A question about scandal

[Desert Strawberry]

My husband asked a question today, and I immediately thought of SWB and the Hive.

 

Is a scandal a scandal if it's in keeping with expected behavior?

 

One example he gave was if a womanizing husband cheats on his wife, is that a scandal? Or just expected distasteful behavior?

 

I learn toward no. You can't be shocked by expected behavior. But some scandalous actions are so heinous, how can they not be scandalous?

 

This was a political discussion, but I don't want to get into specifics.

[Seasider]

I agree that "scandal(ous)" refers to behavior that is unexpected/unacceptable, but I don't think it's determined so much on an individual, case-by-case basis. Seems to me that something is scandalous if it goes against the generally held societal mores and common laws. There were things viewed as scandalous in the Victorian Era which wouldn't be thought twice of these days. It depends on the temperature of society.

 

Should one be *surprised* if a duck quacks? I think not.

[Desert Strawberry]

Ok, I can see that. A scandal doesn't have to be surprising to be shocking. That's kind of what I was thinking. I mean, it's not surprising, but it's still completely unacceptable.

[Laurie4b]

I think one of your key words is "expected" and who has the expectations. So a politician cheating on his wife would not tend to be all that scandalous--unless he had run on a family values platform. A big chunk of his voting block would be scandalized. A preacher cheating on his wife would be scandalous. A CEO, not so much. All those stories could be salacious, but not all would be scandalous.

[Ellie]

It's still scandalous.

[Dandelion]

Seems to me that something is scandalous if it goes against the generally held societal mores and common laws.

 

This is how I see it.

 

For example, many people (myself included) believe there is a certain level of corruption in our government. That corruption is still scandalous, even though we knew it was there and it didn't surprise us.

[Desert Strawberry]

I think one of your key words is "expected" and who has the expectations. So a politician cheating on his wife would not tend to be all that scandalous--unless he had run on a family values platform. A big chunk of his voting block would be scandalized. A preacher cheating on his wife would be scandalous. A CEO, not so much. All those stories could be salacious, but not all would be scandalous.

 

Excellent point.

[Desert Strawberry]

 

This is how I see it.

 

For example, many people (myself included) believe there is a certain level of corruption in our government. That corruption is still scandalous, even though we knew it was there and it didn't surprise us.

 

 

This is a good point. I know that my DH and I tend to be more cynical than many, so while we are not surprised, clearly many other people would be.

[Orthodox6]

For deeply religious people, mores do not change with the whims of time.

 

"Expected distasteful behaviour" used to describe the specific example given is repugnant.

[KungFuPanda]

I think there's a difference between a legitimate scandal and just a topic of conversation about an unfortunate event. A man cheating on his wife is horrible and will raise the eyebrows of the people who know him. If that same man is a minister who publishes books on strong families, or hosts marriage retreats, this may be a scandal.

 

Granted, this is my own totally made up opinion, but I think you should all agree to latch on to it.

[Seasider]

For deeply religious people, mores do not change with the whims of time.

 

"Expected distasteful behaviour" used to describe the specific example given is repugnant.

 

Well, I would be describes as a "religious" person, and I believe that there are faith based mores that do not change (ie, thinking about what the Ten Commandments frown upon). However, I don't think that seeing a woman's bare ankles or a gal wearing pants in the 21st century is considered scandalous today. Well, maybe by some sects, but not by all (or even the majority) of "deeply religious people."

 

Certainly in the Bible itself we witness cultural changes from the Old Testament to the New, including the end of the necessity of circumcision as proof of belonging to God, and the easing of restrictions on diet. I imagine there was a time of transition in which many individuals and behaviors were thought to be scandalous. Acts and the epistles detail the out working of the changes in religious mores, and give much instruction on interacting with grace. Parties on both side of the transition were authentic believers.

 

I did not mean to make a case for situational ethics in my earlier post. I meant to mostly point out that the word scandal must be defined in context.

[Arcadia]

One example he gave was if a womanizing husband cheats on his wife, is that a scandal? Or just expected distasteful behavior?

.....

This was a political discussion, but I don't want to get into specifics.

 

A womaniser cheating on his spouse or even mistress, it is not a scandal and unaffected people should not "butt in" or gossip.

A politician/actor/actress/royalty having a fling or affair, it just becomes scandalous gossip than rakes in money for newpapers and magazines.