jealousy of captain’s of industry. Thirdly his faux pas involved being dressed as a Nazi.
Ironically today the inquest into the death of former BBC disc jockey Kevin Greening who died following a homesexual bondage session accompanied by drug taking heroin). No one at the BBC would have mooted the idea that Mr Greening would have had to resign, presuming he had not died of course. Former drug addict and self confessed sex addict Russel Brand is currently employed by the BBC on terrestrial station Radio 2. No calls for his resignation.
Hello, everyone! 😛
I think it does matter, especially if you’re working in a public position.
First of all, it’s a matter of dignity: why do they have to show their intimacies without being judged in a society of limitless prejudices, or do things in the wrong place if they were supposed to be working without being critisized? 😦
Second, these people are supposed to be examples in their companies or work place, due to their popularity or their position, so for society and their co-workers (even employees) they should keep just like that, like honorable people, before all of them lose any kind of respect – and, therefore, this crisis makes us think we’re ruled by freaks! I think this all is about ethics in your workplace and in society, so keep your private life appart from these…
Hugs from Colombia! 🙂
Hello to my Precious gang ! A simple question to Mr Mosley : If you knew that your baby-sitter or the driver who drives your kids to school everyday has once been involved in a Nazi-style orgy with five prosititutes, what would you do then ?! Will you trust him on your kids anymore ?! Only a thought that has passed my mind… With my love.. Yours forever, Lubna..
Hello! 😛
Everyone has in his/her life different sides that have to be respected adn that, in some cases, should be separated from the others or, in other cases, necessarily go together: family, religion, sex, etc. However, and I don’t know if you agree with me, I consider that some times these people have a double life 😦 .
I’d really want to know what you think about this… Unfortunately It’s my last blog of the day. Good luck with the show, dear Chloe, and enjoy it! 😉
Hugs from Colombia!
If Sepp Blatter, if Jacques Rogge, if Bud Selig or Gary Bettman, or anyone in charge of a major organisation committed similar acts, they’d be forced to step down without question. It seems ridiculous that Mosley has survived this. Mosley needs to go.
I don’t care whether it was conducted in private or public. He managed to get caught doing it. His reputation and that of the FIA was tarnished immediately. So yes, if you get caught doing something wrong in private and it becomes public knowledge, it should have a bearing on your public life.
Hi WHYSers!
For what it is worth, your private life is exactly that – PRIVATE! Regardless, of where you work – public or private sector, all matters done in private should remain there! The problem for me is where private actions result in public favours, such as sleeping with the boss(es). That certainly puts a different light on things. If people are not being hurt by your actions, which are hopefully legal, the larger, much more important question is how does that impact the question of public corruption and nepotism?
These are important questions which must be answered, at some time and in some way, by those who enact laws as a means of ensuring that there are appropriate ways of sanctioning those found to be in breach of rules of conduct such as this. Justice must not only have been done, it is to also appear to have been done in cases where public, or even private officials are found to be granting favours to persons lower down in the hierarchy by virtue of their private, sexual rendezvous. In this case, issues of public corruption may arise from sleeping around in the hierarchy for favours. There has to be a way to address that through the mechanisms of the law enacted by a state, country, municipality, etc.
Beyond that, all matters related to one’s private life – regardless of who they are (priest, nurse, politician, etc.), are to remain private! PERIOD!
@ Brett
“Do you belong to the public while you are working and serving them, or all of the time, even in the bedroom? Is it just an openness and moral standard you need to accept with the position/s?”
Then we cannot drug test public employees either because that’s done in the privacy of their own homes too? Politicians live in glass houses. Nobody really cares what a government secretary does, so people would obviously not be as concerned. However this person in question was in a private organization. If that org. has rules, then let them go by their own rules..
Think Elliot Spitzer as what you shouldn’t be doing if you’re a public sector worker.
I wish there was more focus on sex and sexual habits in this country. So many things are related to sexual habits.
Obviously we are a long way off from the permissive ways of the West, but restrained promiscuity, is breaking out into child rape and forced sodomy in Iran.
The tabloids regularly carry stories of acid attacks on young girls. Stories of child rape and murder also abound.
Unless there is an open attitude to sex and the need for ‘red light districts’ and regular medical checks at brothels, the number of AIDS carriers will rise and sex crimes will continue to terrorize the public.
Sweeping everything under the carpet in the name of propriety and piety is simply not the answer. When it comes to sex, religion and faith are helpless, unless the sex impulse can be channeled safely, to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Anyone in the public eye knows that he or her is being watched by at first the media, and if they succeed, then the public. How can it be important if the said person functions correctly in his position, he has the right to private life. If however the said person flaunts his private life for what ever reason, then he should be put on the line,and its his or hers own fault.
These persons have a hard time, paparazzi with super telephoto lenses are waiting around every corner, and behind every bush, just to get that one shot, which can ruin a persons life. And public greed for such photos, and the following commentary’s , keep them in bread and butter, sorry in caviare and wine.
And other wise, if they are good at their job, leave them to their private life.
John in Germany
I am American, of course, so I don’t recall which French President it was while Clinton, the born named as such, was having his bit of bother, but he was reported as having issued a wonderfully refreshing perspective on the whole affair.
If I am not quoting him incorrectly, I recall he said: “What’s the point of being President if you can’t have a few mistrisses?”
JD
“Beyond that, all matters related to one’s private life – regardless of who they are (priest, nurse, politician, etc.), are to remain private! PERIOD”
So people should be able to conduct human sacrifices? Pedophelia? If someone gets off on being killed during sex, so long as it’s private, it’s okay? Remember the case in germany where the one guy agreed to be killed and eaten by the other guy??? That was done in “private”. No, we shouldn’t tolerate everything done in private.
I have yet to find a real answer to why politicians and the media are obsessed with sex (other than it sells) then all you have to do is watch TMZ – and you find out the answer in about 45 seconds.
For those who said keep private – I agree with you!
As long as one conducts his private life privately, I think that it should remain private. An orgy might be classified as private.
What bothers me is when we dredge out the private sex lives of our politicians and hold them accountable for their social disgraces as if they were pastor-in-chief instead of commander-in-chief. I do not know of any clause anywhere in our legal system that defines the eligibility of a candidate by his moral performance. And in our rush to chase with pitchfork our alduterers elect, we ignore the mass murders committed at their hands (we are not innocent in former Yugoslavia), their financial corruption, and their nepotism. Also, has anyone noticed how the moral underperformance of certain politicans is off-limits, while the misdeeds of others are like open books that the media can sell to the public for their financial betterment?
“Should your private life be private ?” It should, but where there’s a free media don’t expect it to be. What people are really punished for when this kind of thing is exposed is their own indiscretion and stupidity. The best policy, already noted, is that if you don’t want to be found out then don’t do it. But if temptation is too great then have the sense to minimise the risk of being exposed. The disgraced NY governor, Eliot Spitzer, at least used an expensive agency who were said to be famous for their tact and discretion. Didn’t the call-girls in Mosley’s case work with the tabloid newspaper that exposed him? Does suggest that maybe he was a bit bargain-basement with his choice of girls if a cheque from a tabloid could turn their heads.
“Does it affect your job ?” Yes, if your job depends on the good opinion of puritans and prudes.
“Or does it depend on the job you do ?” Again, yes if your job requires sexual continence (Catholic Priest, nun), or a spotless reputation in private and public life (doubtless the Hillary team are even now looking to save her candidacy by digging deep into Obama’s past), or if part of the job description is to occupy a moral pedestal.
But there’s no denying the scandal, perversion and sheer filth of the Mosley episode: the abysmal quality of the British tabloids, who think it acceptable to destroy a man’s life and publicly humiliate his family over a non-story that – having absolutely no public significance – should have been allowed to remain private.
As for Mosley: five prostitutes? A session that went on for hours? At his age? I hope I’m as lively when I’m a pensioner.
As long as its not illegal, or hurts anyone, who cares. I’ve done some crazy stuff and understand the fun of all those taboo things, and it makes life more exciting! Also, the feeling lingers as you are able to think about it for the next week or so, sitting at work with a smile on your face. 😉
-Anthony, LA, CA
Steve:
Then we cannot drug test public employees either because that’s done in the privacy of their own homes too?
Physical effects of drugs though, when done at home, can transfer to the work as certain drugs stay in your system for certain lengths of time, thus possibly inhibiting your ability to do your job or think cearly. Withdrawl could also cause similar lapses in judgement.
Also, drug use is mostly illegal. Sex (consensual and not for money) is not.
I agree with the private organization rules. But they often make me sick. My mother had to worry about her and my sister losing their jobs because she (my sister) was pregnant by her fiance a few months before they married; All because such ‘moral’ codes in the workplace.
Abdi in Mandera Kenya has a good point. “no Media Organisations find interest in reporting the Hunger, Starvation and how life is turning to be very difficult for people who live in the poorest continent on Earth-Africa” The topic of hunger did come up as news about the UNFAO summit in Italy began to flow. It even became a topic here at WHYS. But it is not the topic for on-air dialogue. Why? Does the media really need to pander to the most sensational discussion-makers and eye-openers out there? Couldn’t the news media play some role in guiding public dialgue towards issues that have a real impact on our daily lives? The latest car theft or murder down the street might impact people in the neighbourhood; and the latest scandal about some mayor, governor, or president might make a scintillating read, but what can I do about it? And the same space and time that was used in covering these useless anecdotes could have been devoted to issues on which people might want to air their voices: wars, corruption, hunger & poverty, etc. BBC, WHYS, you also need to be held accountable in which stories receive what priority in your news rooms.
Sexual freedom is a right that should be respected. But there are limits to it when it affects the norms. Public figures have to set the standards by avoiding being morally loose. Although people take sexual freedom for granted, they still look to public figures as models when it comes to morality. In France, President Sarkozy drew a lot of criticism because of his open relationship with then his girl friend Carla Bruni, now his wife. The public was expecting from him to look presidential and not an adult in his second adolescence.
In Italy, a teacher who performed as a porn star in her spare time was suspended. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7110234.stm . This means when it comes to education, teachers are still expected to set some standard and not to inculcate in young pupils that all forms of sex can be OK. Schools in other words aren’t expected to be equated with brothels where the learners are trained to be porn figures.
People still hold views of the others according to their sexual conduct and orientations. The fact that sexual behaviour of known figures still catches press coverage means it still matters.
In sport, Brazilian football star Ronaldo was caught up in a sex scandal with three cross-dressing prostitutes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7374317.stm , which must have an effect on his image among his fans and his girlfriend.
Sex life can be private, but not as private as it should be when it comes to private people with whom we share our lives like the family. Families are generally held together, among other things, through proper sexual conduct. If a couple is entitled to have a sex life outside their private relations, this means there is no strong bond uniting them and they have to look for satisfaction with other people.
Sex is a source of pleasure. When it becomes a scandal it turns into disrepute, especially for those claiming to have conservative views and to defend society from becoming morally loose. Those who have the “vice” of sexual adventures despite public and family commitment should be clever to do it without being found out. Sex still sells well. The media can’t turn a blind eye to sexual scandals when it will provide it with a good material to fill its space with.
@ Steve!
You never even had the courtesy of addressing me by name. However, that is neither unique nor surprising as you never bothered to read the rest of what I said either. So, I would advise that you do that first before responding in your characteristic judgemental manner. This type of selective response is unacceptable.
That said, let me remind, for the benefit of clarity. The issue of private, legal actions have no place in the forum of public scrutiny, especially as it regards matters related to sexuality. In that regard, I cannot accept that there should, somehow, be a “higher” standard for public sector workers compared to those who work in private. Questions about sex and sexuality, as they are referenced by the question above and certainly in the context of the event(s) which prompted this discussion, are part of a Victorian-type prurience which beset us in the modern age.
The salaciousness with which media and their audience hunger for information about the private lives of public citizens is fundamentally hypocritical and, it may well be argued, highly immoral. The assumption of certain professional responsibilities, regardless of wherre, does not remove one from his or her personal context. There is almost always some “skeletons” in all of our closets, at some point.
