Yet another Republican politician has resigned in the wake of a sex scandal. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, was arrested in June for apparently soliciting lewd conduct in an airport men’s bathroom. He pled guilty to the charge of disorderly conduct. The details of the case were only revealed this Monday.
There’s been a rash of Republican sex scandals in recent years, indeed a staggering number of them. Most publicly we have the Mark Foley scandal, in which the Republican congressman was caught trading sexually explicit electronic messages with underage former congressional pages, which led to a resignation. More recently, we have Florida Republican Robert Allen arrested soliciting sex in a public park. There are numerous others.
A lot of attention has been paid to the apparent hypocrisy of these politicians, who were often passing legislation to prevent the very activity they were engaged in. Mark Foley, for instance, had introduced the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act into the House, an act designed to prevent the very sort of actions Foley engaged in. Larry Craig himself is evidently well-known for pushing anti-gay legislation.
I wonder if this is more than just hypocrisy, though, and is in fact an inevitable consequence of the Republicans making ‘anti-sexuality’ a main component of their political platform. After all, one interpretation of the rampant pedophilia amongst the Catholic church clergy is that, by being vehemently anti-sex and denying its clergy sexual experience, it became a magnet for people with sexual problems and confusion who sought refuge in complete denial. Denial never really works well, though. Sexual urges cannot be completely denied and end up expressing themselves in very unhealthy ways when one tries.
I suspect that the Republican party has transformed itself into another such ‘magnet’. By demonizing gays and becoming the party of puritanical sexual norms, they’ve simultaneously pushed a large portion of the population into denial and confusion about their sexual proclivities and drawn them into the party, where they inevitably self-destruct. I would say that this is an example of ‘reaping what one sows’, but that now seems to have too much of a sexual connotation as well…
Skulls in the Stars 
I think the opposite is probably more likely to be true. These people aren’t turning gay because they are repressed. They are repressing themselves because they are gay… and then the logical consequence for that self-repression is to join a party that rejects homosexuality.
Let’s face it: most straight people simply do not get obsessed enough about homosexuality to care that much about it. But if that’s something you’ve struggled against and repressed all your life, you are bound to see homosexuality as a major an omnipresent danger: because you are just projecting your own fears.
Family Guy illustrates the point quite nicely:
Bad wrote: “I think the opposite is probably more likely to be true. These people aren’t turning gay because they are repressed. They are repressing themselves because they are gay… and then the logical consequence for that self-repression is to join a party that rejects homosexuality.”
Whoops! I hope I didn’t imply that they’re turning gay due to some external influence. I was trying to suggest that part of the reason that gay people end up being repressed is due to the influence of those groups that demonize homosexuality: namely, Republicans and fundamentalists. If the groups convince them that they’re ‘evil’, the natural solution is to join the party in order to be ‘cured’. This of course doesn’t work, and the result is a political party with a high proportion of extremely confused, repressed people.
“Let’s face it: most straight people simply do not get obsessed enough about homosexuality to care that much about it.”
That reminds me of the classic line (from a columnist on the West Coast, I think), “Republicans think more about gay sex than gay men do.”
SkySkull wrote: “I suspect that the Republican party has transformed itself into another such ‘magnet’. By demonizing gays and becoming the party of puritanical sexual norms, they’ve simultaneously pushed a large portion of the population into denial and confusion about their sexual proclivities and drawn them into the party, where they inevitably self-destruct.”
Apparently the problem goes all the way to the top…
The author is being facetious (I think…), but it’s still a hysterical (and oddly compelling) read.
Personal Demon wrote: “Apparently the problem goes all the way to the top…”
It is an oddly compelling read. I’m hoping someone doesn’t take it to the next level and write some Bush/Cheney ‘slash’ fiction…
SkySkull: “I’m hoping someone doesn’t take it to the next level and write some Bush/Cheney ’slash’ fiction…”
Well, here goes…
Cheney looked into George’s eyes and ran his withered fingertips along his still-strong jaw. “Even now, after all these years, you’re still beautiful to me,” he whispered.
George blushed. “Take me Richard! Take me now!”
Cheney chuckled. “Richard? What’s up with Richard? You know I prefer ‘Dick’?”
“Me too,” George sighed, nuzzling Cheney’s earlobe. “Me too.”
PD: Good God! ROTFLOL! You’ve got a disturbing talent for this sort of thing…
Well, hate to upset you but yes, people have written politician slash but so far the only Cheney/Bush I found was a gag and one that was serious but not at all explicit (thank god). S’not really surprising that politician slash has been written, what with the way these guys act sometimes.
chip: You evil person! Don’t tell me these things!!! If I poke out my eyes, will the images go away? 🙂