Good, but limited point, (which makes it too easy to make) from Gideon Rachman on Zuma, his wife, children, polygamy, and sex therapy:
Despite having three wives and a fiance, Zuma’s latest was conceived with yet another woman. I saw Zuma questioned about his polygamy at Davos and he faced down his critics without embarrassment. But this latest episode has actually forced him to apologise. So what are we to conclude? Polygamy good, adultery bad? Nineteen children fine; twenty children way over the top?
Helen Zille, the leader of the Democratic Alliance, is quoted as saying - “We believe President Zuma needs sex addiction therapy, as was recommended for Tiger Woods…” This strikes me as a ludicrous attempt to medicalise behaviour that may be reprehensible - but is also, frankly, how rich and powerful men have behaved for centuries. Should all those Turkish sultans with their harems also have been sent for sex addiction therapy?
Are we always going to allow/justify/excuse/dismiss manly particularities because they have always existed? If that's the norm, can we all be allowed to be manly and to follow the example of Jacob Zuma or is this permissiveness solely applies to despicable men's actions supposedly justified by history, nature, and culture?
Comments