PARIS — I was in the House of Commons on an invitation, had the pleasure of shaking hands with the notorious David Blunkett, an acknowledged philander in the tea-hall, and as I walked through the grand corridors I could feel the weight of deep history and whispers of a storied past overwhelm me; the intellectual and philosophical grandeur is just so great, even an ordinary soul like me was so overwhelmed by this experience.
One can't even think of playing an ordinary soul in such a grand setting, it does raise spirits of commoners. The House of Common is not so common as one might think. So much energy in infused by the settings alone, it is a huge orchestra and as a visitor one is attached to the conductor of the symphony, the 'House' itself. This is the 'Mother of the Parliaments' has it's own strange rules of conduct but one constant is that this is place that we all human beings should be proud of, this is the place where logic and reason triumphed over faith.
This is a reflection of our great human heritage; this is vantage point of future for mankind part of which is still caught up with trivialities of war and violence. Hopefully one day when human minds will further blend internecine disputes amongst people shall be determined through such spaces of intimate fusion. The 'House' potently represents adulthood of minds.
This is the place that gave the world the concept of no taxation without representation. It was as early as in the 14th Century, under King Edward III (1327-77) it was accepted that there should be no taxation without parliamentary consent, still a fundamental principle today. “No taxation without representation” was a rallying cry for advocates of American independence from Great Britain in the eighteenth century.
I thought to be a part of such an institution is an honor, as I was coming out my thoughts slipped to miserable Mark Oaten's resignation. He dropped out of the leadership race just a few days ago – and resigned from the Lib-Dem frontbench after the News of the World report outed him using a 23-year-old rent boy in three some sex romp.
The latest sex scandal to hit Britain is one of its most peculiar kinds. A family man involved in group male sex. One is curious to find out what makes a successful on the rise intelligent politician recline so low. It seems most likely that the sexual recklessness buried in our subconscious is stronger than careers and fortunes? Unlike in the third world where corruption shortens life of political pundits, the west it is the sex that is the culprit and have destroyed careers of many a budding politicians and celebrities.
If lewd and scandalous nature of sex is discussed in its full context without hesitation half of the anticipation and juice related to its clandestine and covert nature is out of the chronicles equation making it less appealing to public's interest. Public interest in scandal is more about two-facedness, it is candidness that people value. That was one reason Jean Paul Sartre was never accused of travesty, he was so unwrapped about his interests.
The directness makes the anecdotes less tempting. It is falsification and treachery of hiding ones indiscretions that leads to impeachment efforts or charges of moral decadence. The Lewinsky scandal is a classic: American President Bill Clinton engaged in a variety of sexual activities with his intern Monica Lewinsky. His denial under oath made matters worse and created, apart from the embarrassment, a legal problem that led to his impeachment efforts.
Sex scandals and political fortunes are tied together like hand and glove. One sustains on the charisma of the other. Woody Allen, Hugh Grant, George Michael, Michael Jackson all celebrity household names are no strangers to strangest of libido based recklessness. Straight sex scandals are only complicated when the perpetrators have an association of hypocritical stances. No one would have been troubled with Edwina Currie revelation in 2002 that she had had a four-year extramarital affair with John Major but it Major pontification of moral absolutism under his famous Back to Basics platform that irked people.
Normal sexual impulses are an integral part of the human race however it is the impetuousness and hypocrisy that is shocking. One can understand that in this intolerant narrow minded world a closet homosexual may be interested in concealing his identity nevertheless a man strongly bent on image of a 'family' cannot be a part of a threesome gay sex with a rent boy. I wished if he would only have a regular boyfriend that would be acceptable and very much in line with the political conventional wisdom of the Lib Dems! Even his wife would have accepted his change of route and taste. With shifting times new tastes widen.
Anyway who dare wants to legislate morality when one is dealing with the icons of legislative mandarins. The institutional weight of the 'House' in my opinion alone should have led to a dilution of urges at least when he was in bed with two other male companions, to pay for such a frolic beggars belief. Putting it serenely 'this is sinning without pleasure!' a literal translation of proverb 'Gunaheh bey lizzat.' the pleasure is in the thrill of things; in bizarre people banality of ordinary sex encourages innovation. Ecstasy in being caught and outed in itself sometime may serve as a strong dose of adrenaline.
There is an underline grudging admiration in being dishonourably exposed in the House! May be the inner satisfaction of being so outlandish encourages wayward deeper into action? But Mark was lesser person than Clinton who within the confines of sacrosanct Oval office preferred the kick of a blow job, may be the service of the aficionado hiding under the presidential table was far more thrilling than oath of maintaining the sanctity of the office. It is unqualified opinion that the institutional burden it seems is of little help, we can all fail and we should “Let the one without sin cast the first stone.”
I was contemplating as a 'closet-sinner' that I am, how Mark Oaten could do what he did! Acceptance of one 'Achilles' heel is an art, living with it like my hero Jean Paul Sartre is so gracious. If he would free himself from a double life, he could have flown like a free bird; a cage that can incarcerate a free bird has not yet been conceived. He must have been passing through these historical corridors for years as a MP, as a piece of this great orchestra he was really selfish and hasty not to listen to the weight and howling of times gone by and to lose his position to the demands of an passionate libido.
