Randall Tobias and Plaidder's Grand Unified Theory of Right-Wing Sexual Hypocrisy

[Plaid Adder]

The irony of an abstinence-only crusader being taken down in a prostitution scandal reminds me of the irony of Mark Foley, chief proponent of anti-"cyberstalking" legislation, getting taken out in a scandal involving using internet messaging to solicit sex from minors. Now you might say, Plaidder, that's not irony, it's hypocrisy. Sure. But I think it is also a manifestation of something else about which I have formulated a simple but I believe elegant theory about why so many right-wing politicians turn out to be not only violently anti-sexuality but also flagrant sexual hypocrites.

The psychological phenomenon of projection, whereby you attribute to others feelings or thoughts that are actually part of your own psyche, is what I think really explains this. If you accept the premise that most people assume that everyone else in the world is, at the end of the day, more or less just like them (look, I'm doing it now!), then the right-wing agenda actually tells you the whole story. Why would a guy like Mark Foley believe we need anti-cyber-predation legislation? Because he's assuming, just because HE uses the internet to troll for underage sex, that everyone else out there must be doing it too--or that they WOULD do it if they weren't legally prevented. Similarly, no doubt, Tobias was so down on condoms because he knows that for HIM, condoms are the only thing that enable him to treat sex with a paid professional as casually as if it were "ordering a pizza" without accumulating a lethal collection of STDs. From his POV, of course, it just stands to reason that if everyone had access to condoms, they would all run out and have sex with anyone they found in the street--cause that's apparently what Tobias does when nobody's looking. And GBLT pundits have long wondered why it is that right-wing high-profile homophobes like Santorum so consistently invoked the spectre of bestiality when making the "slippery slope" argument about same sex marriage. Could it be that Santorum himself desperately NEEDS constitutional and statutory protection from his own carnal thoughts about the family pet?

Anyway, the theory is: these politicians believe in regulating sexuality because they know that if sexuality _weren't_ regulated, they themselves would misbehave on an epic and Caligulan scale. It hasn't apparently occurred to them that some people are capable of exercising restraint or following ethical codes *without* the assistance of a massive and punitive complex of laws designed to micromanage human sexual behavior--because they, themselves, evidently aren't.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Rue]

1. I think this is is the behavioral structure behind most right wing motivations. (n/t)

[Chiyo-chichi]

24. I agree. It's not just sex.

I wrote this: http://redstatersforkerry.blogspot.com/2004/08/projection-republicans-favorite.html">Projection: The Republicans' Favorite Defense Mechanism in August '04 when weasel Benjamin Ginsberg was making the TV rounds - at the height of the Swiftboat crap - talking about the "Kerry smear machine."

[Mr. Ected]

2. Nope. I Submit They Are All Bald-Faced Liars, Hypocrites and Opportunists

Elected on a platform that appeals to a lying, hypocritical, opportunistic crowd.

[Kurovski]

3. K&R. (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Add in the fear of female sexuality and naughty girls. K&R

Thus, it is my belief, that the "Abortion debate" isn't about babies, but about naughty girls getting away with enjoying sex for it's own sake, and requiring the punishment of forced motherhood.

It's all rather pathetic when you think about it. Except for the damage done to women around the world by the fear engendered by insecure males.

BTW - I'm a straight male married to a woman who is not my "equal". Nor, am I hers. We are free individuals who happen to love and respect each other as individuals.

[Demeter]

9. Fear of Women in General--Uppity Ones, I n Particular.

[Beetwasher]

5. "...protection from his own carnal thoughts about the family pet?"

Kind of also puts Bill "Cat Killer" Frist's fondness for vivisections in a new light. "Bad Kitty! Making me want you!"

The perverse travails of the Repub/Conservative psyche is not a pleasant thing to contemplate. A morass of twisted, violent, repressed psycho-sexual urges. *shudder* Each one of them a serial killer in the making (if not in fact).

[Kber]

6. So they are using the legislative process to work out their own demons?

Rings true.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

17. Yep, and we all have the unfortunate position of having to hear about their

problems, ad nauseum.

I am pro-get a life. MKJ

[Jackpine Radical]

7. I agree with you; here's my similar statement from my journal:

Republicans REALLY BELIEVE we're total hypocrites--Here's why:
Posted by Jackpine Radical in General Discussion
Thu Jan 25th 2007, 11:20 AM

Republicans are always going to think Dems are phony and insincere. The reason is obvious, and rooted in the fundamental psychological differences between liberals and the modern-day version of conservatives.

It’s really simple. Dems profess altruistic values—caring for others, caring for unborn generations, caring for the earth, even caring for the welfare of other species. Republicans have learned to mouth some of these values, in a prissy, self-righteous sort of way (imagine the Church Lady talking about the need to love your neighbor), but they are never whole-hearted or sincere about these things, except in a few circumstances.

One such circumstance arises when they see some advantage coming directly to themselves from their “altruistic” propositions. Thus, “it’s wrong and cruel for the government to take away people’s hard-earned money with taxation (especially MY money),” or “the kindest thing you can do is to teach people to stand on their own two feet (by taking away their crutches)” Another case that may give rise to pseudo-altruism is when they can slip some sort of poisoned pill into the deal, e.g. “I love the sinner but hate the sin (and therefore have to punish him for his own good).”

