The Russell Brand story shows, once again, how sexual morality is only usually debated in relation to allegations of abuse made against male celebrities. I’m tired of the way this happens – and think it’s a pity that ethics around sex aren’t talked about more widely. The status quo means that the scope of the discussion is narrow, and its tone self-righteous.
To widen the scope is dangerous, of course. It means admitting that our culture is in a major muddle about sex, and it’s a muddle that affects us all: there’s no enlightened camp.
We don’t know what sex is. Can it be safely separated from committed relationships? Can someone have a lot of casual sex and also be a decent person? Should they be admired as a paragon of liberty, who, if famous, brings some harmless colour to public life? Or should they be condemned as a force of social disorder?
Brand’s lifestyle was a provocation, but most commentators were too shy and timid to comment
Instead of admitting that these are interesting and important questions, our culture refuses to face them.
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in