I received the following provocative query on the Foley scandal and thought some readers might find it worth discussing:
The Democrats are totally on the warpath about Foley and the GOP leadership-what did they know and when did they know it? It's outrageous not to have kicked him out way back when! And the media are reacting the same way.
But the Democrats (except Lieberman) never wavered in their insistence that Clinton's actual sexual contact with a young intern was completely irrelevant, and the media largely agreed, after they got the thrill of reporting the salacious story.
So-is it just partisanship? or homophobia? or truly the distinction between a 16-year-old former page and a 22-year-old intern that makes the difference in the reaction?
It's fair to say that Monica was an adult and the page wasn't. But I can't believe that people who are SO outraged over this would be totally indifferent to a 55-year-old married man bagging a 22-year-old who worked for him.
I think homophobia plays some part in this (the anti-gay Family Research Council makes that explicit), and much of the expressions of outrage convey that there is no possibility, ever, that a 16-year-old guy could be sexually interested in an older man.
That's not to say this was appropriate behavior by a congressman toward a page (it was not) or to deny it was outright sexual harassment (though that case hasn't been proved). It's just to recognize that gay-predator tropes are in full flower.
And the Democrats are fanning the flames, hoping to alienate the GOP base and keep 'em home on Nov. 7. My, what a surprise that this all hit the presses just weeks before the election!
It's often said of popular representatives (like Foley was) that the only way to bring them down is to catch them with a dead girl or a live boy. How true that's turned out to be.
More still. A video re-enactment.
72 Comments for “Foley and Clinton.”
posted by Randy R. on
There is HUGE difference between Clinton and Foley. With Clinton, the sex was consensual. With Foley, he was targeting young men who showed no inclination at all that they wanted to have sex with him — at least that what we have learned so far. Clinton would be guilty of sexual harassement, of course, but not predatory behavior. If anything, it was Monica who pursued Clinton. Recall that she told her friends that when she was going to work at the White House, she was going to bring her ‘presidential kneepads.”
Consensual vs. non-consensual. Is that plain enough to understand?
posted by Mark on
I’m in complete agreement with Randy, above, and add that the difference between 22 and 16 (or 17) is monumental. Monica was an adult who probably didn’t hide the fact that she wanted to press the Presidential Flesh, as it were. These kids go to Washington all starry-eyed and idealistic may be coming on to each other, and they probably even appreciate the friendliness of a respected member of Congress who pays attention to them, but to subject minor children to that kind of sexual harassment–and possibly abuse–was never in their briefing. We’re talking about apples and oranges here. I ache for Foley, don’t get me wrong. The pressures of spending fifty plus years more or less in the closet, having only furtive sexual outlets and no real relationship in his life is sad and pitiable. He should simply have picked an older target for his advances.
posted by dalea on
Part of it seems to be a desire by the dems to get back at the reps for what happened with Clinton. Monica seems to be a fairly well known type, the starfucker or groupie. She hit the very top in that genre, her fame assurred thanks to Ken Starr and the reps. She could retire at the very highest levels of attainment.
This kid on the otherhand is quite a bit younger, not very worldly wise and seems sort of dippy. Talking about his girlfriend’s handjobs is really unwise. Right wings blogs are tracking him down, may have already figured out who he is. And pretty soon who she is. Total mess.
Mencken once remarked that all it takes to be a real American is ‘an appetite for comedy of the coarser varieties’. Which we are getting in abundance here, with the promise of more to come. All we need do is sit back and enjoy the show. That is our duty as citizens.
Looks like the dems are getting it together to really deal with the Clinton impeachment at last. And Clinton seems ready to join in. We may even get to hear about Foley’s penis on the talkshows. Wow, a Carnivale of Buncombe.
posted by John on
I have to concur with the statements made above. Monica Lewinsky was 21 when she courted then President Bill Clinton. This paige was 16 and did not welcome the sexually explicit message. Foley has to resign.
That said Clinton should not get a pass. Monical Lewisnky was a White House intern, making President Clinton her superior.
One other comment: Foley’s actions would be just as sick and depraved had he sent these instant messages to an underage female. In this day and age no one should take the so-called homosexual-pedophilia “link” raised by Mr. Tony Perkins seriously.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“There is HUGE difference between Clinton and Foley. With Clinton, the sex was consensual.”
There is also another huge difference between Clinton and Foley. With Foley, there was no actual sex.
“This paige was 16 and did not welcome the sexually explicit message.”
Really? Then, he should have answered: “No, Congressman, I will not discuss my masturbation habits with you.”
“No one should take the so-called homosexual-pedophilia ‘link’ raised by Mr. Tony Perkins seriously.”
No one should take Mr. Perkins seriously.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
You seem genuinely surprised that Democrats would attack Republicans for the same behavior their own guy did in 1996, Stephen. The only more amusing thing is that “moral majority” Republicans are busy defending a kiddy-diddler with “what he did wasn’t *technically* illegal” arguments.
posted by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
The conduct of both officials is disgraceful (one unethical the other criminal). Part of the outrage is that one of Mr. Foley’s major issues was the sexual abuse of minors. We’ve heard the stories of his appearance with John Walsh and his position with the child protection caucus. So the hipocrosy is factor is extremely outrageous.
But worse than the individuals conduct is that the Republican leadership was aware of the conduct (or reasonably should have been) and did nothing. A political trial was held for Mr. Clinton’s unethical indiscrection but Mr. Foley’s was ignored (at best) or actively covered up (at worst).
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Actually, criminal activity was involved in both cases — in Clinton’s case, the crime was perjury; in Foley’s it was discussion of a sexual nature with a minor.
posted by Randy R. on
I stand corrected by the above posts.
Bear in mind that Foley actually has a partner and lives with him down in Florida. At least, that’s what I recall. A couple of years ago, the Washington Blade was hopeful that Foley would come out, as there was a dustup over in a local paper or whatever that he was about to come out. Foley denied the whole thing, and it prompted discussion about people who are out, then recloset themselves. So it was no secret to readers of the Blade.
I wouldn’t say the guy was totally closeted. If you live with a guy, and everyone in congress seems to know about your interest in young men, then it’s a hard argument to make. So the pity-parties for him are difficult to swallow. Though, I still have a modicum of sympathy nonetheless, just because he’s a gay man who’se head isn’t screwed on tightly. Since mine isn’t often, either, I can hardly throw stones.
posted by jomicur on
There?s another important difference between the Clinton/Lewinsky affair and this mess. Given that Clinton acted inappropriately (to say the least) there remains the question of whether a blowjob is really worthy of impeachment. That’s arguable, I suppose, but then again Clinton never claimed to speak for “traditional values.” If his big issue had been marital fidelity, there’d be a much clearer parallel here. As it is, the party of “traditional moral values” and their point man on child-exploitation have stepped in it, big-time.
I don’t think Foley will ever do time for this, and I don’t think he should. (The tone of the IMs sure sounds consensual to me.) Censure would have been appropriate and if he then chose to resign, so be it. That’s the way Gerry Studds was handled–he was stood up in the well of the House and subjected to the humiliating process of public censure. The fact that the GOP leaders didn’t handle Foley similarly speaks volumes about them and their agenda–especially since they DID try to impeach a president for perfectly legal (albeit unethical) sexual activity.
posted by ETJB on
I really do think it is disturbing the way that some gay conservatives seem to want to rush to defend a man who had not only sexually harassed his employee, but an employee that was underage.
Lewinksy was above the age of consent. While what he did was probably sexually harrassment (as its almost impossible to view a relationship between an employer and employee is entirely consensual) he never really portrayed himself as a beacon of “traditional familiy values” also most Americans simply did not want him impeached.
A Congressman or woman should not be trying to have sexual relationships with one of their employees and certainly not if they are under age (regardless of sex or sexuality).
posted by Jorge on
I think homophobia is present–like it’s present everywhere. And so is sexism. That teacher Deborah Lafave who seduced a male student escaped heavy imprisonment and is now something of a ghoulish celebrity.
I think that’s overwhelmed by the underage factor–even Lafave isn’t teaching anymore–and especially the predatory pattern. This does not appear to be just one incident, and none of the incidents we know about qualify as seduction. Seduction attempts, maybe, but not seduction because it was unwanted. That’s why it’s sexual harassment.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I don’t think gay conservatives are defending Foley, so much as stating how destructive the closet is.
Foley is one of a list.
Jim West, McGreevey and so on.
Politically ambitious men, more corrupted by the closet because their position was dangerous to all gays and lesbians.
Clinton and Lewinsky actually had sexual conduct.
As far as we know, Foley was exchanging explicit emails. It’s all disgusting and clearly an abuse of their positions.
But it’s true, Monica Lewinsky was a known homewrecker long before she went to Washington.
I think that the persistent link to pedo/ephebophilia to homosexuals is the most damaging of this scandal.
It’s unfair and won’t solve the problem of men in power abusing it, period.
But the closet sets up MORE difficulties, obviously before gays and lesbians are adults themselves.
Imagine the boy who Foley was corresponding with.
Maybe he’s another ambitious closet case in training.
posted by CPT_Doom on
Well, as a Democrat who was crying for Clinton’s resignation in 1998 (which would have spared us King George II), I see no problem comparing the cases, and faulting the Dems for being too willing to rally behind the man who had gained them the White House for the first time in so long. Whether Clinton actually broke the law (and he was a good enough lawyer to ensure he never actually committed perjury – although he clearly lied to the American people), his actions were simply trailer-park trashy, and unworthy of the White House.
The key difference, and where the Dems now have the upper moral hand, is that no one in the Democratic establishment, other than Clinton himself, attempted to cover up the scandal once it was known. The fact is, Clinton lied to everyone who was close to him, and had the tapes not been revealed (both those of Lewinsky and Tripp and those of Clinton and Lewinsky), he would probably have gotten away with it.
