The heavy price of stardom

Now that I have been recognised as a spokesman for Britain (I think that's what this article means) it is incumbent upon me to cast aside frivolous topics and launch even deeper than before into the national and international psyche. Topics of the greatest moment must now be addressed when previously I felt they were beyond my compass. Fame has a price and here is where I start paying. I must turn to matters of the trouser.

An American gentleman by the name of Eldrick Woods is rather good at hitting a small ball with a stick, indeed he is the best ball-sticker in the world and has been for some years. He is also rather proficient with a more intimate stick, on which his wife recently found the wrong colour of lipstick. Mr Woods felt it necessary to drive his car into a tree, take a break from work and hold a sickly press-conference at which he vowed never to do again that which he has never been able to resist in the past. Perhaps he really meant that he will never again succumb to the temptation of extra-marital fleshy pleasures, perhaps he really meant he will strain every sinew not to get caught again, only time will tell.

It should be so obvious that it need not be said, but I'll say it anyway. Some people require a lot of rumpy-pumpy to feel comfortable in life and others are perfectly happy with a little bit every now and then. Some prefer to rump and pump with a number of different people and others prefer to have just one intimate companion. Some prefer those younger than them, others like them older. Some prefer the same pigmentation, others prefer a more cosmopolitan life. Some prefer the same gender as them, others take a more conventional approach to the ins-and-out of human anatomy. Some grunt, some squeak, some moan, some sigh, some use objects other than bodily parts, some use bodily parts primarily designed for other purposes and some are happy just to put the kettle on and make a nice cup of tea.

I really couldn't care less what someone wants to do with their reproductive equipment provided they don't do it to me without my consent or to anyone else without their consent. And it utterly defeats me to see why it should be the business of anyone other than those involved.

Mr Woods played away from home. So what? His wife probably claims to be upset, shocked, dismayed, appalled, betrayed or disgusted and maybe she is one or more of those things. So what? What's that got to do with you, me or anyone else? He's not the first golfer to have got involved with a bit of rough or to have treated his wife in a less than fair way and their marriage is not the first to encounter this particular hazard. There is no reason for him to bunker-down out of sight or to give up his lucrative career. Two schools of sanctimonious humbuggery have condemned him publicly and each is a complete nonsense. The first is the "role-model" argument and the second is religious.

The "role-model" argument is that Mr Woods is the most prominent golfer in the world and should set a good example to the young in everything he does. What utter bilge. It supposes that impressionable youngsters will develop bad habits because their hero is a naughty boy. Find me an alcoholic who says "I do it because George Best was my role-model". Go on, find me one. Find me a youthful golfer who turned from placid to violent when John Daly won the Masters or the Open Championship or a rugby player who turned from beer to cocaine because his favourite player was Lawrence Dallaglio. Find me a man or woman who was turned into a serial adulterer after reading a biography of Frank Sinatra or into a kiddy-fiddler as a result of their love of the "music" of Gary Glitter. Go on, find me one. If you believe in the role-model argument please spend the rest of your life hunting for these invisible creatures, it will keep you from doing any greater harm by expressing your deranged opinions.

Then there are the religious zealots who damned Mr Woods for defying their god's law. They are right, of course. He did defy their god's law. So what? What has it got to do with them? If he is a member of their club they can cancel his membership for breaking the rules. If he is not a member of their club their views are a complete irrelevance.

The final round of the 2010 US Masters tournament will start with Mr Woods in third place. He has a very good chance of winning it. Whether he wins or not will have nothing to do with his willy and everything to do with the way he hits a ball with a stick. Whether he wins or loses he will still have rumpy-pumpy sensors that will guide some of his time when not on the golf course. Somehow I doubt that they will be exercised exclusively in the matrimonial bed. Either way, it will still be none of my business and none of yours.

Max Mosley's Magic Member

Let me make one thing clear. What Max Mosley does with his willy is absolutely none of my business. A newspaper thought it was their business and decided to tell its readers what he did with it. This week a High Court Judge ruled that Mr Mosley's willy is not a matter of legitimate public interest. With any luck the ruling will make editors reflect on what is and what is not other people's business

The newspapers have been exposing matters of the trouser for many years but it is only relatively recently that they have done so in respect of people whose private affairs do not impact on their work or their livelihood. Two categories have been considered fair game for a long time, actors and politicians. Even with these people hypocrisy used to be a necessary precondition to their adventures being exposed to general gaze. That made a lot of sense.

An actor whose public profile and, therefore, earning potential involves a squeaky clean family-man image can hardly complain when the lie is made public. The newspapers serve a legitimate public interest in exposing the man's image as bogus, in this there is no difference between reporting his adultery and reporting the use of illegal drugs. Someone who promotes his career by saying "look at me I'm a really good chap" invites attention to his habits so that the paying audience can decide whether their inclination to see his work and put money in his pocket is affected by the truth coming out.

Very much the same analysis applies to the exposure of philandering politicians although there is sometimes a further factor. In addition to claiming "vote for me, I'm a really nice family man" some of the more stupid politicians have been unwise enough to point at an opponent and say "don't vote for him, he's an adulterer". The bases on which someone could be persuaded not to vote for an adulterer are that he is a hypocrite and that engaging in adultery makes him unfit for political office. The first basis is sound both logically and ethically because it gives rise to legitimate concern about the honesty of the candidate. The second basis is one I have never been able to understand.

Some very able politicians have been serial adulterers and some have been chronic alcoholics; what matters is whether those activities have affected their abilities adversely. Similarly some hopeless politicians, promoted way above their ability, have been teetotal and faithful. Nonetheless, there has been thought to be political mileage in suggesting a connection between bedroom habits and fitness for office. The ludicrous John Prescott was a master of this art, scoffing and flapping his blubbery jowls at the likes of David Mellor and Tim Yeo when the Conservatives were last in power. "Unfit for office" was one of his catch phrases and was the hook on which he hung his garbled calls for resignations.

It goes without saying that a moronic hypocrite like Mr Prescott did not consider his own adultery to undermine his fitness for office. In one respect he was correct because he was never fit for office in the first place but, more importantly, his blatant double-standards made him a laughing stock among the very few who did not already consider him as such. To my mind his affair with his diary secretary was relevant only in that it exposed him as a hypocrite. A useful contrast can be made with the late Alan Clark who had the good sense to promote himself as clever rather than nice and whose exposure as a class-one shit caused hardly a ripple.

With any luck the legacy of Max Mosley's Magic Member will be a realisation that adultery is a private matter unless it involves not just hypocrisy but relevant hypocrisy. Adulterous hypocrisy is relevant only where the adulterer promotes his fidelity in the furtherance of his career. Beyond that there is no public interest in any real sense of the term.