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. So it sidelines such questions, and shelves them under old-fashioned moralism, and has noisy discussions that make people feel sure and enlightened. Discussion of the wider issues has become taboo, thanks to the assumptions of sophisticated media gatekeepers. This means that there is no possibility of an interesting discussion about Brand. Once he has been accused of being a sexual predator – allegations he strongly denies – it’s hard to know what to say.
About fifteen years ago, an interesting discussion about Brand was possible. What should we think of this embodiment of sexual hedonism? If, as was presumed, his myriad relationships – if that’s not too strong a word – were consensual, does that settle the matter? Or is it legitimate to debate whether sexual hedonism is something we want to see celebrated?
His lifestyle was a provocation, but most commentators were too shy and timid to comment. As I said at the time of his firing from the BBC, his ‘whole persona is based in the very strong belief – a sort of faith position – that sex is harmless fun, and it’s moralists who do the moral damage… He is a sort of cultic figure, a lord of misrule, an inverted preacher. His voice should not have been given authority by the BBC.’
The question then is this: should someone be criticised for boasting about their promiscuity, or should we wait until allegations of abuse emerge?
The vague orthodoxy is that the celebration of casual sex is OK. It’s called being ‘sex-positive’. But it’s a bit more complicated than that. In practice, straight men are not encouraged to be sex-positive; they have forfeited the right to this attitude. But Brand was allowed to play this role, you might say. Yes, that’s what makes him interesting; he bucked the trend, partly because of his androgynous aura, perhaps, and partly because the media establishment is nervous of castigating working-class oddities (see Savile). He was a sort of test-case, of whether a straight man could be part of the sex-positive party.
I think it’s important that straight men are allowed to be sex-positive, if anyone is. Otherwise, our public view of sex becomes oddly lopsided. In the hands of women and homosexuals, it is a site of innocent pleasure. Straight males are the snake in the garden of delights, fouling it all up. Maybe that’s just how it is, you might say. That’s our culture’s view, increasingly. But it can’t be right, unless the fallen condition only applies to straight males. Surely the current picture is falsely black-and-white. Surely there are fifty shades of grey. Let’s learn to see them again.
Comments