And why is it not appropriate for Dems to go on the political attack with this scandal – it’s not like the GOP has played nice for the last 12 years or so. I think it is a great example of karma for the party that compared an injured, decorated vet like Cleland to a terrorist is now being hoisted on their own “family values” petard.
posted by mademark on
Your assumption about the reader’s email is wrong – it’s not worth discussing. Plenty of Democrats, including myself, were disguted with Clinton’s behavior. It remains unfathomable why he would have risked his legacy for such a stupid move. The problem we had was with the GOP’s elevation of it to a needless impeachment. The country saw that for what it was – partisanship at its ugle extreme. At the same time, Monica was an adult, fully. People understood that. As for the Foly matter being partisanship, there are conversvatives calling for Hastert to resign. Seeing the inappropriateness of Foley’s behavior is not a partisan matter. If some Dems take advantage of it, hey, I somehow doubt you would be troubled if the shoe were on the other foot. Everybody still expects an ‘October surprise’ from Rove and I’m sure you’ll be thrilled when it comes. I want to like this website, I truly do, but I don’t get ‘independent’ analysis here. I get Dem-bashing, right-wing, predictable ‘conservative gay’ rhethoric. There is little that’s independent about it. As for the gay baiting in full bloom, with as many men as I saw dismissing the matter on Friday because the page was of ‘the age of consent’ I’m not surprised. It feeds into the sterotype of all gay men as teen-predators (or worse). Read today’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Should warm the hearts of all conservative gay men to know what their flagship paper thinks of them.
posted by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
I get Dem-bashing, right-wing, predictable ‘conservative gay’ rhethoric.
I found this site after catching another (gaypatriot.net). The tone here tends to be much less shrill and personal. While I may not agree with positions here, most of the time I can respect the people behind the positions.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Clinton never claimed to speak for “traditional values.”
He did when he signed (and campaigned upon) the Defense of Marriage Act — going so far as to position himself as an unimpeachable defender of family values from the homosexual agenda in campaign advertisements run throughout the Deep South.
The problem we had was with the GOP’s elevation of it to a needless impeachment. The country saw that for what it was – partisanship at its ugle extreme.
I’ll ask the thermonuclear question here — if Clinton had been sticking a cigar in a college-aged boy rather than a college-aged girl, would the country have been so “understanding?”
The sexual politics of the whole thing — both Clinton and Foley — bores me to tears. The real point here is that both of the old parties are hypocritical in so many ways:
1) They’re defending activity which, in the past, they’ve condemned. . . or they’re attacking activity which, in the past, they’ve defended. These roles flip-flop often.
2) They present themselves as moral arbiters who can run our lives for us — be it our financial lives, our health care, our family lives, etc. But at the same time they assert special expertise and knowledge in this area, they turn around and demonstrate a shocking lack of morality and personal responsibility in their own lives. That should disqualify their claims to be smart enough to run our lives for us — but it doesn’t for many people. Why not?
Why are the same people who hate George W. Bush and Denny Hastert demanding government programs which would put our retirement, health care, and other key life decisions in their hands?
Why are the same people who are demanding a moral, family-values-friendly society seeking to build it through regulations passed by kiddy-diddlers, warmongers, and terminal liars?
Until both “sides” in the old parties engage these questions firmly and decisively — without obfuscation or weaving about the issues with silly “they do it too” relativism — the truth will remain elusive.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think the squabbling about Foley and Clinton misses the point — the reason that this story has such power is that it is similar to abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, with the Republican leadership making the mistakes made by the Catholic bishops — denying, distancing, dismissing, diminishing.
The pages were sent to the Hill by parents who trusted the leadership to keep them safe, and the parents, like the pages, were betrayed. Mark Foley, the leadership-designated protector of teens, was the predator, the fox in the hen house.
When the “overly-friendly” e-mail came to light, the Republican leadership played the “old boy network” game, circling the wagons and protecting their own. And now they are running away from it as fast as they can.
It doesn’t wash, not when trust was broken. Ask any Catholic. And in light of the wide publicity given to the scandal in the Catholic Church, things have changed — people expect adults in leadership positions, adults who are responsible for the safety and well being of children and teens, to be alert for sexual predators.
Like the Catholic bishops, Republican leadership doesn’t get it. By the time they do, it will be too late. Nobody will trust them.
Bay Buchanan said this yesterday: “I know one thing: that e-mail they call an overly friendly e-mail’ — that had predator stamped all over it.”
It is not often that I agree with anything coming out of Bay Buchanan’s mouth. But Bay is dead right on the Mark Foley e-mail — the ‘overly friendly e-mail’ e-mail had predator written all over it, particularly in light of Foley’s reputatation.
If the e-mail didn’t set off any alarms, it was because the folks in leadership didn’t decided not to know.
posted by GCA on
Mademark,
Your comments below are indicative of the same thing you complain about.
\\”I get Dem-bashing, right-wing, predictable \\’conservative gay\\’ rhetoric.\\”
Just because some disagree with you does not mean it is \\”predictable gay conservative rhetoric.\\” People with similar ideology often make similar arguments to support their positions, whether left or right. They are entitled to such beliefs as you are entitled to yours, and you should not attempt to demonize them for such beliefs, otherwise you are equally guilty of \\”Rep-bashing, left-wing, predictable gay liberal rhetoric.\\”
By the way, I am unaware of any left-winged sites that are tolerant and provide fair and balanced positions. On the whole, I find this site to be pretty tame and not as vitriolic as other sites.
Also, if one is bold enough to state their opinion, they should be able to defend it against criticism without getting frustrated. I often have to accept a myriad of responses to my viewpoints and most times such responses are contrary to my view but at least they are done in a respectful manner. I believe that is because I choose when, how, and to whom to communicate my opinion. No sense in debating with hateful and immature people on either side of the aisle, as it accomplishes nothing. I learned a long time ago that as a gay conservative many gays despise me and my views, and some have wished terrible things upon me, thus I choose not to engage such petty people. I attempt to engage those that are civil.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
Going back to the question as to why the boy didn’t break off the online conversation with Rep. Foley when the latter brought up an inappropriate topic: Young people frequently lack the resourcefulness or know-how to terminate a conversation that has crossed such a line. As such, they are vulnerable. The 22-year-old woman may have been equally at risk of amorous persuation, but in the eyes of the law, she was on her own. The 16-year-old boy is still subject to protections our society has devised, and THAT, I submit, is the pertitent distinction here.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“That’s the way Gerry Studds was handled–he was stood up in the well of the House and subjected to the humiliating process of public censure.”
Gerry Studds’s unapologetic reaction defused what could otherwise have been a humiliating process. He emphatically turned his back when the censure was read, then held a press conference with his former page -the alleged victim- at his side telling the censors to mind their own business. I would say that Gerry Studds handled the situation very well.
posted by Guy on
Democrats release their dirt to liberal media lapdogs as the election approaches: Foley likes boys and Allen’s a Jew… Karl Rove has nothing on the "party of inclusion."
posted by Randy R. on
<>
Well, of course! What else do you expect? And when scandals of the sort happen to Democrats, do you think the Republicans stand by politely? Welcome to Washington, dear boy. Don’t be so naive.
And considering the fact that the Republicans perfected the art of gay-bashing, it is particularly delicious to see them in the end, they protect their own rather than the principles or the pages.
<>
It’s pretty offensive that you consider the fact that Allen is a Jew is “dirt.” And since Jews are part of the base of the Democrats, it would hardly serve them to sneer at another person who happens to be Jewish. Furthermore, it appears that the pages who released these documents about Foley are themselves Republicans.
Sure, the Democrats are taking advantage of the sitatution, as any political party would do, but there is no evidence at all that they caused the situation in the first place.
posted by cls on
It is critical we keep hammering home this was not pedophilia or child molesting. The page was not a child either physically or legally but above the age of consent. By definition it was consenting. The kid could have hung up if he wished and if you read his own messages. Foley didn?t force the boy to measure his erection and report the length he did it voluntarily. We had zero evidence it was not consenting. There may be a difference between 22 and 17 but not in the eyes of the law. If Foley had pursued a sexual relationship in DC with the page it would have been legal!
And the gay community is getting shafted. First it is being reported as pedophilia which is most certainly isn?t. Pedophilia is a clinical condition not a legal one. It means one thing only: sexual predilection toward prepubescent children. But the Right has redefined it along the way to imply sex with anyone under 18 (even though the age of consent is 16 is most states). Now Foley is gay. Maybe the teen is as well (based on reading his own messages this is a possibility). By calling sex with someone of legal age ?pedophilia? the Right is confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. And the media and Democrats, just to beat up on the Republicans (a noble goal in my view) are helping with this. But that will come back to bite gays in the ass.
This page did welcome and not welcome both the messages. He participated in them willingly and he certainly pushed them to higher levels (for instance offering the information to Foley that he (the boy) had an erection). Now when he tells Foley this you can?t say he doesn?t welcome the attention. At that point he is soliciting it. I suspect like many teens, especially from the Bible belt, he is ambivalent about any homosexual feelings. At times he welcomes them and other times he doesn?t. That is a common struggle for gay men. We can?t prove that happened. But we can prove he did solicit comments with some remarks of his own that were sexual and he also cut it off. That does fit the ?I might be gay but don?t like it? theory.
The real absurdity here is that sex with this teen in DC would be legal but discussing it would be illegal. This is part of the absurdity of the laws that have been passed in light of various hysterias.
In some ways the Clinton issue was worse. It was not the blow job issue that was cause for concern but that he allowed Lewinsky to in effect blackmail him into granting her jobs in return for sex and that he lied in court while under oath. Those were the real issues but they were lost in the typical Republican anti-sex crusade.
ETJB thinks gay conservatives are defending a man who harassed an underage employee. Again the teen could hang up anytime he wanted. Second, the messages came after the boy worked as a page and he did not work for Foley and he was not underage, once again and slowly, the age of consent in DC is 16 and the boy was about to turn 17. The text messages appear to have come after the boy was no longer working for Congress but he never worked for Foley.
Greg Capaldini comments that the boy couldn?t break it off easily due to his own immaturity. Possibly, but since none of us know the boy that is conjecture and he may be very mature or very immature. At that age it could be either and we shouldn?t presume. But not breaking it off is one thing but when the boy volunteers the information that he has an erection that is not a reluctance to break off due to immaturity that is encouraging the scenario to continue.
http://www.freestudents.blogspot.com
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Again, I find the sexual politics profoundly boring. The hypocritical conservative spin machine justifying Foley’s behavior is hilarious, though.