Of course, some of us are so quick and eager to judge others that we can only assume by that they are perfection embodied. Though, it does make us wonder what is the motivation behind these efforts to demonise people on the premise of sex/ uality? What is to be gained by scrutinising peoples’ sex lives? Should not the focus be on running a Government, country, school, business, co-op effectively? How do we benefit as a nation, etc. to know whether the CFO of an organisation in the public domain likes to be spanked, or whatever else it is that people get up to in private. Give me a break!
Shirley: Reporting the FAO conference is all well and good, and is being done on the WS. To be fair, WHYS discusses what we want to discuss, and it’s apparent that the team has received enough comments to believe that more people want to discuss this topic (not Mosley specifically but the idea in general) than the FAO conference.
Sex life affect the kind of work one does. If pop stars, football stars, actors and actresses, ect. are involved in illegal sexual habits, it really doesn’t affect their trade much. But this cannot be the same for those in positions of trust. For example those occupying public offices in their various countreis,those holding offices in local and international organizations, thier every activity is under scrutiny from the public and thier sex life have serious effect on thier work. More than that, those holding public offices suppose to live an examplary life for future leaders. Their actions could change the thinking of the younger generation.
Hello to all of you my Precious friends… Where’s my comment I wonder ?! Did it violate anything ?! I hope not ! A clarification please guys ! With my love… Yours forever, Lubna…
Lubna, it got caught in wordpress’s spam filter. Have approved it now.
Of course it does. If you hold a position where your credibility, not only as a professional but as an individual, is paramount to your perception as a representative of that position then what you do in your private life is of consequence. To be shown as someone who engages in risky, illegal or illicit activities will tarnish that reputation. Your image defines your position as you hold it and if you are shown to be someone with ‘odd’ or vulgar tastes or tendencies that shows what you as a person are like.
There is no point in adopting the attitude that Mosely has, that what you do in private has nothing to do with the perception others should hold of you or your job performance. It has a bearing on your integrity as an individual. For anyone in a senior position, let alone one of international prominence, you as a person are the one who is there and your personal integrity defines you and the organisation that you represent. That is why they pay you the huge salary, the one with the authority, the one who represents that organisation and if you falter in your image then that can be seen as how you run that organisation or tarnish the entire management structure altogether.
And what of the tried and tested, “Bringing the organisation into disrepute”? How many times have we heard this line trotted out as a convenient excuse when a wrong doer is about to be nudged out? Is Mosely immune from this? Certainly his activities, private or otherwise, have brought the FIA into disrepute. Inevitably what position you hold and how you behave within it depends on your moral credibility doesn’t it? What of a teacher who has a fetish for young adults, who collects schoolgirl pornography say? Is he someone who you would think appropriate to be in that position where he is in contact with children? Regardless of whether you are a bin man or priest you morals define you and any employer or organisation makes much of this when they seek and select employees. But this reeks of double standards as we have seen that those in the upper realms of an organisation will indulge their appetites and feel they are beyond reproach. This is the case here as it always has been the case, the privileges of rank.
Perhaps it can be argued that if you have fetishes or habits that you wish to keep private, then keep them private. But they still affect your ability and image in any position you hold, whether they are publicly know or not. How you behave is indicative of you as a person, it highlights your personality and no one can escape that.
*Applauds!!!*
Well, some people’s tastes are a tad kinky from the mainstream; however, regardless if some like it hanging from the chandeliers, or in the bushes, so be it.
The second term of Bill Clinton presidency was marked/marred by the revelations of his sexual misconduct/adventures. While that was devastating for his family, especially his wife Hillary, it was a very exciting period for the whole country when the economy was booming and it wasn’t yet plagued by the spectre of terrorism.
Clinton’s sexual behaviour was an occasion to get more audience for shows like Tonight Show and Late Tonight Show on CNBC, where there were ample jokes about it. It also added $1billion in the US economy through the sales of items like doles featuring Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. There was even an opera about this.
American society was forgiving, perhaps because people in their hearts knew that they could do the same had they had the same chances. There were even some who came to Bill’s defence by saying that political power was always coupled with sexual power. In other words, Clinton enjoyed his full manhood and masculinity by offering himself full sexual liberty.
At least during his presidency Clinton, a son of the sixties, just made love; contrary to President Bush who made war. So the question is, “which is better to make love or to make war?” It also shows that sex can make or break as it happened with former Israeli president. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6258132.stm
THANK YOU Precious ZK… Oh my God ! How can I prevent that from happening again ?! With my love… Yours forever, Lubna..
What two consenting adults (key words consenting & adults) do in the privacy of their own homes is most certainly private. Individuals living in the public eye seem to be targets of moral obligations by everyone else. I suspect the people judging from their homes have a dirty laundry of their own they would want aired.
If the activity is illegal and they are caught then they have to deal with the ramifications of the illegal activity.
Prostitution is one of the oldest professions. Every attempt to eradicate it from society has failed and will always fail. If people are willing to pay for sex and another person consents for compensation then by all means let them!
On a side note I guess you could say my sex life affects my job; I get a little bounce in my step when I get a little lovin’ from my husband before work. 🙂
As long as it is 2 consenting adults (or I guess 3 or 4 in this case) I really do not care what people do in their beds. I dislike the hypocrisy like Spitzer and numerous other politicians standing firm against ____________( drugs, sex, rock and roll- you fill in the blank) only to find their real stance is it is OK for me but not for you.
I think we as a society and the news media spend FAR TOO MUCH TIME on this stuff- because our poor puritanical society is so closeted but obviously obsessed with sex scandals
@ Abdelilah Boukili
That’s quite a point. At least when Clinton lied people didn’t die (unlike our money grubbing cowboy now)! And even though the “blue dress” incident happened, he still did a great job as president!
-Anthony, LA, CA
@ Andrew,
While, I hear the point you make, I feel I must caution that there seems to be a blurring of the line between private actions between consenting adults which are not in violation of the law and those which include child pornography, etc. There is no denying that these latter actions are unacceptable as well as illegal and places in jeopardy the lives, health and wellbeing of others, especially minors.
However, it needs also be said that the private, legal actions that people conduct in private is still very much a matter of private morals and personal tastes. More often than not, these discussions about the sex lives of those who serve is little more than an excuse to keep certain people out of certain jobs. This is discrimination and it is wrong! There is no getting around that.
These narrowly defined sense of morality have no place in conversations of this type. The standard position is often that one’s sex life impacts on the health and wellbeing of an institution, publicly. I could not disagree more. This is a sort of rightwing morality on speed! Saintliness and piety in terms of sexual conduct still do not speak to whether one has the capacity to do a job well.
Indeed, the reverse is also true. Irresponsible private conduct can bring into disrepute the profile of certain organisation. However, there is no doubting what is commendable public performance. That speaks for itself. Surely, it is not our wish to employ child molesters, serial rapists and people with a penchant for public nudity, etc., in certain positions. That might well be setting the cat amongst the pigeons.
However, when we start shifting the boundaries of “proper moral conduct”, which often seems to be more about sex/ uality rather than our a collective sense of good taste and responsible behaviour in terms of allowing people their personal freedoms, we are actually instituting and maintaining very oppressive relations of power in society.
Often, it is those who are considered “sexual minorities” who end up feeling the burn. Meanwhile, the sexual police and the so-called moral elites, with their abiding sense of heightened sexual morality, get a free pass. Isn’t there a problem here? Is that not a double standard?
Well said Agostinho!
Yes. But most victims do not know it, and would even argue that it is helpful — as most sufferers of hypertension do not know that they have hypertension and would argue that they are as fit as a lion — until they are bankrupt, commit a serious sex crime or professional error, or they are forced to change their attitude to sex, emotional nonsense or passionate romance at work.
Prince Pieray Odor
Lagos, Nigeria
+2348022831122
@ Julie P, Janet T and Vennessa,
Right on! Could not agree more!
“Good taste” regarding is a sliding index. What is okay for me is not necessarilly okay for someone else, even within the conventions of the law. It is important that we respect peoples’ rights to choose their own modes of self/ sexual expressions as well as their privacy. Repressing sexual expression and desires can often have grave repurcussions.
Perhaps if we were more realistic about our expectations from the very human leaders who run these public/ private organisations more work would get done in the public interests. I would very much prefer to know that my head of state has a deep and abiding commitment to balancing the public budget and reducing crime, etc., and has the wherewithal to do his job well, rather than being concerned over who he is having a sexual relationship with and what he does in the context of that relationship. Who cares, really? Are there not significantly more important issues in the world than knowing who likes what and how in the bedroom?
If what you do is illegal is one thing. If it is not it is another thing. If we start deciding which type of privacy fits better a particular job description we could end up sacking all chemists who smoke in their own home. However if we discover that the secretly smoking chemist runs public campaigns to stop people from smoking in their private homes then it would be another matter. Mosley likes kinky nazi stuff? Well, none of my business. Is it? Sad man though ain’t he?
ZK, you’ve a point about our consumer trends. The way that you worded your post reminded me of how the public demand for pictures and articles, especially scandalous ones, killed Diana in the end. I’ve not stopped saying that we, Joe Public, have her blood on our hands.
This does not, however, exonerate the press who would chase her down into every corner. Nor does it render innocent the media who ignores real issues or cheats them of full coverage in order to pander to baser interests.
I do acknowledge that the BBC did cover the UNFOA summit. However, I got most of my info on it from other sources. Perhaps there could be a bit more coverage so that the BBC audience could be better informed without jumping all over the web.
What exactly is “private”?? If it’s okay for someone to have sex with 5 hookers nazi style so long as it’s in private, then why can’t you smoke a cigarette in a bar? A bar is someone’s private property, it’s not open to everyone, as kids aren’t allowed to drink. Why do we say one thing is okay, even if illegal, yet another is not okay, yet it (smoking) is legal? If we can tell bars and restaurants how they have to run their privately owned businesses, why can’t we tell people what they can do in their bedrooms? There are apartment/condos that forbid tenants from smoking. In places in canada parents can be arrested for smoking in their car if they have kids less than 6 years old. We have to be consistent, if private is private, then it’s private for everything.
Come to think of it, are we asking the right questions here? Is personal indiscretion between consenting adults, even when acted upon by spiritual, moral or political figureheads really the business of those persons, or the media empires which actually take their dirty laundry public?
Oh, for the days of JFK’s little flings. Just ask one of them. [or not] Looked a bit like Hillary, she did. Or at least the way she did her hair. Oh, hang on. She’s disappeared then.
What a world… what a world…
When it comes to another person’s preferences or tastes everyone else is entitled to their own worthless opinion.
As long as what you’re doing isn’t illegal by local law it’s nobody else’s business.
+ Of course it doesn’t matter. Not only does it not matter but it is discriminatory to think it does; because, then you are saying some sex is good and some is bad.
+ Besides, the FIA represents a meat-headed cretinous sport which is in no position to take a moral stance. Even if it was, a job is a job—and sex is an easy target with about as much relevance to job performance as a lack of style or a closeted Harry Potter reader.
– Portland, Oregon
@ Steve
You are comparing apples to bananas. Smoking affects the people around you. Having sex with 5 people doesn’t – it affects those 5 people who consented to do so.
When a private act hurts or infringes on the rights of someone else then it should be an issue.
@Agostinho
Preferences, tastes, and sensibilities vary from person to person. This doesn’t make it wrong, it makes it different. Unless it something horrible, like paedophilia, then really it is a private matter. Personally, I have always been a little jealous of Monica and the cigar. A+ to Bill for being creative!
This is such a silly issue. Of course sex life doesn’t affect work life. That’s why it takes some extraordinary scandal to reveal someone’s sex life. In the normal course of events, sex is private, or at least unknown in its more colorful details to one’s co-workers. Unless lack of sleep or sheer exhaustion becomes a problem, there’s no problem.
Intelligence services prohibit gay people from employment as agents because of the purported risk of blackmail. Of course, blackmail is only an issue at all BECAUSE of the prohibition.
When a sex scandal erupts and people get all flipped out, it’s not the sex, but the scandal, that causes the problem. Anyone at all intelligent and adventurous surely does things in private that would raise eyebrows at work or in public; that’s why we do them in private.
That said, I cheered loud and long to see the downfall of Elliot Spitzer, just because he’s so insufferably self-righteous and ruthless in his professional life. To be revealed as a hypocrite is just frosting on the cake.
