Beef Injunction

Dr Lobster*
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14

you've probably heard the press have been in a bit of a tizz about this so-called celebrity threesome injunction.

of course, it's completely meaningless because most people with any curiosity know the identities of those involved, and thanks to the american press the sordid detail too.

but for me this is really about the right of somebody in the public eye having a private life and the right of the public to know the intimate details of the lives of these people.

we live in world where more and more transparency is being demanded of the political class, of governments and even companies, when you think about it, the notion of MPs almost being forced to release details of their tax affairs is pretty astounding really - but - i feel something which is actually the right think to do and should extend to everyone in high public office, paid by the tax payer.

personally, i do not think people in the public eye, high public office, celebrities etc can have the same expectations of privacy than us ordinary folk, i think pretty much every detail of the lives of those in public life has to be fair game, in the end. And i certainly don't think the rich should be able to use the law to prevent their bedroom habits from being exposed, it has to be an occupational hazard.

what do you think?
Alexia
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

What possible benefit is there to knowing that someone famous-ish decided to spend their weekend wrestling in olive oil? Is your life enriched? Your knowledge broadened? Your intelligence heightened? Your reasoning more rounded? No, not really. All it does is give you a temporary surge of dopamine, a quickening of the pulse and something to talk about for five minutes.

You list off a pile of examples where "privacy" can be forgone for the common good. Some of them I agree with - politicians who make laws and policies which change our lives (or in Ian Duncan Smith's and Jeremy Cunt's cases, end lives) - should be susceptible to a higher standard of transparency. We pay their salaries after all, and they play with our taxes in whichever way they see fit. They need scrutiny and to be checked up on.

But celebrities? Nah. They're there for one reason - to entertain us. So long as they do that, they can do anything in their private lives they want to so long as it's legal. I don't give a shit.
Martin Phillp
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed 11 May, 2011 01.28

What consenting adults do is their own business.

If a celeb is committing some form of crime, then it may be newsworthy, but what they do in their personal life is their own business.
TVF's London Lite.
robschneider
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

If it wasn't for the National Enquirer this whole saga would have [blown over]

Mod Edit - engage brain in future please.
User avatar
Sput
Posts: 7478
Joined: Wed 20 Aug, 2003 19.57

Ruh?
Knight knight
Dr Lobster*
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14

Alexia wrote:What possible benefit is there to knowing that someone famous-ish decided to spend their weekend wrestling in olive oil? Is your life enriched? Your knowledge broadened? Your intelligence heightened? Your reasoning more rounded? No, not really. All it does is give you a temporary surge of dopamine, a quickening of the pulse and something to talk about for five minutes.

[snip]

But celebrities? Nah. They're there for one reason - to entertain us. So long as they do that, they can do anything in their private lives they want to so long as it's legal. I don't give a shit.

i agree with you, for me, i'm not interested in the slightest. if the story had came out in the media as originally intended i probably wouldn't have even clicked a link to read about it... it's hardly mind blowing stuff.

but my point is, if you are a celebrity, if you do court the press and use the media when it suits you, i think you have to be fair game when something comes out that you might not like.

in this particular case (but not all) there are of course some very amusing aspects of the story - from what i've read on other sites - is there a greater public interest in the quirky sexual habits of celebrities, not sure i can answer that because the term 'public interest' is surely meaningless - it's can't be objectively defined.

so, is there a public curiosity for the sexual exploits of celebrities, well, there has to be. enough people i know have been talking about it.

is there public curiosity for my own sexual exploits. in a small enough measure, yes. surly if i had some quirky habit, friends, co-workers, etc would maybe give it a moments thought, snigger and think, oh, yeah, he's the one that goes dogging at the weekend or whatever.

so should sexual activity be a private matter? in theory. but then, people seem happy to paste their exploits over social media when it suits, so i'm not sure the answer is clear cut. at even a macro level, there is curiosity in what other people get up to, i suppose as a way to confirm whether the reader is "normal", or maybe it actually helps to define what "normal" behaviour is.

treading carefully here, i think people might be more curious about those celebrities that, on the face of it, seem to adopt a, shall we say, alternative life style - such as 'open' marital arrangements, i think that is a curiosity to many people because society generally pushes us towards monogamy, but our biology perhaps might tell us something different, maybe it's these inner conflicts that's at the root of this what many people find curious? and ultimately may liberate us?
Philip
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 22 Feb, 2008 21.23
Location: Merseyside
Contact:

Dr Lobster* wrote:but my point is, if you are a celebrity, if you do court the press and use the media when it suits you, i think you have to be fair game when something comes out that you might not like.
But how are you deciding which celebrities are 'courting the press' and which aren't? Seems a bit arbitrary no?
Dr Lobster* wrote:so should sexual activity be a private matter? in theory. but then, people seem happy to paste their exploits over social media when it suits, so i'm not sure the answer is clear cut.
So you think that because some people are more open than others sharing these things, everyone has to be that open about it? That it overrides their personal preference of how much they wish to share?
Image
Dr Lobster*
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14

Philip wrote:But how are you deciding which celebrities are 'courting the press' and which aren't? Seems a bit arbitrary no?
id say it's pretty easy to define - generally it would be a person that uses the press/media to market themselves as 'the product' or sell a product, be that a physical product (clothing and perfume ranges, cds, books, dvd, films etc - so pretty much any hollywood actor/pop artist) or an abstract product, such as to raise their own profile for whatever means (so somebody more like an ex-big brother contestant, katie price, that dreadful josie cunningham etc)
Philip wrote:So you think that because some people are more open than others sharing these things, everyone has to be that open about it? That it overrides their personal preference of how much they wish to share?
i'm saying that those who use the media for their own ends - don't have a choice, or at the very least must have a significantly lower expectation as to what will be private in their lives simply because they use the press and media make the public interested in them in some way and some of that interest will be perverse.... people will want to know if they are "like them" and do all the things they'd get up if they were in that position, etc.
User avatar
Bail
Posts: 1127
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 21.41
Location: Not Alaska

Why do you never use uppercase? I thought it was a one off at first, but lots of your posts are entirely lower case... any reason?
Image
robschneider
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

tvmercia used to do that too iirc
Alexia
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

robschneider wrote:Mod Edit - engage brain in future please.
Good luck.....
Please Respond