The WSJ argued in its opinion page, today, that this is why gay Scoutmasters are a bad idea. Other Republicans are busy arguing that a Congressman asking a high school student under his tutelage to measure his penis and report back the results is A-OK.
Goodness, I can see the new Republican campaign slogan now: “GOP — How long is *your* cock?”
“Family values” indeed!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Incidentally, it’s looking increasingly like Foley had plans beyond dirty IMs for certain pages:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid37114.asp
Congressman Mark Foley, who resigned Friday after his sexually charged communications with underage former congressional pages were reported, sought to meet with one ex-page, according to transcripts posted online by ABC News.
The full transcript reveals as never before the sexual frankness of Foley’s instant-message exchanges with the page, including asking the teen for explicit details about his masturbation technique, inquiring whether his girlfriend gave him a “hand job,” and informing the page of the congressman’s own level of sexual excitement during the exchange. The transcript can be found on ABCNews.com.
During the posted exchange the Louisiana teen typed, “ill se ya in a couple of weeks,” suggesting that Foley had made plans to meet with the former page. Foley in one exchange typed, “I miss you lots since San Diego,” ABC News reported, and the former page responded, “Ya I can’t wait til dc.”
That doesn’t sound like “a little horny banter” to me. In fact, it’s strongly suggestive of an ongoing sexual liaison.
posted by Jorge on
Precisely why his head is on a platter right now.
All that hypocrisy running around, it doesn’t make a difference, because what’s right is right and what’s sick is sick, and here it’s just so black-and-white that all the politicians and commentators had better get with the program or get run over. Tom said Bay Buchanan; I heard Nancy Pelosi’s shrill hysterical mouth savaging the House Republicans. Par for the course, and this time she is 100% right on target. We don’t need any of them.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The point made about DC’s age of consent being 16 is correct. This is not about pedophilia, it is about abuse of power. And while the difference in ages between the pages and Monica Lewinsky is significant (even though the pages were above DC’s age of consent they were below the age of majority, and the fact that something may be legal does not make it appropriate), the comparison with Clinton is legitimate in terms of taking advantage of an underling. That said, the public discussion about this story obscures as much as it reveals. For example, last evening on Larry King, John Walsh of “America’s Most Wanted” referred to the problem as “having sex with children.” I agree that Foley’s behavior crossed the line, but why must our society persist in referring to 16- and 17-year olds as “children,” as if there are two and only two possible categories, so that anyone not an adult must therefore be viewed as a child? The teenagers in question were not adults, but neither were they any longer children. It is foolish to refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between pre-adolescent children and post-adolescent teenagers. That difference does not make it okay for adults to hit on teenagers, but the problems associated with teenage sexuality (STDs, pregnancy, exploitation by adults) could be much more productively confronted if we collectively dialed down the hysteria and faced the reality of that sexuality. Unfortunately, many people insist on reacting to such a suggestion as if by talking about facing reality one has declared that “anything goes,” even when (as in my case) one explicitly states that no, anything does not go. One can confront and punish inappropriate behavior without being hysterical about it, and without treating a 16-year-old as if he is no different from a 9-year-old. If anything, the typically raging sexual impulses of a teenager make the risk of inappropriate encounters with an adult far greater than in the case of a pre-adolescent child. Many adults, most of them heterosexual, lose their judgment and restraint when they encounter sexual maturity in an otherwise immature teenager who is fitfully exploring that sexuality while still being dependent on his or her parents. That is one reason we have social taboos about this sort of thing, and why there is a common expectation that adults will avoid creating the occasion for indiscretion. Add to the imbalance of power and maturity a situation where the teenager is in some way a subordinate of the adult, as with an employee and employer, student athlete and coach, or page and congressman, and the overwhelming consensus, gay and straight, is that there must be a hands-off policy. It is creepy and abusive of power for an adult to take advantage of such a situation. The hysteria-mongering and gay baiting serve to distract from that shared standard. As to suspicions that this story was leaked by Democrats for partisan purposes, it’s fine to raise the question, but let’s get the answer instead of simply assuming it.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
“Greg Capaldini comments that the boy couldn?t break it off easily due to his own immaturity. … But not breaking it off is one thing but when the boy volunteers the information that he [is physically aroused,] that is not a [matter of] reluctance to break off due to immaturity [but rather] encouraging the scenario to continue.>>
This plays completely into my argument, actually. By “resourcefulness,” a word I chose carefully, I also referred to a young person’s ability to contain or govern himself. Clearly some young people lack that capacity, and that’s why society takes a dim view of people who exploit this weakness. Clearly I’m arguing with someone who hasn’t been burdened by the consequences of teenaged indiscretions other than his/her own.
posted by Randy R. on
Okay, this whole thing has been beat to death. Here’s a query: Suppose instead of Foley being the bad guy here, it was a popular congressman who looked like Brad Pitt, or Alec Baldwin in his prime. It would still be wrong, but would we gays still have the ‘yuck’ factor? Would Americans?
I’m not sure what my response would be. Thoughts?
posted by Marc on
The issue of age of consent is actually very important here because it shows a clear case of confusion and hypocricy to define “legal consent.” States’ age of consent range from 14 to 18, and some even make the distinction between “homosexual” contact (illegal in some states) to heterosexual. Countries around the world also vary widely in their definition of consent. It the same hypocritical question posed when states changed drinking laws to 21 because they claimed kids were too immature to drink at 18 – but still were mature enough to go off to war and kill. Both the underage drinking argument and Foley’s mess simply point out that we can’t define “maturity” in any clear way. Instead, we use simple political mauneuvering dressed up as mock moral outrage. Both parties are scrambling to spin this to their advantage, but neither has the spotless history to claim victory here. What makes Foley’s e-mails so damaging isn’t the page’s age or even their content, but that they involve a party that has long since claimed to have God and morals on its side. The fact FOley is now trying to claim alcohol and a supposed molestation on his actions is just another predictable political move in this sad soap opera.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Randy, I think Mark Foley has generally been considered rather good looking. Maybe not movie-star handsome, but good looking. There is no “yuck” factor here for me; I just don’t approve of a member of Congress abusing his position.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Okay, this whole thing has been beat to death. Here’s a query: Suppose instead of Foley being the bad guy here, it was a popular congressman who looked like Brad Pitt, or Alec Baldwin in his prime. It would still be wrong, but would we gays still have the ‘yuck’ factor? Would Americans?
I’m not sure what my response would be. Thoughts?”””
I think that if it was a youngish, openly gay guy, then epople, especially here, would be universally condeming him. But since its a republican in the closet, its excuseable.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The point made about DC’s age of consent being 16 is correct. This is not about pedophilia
Legal pedophilia is still pedophilia — it’s just a legal form.
Again, I’m not too bothered about sexual politics — I think 16 is a sufficient age to make sexual and other life decisions — but I cannot help but be tickled to death by liberal and conservative statists’ double-standards.
Liberals insist that 16 is old enough to make decisions about whether or not to have sex with adults, but not old enough to smoke or drink.
Conservatives insist that 16 is old enoughto make decisions about whether or not to have sex with adults (at least in Foley’s case), but not old enough to surf web sites without a filter or watch X-rated films.
posted by Southernpride on
The moment Rep. Foley’s resignation became public knowledge I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. The issue of an adult man sending these types of messages to a teenager aside, I think we may be missing the broader matter of why it is so many men and women are literally terrified of coming out and therefore make bone-headed decisions about their lives, i.e. blaming alcohol, claiming childhood sexual abuse, etc. as the culprit for their issues of not being open and honest about their sexual orientation.
When former New Jersey Gov. McGreevey “came out” a couple of years ago he was applauded by many in the gay community for having “courage.” In my view, he did so to blame his shortcomings and legal troubles on not being able to cope with being gay. Sadly, Foley seems to be engaging in the same sort of deflection, only he’s doing it from deep, deep inside the closet. I think America needs to come to terms with the fact that we, as a society, do not encourage or allow gays to be themselves, their TRUE selves. I spent years locked in the closet, refusing to come out, because of the conditioning I received growing up. But sooner or later you have to take the initiative and be proactive because it is, after all, YOUR life and YOUR happiness on the line. Foley needs to get some serious help for his internalized homophobia as well as his apparent addiction to alcohol and his issues with underage boys. McGreevey is, well, another story. But I digress . . .
There are all sorts of calls for Speaker Hastert to resign, as well as other Republicans who may have had knowledge of this situation and did nothing about it. I join that chorus, though I must admit to being more than a little suspect of Democrats in their “moral outrage,” especially when they linked arms with Clinton and excused his behavior in the White House. I think this nation has a contradictory issue – on the one hand we strongly discourage sexuality in terms of openly discussing it and on the other we have example after example of where it seeps into every facet of our lives. Why is that – because we are human!
Should the Republicans lose control of the House because of this? No, but in combination with other issues you could certainly make the case for change. Problem is, that means Democrats taking over and we know their track record all too well. Oh, I can hear some of the gay community’s self-appointed leaders crowing about how the Dems will advance our issues. Yeah, right. Remember that Clinton signed the most anti-gay law on the books, the Defense of Marriage Act, not Bush.
I am a Republican who is very, very disgusted with my party right now. I think it might be good for us to lose one or both houses of Congress, then nominate a rational presidential candidate in two years to get us away from the Bush debacle. The Iraq problem, combined with the ethical challenges on Capital Hill and the GOP’s obsession with placating the so-called religious right has left me very nonplusssed. Any advice to give me a ray of hope?
posted by Jorge on
Again, I’m not too bothered about sexual politics — I think 16 is a sufficient age to make sexual and other life decisions
I don’t.
I wasn’t bothered much by the “sexual politics” either until I saw some of this debate. I guess I sort of took it for granted what the response of most people would be. So… I think the “sexual politics” is pretty darn important and worth fighting for.