Jonathan Rasmussen
San Francisco
Oh yeah, and in the case of not smoking inside a rental property – well the owner has a right to put whatever they want in an agreement. I can sell my house and stipulate that the purchaser can never cut my oak tree down. If I drive by 10 years later and they do I can take legal action.
@ Steve
You think that is bad?
Read up on the homosexual laws in the UK, they are mind-boggling! While being homosexual isn’t illegal just about everything else concerning being homosexual is.
John in Salem, I’d go further and say that it’s nobody’s business, even if it IS illegal. Laws are arbitrary and they change, and they aren’t connected with real morality anyway. They just reflect prevailing custom at a given time and place.
@ vanessa:
“You are comparing apples to bananas. Smoking affects the people around you. Having sex with 5 people doesn’t – it affects those 5 people who consented to do so.
When a private act hurts or infringes on the rights of someone else then it should be an issue.”
But say if everyone in the bar wants to smoke? The law is saying that even if they want to, the owner and the bartenders smoke, they still cannot. It is not apples and oranges, and in the Uk, if those people spread STDs, the national health service will wind up paying for the treatment, so it does affect other people.
On Sex and Work: Does Sex Affect Work? Yes. But most victims do not know it, and would even argue that it is helpful — as most sufferers of hypertension do not know that they have hypertension and would argue that they are as fit as a lion — until they are bankrupt, commit a serious sex crime or professional error, or they are forced to change their attitude to sex, emotional nonsense or passionate romance at work.
There are distinctions between ability to do job and morality. You can have an extremely good professional who is morally deficient. So he does not have integrity, any one who can not combine moral disciplined and professional ethics. And certainly they do have distractions, the Clinton issue is there among many.
@ Steve
+ Clearly there is an OBVIOUS difference between a bar and a bedroom. Any of age member of the public can generally enter or apply for work at a bar—and suffer the results of smoking. I don’t think this happens with sex in the bedroom.
@ Vanessa
“Oh yeah, and in the case of not smoking inside a rental property – well the owner has a right to put whatever they want in an agreement. I can sell my house and stipulate that the purchaser can never cut my oak tree down. If I drive by 10 years later and they do I can take legal action.”
That’s not true, they cannot put whatever they want. Try putting in “I sell this you so long as you never sell it to a black person, or it reverts back to me” and see if it gets honored. If you put the oak tree stipulation you better be prepared to lose part of the value of the home as you are putting in restrictive covenants. I was talking about condos, where the unit owner owns the unit and the condo association has banned smoking, meaning you cannot do what you want in your own unit. If someone can ban smoking in the home you own, then why can’t the control what kind of sex you have?
Steve, that doesn’t make any sense to compare sex and smoking, and toss “private” into the mix although it has different meanings in the two contexts. “Private life” means what you do that you don’t publish. “Private property” is entirely different, and also irrelevant to smoking. And a bar is something else again; it is precisely a public space, no matter that it’s privately owned. (That’s why they’re called “pubs” in some countries–public, get it?) If you smoke alone, apart from other people, physically separate, “in private,” you’re not hurting anyone but yourself. Get it?
Poisoning other people isn’t a civil liberty, no matter where you do it. It’s also quite irrelevant to what we’re talking about here, as far as I can tell.
Your private life is your private life. You shouldn’t be discriminated or persecuted because of it.
Now there is an exception to every rule. When your private life choices infringe on the rights or causes harm to others, then your private life can face limits. Public figures, especially those representing prominent organizations and governments must be especially considerate of this. Black mail is just one way that risky business on the part of these public figures can cause harm to millions of other people because of their attachment to government or world organizations.
Your sexual pecadillo’s should not affect a person’s job. But the sad and often wonderful fact is that our sex drive is the strongest primal urge we have, and the activities of others mating activities will always be of interest.
The wonderful fact is that our sexual preferences should not affect our daily job as a politician or running a business.
The sadness is that being gay, tranvestite, gender reorientated, a bondage lover or whatever i does affect out standing and our work. Just as the Daily Mail is popular, so are lurid stories of our leaders -because we are really voyeurs hiding behind a vitorian sensibility that ‘certain things’ should not be done.
Of course it does. If you hold a position where your credibility, not only as a professional but as an individual, is paramount to your perception as a representative of that position then what you do in your private life is of consequence. To be shown as someone who engages in risky, illegal or illicit activities will tarnish that reputation. Your image defines your position as you hold it and if you are shown to be someone with ‘odd’ or vulgar tastes or tendencies that shows what you as a person are like.
There is no point in adopting the attitude that Mosely has, that what you do in private has nothing to do with the perception others should hold of you or your job performance. It has a bearing on your integrity as an individual. For anyone in a senior position, let alone one of international prominence, you as a person are the one who is there and your personal integrity defines you and the organisation that you represent. That is why they pay you the huge salary, the one with the authority, the one who represents that organisation and if you falter in your image then that can be seen as how you run that organisation or tarnish the entire management structure altogether.
And what of the tried and tested, “Bringing the organisation into disrepute”? How many times have we heard this line trotted out as a convenient excuse when a wrong doer is about to be nudged out? Is Mosely immune from this? Certainly his activities, private or otherwise, have brought the FIA into disrepute. Inevitably what position you hold and how you behave within it depends on your moral credibility doesn’t it? What of a teacher who has a fetish for young adults, who collects schoolgirl pornography say? Is he someone who you would think appropriate to be in that position where he is in contact with children? Regardless of whether you are a bin man or priest you morals define you and any employer or organisation makes much of this when they seek and select employees. But this reeks of double standards as we have seen that those in the upper realms of an organisation will indulge their appetites and feel they are beyond reproach. This is the case here as it always has been the case, the privileges of rank.
Perhaps it can be argued that if you have fetishes or habits that you wish to keep private, then keep them private. But they still affect your ability and image in any position you hold, whether they are publicly know or not. How you behave is indicative of you as a person, it highlights your personality and no one can escape that.
@ Steve
You still have a right to have sex with whom you choose. Getting an STD is the risk you take when being sexually active with multiple partners.
Smoking is off the subject but the law dictates people cannot smoke in the bar because legislation was created laws for running a business. There are plenty of laws a bar owner would most likely prefer not to follow. Running a business and abiding by the laws created by the government and having sex are two very different things.
@Jonathan
“Poisoning other people isn’t a civil liberty, no matter where you do it. It’s also quite irrelevant to what we’re talking about here, as far as I can tell.”
Then taking your logic to the next step, automobiles must be banned since they poison the air far worse than smoking does. A bar is as private as anyone’s home. It is owned by a private individual and is not open to the general public. I have never seen children in bars, because they aren’t allowed. Adults do adult things in bars. It isn’t a playground. It’s kind of like how the alcohol they serve is unhealthy, and drunk driving risks everyone far more then cigarette smoke, yet we allow people to drive, and we allow them to eat unhealthy food that causes the taxpayer financial distress. Why not ban beer and fried foods as well if it’s about health? That’s right, becuaes it’s not about health. It’s about a small group of whiney socialists banning something they don’t like.
I think your private life is private and should not affect your public life. If you are a politician or a government employee you can not do certain things. But who cares if the guy had his fun, he paid for it. There are certain things people do and perform that should always be out of the public eye. I don’t want to know what people I work with do in their own time.
Eddie Murphy got caught with a transvestite, but he’s still making movies. Robert Downey Jr. got caught with drugs how many times, but he just did Iron Man. Yet Clinton gets oral sex and impeachment follows? That’s not fair now is it? I mean, R. Kelly pee’d on a little girl, but he’s still making records! And don’t get me started on O.J.!!!
-Anthony, LA, CA
It did in my case. The ward psychologist molested me. And I was there in the first place because I had been molested. He told me he “loved” me. My high school principal molested me. So I say yes, your sex life can make you less effective in your job.
@ vanessa
“You still have a right to have sex with whom you choose. Getting an STD is the risk you take when being sexually active with multiple partners.”
No you don’t have a right to have sex with whom you chose. Say if I want to have sex with a woman but she doesn’t with me? If I do, it’s probably rape, right? Say if someone wants to have sex with little children? You don’t have a “right” to have sex with whom you choose.
“Running a business and abiding by the laws created by the government and having sex are two very different things.”
Completely wrong, I have a feeling that violating the laws involving sex involves a LOT more jail time than violating the laws of running a bar.
can some one tell me what a “Nazi-style orgy ” is. that just sounds fun. I could make all kinds of guess at it, but none would be appropriate for the forum.
Hypocrisy should be the only time it is punishable. In the US the conservative movement is always claiming “the moral High ground.” So when one of them get exposed for engaging in acts they advocated against it becomes reprehensible. While a liberal leaning figure who advocates privacy of ones private life should not be held accountable and chastised for things they have vocally supported.
Sports figures are not role models. It is bad parenting to let your children think so.
I just had someone from the DoD interview me today about my former roommate because he’s applying for a security clearance. He wanted to know about drug habits, drinking habits, the women he associated with. If you want to work in certain areas, your life is an open books. You better not do things you shouldn’t be doing.
Private matters should remain private. Even if it is alledged that what happened was illegal, then that is still not relevant. Only if he is prosecuted and found guilty does it become relevant.
that doc is misinformed…moseley has been banned from attending races in bahrain and monaco…he is unable to perform his job…
How many people are actually outraged by this? I can see millions of people envious of the fellow rather than outraged.
Steve,
If you’ve paid attention to my posts you will see that I said CONSENTING ADULTS. You are completely off subject. Having sex with children or against someone’s will was never said.
And yes I stand by my argument that running a business and having sex are two very different things. And by the way; you’re right I can’t sell my house with ANY stipulation. It was merely an example. I am fully aware of laws that do not give me the right to discriminate which is the example you used. As far as the condo – you know the rules of the property when you buy the air inside your walls (if you don’t it’s your own fault). You have a choice not to purchase the property.
your comment: “It’s about a small group of whiney socialists banning something they don’t like.” Spot on! That’s exactly what people are doing in this situation!
Only the person I am sexually involved with and myself need to know what is done and how we do it.I wonder why the gay equality issue is such a big deal. Certainly it is wrong to discrimimate against someone ie their demeanor is less masculine or feminine “than it should be”. And when gay comes up as an issue,I think it becomes an almost militant position.I am not gay, but when it becomes an issue in public dialogue, I want to say “Psst, nobody is that interested in your sex life. So shut up.”
In asking whether or not you hold all people of all professions to the same moral standards, you are naively dismissing the political and cultural influence that these leaders have. These are people that we are supposed to look up to and lead us. They are supposed to give us hope- we should not have to make excuses for their immorality and hypocrisy.
Furthermore, if your argument is that all people consented to sexual acts, then you are also overlooking the fact that a prostitute will always be consenting and always accept payment; a political figurehead is held to higher moral standards than a prostitute, for he/she chose a profession of supposed dignity and leadership. A prostitute does not chose a profession of leadership and dignity.
In addition, I would argue that many prominent people are sexually deviant in spite of their position. Eliott Spitzer thought himself invinceable.
It really only matters when your political platform goes against your personal actions.
Yes, what you do in your private life affects your work. How you behave, morally, intellectually, etc defines you as a person. Whether you do it in private or openly it is part of you. If you keep it private that does not diminish who you are and what makes you who you are and if you sneak about doing it then that is also telling of who you are. And yes you can have a private life, but don’t ignore the above point.
what is it with this doc and his hang-ups with prostitution? grow up! it’s not called the oldest profession for nothing…
Social and public acceptance entails respecting certain moral codes. Regardless of the right to sexual freedom, sex is still a sensitive issue even in free societies. Many politicians and religious figures have fallen from grace because of their sexual behaviour. For such people, their private life becomes a public affair when it conflicts with the standards they stand for.
Hiding behind the right to privacy to act in controversial ways isn’t a good defence. There should be common sense, especially when it comes to marital commitment.
The arguement “what if it was a teacher or what if it was a politician” are completely irrelavent! We have no idea what our teachers or politicians or office workers are doing in their private lives. The headmaster of a boarding school may be a sexual sadist his entire career and as long as he keeps that information private and does his job in an acceptable capacity no one would ever know. Just because you do not agree with someone’s sexual and social preferences does nto give you the right to judge them. Without radio, television, and internet this situation would be contained to the people it affects -him and his family. Privacy does not belong on a sliding moral and ethical scale.
