Is it time to stop being shocked by infidelity?

[Lissa]

A footballer sleeps with someone other than his wife. The papers are in meltdown, the public are appalled, the lawyers spring into action and the lives of all those concern are pried into by packs of slobbering reporters. Isn't it time we got over this obsession with sex? What people do is entirely their own affair (HA~!) and nothing is more sickening than the outrage of a public that behaves in exactly the same way. Now we have a wave of attempted injunctions to prevent disclosure of the sordid details and people are outraged about that as well. They think that if someone does something wrong, the public has a right to know about it. That's nonsense and if they were in the spotlight I bet they'd quickly think otherwise.

Why are the tabloid reading public so obsessed with stories like this? Why are people demonised for sleeping around while footballers who are convicted of drunk driving or speeding (both of which could actually kill someone) are let off so lightly? Why does a story that matters to - at most - three people in the entire world (the man, the wife and the mistress) become a national obsession every single time?

It's degrading, it's hypocritical and it leaves a lot of misery behind once the story cools off.

Do you like sex scandals? If you do, why?

[Si Hunt]

The problem is rooted in human curiosity. We've always been like this. I bet it stretches back to the dawn of civilisation. If your neighbour is doing something wrong and intriguing (and sleeping around is just the right level of wrongness; bad enough to warrant moral judgement, not bad enough to make gawping indecent) you (a) want to be nosey and know the details and (b) want to pour scorn on him and look down, even though it's a mistake you yourself can, or might, make.

Unfortunately today we have a multi-billion media led society that are allowed, under "freedom of information" to make EVERYBODY'S neighbours business purchasable -objects of hero-worship included. This increases the height of the moral high horse we can perch on, because we can say that these people should be setting an example, so can pretend they are worse than us for their misdemenours.

It ultimately comes down to simple jealousy. We all secretely want to see our neighbours fail because we compare ourselves to them, so it makes us look better when we do. It's a million times worse if it's a celebrity, because they appear to have everything we want - money, fame, endless sex - while appearing to work much less hard than us to get it.

That's why it happens. As for what to do about it - you can't stop the buying, because this human instinct of envy and intrigue will never abate; you can't stop the selling because then people who don't want to have their envy and intrigue stifled will cry "nanny state" etc. So you can do nothing.

In an ideal world, people would simply not give in to their uncharitable emotions and resist buying "Heat" or "The Sun" ever again, sending them under and ending the whole shameful industry. But we live in a society of "I want, therefore I must have" when people practise neither "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged" nor any form of self moderation; so the gutter press will continue to report on the private friendships of Girls Aloud and try to break them up in the interests of selling more copies, and people in the street will continue to finance this in order that they can feed their insatiable appetite for invented scandal and information (levels of fact entirely optional) that is simply none of their damn business.

Because we basically live in a society where few people have ethics or self control.

Si.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Infidelity is in the Bible, it crops up in several Shakespeare plays ... so it's hardly new, and it always shocks. Why should now be any different?

Certainly in something like say politics - politicians are elected to a position of public trust. And then they're found out to be sleeping with a rubber fetish queen called Miss Elastica. The feeling kind of goes "well if they're cheating on their wife ... how can we really trust them".

Okay football players have always had dodgy form. But it goes down to are they role models? If you're a sponsor of said sportstar, does it tarnish your brand being associated with them?

[Si Hunt]

It doesn't shock. We just pretend that it does, as it allows us to be appalled and feel a little better that we arn't like that.

As a nation, we are brilliant at taking offense at things we secretely arn't really that shocked about.

Unless Whitney Houston's strap coming unstuck on the X-Factor or Janet's boob making an appearance at the Superbowl genuinely did horrify people. Maybe they'd never been to a beach.

Si.

[Mike Saville]

Sex scandals bore me. Then, compared to my life they would. The notion that celebrities, and worse minor celebrities (only by virtue of who they're married to) personal lives are of the remotest interest to me.

I agree that the sensationalism of it all is all skewed too. I have little sympathy for Coleen Rooney or any of the talentless individuals who carve themselves million pound careers wholly from the interest paid by the media, but stepping back a little I know how I'd feel if I found out my spouse's infidelities the same time as 30 million plebs.

