ONE of the du jour topics in social gatherings I recently attended this holiday season has been the sensual indiscretions by international sporting legends as Tiger Woods and Manny Pacquiao.
Most of the discussions, like any conventional chitchat, seem to be focused on the “moral aspects” to which would appear to me as reeking in self-righteous cockamamie.
Yet, I find it appallingly a highly prejudiced view that media have opted to sensationalize what would be normally seen as stereotyped celebrity lifestyle- one has only to look at tmz.com for a daily fare on celebrity flings.
However what eludes local media is the fact that these sport champions are merely human beings whom are subject to instinctive vulnerabilities.
Considering the immense fame and wealth or the social status acquired, which is not just a relative conventional high status but of the highest strata; the attendant acclaim from their sporting feats signifies as powerful biological signaling mechanism in terms of the sexual preferences for the opposite sex in the order of Natural Selection.
In other words, some women, perhaps, may see illicit relationships or trysts with these sport heroes as being a sublime beneficiary of the 'spreading good and healthy genes', or possibly hoping to get a sliver or piggyback on the material or non-material bounties of the celebrity’s success (attention, finance, etc.).
In addition, if countless admirers would scramble to have their pictures taken with these historical figures or get autographs for posterity purposes, one can’t blame many in the opposite sex to engage in concupiscent adventurism for the same reasons.
So if musicians (mostly rock n’ roll artists) get the chicks, what more them, as still youthful world record champions?
Nevertheless, what most really fail to comprehend is that people really don’t cherish celebrities because of who they are, but because of what they have accomplished.
For instance, the fledging and budding Manny Pacquiao around 15 years ago used to train in our neighborhood in Mandaluyong (as formerly part of the Abalos stable) while yet aspiring for boxing glory, who was then a nameless aspirant who wouldn’t get anybody’s attention, nor would have sensational sexual intrigues that would elicit publicity…that is until his recent string of record world victories.
In short, fans love celebrities MOSTLY for their feats.
Hence, it would seem cursory to deduce that when the glory of victory fades, all the accompanying privileges seen today would likewise dissipate. And perhaps it is why the political spectrum seems like an alluring alternative for Mr. Pacquiao (possibly in the realization of such prospects).
Here, John F. Kennedy’s maxim reverberates, ``Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”
Bottom line: Controversies are indispensable part of the success.
Most of the discussions, like any conventional chitchat, seem to be focused on the “moral aspects” to which would appear to me as reeking in self-righteous cockamamie.
Yet, I find it appallingly a highly prejudiced view that media have opted to sensationalize what would be normally seen as stereotyped celebrity lifestyle- one has only to look at tmz.com for a daily fare on celebrity flings.
However what eludes local media is the fact that these sport champions are merely human beings whom are subject to instinctive vulnerabilities.
Considering the immense fame and wealth or the social status acquired, which is not just a relative conventional high status but of the highest strata; the attendant acclaim from their sporting feats signifies as powerful biological signaling mechanism in terms of the sexual preferences for the opposite sex in the order of Natural Selection.
In other words, some women, perhaps, may see illicit relationships or trysts with these sport heroes as being a sublime beneficiary of the 'spreading good and healthy genes', or possibly hoping to get a sliver or piggyback on the material or non-material bounties of the celebrity’s success (attention, finance, etc.).
In addition, if countless admirers would scramble to have their pictures taken with these historical figures or get autographs for posterity purposes, one can’t blame many in the opposite sex to engage in concupiscent adventurism for the same reasons.
So if musicians (mostly rock n’ roll artists) get the chicks, what more them, as still youthful world record champions?
Nevertheless, what most really fail to comprehend is that people really don’t cherish celebrities because of who they are, but because of what they have accomplished.
For instance, the fledging and budding Manny Pacquiao around 15 years ago used to train in our neighborhood in Mandaluyong (as formerly part of the Abalos stable) while yet aspiring for boxing glory, who was then a nameless aspirant who wouldn’t get anybody’s attention, nor would have sensational sexual intrigues that would elicit publicity…that is until his recent string of record world victories.
In short, fans love celebrities MOSTLY for their feats.
Hence, it would seem cursory to deduce that when the glory of victory fades, all the accompanying privileges seen today would likewise dissipate. And perhaps it is why the political spectrum seems like an alluring alternative for Mr. Pacquiao (possibly in the realization of such prospects).
Here, John F. Kennedy’s maxim reverberates, ``Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”
Bottom line: Controversies are indispensable part of the success.