I believe that part of the responsibility of being a public servant or leader of an organization (i.e. religious, corporate) is that this person is not only an individual, but a representative of that entity. This person is no longer just able to do whatever he/she wills because they must take into consideration how these actions will affect the entity as a whole. Like it or not, the top positions often come with baggage.
I have no problem with the oldest profession. Sex is natural and is something that we do as humans. I have a problem with him being a married man. If his choice was concentual, between him and his wife, then I don’t see a problem. If it was not concentual, then it shows that he cannot be trusted and a man that cannot be trusted should not have such a high position. Also a person who is in the public eye should expect that what he or she does will be public…it comes with job.
With all due respect to your opening guest.
What you do in your life, privately or otherwise is part of you, your personality. It is who you are and what motivates you, what you think about yourself and the world at large. It drives you and shapes you as a person. So you have to wonder what kind of person you have in your midst once you see how they operate.
@ Steve
The logic you use is so often inaccurate and well, illogical. As are many of the posts you write, in excess, on WHYS. I have no idea why people put up with and encourage this second-rate fluff. I suppose the loudest most persistent voice often wins.
“They” will probably censor this post because they find it offensive. As if, serial bad arguments weren’t offensive.
The prostitution and sexual aspect of this does not trouble me nearly as much as the Nazi connection. Is this individual attracted to more than just the trappings of power that go with that particular dress-up? Does he perhaps secretly feel affinity with the outlooks and genocidal practices of the Nazis? Will he then bring these attitudes to bear when making decisions in his job, discriminating against those he deems “inferior” to the Master Race?
I’m thinking he should have been sacked, if for nothing else than a colossal display of bad judgement!
@ Vanessa:
You still said, ““You still have a right to have sex with whom you choose. Getting an STD is the risk you take when being sexually active with multiple partners.”
Fine, lets limit it to consenting adults. Should people who are married be able to have sex outside of the marriage, and nobody should have a problem with it, including the spouse? If people should be able to have any kind of consentual sex, then adultery shouldn’t be allowed to be a grounds for divorce, right?
“As far as the condo – you know the rules of the property when you buy the air inside your walls (if you don’t it’s your own fault). ”
They can change the rules after you buy it as well. Imagine buying a place, and finding out later they changed the rule so you cannot make Indian food because others don’t like the smell?
So long as a person can get to work on time, I dont see how an active sex life can effect a persons job negatively. Frankly it should put some pep in your step, it’s good exercise and thats been proven to have posative mental effects as well. Who or how someone gets their jollies is none of our business, so long as it’s between consenting adults. I think Mr Mosley has a problem with jealous co-workers and journalists, but I say Rock on Max, I hope I can be a cool as you someday!
What is a nazi style orgy anyway?
Private life (sex life) becomes an issue when it speaks to the quality of a person’s judgment. Cheating on a spouse, engaging in illegal activity (prostitution), engaging in risky behavior (AIDS, etc.) show bad judgment. We’d like our leaders to show strength of character, compliance with the laws they’ve been elected to uphold and good judgment when making decisions that affect us all. As for the racing official, it’s not likely his work will affect me. However, he IS in a position where his judgment affects a substantial group of people. Romping with prostitutes in the age of YouTube and almost certain public exposure shows poor judgment and puts any decision he makes hereafter into question.
the only reason your sex life would affect your job is because a personal and private aspect of your life is put in the public spot- light. your sex life is yours and your spouses business, no one elses. if you weren’t questioning the person’s work ability before the scandal comes out, then why should you after.
Most of the founding fathers of the United States had ‘immoral’ proclivities.
So their work should be questioned right?
We don’t have to discount the work for these things, it shows our current limitations and hypocrisy.
Motor sports is all about fast cars and loose women, with copious amounts of alcohol. So what’s wrong?
Public figures, people in leadership positions, should be judged according to their position. Will this affect their ability to do their jobs? Do their jobs and the image of their position run counter to their private actions? If the Pope, a priest, or a Jerry Falwell were caught having sex, outside of marriage, or even kinky sex inside, should be punished and publicly humiliated to the greatest extent. Their entire positions on life are built on setting a proper moral image, so any degree of impropriety, whether its pilfering the collection trays, misappropriating funds for art restoration within the cathedral, sex, or whatever, run counter to what their jobs stand for, and who they and their institutions represent. Politicians, who are a variant of a crook in my mind, should be prosecuted to a somewhat lesser level. Conservatives who are caught violating laws they have campaigned for, or morality they have beaten into a lather, should be fried. Liberals driving SUVs, hiring maids at low wages, engaging in sex with people who don’t have the ability to refuse (exploiting them in other words) should be fried. A Formula One chief? Having sex with prostitutes in an orgy? His wife should clobber him, sue him for everything she can get, and leave him to his bimbos. That’s motor racing, not the Church.
Does anyone remember the Senator Craig story? Should the public ignore that he tried to have homosexual sex in an airport bathroom and got arrested for it? At the same time being a conservative republican and being anti Gay rights? Does this not affect his job, even though it wasn’t exactly a private area? Say if this happened at home, would that have been okay?
@Steve, you still haven’t got it. A bar IS open to the public. PUB! It’s called a PUB! Or a “public house.” You go there precisely to be with people. It’s a social setting. Otherwise you could drink by yourself at home and save a lot of money. Right? Children are barred, because society deems drinking an adult activity. And it’s privately owned. So what? Neither of those means it’s not a public space; it’s the epitome of a public space. I’m sorry if you’re feeling hassled because smoking is getting harder to do. Addiction is an awful thing. But the smoke is clouding your logic. I’m emphatically neither a whiner nor a socialist, by the way. About as far from a socialist as one can get. Somewhere to the right of the Bourbons.
Anyhoo, I am happy to see in your other post that the military continues its diligence, making sure not to hire anyone who drinks, takes drugs, or has sex with women. Now THAT would be a “clear and present danger,” we can surely agree.
DIVORCE: I think most modern thinkers would say the only requirements for a divorce should be the desire for one spouse to do so.
yeah, bash bill clinton…maybe if gw was getting some we wouldn’t be in this ‘war on terror’
@mb
Murder is probably the oldest crime, so should we legalize murder since it has always existed and always will? Because something has been going on forever doesn’t mean it’s okay.
I would still like to know what a “Nazi Style Orgy” is… is it anything like a Greek Style Orgy? Perhaps its like a Russian Orgy? Perhaps an Alaskan Orgy?
…Honestly, how much of this outrage is because the reporter took plenty of liberty with his description of the event? How many people really care that some rich guy bout 5 prostitutes? Heck, that’s practically expected from rich business class, it has no bearing with the common man.
And to the fellow who just commented on declining morals… look at the upper classes through history. News flash… this is nothing new.
I believe the private behavior of individuals should be their own concern. The exception would be those people who indulge in private behavior which they publicly denounce, defame or try to persecute.
When I was young, I read a quote from G B Shaw that said “It is a poor man that has to ask some one else’s permission to to take his own pleasure.”
If I had a million dollars I’d be doing it with ten prostitutes.
@Worlds oldest profession.
It is a pet peeve of mine to call it the “world’s oldest profession”. Prostitution is a service occupation. In order to be involved in a service occupation you need people to serve. That means you need people with some sort of wealth to pay you or your service. The oldest profession is Hunting. The second oldest is prostitution. The third oldest profession is a thief.
@ the person I am involved with and myself. In this case it would be there people he was involved with. What if there were no other people, just himself. Lol. I got to check out b4 I get banned. The fact that this is a debate is humorous. This beat out world hunger for an on air topic?
I think it is none of our business. What I think is truly disgusting is that Our society is so intent and interested in bringing others down. our salacious appetite is never satisfied. Takes the heat off us, yes?
@steve:
bogus argument: prostituion is the purchase of a service, murder is a crime for one’s own ends…
What the heck IS a “Nazi orgy” anyway? I thought I knew everything. Guess I’ll be toddling off; there’s research to be done…
Intense personal scrutiny will keep too many talented leaders from pursuing public office. I’ve lived through John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton and consider them net pluses for the world, even though they were alley cats personally. Richard Nixon and George W. Bush were faithful to their wives but disastrous for humanity.
I feel strongly that one’s private sex life should be private. However each situation is unique and if one is a representative of more than themselves then what they do will define more than their own life. The media will always circle a story of this kind over and over like a bunch of vultures. I personally feel that it is not my place to judge another’s preferences, as long as they are not a danger or threat to theirs freedom and safety. Ultimately it should be a question of his ability, but those in charge may feel that this reflects upon their entire company and public view of them as well. They also have the right to run their company as they see fit. Any choice we make, private or public, has an effect greater than us and ultimately, he took the risk of acting in a way that is sexually taboo and looked down on upon many (at least publicly).
@jim:
prison/guard concentration camp role-playing…pretty distasteful, but moseley’s father was the leader of the british fascist party and a known nazi sympathizer…sins of the father?
I feel strongly that one’s private sex life should be private. However each situation is unique and if one is a representative of more than themselves then what they do will define more than their own life. The media will always circle a story of this kind over and over like a bunch of vultures. I personally feel that it is not my place to judge another’s preferences, as long as they are not a danger or threat to others freedom and safety. Ultimately it should be a question of his ability, but those in charge may feel that this reflects upon their entire company and public view of them as well. They also have the right to run their company as they see fit. Any choice we make, private or public, has an effect greater than us and ultimately, he took the risk of acting in a way that is sexually taboo and looked down on upon by many (at least publicly).
mb:
If Mosely had been of Danish nationality he might have been banned from attending races in Bahrein as well (if he had not strongly condemned the cartoons). But in that case he would have been encouraged to not to resign.
@Jonathan
Do me a favor, go into a “pub” and don’t order anything. Just sit there and ignore them when they ask you if you want anything. Let me know how long it took them to kick you out of that “public” space. The reality is that it’s private. They are there to make money, not everyone can go in, not everyone can stay in it. They could kick you out for how you are dressed if they wanted to. It’s not a public place like a public park is. The epitome of a public space is a public library, not a bar. Sorry.
Are you going to next suggest that a “red rope” type club, one where they only let in men surrounded by beautiful women are more “private” than a bar? Just becuase they are picky about who they let it, and hence they should be more likley allowed to allow smoking than a bar??
My point is that despite you thinking something open to the public is not a private establishment, it is a private establishment. If you cannot run your own business the way you want (remember, cigarettes are legal) then why can’t the government tell you what you can do in your bedroom? I’m pretty darn sure that a lot more people have died from AIDs than have died from second hand smoking. Beer is bad also, drinking and driving is bad. If you ban smoking, why not ban the beer also given the alcohol is more harmful?
Say if housing is government owned? You rent from the government, is that private??? Should you have less rights than someone who owns their own home?
Steve,
Again, way off the point of this discussion and I would be happy to continue it with you on the talking points blog later.
Cheating, adultry etc (which i would like to reitterate is off the subject) are all the private matters of individuals. People lie and cheat. It’s human nature. It doesn’t make it right but I am not the moral police and have no right to say if it’s okay or not. BTW I do have friends with open marriages that are okay with their spouse having other sexual partners. It’s perfectly within their rights. But then again we aren’t discussing the moral obligations of marriage; we are talking about if someone’s sex life is private.
Yup, rules change in condos (again off the subject); you are aware of that when you buy the property. Sell it if you don’t like the bylaw changes. When you choose to run a business or buy property with stipulations that can change over time that is the risk you run.
@mb
“bogus argument: prostituion is the purchase of a service, murder is a crime for one’s own ends…”
Jack Kevorkian was convicted of murder. Care to restate your comment? Again, murder is the oldest crime, should it be legal? That’s your argument for prostitution, and not all murder is “bad”, just look at Kevorkian.
I do have to say, at least in the US (this is continuing sort of an off topic tangent) that steve is right about public/private. The epitome for this for the everyday Joe is that… the police can arrest you for public intoxication on the road, on the street, in the park, on the sidewalk… but not in the bar. Because its a private establishment with a license to sell liquor, and they are responsible for what happens on their premises.
What people do in private should be private! How can we judge a man’s activities on his own time and in private? As for the style of the man’s activity (say, the nazi style role playing), there are computer games that would be much more objectionable and nobody would even think to say anything about that.
@steve
the state convicted kevorkian of murder because there is no allowance for euthanasia in the law…the families of his ‘victims’ didn’t say a word…as far as prostitution is concerned. my point was that it exists because of supply and demand…there will always be people who want sex with prostitutes, and prostitutes willing to provide it…to take the attitude that it is immoral is naive…
Intriguing that your American contributor is obsessed by the moral decline and mentions Clinton but neglects to mention Bush’s war etc. As usual the American attitude to morality is staggeringly distorted. He is NOT a public servant. It is remarkable that today a man having sex with females is considered perverse. As for the Nazi thing. It’s ridiculous for years punks and Hells Angels have worn all kinds of icons. Are they racist? No. Are they out to shock? Sure.
Personal lives and corporate lives should be separate. It’s when mix, like harassment in the office, there should be action taken.
@count
HA!
Very interesting that no one has pointed out that prostitution – at least in the U.S. (with the exception of Nevada) – is illegal. Prostitutes are routinely prosecuted. However, the solicitation of a prostitute is rarely prosecuted. I would suggest that the majority of solicitations are by men. It seems an overly sexist practice of selective morality and justice in prosecuting primarily the women prostitutes.
Bottom line. This gentleman has engaged in an illegal activity, which virtually every human being would also consider immoral. These are the underlying issues. When one breaks the law, there needs to be consequences. The ability to behave in such abased manner brings into question the fundamental morality of this gentleman’s (or any other person) influence on society as a whole.
Oh, Steve, Steve, Steve.
Murder harms other people, so it’s both wrong and illegal. If it were legal, it would still be wrong.
Cigarette smoke harms other people, so it’s wrong (irrespective of its legality at any particular time and place, which is in flux and is anyway a historical accident).
Sex doesn’t harm anyone, so it’s NOT wrong, no matter what silly laws might say at any moment. Laws on this are also changing fast, and customs even faster. Real morality changes not at all.
See the difference?
I’m so tired of people saying “Whatever I do in the privacy of my own home is my own business, it doesn’t affect the rest of society”. The family is the most basic unit of society, if it is weak, society in turn becomes weakened. What happens at home spills out into society through the way children learn from their parents, through the strength of the family, through the way we relate with others based on our relationships with our wives or husbands or parents, etc. Your private life is your own business, but that doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want without effect on society.
@ Justin
Exactly my point. It IS private.
Lot of people don’t understand a lot about privacy or when you have privacy rights. An example in the US is that if you were visiting someone’s home, and there were something illegal there, and the police broke in without a warrant, the homeowner has a constitutional right to supress the evidence, however if for some reason that illegal object there belonged to you, say it was pot, you have no privacy rights in someone else’s home, so the homeowner is safe, while you can be charged (being an overnight guest gives you a reasonable right of privacy).
When you let the government take away rights, you begin to lose them in more ways than you know. The bar has basically been changed into a public place under the canard of health. What other rights are you people prepared to lose? And yes, it could one day get to be if you were in the Mosely situation at home, they might one day say “oh, you have children, hence it’s a public place becuas ethe state cares about the interested of your children more than they care about your privacy”… Slippery slope.
Congratulations to the BBC!
In covering this story, the “Mighty” BBC, a world-wide source for quality journalism and reporting, has descended to the level of the cheapest paparazzi!
Is there nothing else happening in the world today which bears greater attention than this story? Again, congratulations on this new depth of achievement!
@kathleen
ever been to vegas? or a miami beach hotel? sheesh, men always get the rap for prostitution
Wow, 126 responses to this and we are not even half way through the two hours of air time.
AIDS in africa, 3 comments, World Hunger 26 comment, to report or not 105 since yesterday, talk to Al-qaeda 196 since last friday.
Humans, are the funniest species I have ever observed. I love the way they are driven by darinism and evolution and yet deny it out of hand.
There is nothing immoral about wanting your girl friend to dress up like the Queen of England if that is what makes you and her happy.
And what person is not in a position of responsibility? All functioning adults have responsibilities.
@ Jonathan
“Murder harms other people, so it’s both wrong and illegal. If it were legal, it would still be wrong.
Cigarette smoke harms other people, so it’s wrong (irrespective of its legality at any particular time and place, which is in flux and is anyway a historical accident).
Sex doesn’t harm anyone, so it’s NOT wrong, no matter what silly laws might say at any moment. Laws on this are also changing fast, and customs even faster. Real morality changes not at all.”
Wrong wrong wrong yourself Jonathan. Does murder always harm people? Maybe you don’t know who jack kevorikian is, but he was convicted of murder for administering lethal drugs to a terminally ill patient, to alleviate the patient’s suffering. Her was convicted of murder, which he technically committed. He killed someone and didn’t hav ethe authority to do so, intending for this person to die. That’s murder.
Alcochol harms other people, so it’s wrong, and should be banned as well? How many cases of drunk driving and abuse has happened because of alcohol?
Sex doesn’t harm people? Surely you are joking, right? Ever heard of people with sexual addictions, or sexual issues, or sexually transmissitted diseases? You don’t think HPV, HIV, herpes, chlamidia, syphillis, etc are harmful?? Say if two people consent to have sex, but one has herpes, the other doesn’t, and afterwards, both have herpes? Not harmful, eh?
lighten up paul, it’s salacious…you’re telling me you don’t find goose-stepping whores funny?
Is the sexual behaviour of public figures the business of the public?
No.
1. What happens between consenting adults is between them. Just because you find sexual violence repugnant doesn’t mean that you have the right to bar others from it. The same is true of Nazi connotations –perhaps you and I find it disturbing, but it’s not really any of our business.
2. Legality is certainly an issue, and so is hypocrisy. Anyone who takes a public stance against something should beware being caught participating in it.
Thanks for the soap box.
Whether or not you feel that it should have a bearing on public life, it does. The media displays all of these moral upsets for the world to see. The question does not appear to be should it have a bearing on public life but instead what, as a society, can we do about this? Why do public figures have to do these extravagant sexual acts when they know it will come out?
@marc d
Queen of England = HOT HOT HOT
@Kathleen
Perhaps if men were making money from prostitution they would be prosecuted for it. Instead of being charged, it appears that Elliot Spitzer’s prostitute has become famous, has sold many of her songs and will likley be “Rewarded” with a playboy spread and will probably get a made for TV movie about her poor decisions in her life made her somehow into a “victim.”
I would be interested to hear the opinions/perspective of a medical professional specializing in sexual behaviors and fetishes. How and to what degree does this aspect of one’s life influence their friendships, family, and professional relationships? I think this is an area on which we’re all inclined to speculate, but in fact, know very little.
@ MB
Please don’t fall into personal insults – they won’t get published.
Thanks
I am so tired of hearing about what public figures do in their sex life. Either way you slice it, it is none of anyones biz but there own. Mind your own biz is what I say.
The result of Elliot Spitzer’s prostitute being “rewarded” is merely a result of people curious. If everyone was so appalled and morally apposed to the behaviour people like her wouldn’t get 15 minutes for such acts.
Says something about society eh?
I think it’s inappropriate for people to judge Max Mosley based on his private life, end of story. The vote of confidence by FIA members shows that the vast majority are satisfied that he can publicly represent them. Those who continue to object are unsporting and don’t respect democracy.
@will
what insult? i was just asking for clarification…
I am a retired police officer in Portland, Oregon, USA. Our constitution legislates moral laws generally for all – equally. However, certain public jobs rely on successful relationships and the confidence of the public to be effective. If, in the case of a public sector job, such as Max Mosely’s, the public’s confidence and willingness to be a partner suffers due to the public figure’s private conduct (or even perceived conduct) than it is probably important for that person to step down. Many jobs rely on public trust and confidence to be successful -so, if the conduct is not illegal and does not impact that confidence than it is probably ok. In his case, it doesn’t seem to be the case.
@ “what is done in private is my own business.
While I agree with the position of everybody who says, “what I do in private…. ” it is a dangerous argument. Can I shoot heroine that I grew and processed in my own privacy? Can I beat or abuse my children? The children are being returned to the Texas sect. All of these children and wives will say they consented. An understanding of mental history and capacity of the parties involved is the lynch pin between the two different sides of the argument. People who oppose euthanasia say that the patient was no in a mental state of clarity enough to make such an authorization. It there for blames the doctor for taking advantage of somebody who is mentally incapacitated.
The case that was brought against the people of FLDS was thrown out because – they didn’t have a case against 400 + families, Dwight.
So far, correct me if I am wrong, 3 cases could possibly be brought forward, one of those cases against the leader of that sect who is already in prison.
When ‘in private’ should means as a private individual who is consenting and above that age (Consent). Other than that it is no body’s business.
Yes it does, he is a disgrace! All the respectable automotive groups will break away in protest and unfortunately the FIA is now represented as a complete sham! I hope it doesnt affect the F1 but I expect ramifications from governments and monarchys in the citys and surely Bernie Ecclestone has to do everything in his power to get rid of this man! Max Mosley should be sacked immediately. What a bad example this man is!
Yes, a person’s sex life does affect the ability to perform their job in an acceptable manner, especially when they work for an entity that is owned by several persons. Sex life is open to control of the emotions. Men have been known to throw kingdoms away just so they’ll satisfy their love/sex/lust lives, a la Mark Anthony, Julius Ceasar, Samson & Delilah need I continue? Also, colleagues and people who work with a person require a level of reassurance that decisions will be taken fairly and rationally, not influenced by sex desires and passions.
@ Jonathan Rasmussen,
Absolutely love your posts! They are both biting and funny! This issue, in a way, is really the moral crusaders day out! Once the subject of sex is mentioned along with issues related to questions of public tastes and privacy, then, the alarm bells go off! In this case, the mention of the unfortunate word “nazi-style” has perhaps prejudiced people right from the start, as it conjures up unpleasant reminders of holocaust-like activities for a particular group of people.
This is unfortunate as it clearly speaks to the extent to which the media often paint unbalanced pictures about certain realities and in the process prejudiced the public’s view of certain public figures. This is not to say that the facts are to be suppressed or altered in the interests of sparring the reputations of those deserving of this type of scrutiny.
However, perhaps someone might explain for my benefit “nazi-style” sex and what it actually means, in the larger context of Max Moseley’s escapades? Is that the same as saying that he was re-enacting a hatred for the Jews? Or that he even hates Jews? That is certainly a very far stretch, as far as I am concerned. Are we not just getting a little carried away, now?
There is no simple answer to this question. It can be yes and also no. In this case, its not so much the orgy with prostitutes but the alleged Nazi theme that concerns me. Its not so much a moral issue but to do with the guy’s politics and views and as head of an international sporting body.
Yes. Max Mosley’s behaviour is not as he claims, ‘private’. Not when you are the head of such an important international sporting body. Not everyone shares his appetite for weird sex. His own family history being what it is only adds angst to this sorry episode. He has not uttered one word of regret over any damage he has caused to my beloved sport. Rather all that he has said is totally self serving. FIA members are gutless! Shame on them! All discussion seems to surround sponsors. Well I’m a fan of long standing. Does anyone care about us? No fans no sport! Take your whip and begone Mosley this is NOT about you.
I have been an avid follower of Formula One and its politics since the late 90’s. I find it amazing that Mr Mosley can remain in his posistion after the actions he took. I recall the Jaguar test driver Tomas Scheckter was sacked for soliciting prostitution with just one prostitute. It just goes to show the double standards present in one of the most bureaucratic sports in the world. Mr Mosley should be charged with bringing the sport into disrepute if he does not stand down.
An individual should be judged on their ability to do the job, not on their sexual tastes. What someone does in private is up to them, so long as it is consensual and does not involve children and animals. After all some of the worlds most powerful individuals both past and present would not pass the “News of the World” morality test.
In my many many years, the only people as a group I’ve seen adversely affected in their jobs by their sex lives is those whose jobs consist of denouncing other people’s sex lives. They always seem to fall headfirst into it.
Not necessarily. But this is not a problem with ‘sex life’ alone. There are a political and a sexual attitude that are unacceptable and illegal in many countries. For instance, prostitution is forbidden in Sweden, and men looking for prostitutes are felons.
What Max does in his personal life is no one`s business but his.I dont think this controversy has done as much damage to F1 as the spygate controversy last year. That was a bigger shame than what Max has done.Media has amplified and made it look much worse than it actually is.Max has not done anything bad for F1.We should judge his work and not his personality.
