Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) has a problem, but it's not the one in the headlines.
Last week, as soon as the news broke that the congressman had sent graphic sexual texts to a former page, the first headlines (now changed online) called him a pedophile.
And even now, bloggers and some political commentators keep using the word "pedophile" over and over again.
This makes Democrats celebrate, right? Especially once Foley resigned shortly afterward. Another Republican forced to resign over some sort of scandal! And this one involves sexual advances toward children!.
But gay Democrats need to take a step back. In the short term, this may give us some salacious pleasure. But in the long term, it is not good. Here's why.
First, the (perhaps not so) obvious reason.
Foley is not a pedophile. Foley is gay.
Pedophiles are sexually attracted to undeveloped children - 6-year-olds, 3-year-olds. Some researchers even consider pedophilia to be its own perverted sort of sexual orientation. Congressional pages are juniors and seniors in high school, 16- and 17-year-olds. They've been through puberty. They're not children.
Now, I'm appalled by Foley's actions, too. They were completely inappropriate. But "inappropriate" doesn't equal "pedophilia."
The age of consent in Washington, D.C., is 16, which means that this page was legally a sexual adult. A 16-year-old young man is a much, much different target of lust than a 6-year-old boy.
If it had been a 16-year-old girl Foley was after, I don't think the media and those who consume it would have latched onto the word "pedophile." I think they would have been more likely to call this "creepy" or "sexual harassment," which it is.
It is creepy when a 52-year-old makes advances on a 16-year-old.
But when that 16-year-old is a female, no one is that surprised. After all, we sexualize young adults. Teenage girls are our fashion models, our pop singers, our national targets of lust. Americans understand why older men are drawn to very, very young women.
What they don't understand is men of any kind being drawn to other men.
But that's what we have here. Foley is a semi-closeted gay man. A few years ago, he was outed by the gay press and he would neither confirm nor deny that he's gay. He was sending provocative messages to a younger man. In the IM messages they exchanged, released by ABC News, the young man didn't quite encourage him, but didn't quite discourage him either. He might have been too young and inexperienced to know how to fend off advances.
Foley should have known this - he should never have pressed his power and age advantage.
Nevertheless, Foley is being called a pedophile only because both parties are men.
It's never good for us when "pedophile" and "gay" are joined together in this sort of unholy headline matrimony. It simply reinforces the stereotype that we are sexual predators.
So, this is the first reason this was bad for us. It allowed, once again, a gay man to be targeted as a pedophile.
Secondly, Foley is one of a very small group of Republicans who actually had a decent voting record on gay issues. In the past 10 years, he's scored in the 80s or higher on the Human Rights Campaign's congressional report card. He was a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He's pro-choice.
In short, he had become a friend of ours in the legislature.
Perhaps there will be a good outcome here. Maybe a gay-friendly Democrat will take his seat in November. Perhaps this situation will also make some moderates think about conservative hypocrisy - congressional Republican leaders knew about this exchange, yet covered it up. Maybe it will remind moderates and conservatives alike that gay people really are everywhere, even hidden in the Republican ranks.
But long after the November election, those two words "gay" and "pedophilia" will remain etched in the minds of ordinary Americans.
And that's too bad, because Mark Foley's problem is not pedophilia. Mark Foley's problem is impulse control.
18 Comments for “Foley Is No Pedophile”
posted by Antaeus on
Excellent analysis! It has taken a while for people with mixed feelings (pro-gay, whether inclined toward Democrats or Republicans) to sort this issue out. We’ve seen one gay Republican commentator scream “pedophilia” in a vain attempt to avoid the fact that Foley is simply gay, and we have seen Democrats call Foley the same, trying to straddle gay support but inflame Middle America’s swing voters. By not calling things by their correct names, they both play into the Far Right’s desire to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia – and that’s outrageous. Thanks, Ms. Vanasco. You brought the objectivity that gay men needed.
posted by Bobby on
I read now that the pages Foley has slept with where 18. If that’s the truth, then Foley won’t have to be labelled an ephebophile.
HOWEVER, there’s nothing gay about his conduct. Real gay men don’t do such things. Only evil people do.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Is Foley associating pedophilia with alcoholism and Catholicism as well?
posted by Fitz on
Its not pedophilia its pederasty (post pubescent young people) or ephebophile. Problem is, no one object when its ?pedophile priests? or it takes the edge off the gay angle.
Yes, pederasty is much more common then pedophilia, the former being much more common. Both gay & straight men disproportionately engage in it. (then women) But gay men disproportionately engage in it to a greater extent as a proportion of the population. (i.e. ? its more normative in the gay community)
posted by Stuffed Animal on
I am appalled at the attempts of many Gay commentators to downplay Mark Foley’s crimes. What’s the point of parsing the nature of his disorder? Does it excuse what he did? Does it make his predatory behavior acceptable? And what’s the Straight population going to think when they see Gay people rushing to his defense? Might they begin to worry that we’re all interested in sixteen-year-olds . . . that their sons might be in danger from us? You are playing right into the Religious Right Wing’s hands.
posted by Randy on
Every gay organization or blogger I’ve seen have condemned Foley’s actions. So there is no danger of playing into the religious right’s hands. However, some individuals have done so. Shame on them.
As for Foley — is it really that sick? I’m 46, and I would never do anything of the sort, but that’s because I don’t waste time doing stuff like that. I waste my time posting on places like here! But geez louise, just go into any chat room, and there are no doubt plenty of older men looking around for chicken. Maybe it is sick, but there are also some of these teens looking for older men.
I’m not a psychologist, so I can’t say what’s sick and what isn’t. I can say, however, that is isn’t as uncommon as everyone thinks. And that goes for the heteros as well.
posted by Bobby on
Randy, adults aren’t responsible for the conduct of teens, but for their own conduct. Even if the page was predatory, even if he wanted to get Foley to spend money on him, if he’s not 18, you’re supposed to avoid him like the plague.
“And what’s the Straight population going to think when they see Gay people rushing to his defense?”
—Exactly. Most gay people will turn their backs on Foley now. Liberals will hate him because he was a republican. Conservative gays will hate him because he betrayed the party.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
gay men disproportionately engage in it to a greater extent as a proportion of the population. (i.e. ? its more normative in the gay community)
I’m breathless awaiting the posting of some basic statistical abstracts to prove this contention (which I doubt are coming).
Look, this whole “shut up and stop criticizing Foley or you’ll hurt the Republican closet cases working for anti-gay legislators” thing is a classic inside-the-beltway concern. It illustrates just how profoundly out-of-touch the gay establishment in the various gay press and big gay lobby groups are with everyday concerns.
They were completely caught off-guard with the marriage push, a grassroots effort which left the station without them. And now, years after a vicious, sustained anti-gay campaign which has damaged gay people across the country on a local basis — with little to no resources devoted to fighting the anti-gay forces on the ground in states like Missouri or Iowa or Oregon — they’re turning their attention instead to fighting to protect the jobs of the sorta-closeted GOP politicos who they party with at gay hotspots and black-tie banquets in DuPont Circle.
This isn’t news.
The fact that they consider anti-gay sentiment in the GOP deployed across the country (complete with vicious slurs) to be news illustrates just how asleep at the wheel they’ve been. It’s been going on for YEARS now — but it suddenly only matters when it rears its head in their cozy little powerbrokers’ universe.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jennifer, good analysis. I think the impression in mainstream America is that Mark Foley was a gay predator… not a pedophile. That’s the critical distinction. And he violated a public trust and trust of those parents who sent young men to DC as pages.
But for the most part, Mark Foley could be the posterboi for a strong and vibrant core of our gay culture… you and I both know that the gay culture tends to glorify “youth”, they’re called “chickens” and “twinks”, and young, unblemished, smooth gays are more desirable in our culture than 50 yr old, greying, pot-bellied lecherous old men on OutSports drooling over the younger athletes in spandex. Despite NELib’s call for statistical citations, take a walk over to Gay.Com or OutSports –“we don’t need no stinkin’ stats to prove this truth to ourselves”.
What is lacking from this subcultural discussion about Mark Foley is that he is somewhat typical of the immature, lecherous old men in our midst. That and whether or not “outing” ala MikeRogers style is immoral.
Unfortunately, it appears that –like the Clinton scandals in DC and Little Rock– Foley predated on a group of people who were sent to DC to learn, to study, and to serve as young interns. Both Foley and Clinton violated a “trust” that the parents of those people mistakenly have/had placed with officials in DC to serve as an intern or page. Let’s skip the violation of the public trust as “supervisors” of these interns.
You’re right: Foley is not a pedophile. He is a gay predator and while the investigations are abreast, our community can look inside itself to see if we condone or cultivate that behavior in our aging gay population. We sure as heck shouldn’t tolerate it –no matter what the aging, overweight, greying gay community uses to validate their sexual predations.
posted by Fitz on
. Siegel, J., Sorenson, S., Golding, J., Burnam, J., Stein, J., The prevalence of childhood sexual assault: the Los Angeles epidemiological catchment area project. American Journal of Epidemiology 126,6:1141.
posted by Antaeus on
Fitz, give us the exact citation. That paper does not seem to prove your point unless…well, I’m not going to make your argument for you.
posted by Bobby on
” you and I both know that the gay culture tends to glorify “youth”, they’re called “chickens” and “twinks”, and young, unblemished, smooth gays are more desirable in our culture than 50 yr old, greying, pot-bellied lecherous old men on OutSports drooling over the younger athletes in spandex.”
—That doesn’t mean anything. There’s plenty of men in their 20s who want a 50 year old pot-bellied dude. They’re called daddy-chasers. I’m 31, I went on a cruise, and I met a cute 23 year old who thought I was too young. He was into men who were 40 or 50.
OutSports doesn’t feature teenagers. If anyone is drooling over anything, it’s over men of legal age. Just like 50 year old men drooling during the Ms. USA pageant.
So let’s not blame the gay community. Foley was in the closet, he never went to a coming out group, never went to a gay bar (as far as I know), so the only one responsible for Foley’s actions is Foley.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“The gay culture?”
Talk about a fallacy.
posted by Bill on
The only problem with your analysis is that Foley is a pedophile. Legally speaking (which is the determination of who is a pedophile), having sex with a 16-17 year old makes you a pedophile, because legally, 16-17 year olds are still labeled as “children”, under the law.
posted by Michael on
I appreciate this article and agree with its premise; however, if I can just address one little tangent, since when is ‘pro-choice’ a ‘gay’ issue? I recognize that most gay people are pro-choice but that has nothing to do with our being gay. Not an earth-shattering problem, but I just think imprecision like that can distract from otherwise good argumentation. Thanks!
posted by Tara on
Thank you for your excellent analysis. I’ve been shocked — though I shouldn’t be, by now — at how easily Foley has been framed as a pedophile. Nowhere have I seen this even scrutinized. Why isn’t this framed (more accurately, I think) as a case of sexual harassment?
This isn’t surprising, of course — for many reasons. A lot of people get mileage out of their presentations of themselves as being against whatever’s harming ‘our kids’ (and, by extension, “pro family”). This is problematic on many levels, including reinforcing “family values” that never really include nonheterosexuals. But, it also, as you pointed out, works to reinforce the link between “homosexual” and “sexual pervert.” And, it allows many liberals to get bonus points for criticizing Foley while maintaining that they themselves are nonhomophobic.
Also, personalizing a social problem and making a case into a soap opera narrative, with easily identifiable villains, allows us to ignore and disbelieve so many things, including any context in which this occurred. It also allows us to isolate blame (on one “sick” person) and then move on. So, while the news stories are now focusing on the “hit list” the religious right is compiling of closeted gay republicans, they’re not discussing the issues raised by this revelation that homosexuality has always been a part of the Republican party.
posted by Bobby on
“Shockied… at how easily Foley has been framed as a pedophile.”
—Most people don’t consider a 16 year old to be an adult, no matter what the law says in DC. Look, this is a country where an 18 year old serving in Iraq is called a “boy” or “our kids.” So how do you expect us to feel about Foley trying to get laid with someone who’s not even old enough to vote.
If you can’t even choose a president, can you choose a 52 year old creepy sex partner? I think not.
posted by brandon on
Hooray for the first time in print since the Foly Flap (or Follies) started, that I’ve seen this useful, needed clarification. Everyone’s saying “pedophile” but this means sexuality concerning a CHILD which is defined as “humans from birth to age of puberty” (but many are defining as “to age of legal consent”–alternate, or incorrect?). As noted, ephebilia or pederasty seems the better defining term. Does it all matter? Yeah, since “homosexual = child-molester” is apparently false stereotype but is surely still prevalent, and this misuse of terms may prolong that.