Although I found his article interesting, Richard Natale’s revelations are hardly new (“Political Intrigue,” Feb. 17). The sex lives of public officials have been entertaining theater-goers for centuries. If you doubt it, then check out a copy of “Oedipus Rex” the next time you’re in your local public library or rent a copy of “Hamlet” during your next trip to the video store.
Audiences today are no better or worse than their Greek and Elizabethan ancestors. Sophocles and Shakespeare knew what sells, and so do Barry Levinson, Mike Nichols, et al.
I think both Natale and Mike Nichols missed the boat while climbing on the spin wagon. Let me suggest a more authentic meaning for that phrase “sexual hypocrisy” joining the language of late. Rather than point to the “puritanical repression” (read moral responsibility) from which we need to liberate ourselves, perhaps the sexual hypocrisy is this: that we allow in the highest positions of leadership that which we wouldn’t allow in our own homes, and that we teach our children one thing and their role models do another.
And since the piece mentioned zeroing in on the “real” issues, let me offer that the real issue isn’t that we are unforgiving of “flaws"--no, we have a modicum of self-awareness--it’s just that some folks admit their flaws (and offer apology?) and some drag their denials through every living room and courtroom in the land, wherein what is being asked for is not forgiveness but apathy.