What Mark Foley did is NAMBLA territory, plain and simple. And if some reasonable people think that’s acceptable or not so serious, then that’s one thing the radical anti-gay right is absolutely right to draw attention to. I could cite all kinds of child development stuff and all, but what a waste that would be–it’s that obvious.
And what I see in the sexual politics debate here is a lot more significant than what one man did or what hypocrisy the parties are up to or even the culture of corruption this scandal symbolizes. It shows that some of what has traditionally been called homophobia may well be based more on truth than bigotry.
posted by Jorge on
Southenpride, as someone who tends to favor Republicans, I’m certainly a little discouraged. But if you’re a Republican, things may not be so bleak after all… even if you don’t trust the religious right 🙂
That old expression, “Be the change you want to be in the world,” isn’t about good times. It’s about how to reach them. Things are hard right now so that we can make them easier. You’ll find a way.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””I am a Republican who is very, very disgusted with my party right now. I think it might be good for us to lose one or both houses of Congress, then nominate a rational presidential candidate in two years to get us away from the Bush debacle. The Iraq problem, combined with the ethical challenges on Capital Hill and the GOP’s obsession with placating the so-called religious right has left me very nonplusssed. Any advice to give me a ray of hope?””””
Well, all specifics aside, I think that, at the very least, your party needs a shake up in its status quo, due to the corruption and the relationships with shady characters such as the fundies. As I said to someone else on another forum, though not in these exact words, this may be for the best for the GOP overall. Sure, losing the fundie vote will cost them some elections, but getting those people out of politics will go a long way to calming down the polarization in this country.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
What Mark Foley did is NAMBLA territory, plain and simple. And if some reasonable people think that’s acceptable or not so serious, then that’s one thing the radical anti-gay right is absolutely right to draw attention to. I could cite all kinds of child development stuff and all, but what a waste that would be–it’s that obvious.
The question is — do people own their own bodies or not?
If the answer is “yes, but only at a certain age,” then the question is — which age do they assume ownership? Is it 16? 18? 21?
And if they assume full ownership of themselves at that age point, then what role does the government have in regulating one’s personal decisions beyond that point?
There’s a complex mix of control-freakism and righteous indignation in this mix here.
It’s perfectly legitimate to be disgusted/appalled by what Foley did — while recognizing the role of the kid in question. And if the argument is going to revolve around one not having self-ownership until he’s 18, then liberals will have to accept legal concepts which ban sex between a 17 year old and an 18 year old.
As for the radical right’s “pointing out how disgusting this is,” the radical right would have a conniption fit no matter what. Someone should ask one of their “bride-wives” for their opinion sometime.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL wrote, “And if they assume full ownership of themselves at that age point, then what role does the government have in regulating one’s personal decisions beyond that point?”
Properly speaking, none. If someone is of consent age, it makes no sense to criminalize cybersex with that person. Part of the problem here is that the cyberlaw is a federal law, whereas age of consent laws are at the state level.
NL earlier wrote (regarding 16 being the consent age in D.C.), “Legal pedophilia is still pedophilia — it’s just a legal form.”
As a stand-alone statement, that is certainly true. But you are misapplying it here, because attraction of an adult toward a 16-year-old is ephebophilia, not pedophilia.
Again, nothing useful is accomplished, and much mischief facilitated, by pretending that a 16-year-old is a “child” in the same way that a pre-pubescent person is a child. The trouble is that public attention is seldom paid to this topic except in an atmosphere of hysteria, at which point people’s willingness to confront the reality of teenage sexuality is even less than it usually is. But like it or not, a 16-year-old is not a child. As I said, that does not make it okay for an adult to hit on a 16-year-old, but if you think something is a problem, your first responsibility is to observe it and examine it perceptively and honestly.
David Corn of The Nation is quoted on Gay Patriot claiming that a list of gay GOP Hill staffers is being circulated by certain leftists (Corn is not sharing his copy), with the suggestion that a witchhunt is underway. Apparently ruthlessness and overzealousness are only a problem when Bush & Rove do it. If Corn’s report is borne out by events, it will be a sad day for gay rights activists, who for years have benefitted from the network of Hill staffers who keep one another informed of legislative developments. The “outing” impulse is ugly. It trades on homosexuality being seen as something negative. Those who engage in it are becoming the enemy they fight. A sad day all around.
posted by GCA on
SouthernPride wrote:
?I think America needs to come to terms with the fact that we, as a society, do not encourage or allow gays to be themselves, their TRUE selves.?
I hope we are not suggesting that if we let gays be their real selves, then they won?t engage in illegal or immoral behavior? That implies excusing Foley?s and McGreevey?s behavior because they were forced to make such choices because society would not let them be openly gay. I refuse to accept that implication because I believe they both had choices. My experience has been that many gay men are infatuated with youth and beauty, especially with late teens (16-19), as evidenced by much of the literature you find at gay websites, bookstores, and events. Sure you find this obsession in many straight men too, but it seems that it is much more prevalent in the gay culture and that due to gay social conditioning, gay men are more apt to act on or accept such behavior. Such behavior is strongly discouraged in straight culture due to issues with family, career, religion, social status, alimony, parental rights, etc..
I believe because gay male culture is mostly a single culture and has for the most part an ?anything goes? attitude, this behavior is less likely to be successfully challenged within the gay community. As someone who grew up around NYC and lived in SF for years, I can tell you that the expectation of gay behavior is very different than the expectation of straight behavior in those same communities. I have had countless discussions about this with straight friends and co-workers, most of whom were liberals mind you. They just see our community very differently then we do, even if they support us in certain aspects of gay rights. They see us obsessed with sex, materiality, and other addictions?as if the whole gay community is Hollywood.
Anyway, my point is that we should not blame Foley?s and McGreevey?s behavior on society because SF is an example of a community where being gay and having gay relationships is widely accepted but yet this obsessive and immoral behavior is still largely practiced and excused. For example, NAMBLA used to book a room and meet regularly in the SF Main library until the media got wind of it and barged in on one of their meetings with a camera crew. ?and though many gays were outraged and disgusted by this behavior, the Gay Pride committee decided that as part of the gay community NAMBLA had the right to participate in the SF Gay Pride Parade that year. Imagine the message this sends out about gay males to society.
I think at the end of the day it is about the ?anything goes? attitude many gay males have. Until we change that, and focus on monogamy, maturity, decency, and respect, such behavior will continue. I believe Foley and McGreevey would have engaged in such behavior regardless if they were ?out? because it appears they are individuals that are very self-centered and want it all. People like that are usually impulsive and rarely take the time to consider the impact of their behavior on their community.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””They see us obsessed with sex, materiality, and other addictions?as if the whole gay community is Hollywood.””””
In a universe where only the material exists, there is nothing wrong with focusing on the material things in life.
Regardless, I think the whole attempt to open some discussion on the role gay “culture” (I hate the C word for in all contexts reasons I won’t go in to here) not only plays in to the hands of the homophobes trying to use this to their advantage, but focusing ONLY on the sexual aspects of this ignores the other aspects of republican corruption and hypocrisy that surround this matter.
However, given that “independent” often means supporting republicans and hating democrats, it doesn’t really surprise me that the people here want to shift blame from the GOP even IF it means shifting it on to gays as a whole.
As long as no one hurs the GOPs feelings, everything else is fune.
posted by GCA on
SouthernPride,
I should also state that I share your frustration with the Rep congress. They have gotten a bit cocky and forgot why they were put in charge back in 1994. Now, I understand you can?t always please 100% of the people 100% of the time, but I think they need to get back to the basics of conservative Rep values (limited government intrusion, fiscal responsibility, and a strong national defense). I too think it might be good for the Reps to lose the House this fall (but definitely not the Senate or nothing will be accomplished but party fighting and vendettas on Bush for the next two years) as that would send a very strong signal to the Reps going forward. The only catch-22 is that making Nancy Pelosi 3rd in line for the presidency of the US is very scary. Believe me, as someone who lived in her district for many years, I can tell you she is much more liberal than the press will let on. SF went 85% against Bush in the last two elections. There would be huge pressure from her constituency to push for a SF agenda, which is a very liberal agenda. Besides the Dems are in disarray themselves and I doubt they can do much better. Normally, divided government forces compromise, but I doubt this will be the case if the Dems win. Their base is out for blood and that will push their liberal leadership into fighting with Reps and Bush, not governing. We will just have to wait and see.
By the way, I disagree about Bush. I think history will be kinder to him. His main problem is effective communication, not leadership. Remember, Lincoln, FDR, and Truman were also challenged and suffered tepid support during their respective presidencies too. I believe the impact of the Bush presidency will be a net positive as it will be seen as the only recent world leadership that attempted to thwart terrorism (which was bound to grow due to changes in the world environment that began in the late 80?s). Regardless of what the media and Dems say, most Dems and the world leaders do not want to confront terrorism directly because it is a very difficult battle to fight. They wish for it to go away or to treat it as a law enforcement issue. Besides, I do not see any current Rep leader that is strong enough to capture the hearts of the Reps at this point. McCain is way too unstable and unreliable to gain Rep support. Giuliani is too left of center of the Reps. That is the dilemma we face today. That and the fact we live in a 49-49 nation which began back in the late 80?s and probably will continue for some time.
posted by Marc on
Why do we continually frame this conversation as a “gay thing”? Straight society is also obsessed with youth and young girls. Did only horny 18 year old men buy the millions of copies of “Girls Gone Wild” or “Barely Legal”? Maybe it is more pronounced in the gay culture because we don’t make any bones (or boners?) about our worship of youth. And let’s put to rest that Foley is a pedophile. He isn’t in any legal or clinical sense of the word. He is just like McGreevey: He got caught, plain and simple, using his office to advance his sexual needs. The Repubs who are claiming he “did the right thing” are kidding themselves. He simply was caught. The issue remains that he is a Republican, and the party can’t stand on its moral majority claims any more. And please, please, stop making this 16 year old out like he is some innocent waif who had his virtue stripped away from him. Am i the only one who doesn’t think that 16 year olds are sexually active – many times with older men or women?
posted by raj on
It’s often said of popular representatives (like Foley was) that the only way to bring them down is to catch them with a dead girl or a live boy.