As to the infidelity side itself, it comes down to the whole sensitivity of the matter as to whether it should be exposed. Footballers, pop stars, actors- I really don't give a monkeys. Politicians and civil servants I really do. Not the infidelity in itself- I see it in a similar way to gay MPs. An out gay MP has nothing to fear from blackmail, and tend to conduct themselves with honour and dignity. It's very sad that in the 21st century ones sexuality is something people feel they still need to hide, but alas we're stuck with the bigotry. Those MPs that go to great lengths to hide their infidelities are the ones that are more likely to sacrifice principle to protect their public image. If it's Ronnie Wood or John Terry, who really has a right to care? If it's a senior government snake, then we do.

[Jason Thompson]

Why are people demonised for sleeping around

I don't think it would be wide of the mark to ask more pertinently why men are demonised for sleeping around. With the latest scandal involving Wayne Rooney, the tabloids are full of paparazzi shots of him looking ticked off because people are following him with cameras, and stories pondering if he'll go to play in the next match (why his sex life should matter to his football I have no idea). Meanwhile there are new photoshoots of the prostitutes in question in their underwear looking glamorous and smiling. Why is Rooney being slated while the girls are getting money and interviews? It takes two people to cheat, and the girls can hardly claim ignorance of who he is and his marital status. If anything their behaviour could be seen as worse, because they took his money then blabbed, clearly putting financial gain above anything else.

Or a more disturbing example from a few years ago: John Leslie and Abi Titmus made a sex tape which found its way into the public eye. John Leslie was demonised as a disgusting perv (and has since vanished from the public eye entirely), while Abi Titmus became an overnight celebrity. What the...? Why is what he did worse than her part in it?

I am less disgusted by the infidelity itself than I am by the media and public reaction to it, generally speaking.

[Lissa]

If you think it's unfair that the men alone are demonised in situations like this then you'll probably not like this drivel from the Guardian.

Rule of thumb - any column that uses the word 'misogyny' wrongly will be a very irritating piece of writing.

[Mike Saville]

I couldn't agree more about the double standards, especially when used in the example of Leslie and Titmus. Other 'other women' have also been handed careers in a similar fashion- Rebecca Loos comes to mind.

I don't disagree though that it takes two to cheat. If the third party is single, unattached or in an open relationship then they are not cheating. As a single person you have the libidinous right to sleep with whomever you like. Moral right? You have to decide that based on your own standards and principles.

The thing to me here is the sheer stupidity of Wayne Rooney. If someone is happy to sell their body for sex, why on earth would he assume he'd see his secret to be worth more to her? She now gets to make her money without having to sleep with the potato headed dimwit again. Even if she was a lady of honour, he's followed everywhere by press, other footballers wives, and a lot of people who care little for keeping him safe from his own indiscretions- and make a few bob in the process.

[Mike Saville]

If you think it's unfair that the men alone are demonised in situations like this then you'll probably not like this drivel from the Guardian.

Rule of thumb - any column that uses the word 'misogyny' wrongly will be a very irritating piece of writing.

And yet, bizarrely, girls and women across the country have as their ambition to be a footballer's wife. Premiership of course- Sunday league doesn't have the surfeit of bling and Gucci worthy of them prostituting themselves. They court the lifestyle to the point where the actual man in the shorts is a secondary thought. Many of these girls are self-defining chattel. They use their Luddite fella as a commodity- and guess what? They reap what they sow.

It's hardly a new phenomenon either. For centuries women have been attracted to wealth, power and status, and been shocked that a man that found that an attractive trait in them would find it an attractive trait in any other girl who'd get down on her knees and french polish his ego too.

I'm not saying this is the background of the Rooney relationship (I've never taken an interest), but when in the run up to the world cup Asda was selling WAG in training outfits for teenage girls, you get to see how mad the whole thing really is.

[Alex]

Because we basically live in a society where few people have ethics or self control.

Aw, that's a rather bleak outlook Si, and I'm glad I don't share it. Of course we hear about the negative stories all the time, as they're what sells papers, but millions of couples (and singletons) lead happy and moral lives.

But it goes down to are they role models?

