Reaction Formation

Back during my undergraduate days, when taking one psychology class or another, I was introduced to the concept of "reaction formation". This psychological defense mechanism results in unacceptable impulses being converted to their opposite. The paradigm example was the anti-pornography crusader, who publicly laments the availability of 'smut' and 'obscenity', while simultaneously immersed (in a socially acceptable way) in the material he so deplores. (I won't refer to the "Meese Report" as a possible example, as that would be rude.)

Many will find cause to criticize the manner in which human sexuality is treated by the modern media. Whether it is the salacious "news" coverage of the Kobe Bryant or Michael Jackson sex assault allegations, the increasingly bizarre "dating" television programs or the "race to the bottom" in daytime TV with its "My eleven-year-old is out of control"-type prurient obsessions, or the attempt to revive or promote lousy television programming by adding suggestive jokes and content, there is plenty that will make many in our society uncomfortable. But obviously there are a lot of people who love, or love to hate, that type of programming - it is produced because it makes money. It could be argued that it holds up a mirror to American values - not those we profess, but those we actually live. It is the mainstream advertising dollar which causes this type of television to dominate the airwaves, not the fringe.

So back to reaction formation. When I heard about the Massachusetts decision which requires the state legislature to afford at least some form of marriage or "civil union" to gay couples, my reaction was essentially that it was good to afford gay adults the same rights in their relationships that we afford to heterosexual adults. It did not occur to me, as it apparently did to so many "conservatives", that recognizing gay marriage or civil unions would lead inexorably to the legalization of incest, polygamous marriage, or even adult-child relationships. And that leaves me wondering to what degree the "conservative" reaction is based upon ideology, and to what extent it is based upon "reaction formation" among the sexually obsessed who have sublimated their own desires but now project them onto the rest of society.

Leaving those thoughts behind for a moment, let's take a look at the latest from Cal Thomas, "Judging Michael Jackson and ourselves":

If Michael Jackson did, in fact, as it is alleged, have sex with a minor boy, what's wrong with that? The question is not meant to be cute; I am serious. If a male child was fondled or sodomized by Michael Jackson, why shouldn't he and the boy be allowed the orientation of their choice? If you disagree, who are you to impose your morality on them?

This statement is, according to Mr. Thomas, meant to outrage us - not because he is suggesting that Jackson's alleged victim "wanted it", but as an illustration of how "divorce, premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, group sex, domestic partnerships and, soon, same-sex marriage" have become acceptable, with adult-child sex as, he supposes, the next likely target. He proceeds to lament the sexualized content of the latest "Abercrombie & Fitch Christmas Field Guide magazine, targeted to 10- to 13-year-olds", and provides us with his exact count of sexually suggestive images (although reciting that somebody else did the counting), and an abstract of the sexualized content.

And then Mr. Thomas protests, in relation to adult sex offenders,

Should we be surprised when some people act on the permission the media give them?

Yes, Cal, we should. Just as our violence-imbued media doesn't inspire otherwise law-abiding Americans to go on shooting sprees, and just as many people managed to watch and enjoy "Pulp Fiction" without running out to buy or try illegal drugs, seeing a child depicted in a sexually suggestive manner in no way constitutes "permission" to act unacceptably. Is Thomas commenting on how others might react, or is he speaking of his own reactions to such images, anticipating that others feel the same way? (It's not an unfair question to ask, given that he chooses to indict American society with his insinuations about such imagery.)

Before going on to misrepresent the significance of the diagnostic criteria set forth in the DSM-IV, Mr. Thomas continues,

The early sexualization of children has produced ever-earlier sexual activity (and pregnancy) among those children.

It has? Well, let's take a look at that assertion. As David Brooks notes in today's New York Times,

Teenage pregnancy and abortion rates rose in the early 1970's and 1980's, then leveled off and now are dropping.

(But why let the facts get in your way.)

Mr. Thomas then rails against sex education programs,

The sexualization of children is supported by state governments, many of which mandate sex education as early as kindergarten. School nurses dispense contraceptives and abortion advice without parental knowledge or approval. Teen magazines such as Cosmo Girl and Seventeen promote sexual activity for minor children. A British charity publishes a children's sex guide, "Say Yes, Say No, Say Maybe." It explains various positions and the excitement of intercourse.

It seems to me that "kindergarten sex ed" - which is inevitably going to focus on "good touch, bad touch" - would be something Mr. Thomas would endorse as protecting children from predators. But apparently it is better that children be ignorant even of "bad touches" than that they receive this insidious introduction to "sex education".

As for that British guide, which is apparently aimed at teens from fourteen to sixteen, the actual title of the publication is "Say Yes? Say No? Say Maybe?". Mr. Thomas misrepresents the title as if it is indifferent to what answer a teen gives. The actual title sends a very different message. And, given that "the excitement of intercourse" is one of the leading factors in why teens of that age end up engaged in unprotected sex, perhaps it isn't so bad that sex education materials address that issue? (In Mr. Thomas's world, though, perhaps it is better that teen sex be unprotected, to increase the odds that a "loose woman" will be "punished" with pregnancy....)

Comments