Hurrah for Britain’s Prince Harry! Just when it seemed like the British royal family – after a salacious past of scandal and sleaze amidst all that silk and satin – was settling down to a boring middle-age, Prince Charles respectably married to Camilla, William and Kate the very epitome of staid wedded life, Harry broke the calm-down mould. And went on a drunken romp during a recent visit to Las Vegas, his princely pastimes leading to Britain’s royal ‘spare’ playing ‘strip billiards’ (Geet Sethi – hearing this?), nobly honouring his losses therein with a similarly-unclothed female player pressed up against him. Images of this tournament, captured apparently on mobile phones, have since blazed their way across the western media, ‘dirty Harry’ delighting many a viewer on the internet or perusing the American papers.
And the royal household back in Blighty? Well, they’re certainly not amused. The Windsors have been trying, through stiff upper lips, frowning warnings and ministerial head-shaking, to tell the British media, hands off Harry. Their attempts at looking the picture of perfect propriety again shaken and stirred as roughly as a garage-party cocktail, the royals did not want Harry’s naked pictures published – or as things stand, re-re-published – on home ground. However, defying the velvet gloves and iron hands pointing regally at them, the British newspapers replied that not printing ‘dirty Harry’ would amount to merely twirling an ostrich feather in the sand, since the pictures were already online and merrily being viewed by amused audiences across America, Asia and Africa.
Why not, argued Great Britain’s great journos, let the British public engage, ahem, even so intimately with someone who actually means something to them, someone who in fact stands third in line to their throne? Someone whose bills the British tax-payer pays?
The government’s response? Well, ‘publish and be damned’ roughly sums it up, Jeremy Hunt, England’s culture secretary, remarking wryly that he saw no reasons of pressing public welfare to publish the naked pictures – but Britain had a free press and therefore, newspaper editors were at liberty to feature what they liked, without heavy-handed interference from politicians. Or powers above them. Hence, voila, Britain has its royal prince in the altogether, splashed across its morning papers faster than you can say, ‘Eggs? Or toast?”
But cheap thrills aside, dirty Harry’s exploits emphasize two sizeable accomplishments for Britain, following its Olympic feats. Firstly, England’s royals, with an ancient history in fact of rowdy eccentric-ism, are far from being hopelessly dull as yet. It’ll be a while still before the Windsors become as boring as polished pewter. They do keep trying but there’s at least one of them around who’s young, attractive and ready to run riot, preferably unclothed, which is how many of us like our modern-day celebs. And two, England’s public sphere remains free, fun and full of news – the ‘dirtiness’ or desirability of which the paying public gets to choose. Hurrah for both and for young Harry who was having a laugh then – and should have one now.
Today I’m talking with “Eve Harrington,” an alias for my favorite conversational accomplice when it comes to the Royals, American politics, and popular culture. You can’t know all about Eve, or even very much about her, because of workplace complications. That, of course, makes her perspective even more delicious.
I asked Eve the following questions about the fascinating and absurd news spillage suddenly covering our world:
1. Can men in the public eye le
arn to do two things: keep their pants on and not speak of matters upon which they are ill informed? In the first pants-related case, I’m thinking of Prince Harry and our very own batch of Anthony Weiners and Eliot Spitzers, and also the guy who went skinny dipping in the Sea of Galilee during a fact-finding mission; in the second can’t-believe-a-person-can-be-so-ignorant-case, I am of course thinking of Todd Akin. But we can throw in Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney if you’d like — but I don’t think that’s necessary. Not after learning that something called “The Charlie Sheen Room” is apparently still going strong at a NYC strip club and features NYC’s first “body sushi.” Not that I’m bitter, but what is going on here?
arn to do two things: keep their pants on and not speak of matters upon which they are ill informed? In the first pants-related case, I’m thinking of Prince Harry and our very own batch of Anthony Weiners and Eliot Spitzers, and also the guy who went skinny dipping in the Sea of Galilee during a fact-finding mission; in the second can’t-believe-a-person-can-be-so-ignorant-case, I am of course thinking of Todd Akin. But we can throw in Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney if you’d like — but I don’t think that’s necessary. Not after learning that something called “The Charlie Sheen Room” is apparently still going strong at a NYC strip club and features NYC’s first “body sushi.” Not that I’m bitter, but what is going on here?Eve: Hypocritical men will keep be elected, crowned, and hired by large corporations to star in bad television programs until non-hypocritical men and women demand otherwise. Men in power will insist that “virtuous” women keep their panties glued to their sexless bodies while paying “fallen” women sufficient money to compensate them for having California rolls slurped from their navel area. Still, we should remember that Harry is only 27 years old. Despite the fact that at the same age Henry VIII had already ushered into place the Treaty of London and composed his own Songbook (co-written by Elton John), Harry should be cut more slack than the other clownish figures. Harry was in Vegas trying to have a good time, not in Galilee trying to walk on water. While both might be considered miracles — ever been to Vegas in August? — at least Harry doesn’t seem to be getting naked with his political cronies. And he isn’t playing a character called “Dr. Goodson” and dragging his once-dignified father into the plot in an attempt to give it credibility.
