#28. Double Standards

Double Standards

Strange are the ways of the Anglo Saxons. If you go by what you read in the novels, magazines and the page 3 people, the Americans and The English have the most liberal attitude to sex and various kinds of liaison: teenage, premarital, postmarital, and unisexual. The sale of contraceptives add the right of even teenagers to it. The percentage of divorcees are, if I am not mistaken, between one third to two-fifth of the total population. For some divorce is at the drop of a hat, something which probably they undergo to legitimise the relationship for the duration it lasts but most probably to legitimise the children which they may beget during that time period. You read in the newsmagazines about single mothers and teenage pregnancies. Sometime back the result of a survey done in U.S. and England was published. It was by an organisation called RSCG Worldwide. It found that 59% of Britons thought it normal for a thirty something to have had 10 or more lovers before getting married. In US, the percentage was 49%. 11% Britons thought extra marital affairs in which nobody gets hurt is acceptable. In US it was lower at 9%.

But when it comes to politicians, they use the time machine to go back to Victorian morality. Poor Clinton! What he did could be only a minor indiscretion for a lesser mortal. Remember some British star? I cannot recall his name, who had a short release (like the Indian long distance truck driver) in a park I think. There are any number of examples. John Profumo is probably the oldest example. The French are more liberal- remember Mitterand? And now there are the Prime Ministers of France and Italy! And so are Indians have also shown tolerance or indifference to sexual transgressions by the political . But come to Anglo Saxons, and they do not tolerate any transgression, however trivial, at least in the politicians. Funnily, the rich are exempted. So are the royalty, and the star players like the cricketer from Australia or the basketball player from the US.. It is only when it comes to who will sit on the throne that suddenly the standards change. The latest is about the English coach. Teacher or a coach exploiting a pupil has to be viewed seriously, no doubt about it. But a coach having relationship with a secretary- how does it affect his performance in the workplace that is, the football field?

What is the reason for such psyche? Why this dichotomy? Does anybody have a

rational explanation?