I don’t know how often it might be said of US representatives, but it is attributed to Huey Long, crooked governor of Louisiana in the 1930s
posted by Southernpride on
First, let me clarify something – I did not mean to imply that Foley and McGreevey should be excused for their behavior simply because they aren’t being allowed to be themselves. What I meant was that because our society still shuns and degrades gay people we (as in the gay population) often are unable to honestly and openly embrace our true selves, in other words, we stay locked deep in the closet for fear that we can’t be who and what God created us to be. The church has been a horrible failure in this regard as has government in so far as it meddles in people’s lives.
When the Family Research Council and all these other wacko, bigoted, ignorance-based groups spew their anti-gay venom it sticks often times because so many gays lack the intestinal fortitude to shove back and speak the truth about us. Mark Foley is a prime example of that. He uses alcoholism and apparent child molestation as his rationale for the emails and instant messages, yet never, not ONCE acknowledges that he is indeed gay, which, coincidentally, has POSITIVELY NOTHING to do with his behavior. See my point here? This whole episode allows the fundies to be the goofballs they are and get away with it. They’ll make all these righteous demands for resignations, investigations and the like and claim that the reason Hastert and the others didn’t go after Foley earlier is because they feared being labeled anti-gay or homophobic, but the truth of the matter is they are partially to blame for creating a social climate in which being gay is regarded as a sin and unacceptable “behavior” or some silly lifestyle choice. Come on.
The commentary about gay culture and the emphasis many gay men place on youth is certainly worth acknowledging. I for one believe the gay community must do some very serious introspection regarding some of our actions and attitudes about decency, etc. And I understand the point about San Francisco being a mecca of “anything goes” and how detrimental that is to gays in the overall perception America has of us.
I will not abandon the Republican Party because things are rough this election cycle. I know these things ebb and flow. My dedication to certain principles will not waiver either. And I also agree that the party needs to get back to its basic beliefs regarding the role and size and shape of government. We’ve let, no ALLOWED, the fundies to control the agenda long enough. They don’t speak for me as a Republican, an American and more importantly, as a Christian. As Al Gore once pointed out during a change-oriented election, “It’s time for them (the fundies) to go!”
posted by GCA on
Kittynboi
I am not trying to shift the debate to gay culture and feed into the hands of gay critics. I am simply stating that I believe Foley?s and McGreevey?s behavior has to do with the perception of underlying cultural causes and not society?s fault. I also do not see this as the Reps or Dems fault for those respective politicians, as neither party encouraged such individual behaviors in those two politicians. I believe those politicians? behavior resulted from personal choices and the gay community?s failure to accept that is part of the problem and is why this behavior continues. Much of the commentary I have seen on this matter from the gay community in other articles and forums has been to shift the blame to homophobia or Rep hypocrisy. I don?t see it that way. If one refuses to accept responsibility for their behavior and blames others, than the behavior is excused and allowed to continue. To paraphrase Alan Dershowitz in his book the Abuse Excuse, if that is the case, ?no one is to blame for their behavior except for the originator of bad behavior, whoever that was.?
In addition, there is much more to our universe than materiality. Thoughts and ideas, love, respect, decency, kindness, to name a few, are not material but yet we material beings strive greatly for them. I believe too much focus or obsession on material things is not healthy. That being said, its my day off and I?m now on my way out to go shopping! Lol!
posted by Southernpride on
GCA,
I appreciate your comments. Sometimes it is hard to keep the positive things in mind when it appears all else is lost. I suspect the Dems will take control of both houses and that indeed will be bad news on many fronts, not the least of which being their hatred for the Bush White House and Republicans in general. And I have no doubt they’ll forget the gays when it comes time to bring up issues affecting the gay community. They always do. It amazes me how so many gay folks choose to forget that Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, by far the most anti-gay piece of legislation ever adopted in this country.
As for the postings here that seem to infer that Republicans are attempting to shift blame from our party to someone else, all I can say is it seems a little odd that these instant messages were sent three years ago and someone sat on them all that time and only released them a few weeks before the election. Hmmmm. Call me a cynic, but that smacks of a political ploy and NOT some moral outrage over sexual misconduct. Democrats caring about such things? PLEASE. I want all the gay Dems to sign a pledge that they’ll report ANY member of Congress from their side of the aisle for such actions in the future. Yeah, right.
I’m still frustrated with the GOP, but I know why I’m not a Democrat. And please don’t suggest becoming a Libertarian, that’s not a realistic or rationale option.
posted by Marc on
Southern: You are very correct that the Dems are trying to spin this in a way that makes no sense. They can’t claim any moral high ground based on their past problems, but this becomes an even bigger elephant in the room for Repubs because they have always claimed a moral high ground.
As for Foley, Im hardly shocked about his behavior. Politics has shown its closeted side in many ways through the years (and not just in terms of homosexuality). As a gay man, my scorn against him comes from his recent declaration of “I’m gay” and “I’m an alcoholic and a molestation victim,” as if the three are somehow connected. Just like McGreevey’s disingenuous claim of being a proud gay American, Foley is trying to deflect his own problems off on “past trangressions.” Maybe if our politicans owed up to their mistakes once in a while, the American public in general would think more about the intergrity of politics.
This is being played as a “gay” thing, but it really just politicians once again getting caught with their – oh do i need to say it? — with their pants down
posted by kittynboi on
First, to whoever said this;
“”””By the way, I disagree about Bush. I think history will be kinder to him. “”””
I think the best Bush can hope from history is that he is seen not as a villain, but as an unfortunate figurehead who was used by those around him to get votes and promote their agenda.
I honestly don’t think that much more could be hoped for if we think rationally about it.
Now, southernpride;
“”””When the Family Research Council and all these other wacko, bigoted, ignorance-based groups spew their anti-gay venom it sticks often times because so many gays lack the intestinal fortitude to shove back and speak the truth about us. “”””
Maybe some of us don’t think its as “true” about us as you do. I’ve encountered many gays who do not fit the stereotypes you decry so loudly. It is possible to disagree on just how prevalent these supposed problems are in our community, AND it is possible to honestly think these things are overblown.
“”””The commentary about gay culture and the emphasis many gay men place on youth is certainly worth acknowledging.””””
Part of gay “culture” is like that. But not all gays are, so lets not get in to a contest of self flagellation just to sound morally righteous to others.
“”””I for one believe the gay community must do some very serious introspection regarding some of our actions and attitudes about decency, etc. And I understand the point about San Francisco being a mecca of “anything goes” and how detrimental that is to gays in the overall perception America has of us.””””
I don’t think thats the right approach. Looking at the bigger picture, I think our goal overall, in building a free society, should be not to convince the moralizers and middle america that we can be just like them, but rather to convince them that part of living in a free society includes living with things you might not approve of, but are not illegal. I think that is VERY important these days, as too many people, both on the left and the right, want to use legislation and the law to simply eradicate everything they don’t like. Thats dangerous, wrongheaded, and by trying to simply show people that we can be just like them if they find how we currently are to be unacceptable only fuels the mindset of using government to simply stamp out everything they don’t like.
“”””My dedication to certain principles will not waiver either. And I also agree that the party needs to get back to its basic beliefs regarding the role and size and shape of government. We’ve let, no ALLOWED, the fundies to control the agenda long enough. They don’t speak for me as a Republican, an American and more importantly, as a Christian. As Al Gore once pointed out during a change-oriented election, “It’s time for them (the fundies) to go!”””””
YOU might not abandon the GOP, but as I’ve pointed out, many on the religious right have become “disenchanted”, which is the word they use, with the republicans apparrent inability to deliver on the promises they made to get their votes.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
nothing useful is accomplished, and much mischief facilitated, by pretending that a 16-year-old is a “child” in the same way that a pre-pubescent person is a child
What does this statement really mean, though?
Either one is a child, or he is not. Efforts to create “degrees” or manufacture degrees of pedophilia with new postmodern words (“ephebophilia”) don’t cover up that basic fact.
my scorn against him comes from his recent declaration of “I’m gay” and “I’m an alcoholic and a molestation victim,” as if the three are somehow connected
Ironically, Foley has managed to grab onto the “I’m a victim and cannot be fully responsible for my actions” paradigm which characterizes postmodern dialogue on these issues now.
The obfuscation which comes with “new terminology” and “is it technically legal” discussion glosses over the moral debate. Ultimately, the utility of this “scandal” is threefold:
1) It demonstrates that rhetoric of “moral values” from both old parties is utter, disingenuous bunk;
2) It shows that, for Republicans (as for Democrats during the Clinton era), defending the team is more important than defending the well-being of the country as a whole;
3) It characterizes the absolute contempt that so many of the old-party politicians in Washington have for everyday people — especially those who are most directly in their power (interns and pages).
posted by GCA on
Southernpride,
Don?t fret. I believe in the end the DEMs at most will take the House. As I said before, I can live with that?with reservations because of Nancy Pelosi. I doubt the DEMs could contain their rage for 2 years and I believe they will become so ineffective, that it would result in their subsequent defeat in 2008 due to two reasons: (1) freshman congressman are always the most vulnerable in subsequent elections, and (2) most districts are not competitive due to the way they are drawn (with current net districting favoring REPs). That is not to say that all DEMs are outrageous, it?s the leadership of the DEMs that are most problematic at this point.
In addition, I have no intention of becoming a Libertarian. I believe in the current principles of the REPs even if I don?t always agree with them on certain issues. Growing up in a very liberal state taught me a great deal about what became of the DEM party. They are no longer the party of FDR. When people ask me how I can be gay and a REP, I ask them how they can be gay and fair-minded and be a DEM.