It does not affect their ability to do their job yet sexual practices that do not go down too well with the general public and decision makers will most certainly impact someone’s ability to perform their job properly (like in this particular case).
Additionally, the media’s overwhelming facination with the sex lives of public officials is so absolutely mind boggling it leaves us to wonder what is their agenda. The blatant character sabotage/ political assassination of those in public life by the media, generally, is a real issue that must be considered here. What do we gain by knowing these “private” details about peoples’ sexual lives/ histories as per the incident above? How is this edifying the same youth that so many seem so bent on protecting?
I often wonder about these skewed morals where we teach the public it is okay to “out” someone and violate their personal lives, notwithstanding the damage and hurt caused by the pursuit of such “stories”. As far as I am concerned, this overly zealous and morally crusading members of the Fourth Estate who enrich themselves on the backs/ names of other people is just downright unacceptable and immoral!
The desecration of peoples’ good names – such as they are, for simple sake of it cannot be a value to be championed as being in the public’s interests let alone one for which the media are to praised. I am not referring so much to the case above, or for that matter, reputable journalists and news media. However, it needs be said that this prurient desire to know about otherwise private matters is a little distateful, to say the least. As to whether this is the same as smoking that matter has been effectively addressed above! The connections with automobiles is similarly questionable, I would add.
Will ~ I agree!
“When ‘in private’ should means as a private individual who is consenting and above that age (Consent). Other than that it is no body’s business.”
I imagine most people arguing the point that a sex life is a private matter mean it just as that. Unfortunately it keeps being taken out of that context (such as abuse, molestation, moral obligations, laws against acts having nothing to do with sex etc.).
The question posed should not be about his sex life. More about his morals. And his morals will quite clearly affect the way he performs his job.
I have heard the sex tapes and to say there is no nazi connotation is laughable.
On a persoanl note, he has probably got the ugliest, most un-trustworthy face I have seen.
If the FIA does split, does he want to be remembered as the guy that split motoring in two because he couldn’t keep his zipper up?
There’s a lot of humbug and hypocrisy going on here. There has been rumblings of discontent with FIA for several years and no doubt “the big boys” see Mosley’s sexual indiscretion as their chance to clean house. However in what was presumably a “democratic” vote it can hardly be said that Max, with 61% support, is emulating R Mugabe. On the specific question of a person’s sex life affecting their ability to do the job I think that,in general, it certainly does not otherwise great swathes of the working population must be operating below par. The question is too general, presumably it is really referring to”abnormal/deviant” sexual behaviour whatever these are? To even to try to define such or the converse, normal sex life would be straying into the minefield of discrimination/slander/libel etc. Maybe the BBC question is worded to be PC!
In this case, not so much sex life as name. Max Mosley has had to face up to questions throughout his life such “Wasn’t your father leader of the British Union of Fascists?” and “Didn’t P G Wodehouse lampoon your father as Sir Roderick Spode?”. I have no idea on how well Mr Mosley did his job but it’s fair to say that motor racing is an exquisitely fascist method of expression.
A person’s sex life doesn’t affect ability to do a job, in my opinion. However, knowledge of another person’s sex life can affect how others perceive that person, as is apparently the case with Mr. Mosley. And that is the problem. While Mosley is no less qualified for the job of FIA president because of his sex life, he is now perceived in a way that makes it impossible for some people to deal with him. That is an unacceptable position for the head of an important organization like the FIA to be in.
I think that personal is personal and private is private, and nothing is more private than a persons sex life. If there is nothing illegal going on, it’s no one’s business.
I think the FIA is archaic and needs to be broken up and Max is just the guy to turn the screw, excuse the pun. He should have stepped down from the start. This hanging on really tells just how out of touch he is with morals, the status of his position and its responsibilities. Here is an ego inflated beyond all those ego maniacs who surround him.
Hocus-pocus … typical conjuring formua 1. Sex and glamour… there is just never enough, no matter what you’re dressed in. Max has earned his place and has esteemed pedigree and some… more than can be said for the choir of mealy-mouthed… Such Missionary Zeal indeed. Have a read of your own CVs as bed-time reading even if you are not up for it!
I think the outrage against the verdict giving Mosley a vote of confidence is absolutetely unjustified.
As far as I am concerned, what ever a person decides to do with his or her sex life is absolutely that person’s concern and nobody else’s.
Some of those calling for the head of Moseley are mere hypocrites who would do worse than him, given half the chance!
To some extent in general, but very strongly in this case. An important duty of the FIA President it to chair numerous meetings. Mr. Mosley will not be alle to do it efficiently when his ability to sit on a chair is strongly impaired.
Well it shouldn’t affect at all, but I think just as long as a persons sex life just remains in private. When you’re a public person you should take a little bit more care about what, how and where you leave your sex life out.
Just like the surgeon separating the cutting from the rest of his life, I do not see any connection between hiring prostitutes and having children that you don’t pay for or support. I don’t see why a person could not hire prostitutes and then be very moral in many other ways. Besides the fact that he cheated on his wife, there is nothing wrong with what he did. There are many people who do not wish to do such and such in a the bed room, but others do. There is nothing immoral about wanting your girl friend to dress up like the Queen of England if that is what makes you happy.
@Dwight in Cleveland,
There is a difference between what consenting adults do and what harms a person who has no legal rights, like a child, or acts that harm the larger society, like robbery. Sex is a very personal matter with many facets attached to it. What one person may find disgusting, another may find it completely acceptable and normal. The person in question may have done soemthing that society deems disgusting, but it harmed no one.
Whilst Mr Mosley has transgressed against a vertical and higher moral Judge, it is also for us who are particapating privately and as buisness operators of this sport to uphold horizontal values.
I believe we here in NZ should send forward our position to the FIA on this matter. It may seem to many here in NZ and elsewhere that our private lives are just that, however in truth all things we do are not hidden from a righteous Judge who sees and knows all. I thankyou for allowing me to voice this concern in regard to our sport. If we show the public we are a moral and transparent body with truth acting as our guide, then sponsors and the public in general will applaud us. We look to you Ros as our voice and spokesperson here in NZ. I do hope we can rise above the slums of those less caring people in this sport.
A public company is like a public person – it has personality, it can be good or evil (I guess people have tendency to anthropomorphize). And the leader of the organisation is like a representative of the company. By this view, if president does something amoral, so does the company. So the organisation has all the rights to change its face by changing the president (or do nothing). Public persons have as much privacy as common persons, it is just that more public person is, the greater impact of scandal has.
In my opinion the one who should be subjected to judgement here is not Max Mosley but the person or people who spied on him, and that judgement should be before a court of law.
Yes, absolutely – and by the way, this specific case wasnt about his sex life but about his lack of morals in a public office. He is a married man and use woman as animals. Ultimately, he is an old perv and i think that he should actually get a big fine for making F1 be o the news for the wrong reasons!
Today is a sad day for F1. Max Mosley has tarnished the image of F1. I have been a fan for years but I will no longer watch in protest. Hopefully he will do the decent thing and resign for the sake of the sport.
Of course Max Mosley’s sex life has nothing to do with his position, especially as his is an unpaid job, but the British press love to jump on non-stories like this to sell newspapers. Many countries are very sensitive about the Nazis, especially considering who his father is, so all they had to do was link the two and wham, a big jump in newspaper sales. It will be very interesting to see the outcome of any libel action, but whether true or not the damage is already done, and I guess the paper concerned are feeling very smug about it.
Why should it? If members of government and politicians can carry on like they do here and even be given votes of confidence to carry on…..
Maybe he should have shown more discretion…
Please allow me to rephrase the question: Does a reproachable public person qualify to hold pubblic office?
@ EC
I haven’t exactly read the story, but how did he use women as “animals”?? Were these women not willingly doing this? You make it seem like they are innocent little victims in this, rather than willing participants who were likely making substantial money from it. They were willingly participants, even even if they were being used as “animals” whatever that means, aren’t they to blame for agreeing? Or do you think women are incapable of making adult decisions and should be viewed as little children, and that they’re always victims somehow, and not consenting adults?
On the grand scale of human failings and crimes, ranging from rape to child abuse to murder to genocide, it is really difficult to get worked up over Moseleys antics. Yes, they are disgusting and offend morality. But let’s conserve our indignation for real crimes against society , of which we have a regretably wide choice.
How many motor racing fans use prostitutes? This is total hypocrisy!
Something that no-one has mentioned is that Moseley surely broke the law by using prostitutes, and that is why he should resign. If he simply had an affair, (for example) that wouldn’t have illegal, and it would be his private business. So if a public figure breaks the law in a serious way, they should be reuired to resign.
One minor correction first off, Max Mosely is the president of FIA, F1 just being their crown jewel. As such Mosely is the ambassador of almost all international motor racing. Whether or not the scandal affects his personal ability to do his job in this case is entirely irrelevant, but what others think of him is hugely relevant. He has not been able to attend a single F1 race since the scandal broke because no one wants to be involved with him, especially not the heads of states that are involved in the preparation of these events. That is the major impediment to his ability to function in his job. While this could blow over eventually, it might not, and in that case the FIA is in a very bad state with him as their leader.
I am a retired police officer in Portland, Oregon, USA. Our constitution legislates moral laws generally for all equally. However, certain public jobs rely on successful relationships and the confidence of the public to be effective. If, in the case of a public sector job, such as Max Mosely’s, the public’s confidence and willingness to be a partner suffers due to the public figure’s conduct (or even perceived conduct) than it is probably important for that person to step down. In his case, it doesn’t seem to be the case.
I am listening to your program on Mosely and I have a question. Why does the press have a right to report an irrelevant personal matter that can ruin a person’s life.
Get rid of Max Mosley! You just ran a program saying that one of every 3 women is abused, what does his action say?
As long as his private life remained private that’s fine, but as soon as his private life is thrust into the public eye then it becomes a major issue – an issue that should be taken account of.
Someone’s private life should not be another man’s business. Don’t contradict morality with reality.
The word “consenting” has a legal definition that is always in dispute because it is a grey ideology.
Many of these girls may not have had sex with their 60 yr old husbands until they were 18. if you spent 18 years in a polygamist sect do you really have the capacity to give consent. If these children been raised in any sort of normal American household they would have thought these acts repulsive. So as long as they can raise children that are taught from day one that it is mandatory by God’s will that they marry these dysfunctional old men then it is completely fine.
So a mentally handicapped person that is over 18 can consent to sex? what happens at that very second between 17yrs 23hrs and 59 seconds and the moment we become 18 yrs old. For that fact why at 18 can we have the weight of the world of responsibility on our shoulders, but can’t make a judgment on wither we drink alcohol or not.
A woman that has been continuously beat by her husband will often consent to sex when he comes home drunk. That is not rape then.
Again, I believe in this case it is their own business. But the women who grew up their entire lives in a mentally repressive state of something like the sect in Texas have never had the chance to mentally developed. They did not get the rights guaranteed them by our constitution.
I have a question for you guys – Is the question of marriage fidelity a requirement holding public office?
How do you feel about public officials, especially men, who break their marriage vows; that is, when they are discovered to have done so?
Should they be allowed to keep their jobs, or is that entirely a question directed to the wives who are also placed under intense public scrutiny by these actions? Here, I think of Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton and others.
As far as utilising the services of a prostitute goes, I am going to have to say there are graver sins/ crimes in the world.
@ Agostinho,
While I generally don’t think “outing” is newsworthy, therefore I don’t advocate it—is “outing” the problem, or the fact that it is such shocking news and it can be “outed” in the first place the crux of the issue? Perhaps the prudish reactionary tradition is the problem? Not the outing itself.
Dwight,
All of the situations you describe are protected by the court system, like the children or the mentally ill. Someone else will have to speak for them. However, some of the situations you describe, like the victim of domestic violence, need the victim to come forward to prosecute. If the victim does not press charges, then there can be no justice. As unfair as that may seem, that is the way it is. In all of those scenarios you described there was an injustice committed and there are ways to protect those harmed. When you have or more consenting adults, people who were not coerced in any way, it is not a matter of society to pass judgement and seek equity. By the way I was a witness for the state in a criminal trial that involved a very personal along the argument that you put forward. I had to step forward and press charges, or there would not have been justice.