2. In his bid to retain his Massachusetts Senate Seat, Senator Scott Brown(himself no stranger to the word “centerfold”) is distancing himself from his own party saying “I’m a Scott Brown Republican.” Does this mean that he is “Pro-Choice” and would wear a bathing suit when swimming in the Sea of Galilee? If so on the latter, board shorts or banana hammock?
Eve: Scott Brown, like Paul Ryan, is charming and pretty. He’d make a lovely accessory: a bauble to wear on one’s arm. But you don’t talk to your bracelet, do you? Not unless you’ve had a lot of mojitos. And you do not elect it to public office where it can make laws. Yet Senator Brown is a serious politician now (stop laughing; Mickey Mouse wears a Scott Brown watch) and is no longer the object of sexual fantasy he once was in his pin-up days. He should therefore be asked to wear on the beach what he would like the women of America to wear: full-length four-ply body-armor that would thereby prevent any need for the public to invest in birth control or reproductive health measures for women of child-bearing age. He could take it off when he hits the change of life or listens to the women of America, whichever comes first.
3. How do you think Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip reacted when they saw the photographs? (Not of Scott Brown. Of Harry.)
Eve: Hmm, let’s see: Her wastrel uncle abdicated. Her son divorced the most popular member of the royal family — besides herself — and now, her grandson, after dressing like a Nazi, is photographed nude at party in Las Vegas. Will she finally give up the throne to Charles and Camilla? Will she castigate her grandson? Will she herself party nude in Slough? Perhaps she and Philip will call Martin Sheen and ask him how he’s handling all the silliness with his boy Charlie. Then they could all head to the sushi bar and chow down on someone’s neck like extras from True Blood as opposed to lead characters in “Blue Blood.” At this point, what have they got to lose?
4. What most disappointed you about seeing the pictures of Harry? Was it his youthful ignorance? His lack of respect for his family? His willingness to treat his royal position with abandons?
Eve: It was the fact that he could cover the crown jewels so effortlessly. Spain and Italy are snickering.
So maybe I was in that hotel room, or maybe I wasn’t. One thing is for certain, I’m NOT going to make the same mistake my bosom buddy, senior Chinese official, Wang “The Wanger”Minsheng did by claiming my image was photoshopped in. Why? Because HuffPost readers can tell when something has been ‘shopped.
So let me say for the record: that black bra I’m wearing is not mine. I borrowed that silky garment from Wang Yu’s spouse. (Being the wife of the deputy secretary of the Youth League Committee of Hefei University in Anhui province has its perks.)
Yes, the whole Internet may be giggling over our cheesy group sex photos. Go ahead and laugh, but you’d be missing the bigger picture.
The world needs more group sex. Now I’m not talking about that drunken threesome back in college, where two guys who were once the best of friends, accidently crossed swords in the heat of passion and haven’t spoken since. (Wagner Rulli, I sent you two FB friendship requests. The balls are in your court.)
No, I’m talking about high-level, Eyes Wide Shut sex fests. How people of power get off says a lot about them. Let’s look at recent history shall we? George W. developed a hard-on for Saddam, because the strongman from Ouja tried to f*&% his daddy. So those weird Freudian overtones end up getting sublimated into the impulse to bomb the Middle East back to the Stone Age.
But when Bill Clinton became frustrated, did he reach for the red button? No, he called in Ms. Lewinsky to play him some Air on the G String, (Baby’s got Bach). Who would you rather have holding the nuclear codes? A leader who can get off by being blown, or a leader who can only get off by blowing things up?
Look how Japan evolved. They went from being maniacally focused on Imperial expansion. Now? Tentacle sex. What would you rather get hit in the face by? Kamikaze or Bukkake?
Also for the sake of you my dear readers, in the name of journalistic excellence I have studied these photos very closely. True to Communist Party’s progressive history of striving for gender equality, I’m happy to report that for every act of fellatio, there was an equal opposite act of cunnilingus. Apparently, the Chinese favor other numbers besides 88.
MAD DIPLOMATIC SKILLZ
Also consider the logistical challenges of getting just one person into bed. Most spouses can’t even negotiate a little bit of conjugal action on their birthdays. Now multiply that difficulty exponentially. In fact, I dare you to turn to your partner right now and propose an orgy this weekend with your co-workers. See how far you get. And while you’ll get slapped upside the head, these folks pulled it off. Clearly, these are highly persuasive public servants with some mad diplomatic skillz!
No comments:
Post a Comment