I do wonder why footballers are considered role models, sure, they're talented athletes but when was it decided that everyone in the public eye has to live blameless lives? I can understand it when it comes to politicans (who should be role models, but of course so rarely are) and anyone who campaigns tirelessly for good causes (at least if it makes them a hypocrite), but just because you're great at kicking a ball around doesn't mean you should then become something to aspire to.

As a nation, we are brilliant at taking offense at things we secretely aren't really that shocked about.

I don't think we are though. Everyone I knew thought the fuss over Janet Jackson's boob slippage was ridiculous, and the incident was either funny / an obvious PR stunt. I think it's just a small majority that the press like to blow out of proportion.

John Leslie was demonised as a disgusting perv (and has since vanished from the public eye entirely), while Abi Titmus became an overnight celebrity. What the...? Why is what he did worse than her part in it?

Well it was all the allegations (and court case) of rape that destroyed his career, rather than the sex video.

Anyhoo, I think the whole thing's ridiculous. As has been mentioned, people deserve to have private lives as long as they're not hurting others (outside of the immediate family) but given the press we've got, it's never going to happen.

I don't think it's even a matter of shock anymore though, given the way stories are presented in the tabloid press it's just a cheap excuse to have a lurid sex story that is intended to arouse the reader. Sure, they'll chuck in a "Isn't this outragous" beginning, but the majority of the story tends to be the details of what they got up to, along with many photos of the girl in her underwear. Because, as we all know, sex sells, and that's something that's unlikely to change for a long time yet.

[Jason Thompson]

Well it was all the allegations (and court case) of rape that destroyed his career, rather than the sex video.

And that's a whole different kettle of fish which raises two big questions, one of which is something of an indictment of society as a whole in this country, and one of which is rather more directed at one celebrity. Craig Charles was accused of rape in the early 90s, and he was acquitted. He now enjoys a good career in television as he always did, making several new episodes of Red Dwarf and being a regular in one of the most popular soaps in the country. John Leslie was accused of rape, tried and acquitted, and yet it hangs over him as if he was convicted. The legal system is based on everyone being innocent until proven guilty; the voracious tabloid readers, on the other hand, presume guilt until proven innocent.

And still no explanation has been forthcoming about why in the name of hell Ulrika didn't say anything at any point. If he was guilty why did she not appeal the verdict? If he was innocent why did she not say so right at the start and prevent the poor man from having his career and life destroyed so utterly?

I don't think it's even a matter of shock anymore though, given the way stories are presented in the tabloid press it's just a cheap excuse to have a lurid sex story that is intended to arouse the reader. Sure, they'll chuck in a "Isn't this outragous" beginning, but the majority of the story tends to be the details of what they got up to, along with many photos of the girl in her underwear. Because, as we all know, sex sells, and that's something that's unlikely to change for a long time yet.

Agreed. I'll avoid the obvious line about you obviously having read the stories in detail...

[Alex]

And that's a whole different kettle of fish which raises two big questions, one of which is something of an indictment of society as a whole in this country, and one of which is rather more directed at one celebrity. Craig Charles was accused of rape in the early 90s, and he was acquitted. He now enjoys a good career in television as he always did, making several new episodes of Red Dwarf and being a regular in one of the most popular soaps in the country. John Leslie was accused of rape, tried and acquitted, and yet it hangs over him as if he was convicted. The legal system is based on everyone being innocent until proven guilty; the voracious tabloid readers, on the other hand, presume guilt until proven innocent.

Indeed, I couldn't agree more. Of course it's a very complicated subject and things aren't always black and white, but it's one which nearly always shows how disgraceful the tabloids are these days.

Agreed. I'll avoid the obvious line about you obviously having read the stories in detail...

It was left on the tube and I was bored, that's the only reason why I've read it...er, I mean them...

[WhiteCrowNZ]

It's an interesting point Jason makes. You only have to look at how tabloids cover stories like "25 year old teacher has sex with 15 year old pupil".

Of course the teacher deserves to be outed, perhaps they should jail them for rape, they are a perve, and disgusting. They are child abusers. FILTH!

Oh wait ... sorry the teacher was a 25 year old hot female? Then we'll offer her photo shoots, come out with racey "phwoar miss ... talk about sex ed" headlines, and perhaps not call them a pervert at all ...