@ Dwight,
I am having a problem with what you have said above regarding the issue of “consent” vis-a-vis adulthoood and sex. Why is it that when we get into the terrain of difference, consent can come to mean something other than what we generally take it to mean, or for that matter what consent actually means as per valid and widely accepted definitions? Someone who is considered an adult, in most societies that is 18 years and over, can legally give consent to sex or whatever else, drinking issues aside.
I think that we often confuse our own personal horrors with the cultures of some minority groups when we proceed to act like consent somehow takes on new meanings when applied in contexts outside of those with which we are familiar. Indeed, whether the old men are dysfunctional, as you say or whether the men are all really 60 is not really the point. The question surrounds a matter of choice. I would add that, under such circumstances, the real issue is whether we are empowered enough to make choices that can have the types of consequences that sex brings with it.
In fact, you are right that “consenting” to sex in the face of abuse might well only be an effort to stave off further and more severe types of violent attacks. However, that does not change the issue as to whether or not one can in fact consent to certain actions, under a range of considerations, as long as one is of legal age to do so – mental impairment aside. Notwithstanding your obvious moral judgement of the FLDS community members, there is still very much a way in which people actually choose to live life in these types of communities as perfectly legitimate options and can, therefore, give real consent to who they will have sex with. It does not follow that they are all dysfunctional, or mentally handicapped, or that they are all being raped, as suggested by your post above.
Of course, issues of child rape and prostitution, among a rang of other outrageous abuses has no place in that discussion.
@ Agostinho — Hey, thanks very much! I pretty much suspect–knowing absolutely nothing of the specifics–that the “Nazi” aspect has/had less to do with anti-Semitism than with the theatre of dominance and submission, ad absurdum, so to say. As “slave auctions” are d/s theatre and not a statement of approval of the actual practice of commercial chattel slavery 150 years ago.
(And you have to admit, those uniforms were FABULOUS.)
@ Jonathan,
LOL! LOL!
Agostinho & Jonathan Rasmussen
I love your posts. You make well-written arguments.
Marriage fidelity shouldn’t be a requirement for someone in a public office. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a consideration some people would take into account when voting for an individual.
If someone is running around campaigning moral obligations etc and it turns out they were not living by those rules then by all means they should be targeted for their hypocrisy. If I remember correctly Elliot Spitzer was running around on a moral high ground and those beliefs were a part of his politics. In that case he should be scruitnized for his misrepresentation. It goes with the old saying “People living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
My personal opinion is that my SEX LIFE is my own business.
Dennis
Onondaga Community College
Syracuse, New York
@ Scott,
You may well be right. However, I make the distinction between being “outed” and the prudish reactionary traditions, as you noted above, by way of making the point that the very question of the tearing away of the veils of “privacy”, especially in a context where there can be much harm created as a result of it, is a dastardly act on which some members of the media thrive.
In fact, as I understand your question there is very much a problem with a culture which seeks to place such premiums on people being “outed” in these ways. I rather suspect, though, that that is almost always going to be the case – anything which contravenes the values considered normative will get a “shocked” and “outraged” response, notwithstanding that the retrieval of said information is, itself, “shocking” and “outrageous”.
What qualifies those who pass judgement under such circumstances to make their positions known in these often public and very sanctimonious manner as has happened in several instances throughout this discussion? It is a convenient piece of hyprocrisy that we get to sit in judgement of peoples’ private lives – such as they are, in these ways when, in many of the circumstances, the information is “ferreted” out via fairly unscrupulous means.
As far as I am concerned, this is character assasination – plain and simple. I am, actually, shocked that we seem to feel that is an allowable “sin” over and above the question of destroying someone else’s life, however questionable, for our own selfish purposes.
@ Vanessa
“Marriage fidelity shouldn’t be a requirement for someone in a public office. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a consideration some people would take into account when voting for an individual. ”
I think it should be a requirement, and the opposite, that being unmarried shouldn’t be held against a candidate either. If you cheat on your spouse, the person who you’ve chosen to spend the rest of your life with, don’t you think you would also “cheat” the electorate who you probably don’t even know? If your spouse cannot trust you, why should hte voters? I think infidelity is a very important issue that the voters have a right to know about. If you don’t like this, politicians, either don’t get married or don’t run for office. But if they do, then their lives should be open books, we’re putting our trust in them, so we have a right to know if they are trustworthy.
@ Venessa,
You are very kind. Many thanks!
I am agreed with you as well about the glass house matter. I just wonder though why these wives are expected/ required to stand up with these men at press conferences and live through the public humiliation and intense scrutiny of their husbands infidelities – holding hands to boot! The case of Jim McGreavy (hope that is the spelling!) is completely mind boggling as well.
As I recall, the wife stood there while her husband professed (basically) to being gay. What is the deal with that? Being gay is obviously not a bad thing, but come on! Where do we draw the line? What happens, God forbid, if news comes that one of these public officials is a child molester and we actually have proof this time? Will the wife be required/ expected to stand and support her husband at a similar such press conference under the glare of all the disapproving and outraged eyes? (God! The gratification of the male ego in these instances is just a little too much for my liking, I must confess!)
@Agostinho
The Mccgreevy thing: Mcgreevy and his boyfriend or whatever allege the ex wife was in on it. He needed to be married, for political reasons, and she wanted to be bought many things. It is even alleged she would participate in three ways with him. There have been many marriages of convenience in the past. Rock Hudson got married, his wife knew he was gay, but needed to appear to be straight for his career. I have no doubt Mrs. Mcgreevy was in on it too. If she weren’t, why is she trying to get media attention? Why is she writing a book if it’s so painful, why does she care if she makes money on the book? I’d bet every penny I have that she knew he was gay, that the allegations are true, and it all fell apart on her. Her dream of being the first lady of a state, the dream life (even if it were a lie) was ruined.
@ Steve,
The conflation of marriage fidelity with “someone you know”, as you claim, with defrauding the public as an elected official is really not the same thing, I must confess. Indeed, they are very different and may, in many instances, have no bearing on each other though there are instances of overlap. People get married for all kinds of reasons. Some of which sometimes have nothing to do with love and trust and all these noble virtues that we all would like to aspire, generally. I don’t know, though, if that is the same as saying that unfaithfulness in marriage equates to unfaithfulness in business or political/ public relations.
However, I hear the concern about trust. I just wonder about those who claim any sense of a violated trust on the premise of stories which themselves are, often, filtered into the public domain via questionable means. People formulate these responses, generally, though not always, on the premise of “stories” which sometimes involved violating the privacy of some public servants. How do we account for that under such circumstances? I am curious. Are public servants not entitled to their privacy, notwithstanding whether that privacy involves “cheating”? Just a question.
@ Agosthinho
“People get married for all kinds of reasons. Some of which sometimes have nothing to do with love and trust and all these noble virtues that we all would like to aspire, generally. I don’t know, though, if that is the same as saying that unfaithfulness in marriage equates to unfaithfulness in business or political/ public relations. ”
Even in your scenarios, their decisions in life, such as marriage for the wrong reason, shows poor judgment making abilities. Do you want someone who makes poor decisions to have political power? I don’t. Hence why it’s incredibly relevant.
An example is Nicolas Sarkozy. I lost a lot of respect for him when he married Carla Bruni. She’s the one who says manogamy is boring, yet gets married. And she’s the type that as soon as he loses power, she’ll divorce him. It shows poor decisionmaking on his part.
I think this is his private business because he and 6 adults who were participating and functional members of society on the outside were conducting, for all intents and purpose, business transactions. However, there are so many things you can’t do in privacy that do not have an effect on the outside world.
What if he wanted to conduct dog fights? What if he found a child form overseas poor family that was 18 and bought her from her parents? I could sit here endlessly and think of things “done in privacy” that we would never condone.
My point is that this is a bad argument.
I agree that Max Mosley should be able to party with 5 hookers (God bless him. he really won ‘the race’.) I also think that a guy should be able to open a bar where people who want to smoke and people who want to make money off people who smoke can come and participate in society. I even go one further and say that one should be able to ride a motorcycle in full public view with out a helmet if it is only his head on the line. Yet these are all activities regulated by laws. Many of these laws stem from arguments that are not logical or encompass enough depth of thought.
What the difference between consenting sex and taking advantage of a mildly handicapped person is the question that needs answered. Both can be done in private, so that can not be the litmus that we judge situations by.
@ Steve
And based on the candidates sexual morals you do or do not vote for them. That is a consideration for you to make when you choose a candidate. Cheating on a spouse sexually does not automatically equate to your overall behavior.
Of course I have concerns over someone running around denouncing prostitution who then gets caught with a bunch of them; but that isn’t the point I was making. I don’t need to know what someone does in their sex life.
@ Aghistino
It is crazy these women still stand by their men in such humiliating circumstances. I applaude the first woman who doesn’t!
@ Vanessa
“Cheating on a spouse sexually does not automatically equate to your overall behavior. ”
Yes it does, it means you are untrustworthy. If you’ll betray your spouse you’ll betray people you’ve never met. Remember, trust and respect are earned, not given. These people have lost trust and respect by being cheaters. You really think someone who will cheat on their spouse is a trustworthy person who should be given political power? Look how sick people like Bill Clinton are. Did you hear him speak today? He only cares about himself, not a tear for his nearly as narcissistic wife. These people are sick. When they do something bad, they really should get punished by the people, so we can get rid of these sickos.
@ Agostinho,
Yes, I agree. This “character assassination” is allowed because some are indeed shocked. And for many this shock makes the conduct noteworthy or newsworthy. Until the provincial moral shocking ebbs I think the assassinations will continue. It’s what (most of) the people want! Our marketeers have been great at finding the “want” but terrible at finding out what the people genuinely “need.”
@ Steve,
I am not sure I know enough about the late governor and his wife that way to be able to say with any real certainty that she was in on his sexual escapades and that she was complicit to the extent that she saw a direct benefit by choosing to participate – the title of First Lady of the state.
What I do know, however, and will agree with you is that people get married for all sorts of reasons and that arranged and political marriages are almost always to be expected when the question of power is being brokered.
That said, I would venture that whether Mrs. MccGreevy was knowingly participated in their sham of a marriage, as it ultimately turned out to be, she appears to be capitalising on an opportunity, albeit economic. I cannot say I blame her. Tell your side of the story and get paid while you do it. Sounds like a good deal for one who had to stare down the glare of the media while her husband professed to being gay to the whole world and more or less hint at the not-so-pleasant details of his “private” life. Regardless of whether she knew about it that had to be unmfortable to go through that type of scrunity.
I just wonder about these political wives! Seems like theirs is the hardest job of all when things like these happen.
Scott Millar,
Sex sells. If you need any proof look at the number of comments left in this forum. 204, plus mine. That’s quite a few.
@ Agostinho
I have a lot more respect for the prostitutes involved in this story than I do for political spouses. Anyone knowingly getting involved with a politicians is pretty suspicious to me. If the allegations about Mrs. Mcgreevy are true, she deserves no sympathy because she knew it wasn’t real, and had the easy life, being provided a large house at taxpayer expense, benefitting from whatever political corruption, and obviously not having much sex with her husband. There are some people that sleep on streets. I feel bad for them. Not someone living a life of luxury that didn’t turn out to be a fairy tale.
Private lives and public morals have always an inherent tension.Societies develop codes of behavior by consensus and encourage those who accept the goal of a common good and reject those who chose to ignore it .The West has become more secular and liberal, broading options but the majority makes judgements on accepted norms,allowing liberty but not license.Corrupting the public morals has been a testy subject going back to poor Socrates whose teaching were deemed destructive to good order.Thomas Merton wrote “Freedom is the liberty to constrain one’s own behavior”A responsible person’s conduct must balance private want and public obligations
@ Agostinho on your question of fidelity,
+ Marriage fidelity should never be a requirement for holding office unless we intend on making all forms of fidelity a requirement. Many of us, perhaps all, repeatedly engage in forms of giving in to urges, breaking our promised fidelities in situations as simple as being unable to resist eating bowls of ice-cream and other fattening foods. These seemingly minor forms of fidelity or promise breaking perhaps don’t say anymore about a persons abilities or character then ones we deem larger.
+ Additionally, we can’t even establish whether monogamy makes any sense or doesn’t go against our human nature—considering this how can we make marriage fidelity a requirement or even a consideration to holding office.