I think back on my solidly DEM working class town where cops set at the two bridge entrances to escort blacks out of our town at night (it was OK in the day though because many blacks worked in our factories). I think about this town that sat between two of the largest cities that were overwhelmingly African-American, but only one African-American student was in my high school as people did not want to rent to African Americans in my working class community. I think back on my heritage (part white/Latin) where I was called many names and had judgments passed on me by both my neighbors and teachers simply because of my race (forget the fact that I had the lightest of skin and except for curly/wavy hair no identifying non-Caucasian racial features). I also think about all the homophobia that I grew up around with those great defenders of respect and liberty, unionists, who often took pleasure in beating some ?fags? for fun or because they looked at them the wrong way. I remember the quiet, shy, dainty boy that got punched out in the hall and went home with a bloody nose, simply because he was perceived gay and some guy wanted to challenge his masculinity. I do not even know if he was gay, but he was a nice target. I remember so many other things about the DEM party that would take me all night to document.
So though the REP party is not perfect, I still believe that it has choices for me that the DEMs currently do not. At least I know where I stand with the REPs. The DEMs appear only to want people like me when voting time rolls around. I don?t understand why though, aren?t there enough dead people already registered DEM to vote? LOL!
posted by kittynboi on
“”Ironically, Foley has managed to grab onto the “I’m a victim and cannot be fully responsible for my actions” paradigm which characterizes postmodern dialogue on these issues now.””
Especially irnoic considering how much the righties whine when someone else does this exact same thing to “excuse” their behavior.
GCN;
“”””When people ask me how I can be gay and a REP, I ask them how they can be gay and fair-minded and be a DEM.””””
Okay. From someone who is not in lockstep with either party, how can you be gay and a republican?
Do you even HAVE an answer? Or have you always just dodged the question?
posted by GCA on
Kittynboi,
I did not dodge any question. I think I made it quite clear in my post that I am a REP, perhaps a frustrated one at times, but still a REP overall. I do not always agree with all REP issues or vote for every REP candidate but neither do all REPs, just as not all DEMs agree and vote in favor of all DEM issues.
I challenge you strongly simply because I feel that you are representing the majority of the gay community that does not wish for us conservative gays to have a voice that disagrees with the gay majority. I think these debates are healthy and should not be suppressed simply because we air dirty laundry that may be used as ammunition by enemies of the gay community. I find gay people to be just as nice and caring as straights but I also find a lot in our community that needs improving. We gay conservatives make up only 15% to 25% of gay life but we should have our say also. Perhaps that is why many of us come to IGF, because there is little opportunity elsewhere in the gay world for us to have these open discussions without threatening recourse. Just as many gays feel slighted by straights, many of us conservative gays feel ostracized from our gay brethren. The gay community is rarely open to us gay conservatives and often ridicules us at every juncture?so much for the inclusion principle advocated by many gays. I am not an uneducated, religious freak, who blindly follows what REPs tell me to. I am well-educated, well-read, and an independent thinker. I should be given the same respect to draw my conclusions on gay issues as anyone else in the gay community, as long as I do it in a respectful manner. It is OK for others to challenge my views but I should be given ample voice to express my views as part of the gay community. Otherwise, the gay community itself is just as oppressive and close-minded as its oppressors. The fact that I share ideology with some that many gays find have antithetical views from their own should not result in the revocation of my ?gaycard.? I am not ashamed of being gay or closeted; I simply have a different viewpoint on what gay culture should strive towards. After all, being gay is not in my ?Top 5 List? on how to describe myself. But to steal and paraphrase a well-known quote: ?We gay conservatives are proud, We are determined, and We are here to stay?so get used to Us!? Silly?maybe, but true.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””I challenge you strongly simply because I feel that you are representing the majority of the gay community that does not wish for us conservative gays to have a voice that disagrees with the gay majority. “”””
Okay, you lost me somewhere there.
Why are you challenging me specifically?
“”””I think these debates are healthy and should not be suppressed simply because we air dirty laundry that may be used as ammunition by enemies of the gay community.””””
Well, I’m not advocating the suppression of anything. But I will question what tone the debate should take and what it should be about, and whether or not the conclusions of said debate, as well as the underlying assumptions of it, are correct.
“”””I find gay people to be just as nice and caring as straights but I also find a lot in our community that needs improving. “”””
Every single thing on the planet could use some amount of improving. But people will disagree on how much improvement is called for, and what areas actually need improvement.
“”””We gay conservatives make up only 15% to 25% of gay life but we should have our say also.””””
You can say all you want. But realize that not everyone is going to heed your avice.
“””” It is OK for others to challenge my views but I should be given ample voice to express my views as part of the gay community. “”””
How are you not given that voice? You can speak up any time you like, but it seems you dislike that other people respond to you in ways you object too. Short of deleting posts on a forum, no one in the gay community can silence you unless you let them.
I find much of your post to be weak and without much substance. I don’t think anyone in the gay community is capable of silencing you. I also think that you are more interested in making yourself out to be a victim of gay narrow mindedness because it makes you feel like more of a freethinker.
Why not simply voice your actual concerns and focus less on the perceived slights the rest of the gay community gives you. What possible consequence could there be from voicing your views? You don’t even have a ‘gay card’ ot be revoked.
Or are you just worried people will be rude and mean to you and disrespect you? Well, in case you haven’t noticed, that comes with the territory of modern U.S. partisan politics. I suggest you develop a thicker skin. Arguments over political matters, especially in these emotionally charged topics, are rarely ever nice and cordial, and this applies even moreso on the internet.
If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. When I find the heat is getting too much for me, I just set a few fires on the other side and try to burn them before they burn me, so to speak.
This is just one of the big problems I have with many self proclaimed gay conservatives. You all seem more obsessed with your victim status in the gay community than gays in general have ever felt about their status in society at large. You focus on how excluded you feel from the gay community, how disrespected you feel, etc. Well, as I said before, in the free-for-all environments of the internet and partisan politics, no one can silence you unless you let them. If you find yourself being shut off on forums then start your own blog or website to express your views. A Blogger account is free after all, and there are many other free services out there for similar things.
Maybe you would get more respect if you put more effort in to making consistent, convincing arguments, rather than focusing on how bad it makes you feel to be rejected by the gay “Community”. Only sheep need a shepherd, only followers need a leader, and only collectivists need a community.
posted by Southernpride on
Oh boy (sigh), here we go again. The above post is affirmation that being a gay Republican confounds others because they demand “explanations” about our views, our principles, etc. In order for me to become a Democrat I’d have to accept victimization as a calling card, I’d have to find something desperately wrong with my country (i.e. so-called imperialism, supposed racial inequalities and the like). I’d also have to align with a myriad of groups I have virtually nothing in common with. The previous post suggests that gay conservatives regard ourselves as victims. Hardly. What we do recgonize is that while our liberal (or other) gay brethern have no problem embracing self-victimization we simply do not. That is not exactly a matter of feeling sorry for oneself.
Mark Foley is an unfortunate example of what happens when someone spends too much time in the closet. One of the other posts said that I was trying to lump all gays into one category with regard to being different versus being more alike and seeking common ground on that. I’m sorry, but there ARE certain things that ARE wrong and shouldn’t be accepted. Period. The bareback meth parties in our urban centers, the widespread use of hustlers and prostitutes by far too many gay men in those cities and towns, the promotion of pornography as the cure for loneliness, ALL these things are wrong, no way around it. Being gay doesn’t automatically mean you approve of such things, or does it? I don’t want to sound harsh, but we ought to be demanding more from the gay community than that. We should expect to take personal responsibility for our choices, our decisions. This approach of thinking that anything goes and that’s okay reminds me of all the bitter gay men in the 1980s who blamed Ronald Reagan for THEIR decision to have unprotected or unsafe sex, thereby contracting HIV. At some point you have to take responsible for your own actions. But I suppose that’s wrong or judgmental of me. Foley is facing that music now. Others in Congress apparently are as well. The Democrats are wallowing in this scandal right now because for once their not the ones behaving so badly. These things do have a way of coming around though.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””The above post is affirmation that being a gay Republican confounds others because they demand “explanations” about our views, our principles, etc. “”””
In the world of open inquiry, demanding an explanation is hardly an unusual thing. I don’t take everything at face value and if I want to know the why of something then I’ll ask.
“”””The previous post suggests that gay conservatives regard ourselves as victims. Hardly. What we do recgonize is that while our liberal (or other) gay brethern have no problem embracing self-victimization we simply do not. That is not exactly a matter of feeling sorry for oneself.””””
You people completely regard yourselves as victims. You just shift the focus of the victimizer from straight society to gay society. If this was not the cas then you would spend more time formulating clear arguments and less time whining about how gay society rejects you and doesn’t respect you.
“”””Mark Foley is an unfortunate example of what happens when someone spends too much time in the closet.””””
Exactly.
“”””I’m sorry, but there ARE certain things that ARE wrong and shouldn’t be accepted. Period. The bareback meth parties in our urban centers, the widespread use of hustlers and prostitutes by far too many gay men in those cities and towns, the promotion of pornography as the cure for loneliness, ALL these things are wrong, no way around it. “”””
Bull fucking shit. There’s always room for reasonable disagreement, especially on the issue of pronography, and many STRAIGHT people, mostly libertarians, advocate legalizing prostitution. Hell, even Bobby, our resideny gay conservativ we love to heckle, thinks prostitution should be legal. And some of the arguments from him and others in favor of that make sense. Try refuting the arguments instead of making these foot stamping moral proclamations.
“”””Being gay doesn’t automatically mean you approve of such things, or does it?””””
No.
“””” I don’t want to sound harsh, but we ought to be demanding more from the gay community than that. “”””
Demand all you want. But be prepared to offer an argument as to why your particular demands as opposed to the demands of someone else should be met.
“”But I suppose that’s wrong or judgmental of me.”””
No, its just stupid is what it is. You are creating false chimeras to make yourself feel more justified.
You think the gay community should act in a specific way.
Fine.
But you better be prepared to explain to people why they should do it and convince them why they should listen to you.
Just because you think you’re right doesn’t mean everyone will, or should, fall down and do as you say.
If you want people to do as you say, you have to convince them of why. In short, you have to win the argument. But thats something that some gay conservatives don’t seem to grasp. They’re so convinced of their own supriority that they seem to forget that if you want to win people over in politics then you have to put at least SOME effort in to doing it.
