The androgynous-looking, dark haired "Tudors" protagonist Jonathan Rhys Meyers proved he has little inhibitions when it comes to addressing the rather tricky issue of sixteenth century sex - in a recent interview for NY magazine. Although mostly labeled a professional heartbreaker with a trouble-making streak, Rhys Meyers comes off as more down-to-earth than originally expected when asked to address the issue of the sexually explicit nature of the Showtime drama in which he stars. According to him, people in the 16th century had sex to avoid getting bored, not unlike real-life, contemporary celebrities.

"You read magazines on supermarket stalls, and some movie star is dating this person and then that person and then that person, and people are like, "Why do they hop from one to another?" Because they can! It's that simple", Meyers states. "Sex is sex. These people didn't have TVs, they didn't have cars, they didn't have iPods. They had sex. What else do you think they did?". Although his perception on 16th century Britain seems remarkably blasé and simplistic, there is quite a large dose of realism in his perspective - or perhaps simply an uncanny understanding of the forces that drive humans and act as motivation factors. Either way, these words of wisdom seem to add a new, spicy twist to the upcoming season of "The Tudors", which premieres Sunday March 30th at 9pm on Showtime.

"Well, what do you do today? Drink and have sex. You live in New York City. You go out Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. But also remember that in that time, sex was very, very important. Sex changed nations", the "Tudors" star added. So, to those of us who struggle to cope with the hectic modern lifestyle, this is a comforting message: at the most basic level, it would seem that the driving principles behind our day-to-day lives haven't changed in over 500 years, and we still attach a great deal of importance to things such as sex, that many consider overrated and that still seem to hold greater importance than we might originally suspect. Good to know, right?