@ Steve,
As for bad judgement I would not be to quick to put too fine a point on whether poor marriage choices or marriage fidelity, necessarilly, equates to poor political choices. I think that only matters where there is sufficient evidence to suggest that one is ruled by one’s libido and that to the extent that that is so then poor judgements are the consequence. Indeed, I do believe it entirely possible that people who are poor at relationships and keeping a mate can actually be excellent at other things. I rather supect, even, that the business of sex/ uality and marriage are all skills that must be worked at in some real way.
The notion an inherrently good husband, or even a devoted and monogamous partner are characteristics, which are learned over time. Life throws all sorts of things at people. You never know what their situations are which force them to act in the ways they do. I think that we are a tad too judgementtal in terms of how we treat with public officials, almost as if they are superhumans. That only serves to place them under more pressure. So, no I am not sure that to be a good leader one also needs to be a good husband, necessarilly.
While, the two are related in some way there are important distinctions which are to be understood in context. The problem, of course,is where we the media step in and enlarge everything in such a way as to create these skewed impressions of real life. In the case of Carla Bruni and Sarkozy, I think most French people are of the view that he is too caught up with his private life which he conducts in full view of the public. To the extent that that is so, it begs the question of whether there is not a need for the public sense of moral prudishness which governs certain cultural contexts, in this case France’s, does not need lightening up?
I am not judging just asking, is there not room for a President or head of state to enjoy the company of his partner, publicly? Just curious. And, if there isn’t how do we treat with the fact that not evryone comes to the office of leadership with the same sets of realities – the wife and kids and the two point two kids and the First Dog? Where is there room for a dating and, by all appearances, a sexually active (virile?) president or head of state?
Steve,
You mean to tell me in all your life you have never lied or done something wrong against another person? I can admit I have done some things in the past that I am not proud of but I certainly don’t think that it is a demonstration of my overall character.
I definately agree that Bill Clinton only cares about himself, but when I choose a candidate it is almost certainly the lesser of two evils. Generally I look at what they have actually accomplished rather than who is sleeping in their bed. Like I said earlier if they are preaching some moral high road then by all means their trustworthyness should be questioned.
Unfortunately everyone doesn’t marry for the same reasons and what you deem poor judgement is not necessarily the view of the person doing it. Your ideas about what marriage is may not be shared by someone else.
The fact that prostitution is still illegal is truly ridiculous and so it will remain, a darkly tinged occupation, as long as we keep this invaluable service to society in the closet. It is the Nazi part of this whole thing that should disturb much more than the solicitation of sex, (still considered the oldest occupation), and Mosleys’ character should come into question when he is lauding the trappings of the Nazis, I remember a certain british prince in the not so distant past………. . Why is it suprising that someone who continues to profit from the truly superfluous sport of motor racing (cars driving around in circles wasting fuel and perpetuating global warming), a person in denial about the overall state of the world, would not entertain some deviance. Though I am not insinuating that everyone in motor racing is a Nazi, just to be clear……..
That said, why is it such a concern, aren’t there are far bigger fish to fry. Any public or private position where the individual is highly visible must be able to endure a certain amount public scrutiny, regardless of the publics right to know or not. We make our beds before we sleep in them, usually………..take care, Archy
@ Scott Millar and Julie P,
Forgive the late response.
It is a sad fact that we have been fed a constant diet of our “wants” by the media, especially as far as sex is concerned. I am always appalled by the sordid details about peoples’ lives that we are told we need and even more “shocked” that when the media pull these stunts they are affronted by criticisms about good taste. This convenient “right” to “out” people on the premise that it is newsworthy is unacceptable, I think.
I long for the day when, as you say we will be fed a diet of what we need. But that might yet prove to be too great an expectation let alone a responsibility. As far as I am concerned, the war on family values which is waged in some sections of media is really a means of indulging the narrow self interests of a select few who are actually enriched by these actions.
It is a sad but true reality – the salacious details of our personal lives, however boring, seem always to be fodder for “news”. I hope that we will engage in as all out a deconstruction of real issues when those arise as well. As Julie P noted we have passed the magic number – 200 posts! What a day well spent – talking about the pros and cons of other peoples’ sex lives…It appears we are complicit in the continuation of this state of affairs, sadly.
Agostinho,
First, I do not think that the BBC would put up a forum for us to talk about sex lives, so this will have to do as a substitute. I would like to point out that this is not a modern day phenomenon. When our Founding Fathers first starting running for office there was all kinds of salacious commentary about their sex lives. In fact, there was speculation about our first president’s having sex with his mother. I think it is human nature to be interested in the private goings on of our politicians, and the rich and famous. There is something about them that makes them other worldly, and more interesting than our own lives.
@ Julie P — You say you “don’t think BBC would put up a forum for us to talk about sex.”
Even if we asked very politely?
@ Julie P
+ I think it would be hard to argue that it is solely “human nature to be interested in the private goings on of our politicians.” This wasn’t just about privates lives—it is about sex. We could perhaps be excessively interested in sex because of our sexual repression, rather then some kind of human nature. It is likely human nature to be interested in sex in general, but also likely our interest is heightened due to repression and lack of open discussion—which makes sex taboo. Taboo makes news!
Jonathan,
You can ask nicely, but I think your energy would be better spent pursuing other things.
Scott Millar,
I disagree. The lives out politicians, and the rich & famous are under scrutiny from money, to education, to when they get up. They lead, they inspire, they anger, they have larger than life lives who operate at 30K ft. It is human nature to look to those who lives impact our ours, directly of indirectly.
It matters only what those you serve think. If you need to have stature to stand before the king of Bahrain. King of Spain, Prince of Monaco, auto manufacturers, certain big sponsors etc. then the answer is that you must stand down if things come to light.
Rightly or wrongly the genie is out of the bottle so Max must go.
If you can’t perform your duties because you are a laughing stock, then you can no longer continue.
The argument that prostitution is illegal but only the one providing the service is breaking the law is ridiculous. Murder is illegal and the person who pays someone else to do the murder is equally guilty of murder.
Does your private sex life have any bearing on your public life?
I don’t care what your sex life is about, ages and sexes.. I just hope everyone enjoys their self and there is no harm to anyone. Fantasy what ever play, that’s none of your or my business.
Myself I think it is wrong to pry into anyones bedroom and hope that people respect a persons privacy. It’s not mature to me and believe it is criminal for such exploits to be trashed by such hypocrisy.
It is said the greater the intellect the more the need there is for play. Maybe that is missing in too many lives and the wishes and urges being, is suppressed by a person or persons lack of courage, personal confidence and self resources. So since they don’t achieve their joy then they make taboos to justify their self lack of substance.
I think that observation of morality and ethical standards in one’s public life is very important, particularly for those holding high ranking positions. People who commit such kinds of immoral acts will have to step down afterwards since their occurs lack of confidence towards his integrity and honesty and therefore would cause chaoes in effective administration of the concerned enterprise, which eventualy would be a failure!
Thus, our private and public lives are somehow interwined considering that every individual has the right to keep his/her own private life secret.
Eventually, we should promote the culture of honestly, integrity and morality in our societies!
@Steve.
Ok but what is Private, as far as i can see reading the very interesting points, something is always Private until it becomes Public. If due to a crime being committed then you are right. If however a private situation has become public due to Paparazzi and the like, then it is a different matter, as the private sphere has been compromised, often illegally. If at the same time a crime had been committed, then punishment must follow, however what happens if the information had been obtained illegally.
@ Lubna.
Please explain what Sadomasochism has to do with nazis, as it is a practice carried out by all sexual inclinations, including Homosexuals, it was probably forbidden in that very bad period in German History.
John in Germany
I think this sex scandal of Max Moseley has been over publicized. According to my view he is the patron of the FIA. He might have done similar activities before under cover,we never know, but its certain that it didn’t affect his work. The people who are criticizing him,according to my view, in order to prove that there is still some moral obligation to such a scandal. I think that one’s personal life should remain personal, especially of such responsible person until it shadows his work. If we look oversensetively in this issue the prospect of his new idea about his work will be dampen. The idea that he could bring will not be implemented and that will be a big loss not to him only but FIA on a whole.
Sandika in NEPAL
Absolutely not. One’s private sex life has no bearing in his/her pulic life.One’s private life should be left to his/her prespective of his own life i.e how he want his life to be, what does he expect his life to be, how he want to live his life.In context of Max Mosely, another thing is that in context of the prostitution being legal his so called immoral behaviour is perfect in the legal term. IF he wants his private sex life to be that way than we should not have any obligation until it affects his life as a person in such a responsible post. Being oversensetive in this issue in turn may affect his work. If he gets full pleasure from that kind of activities its fine. Now he has gained vote of confidence shows his impact and his requirement as the head of FIA. He played a major part in defining the safety in such dangerous sport and he might have more ideas in his sleeve and that is for the world to grab. We mustn’t let that opportunity to pass by. Another thing is that if we don’t talk about his sex life with his wife we should not talk about his alternative sex life. We must tackle this issue looking through his own eye. We must consider the fact that he may not have satisfying sex life and that forced him to act in such way.
So accrding to my view the private sex life must be left as the wish of the doer. We must not have any objection in the way he tackles his own sex life.
Hi, I have just been listening to the programme on sex life and am wondering if, particularly in the case of Germany, some of the countries/people did not refuse to work with Mr Moseley due to the Nazi allegations. As a German myself I am well aware of the sensitivity of the issue and there is no way the German government could possibly been seen to work with anybody who has Nazi sympathies.
I like how a topic on sex draws in more responses than humanitarian disasters. Very revealing that.
To answer the question, it depends on the job. A public figure who is supposed to represent responsibility and authority, yes – i.e. Clinton, and as head of F1 – Mosley. An F1 driver? No.
dear oh dear, the guy has an ory and gets off by being spanked by prostitues dressed in german uniforms. well not my cup of tea but all this is, is a storm in a tea cup. if that is the only way he get’s it on AND off i do feel sorry for him, even worse now that the whole world knows about it. this has nothing to do with nazi sympathy, but every thing with a very warped idea of sex.
i personally would have selected 5 hillary look-a-likes, now that would be real punishment….
Now that I think of it, though most people say what you do consentually in private shouldn’t have a bearing on your public life, even for public officials, I can think of some examples where I think people have a right to know if you’re an absolute freak. I don’t know if I should write them down, but there are some bad, bad things out there, and if I knew you were doing that, I wouldn’t vote for you.
@ steve,
yes there are absolutly bounderies whithin acceptable and unacceptable lies. but max having five hookers dressed in nazi uniforms spank him is on the stuipd perverse side and he should know better. it certainly is HIS problem, as long as they do not march him by a leach through the F1 paddock.
the borders are clearly drawn when criminal activites become part of it. conscenting adults living out bizzar fantasies without harming anyone is a totaly different thing…..
@ Jens
I don’t know Jens. If assuming the people in question were public officials, I can think of some legal, bizarre fantasies that might not harm people that I would still never vote for that person if I knew. Examples would be rape fantasies and scat play. Either of those, and you are just mentally, not all with it, and I wouldn’t vote for you and I think the electorate has a right to know a candidate’s mental problems.
ok,
i was not thinking along “scheisse-movies” or stagged rape fantasies. these actions may or may not indicate some mental instabilities. however, there are plenty other mentally instable people running for political positions as well, you or I would never guess. where do we dram the line is somebody who plays with number 2 mentaly less stable or able to take office, than somebody, who takes phsycopharmaca to be sedated and act normal? anyway, i obviously would prefere an non-sexual deviant to be in a public role, rather than a kinkmeister.
what would be the next step in elections, a questionaire to be answered wearing penis, clitoris and brain electrodes while being asked their fantasies?
Reported on Beeb, Over 12.000.000 strikes on a site with child porno, that has no private sphere. Australia has fixed 70, and more to come.
That is one of the ugly things that should have no hiding place to go from the law, where ever, and who ever you are.
John in Germany
I am not interested in the animal instincts of politicians etc etc only what they believe in.
Sexual freedom is a right until and unless it tolls to social evil to the extent to be termed as a crime.
@Steve
What is scat play?
From the amount of porn online and on TV, are there any so-called normal people in the world?
That also begs the question: what is normal?