Loose men, loose women and good losers.

Jump to Comments

The subject of grace has been at the back of my mind for some time. But recently two incidents have dragged it forwards: The two contracting incidents I’m referring to are Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand’s call to Andrew Sachs, and John McCain’s concession speech minutes after losing the to Barack Obama. Russell Brand’s priapism is no secret. But there is an inherent irony in his actions. He probably sees himself as a some kind of libertine, rake, debauchee, Don Juan, Casanova, stud, or any other of the romantic titles available to loose men. But a true lover, even a casual and fleeting one, is not a lover without grace. Georgina Baillie, Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter, describes herself as ‘no shrinking violet’, but she can’t have expected her liaison with Brand to have been used in such a public and disgraceful way.
I am no prude. Until my marriage six years ago I led a very promiscuous life. During that time I enjoyed sex with women whom I know other men would label at best as ‘loose’. But there is a fundamental difference in attitude between loose men and loose women, which I hope doesn’t exist as much in today’s teens and twenties. ‘Loose’ women can be labelled ’slags’, ’slappers’, ‘easy’, ‘nympho’, ‘tart’, and any of many other derogatory terms. ‘Loose’ men, on the other hand, are called…and here I’m having trouble thinking of words that in any way equal the female versions: ‘wolf’, ’seducer’, ‘lothario’ — which don’t really have the same sleazy ring to them. The closest I can think of is ’shagger’.
In my experience, so-called ‘loose’ women have one quality that men who label them as such don’t appreciate or understand: they are generous. Generous with their bodies, their affections, their intimacy and their time. They are also more honest in their approach to sex and sexuality. For their generosity and their honesty they should be admired.
So why is it that some men find it necessary to attach derogatory labels to women who are doing nothing more than men themselves do? Paradoxically: when those same men often have had sex with those women? I think it has to be because of the male’s attitude to himself. If a man has the attitude that a ‘generous’ woman is a slag, but still has sex with her, then he must have a fundamentally low opinion of himself, otherwise why do it? More than this, I think because the terms ’slag’ and ’slapper’, are not bestowed on a woman by the woman, but by the man, it expresses his own attitude towards not just this woman, but women in general. If he has sex with someone whom he considers to be a slag, morally isn’t that sexual abuse? And if a sexually generous woman is to him a slag, what does he expect from a woman? And where does it come from — this expectation of what a woman’s attitude towards sexuality should be?
The point is, and there is a point to all this, that Russell Brand must, mid-conscously, have an extremely low opinion of himself and his own sexuality to want to publicise the fact that he had sex with Georgina Baillie or any other of his ‘conquests’. Indeed the fact that he is so open about his own promiscuity raises the questions as to why he feels it necessary to be that way? As in why so promiscuous? And why so public about it? Sex is a private act, (even if there are more than two people involved). It is a generous act in which two people share, not just their bodies, but their intimacy. Intimacy is such a valuable thing. It is not then graceful to go public about this intimacy, especially to grandparents — who often have such a unque relationship of love and respect with their grandchildren. Russell Brand considered it to be a prank: telling Andrew Sachs what happened with his granddaughter. But there are innumerable other pranks, lots of which are clever, funny and enjoyable. What drove this ‘prank’? Fundamentally Russell Brand must have had no respect for Georgina Baillie, otherwise he wouldn’t have done what he did. And if he had no respect for her, why did he sleep with her? Because at heart, he has no respect for himself?
I realised, after several decades of promiscuity, that I was addicted to casual sex. The more risky and fleeting it was, the more I enjoyed it. But like all addictions it is ultimately unfulfilling. Even though it was often wonderfully enjoyable. Looking for it was often more exciting than doing it. I also realised that there is no such think as sex without emotional responsibility of some kind. What’s the value of a quick fuck? It’s really nothing more than masturbating with a partner. For me, a faithful sexual relationship developed with a long-term, committed partner is infinitely more fulfilling. But of course that’s only my personal view, and the world is made up of all kinds of people whose attitudes we should try and respect if their driven by truth and honesty.  I can’t comment on what drives Russell Brand, because I’ve never met or spoken to him.
There was no grace in Russell Brand’s actions. And in getting carried along in the glee of the moment, there was no grace in Jonathan Ross’ actions either. There needs to be a lot more grace in our society. Instead we seem to be doing everything possible to eliminate it. You only have to read the papers, magazines, watch TV — or listen to the radio it seems. But grace is a true and wonderful quality that adds depth and character to people and to situations. I supported Barack Obama and I’m delighted that he’s in. A world without Emperor Bush as a leader in it has to be an even slightly safer place. I watched Obama’s acceptance with joy. It was only by chance that I sat and watched all of John McCain’s concession speech, and I was struck by the sheer eloquent grace of it. Even when some of his supporters were jeering at the start, someone even shouting ‘bullshit!’, he carried on with a speech that couldn’t fail to move you in some way. If you didn’t hear it or read it, you can find it on lots of places on the internet.
Grace provides a key to many other qualities. Thoughfulness, consideration, generosity, inner strength and caring being just some that come to mind. It seems that all the qualities it offers are needed in our increasingly superficial and selfish world.
I should add that there are aspects of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross I admire. Although I’m not a big fan of his stand-up stuff (no double entendre intended), I think Brand writes well, and I look forward to this developing over the years. And when Ross is interested in the person he’s interviewing and lays his ego to one side, he’s excellent.
I guess I should state my view on whether I think they should have been suspended? I would say if their apologies had been handled with grace and timeliness it wouldn’t have been necessary. They are both intelligent adult people who would probably have benefited more from an honest and adult discussion about good grace than a slap on the wrist to satisfy the witch-hunt that happened after the event. Better management would have helped.
Please can we all try and have a bit more grace.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tags: Barack Obama, casual sex, concession speech, Georgina Baillie, good grace, Grace, intimacy, John McCain, Jonathan Ross, libertine, respect, Russell Brand, sex addiction, stud