should celebrities sex life be of public concern?

Who really gives a crap about celebrates anyway, wannabes and nar do wells I would think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm a male that likes to gossip. *shrugs*

I couldn't give two shits about the sex lives of people I don't know, though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In all your years you've never noticed these things? :bugeye:
Why else do you think women use 5 times as many words in a day as men?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure would not bother me in the least.

 

I assume you haven't been to the grocery store in the last 5 decades? Just take a look at the magazines at the cashier. There is a reason why there are celebrities on the covers...

 

Two broad themes of judgment

Two aspects of this stand out to me:

(1) Celebrities are somewhat a legitimate concern for people. As a storyteller, I am aware how stories affect people's lives, so the actors and actresses in movies and television do become larger than life for many people. This is the foundation of much public interest, although I think fantastic desires probably account for nearly as much, at least. And yet a third aspect is purely capitalist: If I choose to spend my money on a ticket for a movie starring, say, Skeet Ulrich, I would think I have something of a right to know what I'm investing in. Now, maybe paying people who, like Ulrich, can't act, is just fine with me. In such a case, the acting wouldn't be the product I was buying any more than I would take my car to an incompetent mechanic; and as one who has taken my car to an incompetent mechanic before, let me simply say that fantastic desires and Skeet Ulrich don't overlap in the Venn of my life. So if I end up paying Skeet Ulrich, it's probably for one of his costars, or a director, or a writer. But if Skeet is the object of my desire? Of course I want to know when to stop wasting time and money on someone who ... um ... okay, maybe I should have gone with a shitty actor who had a current scandal, but insofar as Tiger Woods' other women might be pissed off at him as well as each other .... Look, if a guy breaks your fantasy, whether it is sexual, idyllic, or otherwise, you're not going to be as enthusiastic about spending the money. Right? Anyway, there are a number of consumer aspects to consider.

(2) Who is the celebrity, and what is the interest? Because there is such a thing as overkill. Imagine being a paparazzo, and your job is to secretly follow, say, the Olsen twins, around and get scandalous pictures and gossip. I once came across this great beaver upskirt of the Olsen twins that looked like it was taken in some sort of streetcar. Okay, okay, so ... great. At least one of the Olsen twins like short skirts and no underwear. Great. I care ... why? So imagine you get this shot, and it's taken you days. Monday morning, you see your photo on the front of your tabloid, with a sharp black splatter-dot reading, "Shocking Photos!" skillfully arranged over the exposed genitalia, and the glaring headline is, "Olsen Twins' Lesbian Night Out (Of Control)!" And you're thinking, Well ... okay. At least I got paid. So then you turn around to your favorite user-generated pornography site and post that entire roll of Olsen twin bikini shots you got that were a little too grainy for the tabloid, and upload them for anyone who wants them. At this point, we come back to the question of why we care. There is overkill, and part of the tabloid-consumer mentality is that the overkill is helpful. In feeding that pervert over there who strokes himself to grainy pictures of an Olsen girl in a bikini, the "average" tabloid-mentality perceives (often subconsciously) an opportunity to judge. One can be frivolously obsessed with ideas of post-Edwardian purity to the point of collecting articles about skanks like the Olsen twins, the Spears sisters, or something many consumers otherwise find frivolous, such as supermarket tabloids. But one justifies this neurosis and mitigates the perception of the underlying conflict by casting judgment on these celebrities. It becomes a circular argument. One follows these celebrities because they violate the trust which means they must be followed in order to uphold the trust; yet the trust is a one-party relationship. Only deliberately-crafted quasi-puritan advocacy celebrity actually strikes a multiparty trust; in that sense, I suppose the younger Spears sister blew it, but she ain't that bright. Or, at least, her man ain't. But, to the other, was there ever really a scandal about Shel Silverstein? I mean, think about it: Lewis Carrol was either a pedophile or simply crazy; E.B. White ... well, stories circulate about E.B. White; Shel Silverstein was higher than Jesus. None of these scandals have ever stopped three of the most influential names in children's literature in history. People still adore Alice in Wonderland. People still adore Charlotte's Web and Trumpet of the Swan. People still adore Uncle Shelby's poetry. But it's not right in front of us. It's not an easily-accessed judgment compared to thousands of tabloid photos swirling all over the web. There will be no new photos of Lewis Carrol with his latest "date", or Uncle Shelby with his wild nights out. There will be no pictures of E.B. White on the beach in a thong with a date. There can be no overkill. It's like any other stratified society; everyone likes to see themselves as better than "(someone)". And while many of us might find the tabloid-consumer mindset pathetic, might believe these people have no life whatsoever, the overkill exists for two reasons: because it can, and because the tabloid consumers need it.​

These are the primary reasons "celebrity" sex lives are important to us. In the end, it all comes down to the power of judgment.

 

No, they shouldn't be of public concern. There are many talented actors and actresses that I respect, but to be honest, the most damn I'll give over their sex life is a fleeting "oh, that's nice" after reading a sentence or two about them.

 

Yeah, that's my attitude as well. I could not care less about who is boinking who on the other side of the globe. I have my own problems to worry about.

 

The reason we do it is that we have stone age minds in an electronic age. While, on a conscious level, we can comprehend that we don't "know" Tiger Woods, our minds are adapted to living in a social group where everyone we know well lives in our social group. Moreover, we are built to enforce social norms through gossip and through related social opprobrium and praise. It seems that, because those traits are good for the group dynamic, and because the group is good for us, that the behaviors have become ingrained.

So, we "care" about Tiger and celebrities because our minds confuse them with member of of local social group.

For that matter, why does anyone care that Lance Armstrong survived testicular cancer? Many men have, and we don't care about their stories. Many people I know view Armstrong as a kind of hero for his experience and his openness about it. Why the praise? Because they kind of feel like they know him, even though they "know" that they do not. The emotional kernal within their minds cannot grok the notion that he lives thousands of miles away and that they and no one they know has ever met him.

 

If they are attractive celebrities, and there's video, a certain amount of concern seems reasonable.