In this disgusting story of an impressionable 14-year old girl being allegedly seduced by the rich, powerful actor Chris Langham (who was nearing 50 years old when the sexual exploitation began), there are all kinds of things to be angry and frustrated about. Most of them are obvious to everyone. But please note the convoluted sense of propriety the reporter reveals in this sentence:The actor, best known for his Bafta award-winning appearances in The Thick of It, failed repeatedly to take precautions when he had sex with the girl in hotel rooms and in his theatre dressing room...
By failure "to take precautions," the reporter obviously means the actor did not use some kind of prophylactic, a matter that even in our otherwise tolerant society is still considered bad form.
But consider the irony in the reporter's emphasizing that particular failure. After all, would the fellow's moral culpability be any less had he used a condom? Or are not pedophilia, sexual assault, corruption of a minor, adultery, abortion, deceit, and everything else involved in this sordid seduction be more deserving of fulsome condemnation?