So, you think some gays should follow your ways? Then get out there and tell them WHY you think that and try to convince them. If you aren’t willing to defend your point of view with an argument, then get ready for failure.
posted by dalea on
‘And I understand the point about San Francisco being a mecca of “anything goes” and how detrimental that is to gays in the overall perception America has of us.’
My own experience is that straight guys view us as having everything they want, but women won’t cooperate. And that they see us as living a much more fullfilled life than they have. Envy while not a pretty thing, really does not detract from our self presentation.
Further, most thinking people can see the property value differential between gay meccas, gay neighborhoods and straight land.
On taking back the rep party from the fundies. What if they won’t let you? What if they decide to hold on to the party, which their toil and time built up? Do not see anyone addressing this issue. One reason that fundy issues are so closely identified with the reps is the fundies control large parts of the party. Particularly those parts that require a lot of work to be donated. Not such an easy proposition, just sounds good.
posted by GCA on
Dear Kitty,
I challenge you specifically because your posts state that REPs are corrupt and you disparage REPs in general without any supporting evidence. I think in some instances your points are lost in what appears to be your apparent frustration with us gay conservatives and why we support the REPs.
You are missing my point on needed improvements in the gay community. I clearly point out that I believe as individuals, gays and straights have similar attributes that are not defined by sexual orientation (i.e. nice, caring people). Where I distinguish the gay community is in certain behavior and the acceptance of that behavior, and how that greatly impacts how society as a whole views the gay community. The fact of the matter is that the gay community has a great image problem and denying that will not change the image problem we have. If this were not true, then no one would care about the impact of this scandal or any scandal involving a gay individual because it would not be perceived as evidence to our image problem. Your posts clearly express concern that this connection is being made and may do further damage. Therefore, you assist in making my point, which is to improve our image, which will result in better relations with society, and ultimately less homophobia.
I agree that not everyone will heed my advice, as not everyone will heed your advice. The point of this blog is discussion and we have a right to express an alternative opinion than yours, as you have the right to express one different than mine. Otherwise, why post comments.
I strongly disagree with you on the ability to speak up and be heard. Anybody can post on the internet but that is not the point. The point is whether there is an opportunity in the appropriate settings (i.e. gay forums that meet the gay masses) to voice an opinion, and I believe such forums are non-existent to extremely limited. I live in the gay mecca of the US and I assure you that gay conservatives are not invited or given the opportunity to express their point of view in the SF Bay Area without being ridiculed. Imagine if someone stated that ample opportunity exists for the following to express their opinions: (1) gays at the REP National Convention, (2) pro-life DEMs at the DEM National Convention, and (3) African Americans prior to the civil rights era. Surely that would seem preposterous to most, just as it seems preposterous to me that gay conservatives are allowed EQUAL and AMPLE voice in the gay community. Perhaps you feel there are forums for such free speech among conservative gays, but I assure you, you are mistaken.
I am not concerned with being challenged as that is par for the course when you make your opinions public. Instead, what I elude to is civility. No one in their right mind wants to confront a hostile audience and have a civil debate because it is futile. I am not one to back down from a challenge but I am also pragmatic and know when to shake my head and walk away. In my 19 years of being out, I have been to many gay events over the years and I have never seen a right of center discussion in a public forum. NEVER! Perhaps they have them where you live but they do not seem to exist in NY or CA, areas of large gay populations.
Again, I perceive you are biased towards gay conservatives when you claim we see ourselves as victims. Well, if that is not the pot calling the kettle black?I dunno. Gay leaders constantly see gays as victims, and rightfully so at times, depending on the issue at hand. However, the author?s article lays the groundwork for this discussion about victimization and perception by asking whether this issue is partisanship or homophobia. One simply can not make that kind of assertion without delving into why we perceive the possibility of homophobia is behind this issue. I do not see gay conservatives as victims. I simply see that the gay community has a long way to go to accepting that gay conservatives exist, much to the dismay and chagrin of many gays. Stating factual statements does not mean we are claiming victimhood. After all, your comments regarding REPs implies you are claiming victimization too. Is that your intention?
Granted, you have a right to challenge my posts and vice versa. But resorting to personal attacks regarding debating skills (i.e. consistent, convincing, weak arguments) is not productive debate. I have experience in written debate, as I work in the regulatory environment where I write and review testimony and discovery outlining arguments with support during the litigation process. I believe my posts are well laid out with ample support. If you disagree with the posts, that is fine, but to suggest they are inconsistent is something I challenge you on. Direct me to such inconsistencies and I will elaborate if necessary. Since you disagree with my posts, I would not expect you to find my posts convincing, as I do not find your posts convincing and laden with support. Convincing arguments only has relevance when one of us convinces the other of our respective arguments, which it has not, thus your point on convincing arguments is irrelevant.
My intent is to have a debate, not a cat fight. This is not about sensitivity and having a thick skin. I just think debate should be passionate and civil, not caddy and laden with cheap shots. In addition, if you wish to continue this debate in private to save everyone from this ongoing tennis match, I am open to that and we can exchange email, just let me know, and I will respectfully comply. Then perhaps you will see the error of your ways and become a conservative gay REP. Lol!
Finally, I would like to say that I consider myself a happy-go-lucky type and often I interject humor into my posts that may not be apparent to those that don?t know me so I would not read too much into my ?gaycard? or like comments, they are meant in jest.
Good day!
Kittynboi Comments that GCA Challenges:
?But since its a republican in the closet, its excuseable.?
Well, all specifics aside, I think that, at the very least, your party needs a shake up in its status quo, due to the corruption and the relationships with shady characters such as the fundies. As I said to someone else on another forum, though not in these exact words, this may be for the best for the GOP overall. Sure, losing the fundie vote will cost them some elections, but getting those people out of politics will go a long way to calming down the polarization in this country.
??but focusing ONLY on the sexual aspects of this ignores the other aspects of republican corruption and hypocrisy that surround this matter.
However, given that “independent” often means supporting republicans and hating democrats, it doesn’t really surprise me that the people here want to shift blame from the GOP even IF it means shifting it on to gays as a whole.
As long as no one hurs the GOPs feelings, everything else is fune.?
?But since its a republican in the closet, its excuseable.?
posted by kittynboi on
“”””I think in some instances your points are lost in what appears to be your apparent frustration with us gay conservatives and why we support the REPs.””””
I don’t dispute that. This is the internet, after all. And I find that I get very angry over this.
“”””The fact of the matter is that the gay community has a great image problem and denying that will not change the image problem we have. If this were not true, then no one would care about the impact of this scandal or any scandal involving a gay individual because it would not be perceived as evidence to our image problem. Your posts clearly express concern that this connection is being made and may do further damage. Therefore, you assist in making my point, which is to improve our image, which will result in better relations with society, and ultimately less homophobia.””””
My concern is that, regardless of how distasteful some of this activity is, not all of it is illegal. Sure, drug use is, but the legality of drugs is another issue entirely. But my reqal concern is that we should not be playing in to the hands of those who think we should apologize for legal behavior. I think this goes beyond gay issues. To me, people just need to learn to live with things they don’t like.
“”””I agree that not everyone will heed my advice, as not everyone will heed your advice. The point of this blog is discussion and we have a right to express an alternative opinion than yours, as you have the right to express one different than mine. Otherwise, why post comments.””””
The things is, I have a problem with gay conservatives who seem personally offended that all gays don’t take their advice. It betrays a sense of entitlement and an attitude that everyone should listen to them just because.
“”””The point is whether there is an opportunity in the appropriate settings (i.e. gay forums that meet the gay masses) to voice an opinion, and I believe such forums are non-existent to extremely limited.””””
Have you tried? If people try to heckle you, have you ever tried sternly telling them to shut the fuck up? See, thats why I can’t take you guys seriously. You come off as spineless pussies who don’t stand up for yourselves and prefer to whine about how mean everyone is to you.
“”””(3) African Americans prior to the civil rights era. Surely that would seem preposterous to most, “”””
That is an understatement.
“”””it seems preposterous to me that gay conservatives are allowed EQUAL and AMPLE voice in the gay community. Perhaps you feel there are forums for such free speech among conservative gays, but I assure you, you are mistaken.””””
Have the conservative gays tried banding together and making them? Have they tried having meetings at libraries or other such places or making their own publications?
“”””Instead, what I elude to is civility. No one in their right mind wants to confront a hostile audience and have a civil debate because it is futile. “”””
Yeah, but as I said, thats part of partiason politics in America today. It might not be good, but thats how it is.
You say you know when to turn you back. But turning your back is your choice.
“”””n my 19 years of being out, I have been to many gay events over the years and I have never seen a right of center discussion in a public forum. NEVER! Perhaps they have them where you live but they do not seem to exist in NY or CA, areas of large gay populations.””””
Have you tried to start one yourself? Have you tried organizing gay conservatives and setting up an alternative?
“”””Again, I perceive you are biased towards gay conservatives when you claim we see ourselves as victims.””””
Bias doesn’t even begin to describe it.
“”””Well, if that is not the pot calling the kettle black?I dunno. Gay leaders constantly see gays as victims, and rightfully so at times, depending on the issue at hand.””””
If anyone tries to make me a victim they’re in for some trouble. I am not a victim and will not be.
“”””I do not see gay conservatives as victims. I simply see that the gay community has a long way to go to accepting that gay conservatives exist, much to the dismay and chagrin of many gays.””””
I think they do realize you exist. They may not like you, but thats your problem and I’m not your PR agent.
“”””This is not about sensitivity and having a thick skin. I just think debate should be passionate and civil, not caddy and laden with cheap shots.””””
Then I think you’re expecting way too much.
“””” In addition, if you wish to continue this debate in private to save everyone from this ongoing tennis match, I am open to that and we can exchange email, just let me know, and I will respectfully comply. Then perhaps you will see the error of your ways and become a conservative gay REP. Lol!””””
If you want too. Either way is fine with me.
“”””Finally, I would like to say that I consider myself a happy-go-lucky type and often I interject humor into my posts that may not be apparent to those that don?t know me so I would not read too much into my ?gaycard? or like comments, they are meant in jest.””””
Well, the internet has a reputation for losing things in translation.
I’m not part of the gay community, but I also tire of seeing people endlessley complain about how awful it is.
posted by GCA on
Dear Kitty,
?Have you tried? If people try to heckle you, have you ever tried sternly telling them to shut the fuck up? See, that?s why I can’t take you guys seriously. You come off as spineless pussies who don’t stand up for yourselves and prefer to whine about how mean everyone is to you.
I disagree with you strongly on the above comments and your approach. As I have learned from experience, you catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. Throughout my 20?s and early 30?s, I was a very strong-willed person that confronted all situations head on. I never backed down, no matter what. I remember being outnumbered in discussions by 10 or more. But I forged ahead, attacking arguments and others where I saw fit. I did this in my native environment of NY/NJ, hardly an environment where people are a pushover. Truth be told, it was often exhilarating because I loved a challenge and felt I won when people caved in or gave up. But I must also be honest and admit, I rarely made an impact because being confrontational and having an ?in your face? approach rarely works in any situation that requires an exchange of ideas, even if you have the facts on your side. I slowly realized this as I got older. Such attitude also cost me some missed opportunities earlier in my life, both personal and professional, because I was considered more apt to divide than unite. This is classic behavior of strong-willed and demanding types. I definitely got this from my mom. Lol! After years of maturing (early 40?s now) and self-reflection, I now realize that such confrontation was ineffective, wrong, and useless. In fact, I?ve been to dispute resolution training as part of my career and it is pretty much universally accepted that approach goes a long way in resolving issues. Try taking that attitude in settlement negotiations and you will fail and you?re off to costly litigation. Having an ?in your face,? intimidating approach just does not work in most cases. The point of debate is not to see who can piss off who more or to intimidate others. The point of debate is to exchange ideas and hopefully convert others to your cause. The suggestions you make for the forum at hand do not lend themselves to the desired conclusions. So I submit to you that many of us are not spineless, whiny, pussies, we just don?t see the point of such behavior if it does not add to the debate.
People that come across mean and intimidating rarely make gains in intellectual arguments. They tend to turn people off and that is why it is rare for politicians to behave this way publicly, they do it behind the scenes because they know such behavior almost always costs them votes if done publicly. As the saying goes, ?mean people suck.?
My email link is above. But don?t ask me for any pictures as I am only 16. LOL!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
our liberal (or other) gay brethern have no problem embracing self-victimization we simply do not
I especially had to chuckle when I saw the “southern pride” handle attached to this comment. A bigger group of victimhood-seekers than “southern pride” sorts, with their complaints about a 140-year-old civil war that their great-great grandfathers lost, would be hard to find.
Stones, glass houses, etc.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””But I must also be honest and admit, I rarely made an impact because being confrontational and having an ?in your face? approach rarely works in any situation that requires an exchange of ideas, even if you have the facts on your side. I slowly realized this as I got older. Such attitude also cost me some missed opportunities earlier in my life, both personal and professional, because I was considered more apt to divide than unite.'””””
Well, your current approach doesn’t seem to work either, lest you would not be complaining that no one listens to you.
posted by Chuck Shoemer on
If you stick up for this Foley Sicko in anyway than as an exicutioner, YOU’RE A PEDOPHILE!!! Family Values my eye.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
your current approach doesn’t seem to work either, lest you would not be complaining that no one listens to you
Worse still, how does shilling for Republican closet cases “unite” people?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
CGA talks about the gay community having an image problem with sex and drugs, etc. He says “My experience has been that many gay men are infatuated with youth and beauty, especially with late teens (16-19), as evidenced by much of the literature you find at gay websites, bookstores, and events. Sure you find this obsession in many straight men too, but it seems that it is much more prevalent in the gay culture and that due to gay social conditioning, gay men are more apt to act on or accept such behavior.\\”
CGA, I don\\’t know any straight men that aren\\’t sexually aroused by youth whereas the gay men I\\’m aware of all tend to be \\”bottoms\\” and prefer mature men, not adolescent boys. I resent you characterizing the gay community by its most outrageous members, many, perhaps most gays are in the closet and nothing like sex and drug crazed party animals you complain about. It makes just as much sense to point to heterosexuals who are most visible because they are most problematic, the Hell\\’s Angels for example, and claim they are representative of heterosexuals. There is nothing saying that the behaviours you claim characterize the gay community are any more representative of gays then the criminal activities of the Hell\\’s Angels represent heterosexuals as a community. Part of the reason the gay community may have an image problem is simply because when the public at large hears of outrageous behavior by someone who happens to be gay they falsely assume its because they are gay. People don\\’t point out abadly behaving person\\’s heterosexuality every time that behavior comes to light and cause the behavior to be associated with the orientation, this is only done with gays – something you do yourself.
Northeast Libertarian doesn\\’t like people pointing out that Foley is not a pedophile. He says \\”Either one is a child, or he is not. Efforts to create \\”degrees\\” or manufacture degrees of pedophilia with new postmodern words (\\”ephebophilia\\”) don\\’t cover up that basic fact.\\”
That\\’s ridiculous. Of course there are degrees of being a child. A three year old and a 16 year old are vastly different in terms of maturity, one cannot consider them equally childlike. By necessity the law may draw an artificial line where someone is considered a child one day before their birthday and a day later an adult but no rational person would think there has been a significant real world change in that person\\’s intelligence or physical characteristics as compared to the difference in maturity between a three year old and a sixteen or eighteen year old. Obviously as a child ages the achieve higher degrees of maturity and sexual interest in pre-pubescent and post-pubescent youngsters is significantly different even when its still considered wrong.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northeast Libertarian, to further make the point take a look at this link:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2006/10/yglesias-on-pedophilia.html#comments
It’s rather self-evident that to classify anyone who thinks of this sixteen year old an attractive woman as a pedophile would be to drain the term of any real meaning
posted by Southernpride on
Northeastern liberal-itarian – you are irrelevant, period. Kitty girl or boi or whatever – spare us the venom. GCA, my friend, folks like us are wasting our time here. The fact is that most of the leftie posters here either do not have jobs (and likely don’t want a job) or simply think they should dominate all of the blogs online.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Kitty girl or boi or whatever – spare us the venom””””
I’m fully male. But you can read, you just wanted to take a cheap shot because my anger and vitrol is making it even harder for you right wing bottom feeders to assume all non right wings gays are feminine queens.
“”””The fact is that most of the leftie posters here either do not have jobs (and likely don’t want a job)””””
What? So since someone doesn’t drink the right wing kool aid they don’t have a job? Yeah, this is the kind of stuff that makes liberals and real libertarians and others who aren’t solely in the Bush camp think that all lockstep rightingers are just plain stupid and ignorant.
Disagree with the right wing on even on small issue? Then you don’t have a job.
And NEL is hardly irrelevant. I think that he’s certainly one of the most intelligent people on here and makes more sense than any conservative who posts here.
Of course, your time here is wasted. Everytime that a right winger goes somewhere and makes claims, and then people refuse to accept them on their simple say-so, then everyone is being mean to them and they should go elsewhere.
If you want to remove yourself from the discourse here, go ahead. But tis your choice, and given that, it will be no ones fault but your own.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Of course there are degrees of being a child. A three year old and a 16 year old are vastly different in terms of maturity, one cannot consider them equally childlike.
Using that logic, sex with a 6-year-old is “more moral” than sex with a toddler, etc.
Look, either someone’s a kid or he’s not. He’s either emancipated, or he isn’t.
It’s rather self-evident that to classify anyone who thinks of this sixteen year old an attractive woman as a pedophile would be to drain the term of any real meaning
No it wouldn’t, it would just be honest. There’s plenty of lechery in the heterosexual community towards teens as well. Predatory intent is not something restricted to a single gender or sexual orientation.
And Southern Fried, do you have anything useful to say? If so, I suggest you post it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northeast Libertarian said “Look, either someone’s a kid or he’s not. He’s either emancipated, or he isn’t.”
That’s where you’re wrong, your confusing a legal definition (emancipation) with a Non-legal definition (kid) – they’re not the same thing. I’m sure most people understand that a 17 year old 1 day shy of his 18th birthday is not distinguishable in physical or mental maturity from himself one day later regardless of what the law says. For you to suggest otherwise is pretty childish yourself and I’ll bet your over 18.
There’s not much difference between a 6 year old and a toddler as you know and by the same token there’s even less difference between somene a day before and the day of their 18th birthday. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t say there’s no difference in the former and say there’s a significant difference in maturity in the latter – what the law says is a seperate issue from the degree of childishness a person exhibits. Now be a grown up and admit you’re wrong.
I never said predatory intent was restricted to a single gender or orientation, what I’m saying is that if you are a straight male and you say you don’t find that picture of the 16 year old Scarlett Johansen attractive you’re a liar and by your logic virtually all adult males are pedophiles.
posted by Greg A on
NEL opines “Using that logic, sex with a 6-year-old is “more moral” than sex with a toddler, etc. ”
While I think everyone here would agree that both of those are pretty sick, I think most would also agree that having sex with a toddler was sicker. That doesn’t excuse sex with a 6yo, but does evidence that people see this as a matter of degree.
Pedophilia is not a crime, its a condition, defined as a primary attraction to prepubescent children. There is no evidence that Mr. Foley is a pedophile. One can be a pedophile an never commit a crime, and I would guess that most never commit the crime of child molestation and keep themselves happy with kiddie porn instead.
Child molestation is a crime, defined as having sexual activity with a person under the age of consent. Whether or not chat or talk is sufficient to count as sexual activity is for a jury to decide, but if he is guilty of any crime, it will be child molestation or some variation there of, and not pedophilia. One does not have to be a pedophile to have sex with a minor. I would guess that most child molesters are not pedophiles, but have sex with children more because they are able to coerce them into it,
than because they are primarily attracted to kids.
In my state, child molestation is much more severely penalized if the child is 12 or less. So the law recognizes gradations of severity.
The world is seldom simple, and its usually not helpful to pretend that it is.