The cultural tradition of exalting political leaders who abstain from sexual activity has deep roots in ancient societies such as Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, China, Japan, and Europe. Even though this is no longer practiced as widely today, many contemporary societies still carry vestiges of this belief, particularly when it comes to high-ranking government officials. This can be seen in various ways, including the way news media depicts politicians, the public's expectations for them, and the laws that govern their behavior. The psychological need behind these expectations lies in the desire for stability, power, and control.
Historically, purity was associated with divine favor and strength. In ancient civilizations, kings were often believed to have been chosen by the gods, and they had to maintain their purity to ensure the continuation of their reign and the well-being of their subjects. Sexual activity was considered a distraction from governing responsibilities, which could result in disaster if left unchecked. This led to strict codes of conduct, such as celibacy or polygamy, to keep rulers focused on their duties. Asceticism was also seen as a sign of dedication and selflessness, making leaders more effective in their roles.
In modern times, these ideas persist in many societies despite changing social norms regarding sex and gender roles.
In some countries, there are laws prohibiting certain types of relationships between elected officials and members of staff. There is also an assumption that leaders should prioritize their work over personal lives, leading to criticism when they engage in extramarital affairs or even show affection towards their spouses in public. These expectations may stem from the idea that political leaders must be above reproach, trustworthy, and able to make difficult decisions without personal bias.
Psychologically, this idea appeals to people because it promises security and predictability. By elevating politicians who abstain from sexual activity, we can feel reassured that they will not be swayed by desires or emotions that might interfere with their decision-making process. We believe that these individuals will always act in the best interests of the nation, rather than for personal gain or desire. It is a way of creating order out of chaos, giving us confidence that society will remain stable and safe under their leadership.
The effectiveness of these beliefs is debatable. Studies have shown that leaders who are restrained in their private lives may lack empathy and understanding, which could lead to policies that harm vulnerable populations.
It's impossible to separate a leader's personal life from their professional one completely, meaning that any attempts at purity or asceticism may ultimately prove futile.
Expecting all leaders to follow a certain code of behavior can reinforce negative stereotypes about women and LGBTQ+ individuals, perpetuating harmful gender roles and discrimination.
There are both benefits and drawbacks to culturally idealizing sexual restraint in political figures. While it may provide some psychological comfort and stability, it also risks excluding diverse voices and perspectives from positions of power. As societies continue to grapple with issues such as inequality, climate change, and social justice, we must find new ways to address these needs without relying on outdated ideas about virtue and purity.
Why does society cultivate myths of virtue, purity, or asceticism around political authority, and what psychological needs are satisfied by expecting leaders to be sexually restrained?
A common reason for the prevalence of moralistic expectations from leaders is that it gives followers a sense of security and stability. It allows them to believe that their leader possesses an inner character strength that will keep him/her from succumbing to temptation, regardless of the situation they face. This belief can serve as a kind of anchor for those who feel vulnerable or insecure about themselves.