Famous Men and Sex Scandals: What Were They Thinking?
Almost constantly the news media is bombarding us with stories about men in positions of power who get caught acting out sexually. Whether they are sports heroes, politicians, executives, or whatever, the general public often wonders: What were they thinking? They had so much to lose and hardly anything to gain.
The answer to this question is actually rather simple, and it could easily be provided by just about any self-aware recovering sex addict. These men were not thinking, or at least they weren’t thinking in any clear-headed way in which the potential consequences of their sexual behaviors came into play. Why else would these otherwise intelligent, thoughtful, respected, sometimes even beloved public figures jeopardize their marriages, reputations, and careers? Let’s face it, sexual misbehavior cost former US Congressman Anthony Weiner a promising political career, Tiger Woods hundreds of millions of dollars in a messy divorce settlement and lost advertising revenue, General David Petraeus his job and a possible run at the US Presidency, etc. And those are just a tiny fraction of the “sex scandal” men. This list could quite literally go on and on and on.
The simple truth is that, like most men involved in extramarital affairs, public figures do not expect to get caught. Instead, these men get lost in a fog of emotional arousal and preoccupation, and in this state they feel invulnerable – safe from the possibility of their compartmentalized sexual acting out being discovered by their wives, the media, or anyone else. For these men, the neurochemical pull of fantasy-based arousal creates a false sense of protection and keeps them from thinking clearly and rationally about what they are doing. Recovering sex addicts call this state emotional fog “the bubble” or “the trance.” This is, for sex addicts, the period of time in which little but the sexual urges, fantasies, and behaviors matter.
Unsurprisingly, after engaging in sexual misbehavior most men, famous or not, engage in an extensive process of minimization and denial, telling themselves any number of lies to justify their actions. Typically these lies boil down to the following three themes:
- It is an evolutionary imperative for men to sleep with as many women as possible. Therefore, I’m only doing what a guy is meant to do.
- My marriage is inadequate because (insert any excuse you can think of here), and the only way I’ll ever get my needs met is to find sex outside the relationship.
- What my wife/spouse/public doesn’t know won’t hurt her/them, so I’m not really doing anything wrong.
Whenever the media reports on sex scandals of the rich and famous, we inevitably hear the term “sex addiction,” often from the man in trouble who uses it as an excuse for his bad behavior. After all, having an illness sounds a lot better than simply blowing off the sanctity of one’s marriage, the security of one’s nation, or whatever else it is that has been ignored. And some of these men may in fact be sexually addicted (though just as many probably are not). Either way, sexual addiction is not a justification for what they’ve done. Simply put, a diagnosis of sexual addiction is not an excuse for bad behavior or a way to avoid consequences. Any person whose sexual acting out has caused harm to self, loved ones, and/or community is responsible, under all circumstances, for the hurt and loss caused by his behavior.
So is there a difference between public figures who act out sexually and garden variety (non-famous) men who engage in similar behavior? Yes and no. “Yes” because when public figures are caught the damage tends to be much more public in nature. “No” because the underlying reasons for the behaviors tend to be exactly the same, as do the forms of denial engaged in after being caught. This is particularly true when the person in question truly is a sex addict. So the next time we read about a public figure’s sexual misbehavior, instead of asking “What was he thinking?” maybe we should recognize that his behavior is not too far from our own, and ask ourselves, “What was I thinking?”