Public privacy – Hidalgo Criteria

The information is already atmospheric. Suddenly I learned something that did not interest me: Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez were back. I don’t know where the data came from; it was there, like a leaf fallen from a tree.

It is striking that the news is part of the environment, but it is more striking that it is about that news. Is Ben and JLo’s love a raging topical issue? Everything indicates that yes, which also indicates where the priorities of the planet are going.

In the society of entertainment, celebrities bring a new mythology. If two famous people love each other and hate each other and love each other again, they cloud or clear the horizon and make us not talk about anything else. China controls the world’s foreign debt, garbage, river traffic, and junk market, but the United States controls the reality show. If the Greeks were attentive to the outbursts of Zeus and the Aztecs to the fatal plan of Tezcatlipoca, in contemporary theodicy no act of faith surpasses the rating.

We know from the Kardashians and Paris Hilton that you can be famous without specific virtue. Human curiosity arises in different ways and one of them is to investigate the lives of people “famous for being famous”. In the nineteenth century, novels satisfied the desire to lead parallel existences; today, the vicarious pleasure of “being in the other” is satisfied in a simpler way, knowing the shoe collection or the new pet of a celebrity.

But it’s not enough to enter the Hall of Fame to stay there. Once you receive the scrutiny of the public eye you have to hold their attention. This leads to a paradox. People long to meet celebrities with intimate rawness, but the “naturalness” of these people is very different from ours because it is a naturalness built to attract us. It is surprising that Michael Jackson wants to buy the remains of the Elephant Man, try to whiten his skin and sleep in an iron lung, but it would be more surprising if he did not do any of that. As people search for unfiltered testimonials from celebrities, celebrities become progressively unreal characters: their normality is quirkiness. They have 473 baseball caps, they eat bird’s heart for breakfast, they marry the same person several times.

In addition to being actors, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez are celebrities, which forces them to master two different registers. When the actor “comes into character”, he behaves with a peculiar alien naturalness and erases all traces of imposture: he does not act like Hamlet, he is Hamlet. The actor empties himself in favor of a character; instead, the celebrity must create a character. Each garment that he buys, each phrase that he tweets, each photo that he uploads to the networks alters his symbolic capital.

I come to the news topic of this article. In recent days, a clause of the new prenuptial agreement of JLo and Ben was known. The couple agrees to have sex four times a week. On this occasion, I do know how I found out about the matter, thanks to the salmon-colored pages of the Business section of El País. The report dealt with the subject from a legal point of view. Is it legitimate to subject the libido to a contractual criterion? Interviewed in this regard, Juan Pablo González, head of the Court of First Instance 24 of Madrid, commented that in his work table that sexual agreement: “would be declared null, without value or any effect, for being contrary to freedom and personal dignity” . The judge was right: you cannot ask someone to get excited by decree.

However, I think that the approach to that clause should be different. The society of the spectacle is not legislated by law but by perception. How was that detail of the agreement “leaked”? It was possibly disclosed by the protagonists themselves. Converted into the object of collective desire, they decided to add statistics to the curiosity. In strict compliance with their agreement, JLo and Ben will make love 208 times a year. It is unknown if there is a bonus for exceeding the figure or if there will be a progressive decrease in obligations.

The only plausible thing for a celebrity is excess. Upon reaching the coital millennium, the undersigned may be seen as athletes or martyrs of sex. Your privacy is an advertising resource.
Most likely, like all couples, they decide their encounters by the vagaries of emotion. But there will be no news about that.

Look at the columns of Criterio Hidalgo

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker