It is early yet to talk about "the moral of the story" with respect to Mark Foley. Foley, a Republican congressman from Florida, resigned last week after it was revealed that he had been sending sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages to underage congressional pages. Here's a sample (the spelling is left uncorrected):
Foley: what you wearing
Teen: normal clothes
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Foley: um so a big buldge….
Foley: love to slip them off of you
Teen: haha
Foley: and [grab] the one eyed snake….
Teen: not tonight...dont get to excited
Foley: well your hard
Teen: that is true
Foley: and a little horny
Teen: and also tru
Foley: get a ruler and measure it for me
The FBI is investigating, and criminal charges appear likely. Though initial reports involved relatively tame e-mails to a sixteen-year-old former page, the IM's (such as the one cited above) appear to involve a different youth about whom little has been reported. The age-of-consent is 16 in D.C., but it's 18 in Florida, unless the accused is under 24 (Foley is 52).
Foley was long rumored to be gay. Nonetheless, he was a popular Republican congressman who prior to the scandal was considered a shoo-in for re-election. He was also the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, an outspoken foe of sexual predators on the Internet, and a vocal supporter of President Clinton's impeachment.
Hypocrite? Almost certainly. Child molester? Probably not. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds are not quite children (they're not quite adults, either), and there is no evidence yet that Foley actually made or attempted to make physical contact with the objects of his Internet dalliance. Still, as the congressman surely knew, Florida law makes it a third-degree felony to transmit "material harmful to minors by electronic device" and defines such material to include descriptions of "nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement."
There's also the issue of sexual harassment and abuse of power. Even former pages have strong incentive to stay in the good graces of the congressmen who employed them. While the youth in the above exchange does not seem (judging from the text) to be terribly troubled by the banter, at least one other complained that Foley's advances were "sick sick sick sick sick…"
Without a doubt, Foley did some stupid, inappropriate, and unethical things. Granted, sexual desire causes many of us to do stupid (though not necessarily inappropriate or unethical) things from time to time. Granted, the case would garner a somewhat (though not completely) different reaction if Foley were female--and particularly, if he were an attractive female. If Foley looked like Demi Moore, the pages would be telling one another "Dude, yeah!!!" instead of "sick sick sick sick sick."
But the "gay angle" on this contains an important lesson, one that is unfortunately likely to be either distorted or missed entirely amidst the partisan political drama. It is that gay people, like everyone else, need healthy outlets for sexual expression. When those are blocked--because of political ambition or a repressive church or a right wing bent on ignoring basic science--cases like Foley's (or former Spokane mayor Jim West's or former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey's) become more likely, as do far greater tragedies like the Catholic Church's sex-abuse scandal.
This is not to deny that Foley is responsible for his actions. There is no contradiction in holding a person fully responsible for wrongdoing and holding others responsible for enhancing the conditions that make such wrongdoing likely.
The right wing is doing just that by refusing to face some simple facts: There are gay people in the world. Gay people need love and affection like everyone else. When people repress that need in themselves or others, it tends to assert itself in unfortunate and sometimes tragic ways.
Like most people, I want to shake Mark Foley and yell: What the hell were you thinking? But I also want to add the following: It didn't have to be this way. There are young men of legal age who are not your subordinates who would have been happy to remove their shorts for you. And there would have been nothing wrong with that per se. An open, honest, consensual sex life is not only possible for gay men; it's healthy. The alternatives can be disastrous.
Yes, it is early to talk about the moral of the story. But there are lessons to be learned, and we ignore them at our peril.
17 Comments for “Foley’s Folly: A Lesson”
posted by Steve Burton on
“…gay people, like everyone else, need healthy outlets for sexual expression. When those are blocked–because of political ambition or a repressive church or a right wing bent on ignoring basic science–cases like Foley?s (or former Spokane mayor Jim West?s or former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey?s) become more likely…”
This is an interesting suggestion, but underdescribed and unprovided with empirical evidence.
First question: what, in your view, is the dividing line between “healthy” and unhealthy “outlets for sexual expression?”
Second question: what useful evidence is there for the claim that unhealthy outlets “become more likely” when “healthy outlets” are blocked?
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just wondering what you’ve got.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Brilliant logic, Corvino; gays need sex, and if we don’t get it, we turn into child molestors, so you’d better let us be uncloseted.
Personally, I don’t think being out would have made one whit of difference in terms of Foley’s taste for teenage boys, or priests sticking their hands in the altar boy’s offering basket. The simple fact of the matter is that there are thousands of priests who, despite being celibate, or gay men who choose not to make their sexuality the center of their lives, who don’t rape little boys. It’s a matter of individual idiocy, not of being celibate or closeted.
But I also am not naive enough to think that your point in making this argument is anything other than Republican- and religion-bashing — or that you thought about the implications of what you were saying when you saw the opportunity to do both.
Furthermore, your argument for marriage will be much stronger when you can avoid arguing that gays without it are sexual predators.
posted by Steve Burton on
Consider me the good cop, and North Dallas Thirty the bad cop, Prof. Corvino.
posted by John Lear on
Jumping from website to website in my despair that gay Americans still seem to be trapped in the politics of the McCarthy era, I’m struck by how many people insist that the Foley scandal involves nothing but his own actions. No homophobia – whatsoever. Until, of course, the voting curtain is drawn.
posted by Bobby on
John, don’t say “McCarthy” and “Foley” in the same sentence. Some or most of the people McCarthy persecuted were innocent.
When it comes to Foley, he is guilty. Just because something might be legal doesn’t mean it’s moral. If republicans are gonna preach morality, they have to practice what they preach. And when one of them fails to do that, the duty of other republicans is to chastise him.
If Foley wants to make up for his sins, let him fall in love with someone his own age. Then people will say “oh, he wasn’t a pervert, he was just a drunk who did a perverted thing once.”
Honestly, I’m surprised Foley didn’t take a gun and shoot himself. In Japan, people commit suicide for much much less. If Foley chooses to live, he has to make up for his mistakes. Frankly, only God can forgive him now, I can’t.
As a republican, I feel betrayed by what I used to consider an honorable upstanding party member.
posted by Antaeus on
NorthDallas30+ is so sensitive about his obsessive party affiliation and his desire to fit in with conservatives, that it leads him to accuse an IGF columnist of “bashing” his party in particular and religion in general (Really? Even Islam?) What site are you on? Moreover, you have been in denial from the beginning of this little scandal – even denying Foley’s gayness – until Mark pulled the rug out from under you with his final acknowledgment. Supposedly, he’s a “pedophile” and as we all know, they’re all bisexual – since wee sixteen year olds of either sex are interchangeable – yeah right!
As for religious animus, ND30+ drops his guard by imputing this tendency to “priests”, as if they existed among the Texas Protestants. Let me add to Mr. Corvino’s point: If Foley were out, he’d be more careful and less flagrant about his pursuits, precisely because of the homophobia that let the Louisiana email recipient to write “sick” thirteen times on his print-out.
posted by Antaeus on
And Bobby! What is wrong with you? Your lust for violence is sickening. The absolute last thing I want is for the Congressman to off himself. That would be tragic. I hope he’s stronger than that. What merits his death penalty? In your words, “As a republican, I feel betrayed.” Oh. The President spends like a drunken sailor, spies on us like a Peeping Tom and decrees war like Dr. Strangelove, but who makes ya look bad, baby?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It’s still amusing how supposedly black-and-white rock-ribbed “family values” Republicans suddenly find “nuance and complexity” in the moral question of a 50-something Congressman seducing high school students under his tutelage.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Antaeus, as with Corvino, I must ask: why are you so eager to associate Foley’s pedophilia with his being gay?
That makes this statement all the more amusing:
As for religious animus, ND30+ drops his guard by imputing this tendency to “priests”, as if they existed among the Texas Protestants.
The fact that pedophilia has happened among the Protestant clergy, who ARE allowed to marry, nicely undercuts your theory that lack of sex causes pedophilia. That’s why I’m laughing. 🙂
It’s still amusing how supposedly black-and-white rock-ribbed “family values” Republicans suddenly find “nuance and complexity” in the moral question of a 50-something Congressman seducing high school students under his tutelage.
Not a soul is defending what Foley did.
What several are pointing out is that what it looks like is that the vast majority of Foley’s actions, if not all of them, took place with former pages, many of whom were considered of age.
In short, what’s being asked is why people like you, NL, who previously have been quite in favor of minors having sex and against age-of-consent laws, insisting that what one does in the privacy of their own home is their business, are suddenly blowing gaskets over things you’ve supported in the past.
Remember: Republicans are the ones who threw Foley out. Democrats are the ones who raised not a finger, despite having information months in advance.
posted by Antaeus on
Is it just me, or does NorthDallasNowSeattle30++ lack basic honesty and/or reasoning skills? Corvino wrote above “Child molester? Probably not. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds are not quite children” and I use your use of the word “pedophile” in scare quotes – HELLO – on purpose to mock your perfect illogic in implying earlier on your blog that Foley “doesn’t himself say he’s gay” but that he is a pedophile, for whom gender isn’t usually important. In fact, the reverse is true. Mark Foley is not a pedophile, just a gay man behaving badly. I am not associating gayness with pedophilia at all, you stupid partisan. You are ridiculous, obnoxious and not worth arguing with. Frankly, I think this scandal is giving you a breakdown – and well it should.
A well-reasoned piece that reflects my view can be found here, in REASON magazine. Moreover, I think it’s homophobic of you to deny Mark Foley’s obvious gayness just because he was too cagey to say so. That verity was absolutely clear
posted by Bobby on
“And Bobby! What is wrong with you? Your lust for violence is sickening.”
—I’m just outraged with his crimes. Are you not?
” The absolute last thing I want is for the Congressman to off himself. That would be tragic. I hope he’s stronger than that. What merits his death penalty? In your words, “As a republican, I feel betrayed.” Oh.”
—Well, maybe I went too far, but what he did provokes that kind of response. First of all, he gave wings to a 16 year old page. I’m 31 and my boss doesn’t talk about such stuff with me. Also, if gay staffers in DC lose their jobs, it will be because of him. What Foley did is nuclear, and his radiation is spreading.
“The President spends like a drunken sailor,”
—They all spend like drunken sailors. Our system of taxation lets them. In Europe it’s even worse, in France people were protesting because they were gonna get a much needed tax break, with the catch of a cut in social benefits. Just be grateful that fighting the war on terror hasn’t meant mean increasing taxes or bringing back the draft.
“spies on us like a Peeping Tom”
—Well, if you want the government to have less power to spy on you. Perhaps you should support Americans who want to ban the BATF. If however Bush is spying on arab immigrants, I say let them. Political correctness should not stop us from fighting terrorism. Profiling as one component of a broader strategy works.
“and decrees war like Dr. Strangelove,”
—There’s precedent for that. Did Clinton ask for a declaration of war when he sent troops to Serbia? Did the first bush did it when he invaded Panama? Still, inspite of his actions, Americans re-elected him and his congress. If they don’t like it, they can vote his people out of office.
“but who makes ya look bad, baby?”
—Very funny. You just don’t love the republican party like I do. You don’t care when something bad happens to the party. You know what, I wish Bloomberg had his own sex scandal, I despise the fact that someone who is politically as wrong as Bloomberg happens to be a decent man with no skeletons in his closet. That’s one pseudo-republican I want to get rid off the party.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Is it just me, or does NorthDallasNowSeattle30++ lack basic honesty and/or reasoning skills? Corvino wrote above “Child molester? Probably not. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds are not quite children” and I use your use of the word “pedophile” in scare quotes – HELLO – on purpose to mock your perfect illogic in implying earlier on your blog that Foley “doesn’t himself say he’s gay” but that he is a pedophile, for whom gender isn’t usually important. In fact, the reverse is true. Mark Foley is not a pedophile, just a gay man behaving badly. I am not associating gayness with pedophilia at all, you stupid partisan.
Let me remind you of what your fellow Democrats are whining:
Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider dismissed those questions, saying, “Republicans still don’t get it.”
“Every mother in America is asking how Republicans could choose partisan politics over protecting kids, and the Republicans are asking who could have blown their cover-up,” she said.
Or:
Patty Wetterling, a candidate for a U.S. House seat from Minnesota, said GOP House leaders ignored Foley’s “obvious predatory signals.”
“We need to stop the sexual exploitation of children across the country, and in Washington we must hold accountable all those complicit in allowing this victimization to happen,” said Wetterling, a Minnesota child safety advocate whose son Jacob was kidnapped when he was 11.
Since I haven’t seen you claiming that Democrats “lack basic honesty and/or reasoning skills” since they’re calling Foley a child molestor, I must assume that your only concern here is bashing me, and that you in fact have no problems with your fellow Democrats doing what you criticize in others.
posted by raj on
Bobby | October 8, 2006, 11:11pm |
John, don’t say “McCarthy” and “Foley” in the same sentence. Some or most of the people McCarthy persecuted were innocent.
As far as I can tell, all of the people whom McCarthy persecuted were innocent in a legal sense. It was not a crime to be or have been a member of the Communist party. The only thing that McCarthy was trying to do was to tarnish peoples’ reputations and destroy their livelihoods in order to further his political career. It didn’t work.
If Foley wants to make up for his sins, let him fall in love with someone his own age.
It has been reported that Foley has a similar-age partner in his home district, a closeted dermatologist. If true, since his partner was closeted, it is not surprising that Foley himself was, too, although Foley’s closet apparently wasn’t entirely secure in the district.
posted by raj on
Antaeus | October 9, 2006, 3:11am |
Is it just me, or does NorthDallasNowSeattle30++ lack basic honesty and/or reasoning skills?
No, it isn’t just you. I’ve noticed that, not just here, but also on other web sites. NDXXX is a dissembler.
posted by monroe on
After reading all the above statements, it has come to my attention that gay people are great at twisting everyone\\\\\\’s views. This is not bashing, but when anyone disagrees with a gay person he is considered \\\\\\”homophobic\\\\\\”, \\\\\\”stupid\\\\\\” \\\\\\”persecuting gays\\\\\\”, etc. Gay intellects exaggerate greatly to express their views. I wish they would be more honest.
posted by Bobby on
“It has been reported that Foley has a similar-age partner in his home district, a closeted dermatologist. If true, since his partner was closeted, it is not surprising that Foley himself was, too, although Foley’s closet apparently wasn’t entirely secure in the district.”
—So Foley’s not only a pervert, but a cheater. How nice.
That’s why I support outing, out them before they do something stupid.
posted by Barry on
Bad, bad analogy, Mr. Corvino. One of my very dearest friends is a very out high school teacher in his 40s, with ample access to sex with adults. And he’s also quite obviously obsessed with the teen boys he teaches. When we go out to a mixed club, he can barely keep his tongue in his mouth when a twinkie little thing prances by.
It has zero, zero, zero to do with his being gay — and is no different from the millions of straight men who keep the faux-teen porn industry in business.