Sex

There. That got your attention, I bet. But worry not. I'll quickly enough make the subject dull for you.

I read a lot, a fact I believe I've made well known in recent years. A goodly amount of my reading includes biographies. And if one theme can be detected which runs through many of the life stories I've read, one which appears to be important only with more contemporary writers, is that at some point the author must, simply must, it appears, address the sex life of his subject.

Babe Ruth might have a been a hero to the kids but had his way with the ladies too. Harry and Bess Truman, so I read, had to have the slats in their bed at Blair House (where they lived while the White House underwent extensive renovations) replaced after a marital tryst. George Washington, a biographer assures me, made it a point to secure an extraordinary amount of Spanish Fly immediately before his wedding to Martha. Why do we need to know these things?

Any rational adult must realize that Harry and Bess, George and Martha, as duly wedded couples, did it. Where's it our right to know anything more than that? With the Bambino, I have to believe that tales of his seductions nothing less than attempts to knock him off his pedestal. None of it, from any of them, merit our knowledge or consideration. 

For the sake of truth, perhaps? But on what grounds are we entitled to know the whole truth about these or other historical figures? Other than where public wrongdoing is at issue, such personal things are nobody's business. The bulk of us aren't either prudes nor stupid. We don't need the details. They certainly don't really enlighten us in any useful manner.

When I read about the exploits of General Washington I do not have to know about the personal ones. Neither do you. If that's what it takes to get people interested in history, I think we need to change their attitudes towards the subject rather than cater to their sophomoric whims.