This past Sunday, on 60 Minutes, Sen. Scott Brown (R. - MA) openly discussed the sexual molestation he had experienced at the hands of a camp counselor when he was a youth. He said that the act 'hadn't been consummated', by which I assume he meant that penetration hadn't occurred. But clearly the senator had been emotionally scarred by the event. This, along with a very chaotic family life, made his statement that he was more open to the trauma experienced by other people quite credible.
Of course, part of the reason for the interview was that he was promoting his new book Against All Odds. He said he just wanted to 'tell people who I really am' and that's commendable, no matter whether or not the viewers were in agreement with his other political views. From a men's wellness standpoint, I felt that his willingness to talk so openly about his own sexual trauma and the sexual abuse of males was a 'step in the right direction'. It's just the kind of message that I've been trying to discuss for the last seven years via the Mariposa Men's Wellness Institute. But the advantage the senator has is that, as a result of being a 'public figure', he has built-in public relations, since the citizens want to know more about the people for whom they've voted.
Indeed, it is this kind of public relations advantage that allows for the raising of public awareness about critical mental health and medical issues. I remember the way Betty Ford discussed her alcoholism and how that raised the public consciousness about that issue. Or how Bob Dole had raised the issue of erectile dysfunction and focused public attention on that medical issue. The fact that both of these individuals were already 'in the public's awareness' made their willingness to openly discuss subjects that are usually only talked about 'behind closed doors' very empowering for members of the public. It allowed other people a 'greater public space' to talk about their personal struggles with similar issues.
The one public figure who could have made good use of the 'bully pulpit' to discuss a very widespread problem in the society (but didn't) was President Bill Clinton. When the Monica Lewinsky scandal hit the press -- and, in spite of President Clinton's original denial that any 'sex' had occurred, it was later proved to have happened -- it would have been a wonderful opportunity to openly talk about the issue of sexual addiction. Apparently, from the series of articles in the Washington Post around that time, Bill Clinton's philandering was 'legendary' long before he met Hillary and continued after they were married. I remember a line from the article that "Bill's Arkansas girlfriend would be going out the backdoor when Hillary was coming in the front." The articles noted that she was willing to love him in spite of his faults [at least in part because he was one of the few men who wasn't intimidated by her intelligence], though the inference was that she could tolerate his indiscretions (regardless of whether she was emotionally hurt by those behaviors) as long as he kept them out of the public limelight.
Apparently due to possible legal problems, and the eventual close impeachment vote, though, President Clinton did not use the scandal as an opportunity to bring the issue of sexual addiction 'to the forefront of public consciousness'. Of course, it may also have been because he was unable to come to grips with his own problematic behavior and admit that he had a problem -- one that many in the public and media realized was a major concern. It was one of those 'great missed opportunities' to raise public awareness about an issue that plagues many people in our society, both men and women. While there are quite a number of reasons for this dysfunctional variety of sexual behavior, many studies point to an individual having been sexually traumatized as a child as one of the more prevalent precursor events. We know, from stories President Clinton told, that he had come from a chaotic family, but whether he had experienced sexual trauma as a child was never revealed, if it even had occurred. So, it is not clear why he was motivated to act unfaithful in his marriage, other than simply because he may have felt that, as a powerful male public figure, he 'could get away with it'.
In that regard, I remember reading a review of Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson. Though I can't remember the exact wording, there as a reference to President Johnson bragging that John Kennedy 'had nothing over him in the sex department'. Apparently when Lyndon Johnson was in the Senate, he maintained an office across the hall from his official Senate office where he regularly had sex with female staffers, making ample use of the 'sexual attraction of power' that he possessed. That he was also being unfaithful to his marriage is a fact that is often overlooked and avoided.
From a men's emotional wellness perspective, I'm in no way saying this behavior is positive nor 'macho'; quite the contrary. Abuse of political and/or economic power to obtain sexual favors is simply abuse of other people. And sexual addiction is that - addiction. It is behavior that fails to honor sincere intimacy between two individuals. Often, in fact, the sexual addict 'uses' the cultural assumptions regarding intimacy for their own advantage -- getting their sexual desires met at someone else's emotional expense. In the long run, it is abusive toward the addict's mental health as well, but that realization can only arise later, when the addict engages in their own healing journey.
No comments:
Post a Comment