Should celebrities be able to cover the tracks of their immoral behaviour?

ON April 19th 2011, a ‘Celebrity’ of high standing who had an illicit affair with a colleague, was awarded the right to remain anonymous in fear that if discovered his actions would result in an adverse affect upon his wife, children and family. The colleague was told that she ‘owed a duty of confidence’ to this male celebrity involved. On April 20th 2011 a high-profile Television Presenter was granted a high court conjunction, suppressing the revelation of a set of intimate photos taken of him and a woman, again for fear of damaging the health of his family, his loved ones and himself.

The woman with whom the married celebrity had an affair was told by a judge that she ‘owed a duty of confidence’ to the man involved. But how about if we consider the ‘duty of marriage and fidelity’ the man owes to his wife? By embarking on an affair with this woman, he has compromised the relationship he had his wife had created, and the vows they had made on their wedding day. Or shall we say, the ‘duties’ as a husband that he held. Surely he must be condemned for not having considered this before beginning the affair?
In the case of the ‘Celebrity Affair’, the issue that judges were considering was the welfare and health of the children involved. But if the male celebrity, now expressing his concern as to the happiness of his children, had been truly concerned about the welfare of those children then why did he choose to have an affair in the first place? By doing so, he was compromising not only his marriage, but the relationship he has with his wife and therefore the sanctity of his relationship with his children, and their happiness. He was, by the act of having an affair, endangering the welfare and health of his children already.

The fact that people with money public figures can now pay off restrict how much information about their illicit behaviour is revealed to the public is quite frankly disturbing. But what disgusts me most is the facade reasoning that it is all in the name of keeping loved ones safe. The men and women who opt to behave in such a way that they know will damage the ones they love cannot then use the excuse of these loved ones to protect their own backs. It is all about image; the Television Presenter who has been allowed to ‘gag’ the images of himself being intimate with a woman is known publicly to behave respectfully towards women, and these images will damage their reputation and career. But they obviously don’t respect women, nor do they mind lying to their loved ones about their real characteristics, and who they truly are. Again, if that are so concerned about the reactions of the people they love, why put themselves into a situation where that reaction can only be inevitable?

Whilst it is horrible for a family/loved ones to have to discover such illicit behaviour so publicly, these men or women can now get away with the act of infidelity. They can continue to violate the trust and love held that can be found between families and relationships, and due to the amount in their pockets success of their name be free from guilt and the sadness that comes from knowing you have let yourself and your family down. Never again will a famous person have to adhere to the basic principles of human behaviour; because now the laws normally reserved for child killers now also defend the cheating celebrity.

Principally, we have travelled back in time; throughout history men of power and position, Kings, Noblemen and members of high court, were allowed affairs, and their illicit secrets hidden from the public. By allowing now members of the ‘fame and fortune’ society to behave in the same manner, with the same level of secret surrounding their actions, we have made it socially acceptable to cheat on your husband or wife, and compromise your family. I wonder how much longer it will be before it is publicly expected and socially accepted for a man to be sleeping with a woman who is not his wife?

xXx