In instances of true altruism, however—such as proposing a social responsibility for healing, feeding or clothing the poor—the Republican mind balks. They know THEY would never actually contemplate such a bizarre proposition, and they automatically project their mean-spirited nature onto anyone holding such a notion. That person can’t be sincere—what’s in it for them? There is, really, no intervention short of massive psychotherapy that a liberal could do to persuade a Republican of one’s sincerity or integrity. Instead, I think we have to work on getting the general public—most of whom are decent and empathetic human beings, natural liberals if only they knew it—to see those hard-core Republicans for the twisted and pathetic little souls that they are.

[Sapere aude]

8. Frued had a term for it, Reaction Formation

Description

Reaction Formation occurs when a person feels an urge to do or say something and then actually does or says something that is effectively the opposite of what they really want. It also appears as a defense against a feared social punishment. If I fear that I will be criticized for something, I very visibly act in a way that shows I am personally a long way from the feared position.

A common pattern in Reaction Formation is where the person uses ‘excessive behavior’, for example using exaggerated friendliness when the person is actually feeling unfriendly.
Example

A person who is angry with a colleague actually ends up being particularly courteous and friendly towards them.

A man who is gay has a number of conspicuous heterosexual affairs and openly criticizes gays.

A mother who has a child she does not want becomes very protective of the child.

An alcoholic extols the virtues of abstinence.
Discussion

A cause of Reaction Formation is when a person seeks to cover up something unacceptable by adopting an opposite stance.

more:
http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/reaction_formation.htm

[treestar]

20. Makes a lot of sense and explains why the most rabid preachers

so often are the ones caught up in sex scandals.

[TlalocW]

10. I disagree

I don't think that they believe the rest of the world is more or less just like them, but their tactic is to take the things that they know make them scum and foist it off on the democrats. The fact that they can do this with a straight face just proves how even scummier they are. It's the ultimate in projecting.

They've accused democrats of:
Being weak on defense when they ignored pre-9/11 intelligence
Being against family values when evangelical Christians' own polls show they're worse off than blue-state democrats
Being against the troops/military while they sent them into a quagmire without proper training and equipment
Having attempted to politicize 9/11 while at the same time running political attack ads that morph democrats into Osama Bin Laden.
Etc.

The list could go on and on. Bush is a textbook example of this - any of his multiple negative personality traits he has accused the other side of being. They're just taking their lead from him - accuse the other side of what you're doing then duck, cover, and pray that you don't get exposed.

TlalocW

[Dudley_DUright]

11. One could write a Ph.D. thesis in behavioral psychology

on this topic. However PA as usual has elegantly boiled it down to its essence, that is Right-wingers are not quite right in the head. :evilgrin:

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Ms. Plaidder, with all respect, I regret to reject your theory.

(T)hese politicians believe in regulating sexuality because they know that if sexuality weren't regulated, they themselves would misbehave on an epic and Caligulan scale.

My own hypothesis is that if sexulaity is regulated, they will continue to misbehave as they do now, only going further underground to do so.

However, the second part of your theory is correct:

It hasn't apparently occurred to them that some people are capable of exercising restraint or following ethical codes *without* the assistance of a massive and punitive complex of laws designed to micromanage human sexual behavior--because they, themselves, evidently aren't.

I therefore submit that the regulation of sexuality is futile.

[CoffeeCat]

13. Republicans are obsessed with sex...

...but they're repulsed by their own obsession.

The direct consequence of their distorted obsessions and self-hatred---is that
we get to live under their bizarre, pseudo-moral legislation and policies.

These dysfunctionals run so far from themselves and they create "holier than thou"
masks to cover up who they truly are.

We pay the price for their own dysfunction.

[yardwork]

14. I think that the explanation is even simpler - Republicans are sickos

Republicans are sickos. It's as simple as that. They do ugly, nasty, selfish, sicko things. Then they accuse others of doing those things in an effort to deflect blame and avoid consequences for their actions.

Think of the meanest, vilest little kid in your second grade class. The one who threw spitballs and pulled hair and abused animals and picked on the special ed kids. When he got caught, what was his first defense? "He/She did it not me!"

All those vile little kids grow up to be Republican Congressmen.

[Marr]

15. It's all projection.

Some people put their secret vices onto other people, where they can safely denounce the behavior.

[Gman]

16. PA, you give these people entirely too much credit

toward actually believing what they promote. The only motivation these people have is for money, votes or both. They don't believe in the condom issue, nor do they believe in the prohibition of cyber-stalking and (most) don't believe in their side of the abortion issue. They do know and believe that these are issues that motivate their base which gets them reelected which brings in their money. That's it.

Now analyzing their base is an entirely different issue and more along the lines of what your're saying.

[tomreedtoon]

18. I think it's more "royal" than that.

The common people are not the rulers of the country. What kind of nation would we have if the common proletariat did what Caligula did? The lumpen bourgeoisie must be kept hard at work for the ruler, so that the ruler can enjoy the fruits of being the ruler.

[Erechtheides]

19. Atheism and moral responsibility

Right on, as usual.
It also makes me think of the argument made by (some; certainly not all) people of faith that without a religious framework for moral decisions, atheists all go around raping, killing, and stealing with impunity. The idea that someone might think it was wrong to rape, kill, and/or steal in the absence of specific religious prohibition doesn't seem to occur to these people.

[Blue_Roses]

21. Projections--pure and simple...

well, maybe not so pure with these guys, but nevertheless, projection. When someone--whoever it may be--starts spouting the "wrongs and rights" and "dos and dont's", I always look to that first defensive word I learned in my psych 101 class--projection.

[Catherine Vincent]

22. Hitting the nail on the head.

:kick:

[MedleyMisty]

23. My mother always told me

"When people talk about other people, they're really talking about themselves."