The recent scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley sending sexually explicit text messages to sixteen- and seventeen-year-old former congressional pages has resurrected the ugly stereotype of gays as pedophiles. I am no longer surprised when I hear this sort of garbage from the Family Research Council or Paul Cameron. But when the Wall Street Journal links the two by criticizing those "who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys," it makes me nervous-not to mention angry. (Congressional Democrats have been no better, playing the "child predator" card for all it's worth.)
First, a little bit of perspective on the scandal driving this. The young men whom Foley courted were sixteen and seventeen-not adults, but not children either. The age of consent in Washington, D.C. (and many other places) is sixteen. Issues of potential harassment aside, had Foley had sex with these young men in Washington, it would have been perfectly legal.
Yet as far as we know, he did not have sex with them: he e-mailed and text-messaged them. Foley may be a jerk, a hypocrite, a creep-even a harasser-but there's no evidence that he qualifies as a child molester.
Research shows that gay men are no more likely than straight men to molest children. Moreover, mental health professionals are virtually unanimous in recognizing that most males who molest boys are not "gay" by any reasonable definition of that term: they have no interest in other adult males and often have successful relationships with adult females. This fact should not be surprising, because a young boy is at least as different qua sexual object from an adult male as an adult female is. In other words, it's one thing to be attracted to adults of the same sex, it's quite another to be attracted to children of either sex. Lumping these categories together not along maligns innocent people; it distracts us from the real threats to children. (For a useful analysis of the research in this area, see this article by Mark Pietrzyk.)
But it gets worse. For the pedophilia myth is yet another case of right-wingers arguing from what is not true to what does not follow. Suppose, purely for the sake of argument, there were a higher incidence of child molestation among homosexual males than heterosexual males. Should gay men no longer be permitted to be teachers? Pediatricians? Day care providers?
Be careful how you answer. Because one thing the research does clearly show is that men are far more likely to be child molesters than women. So if you think gay men should be restricted from these positions under the hypothetical (and false) assumption that they are more likely to be child molesters than straight men, you should conclude-in the actual, non-hypothetical world-that straight men should be thus restricted, and that all such jobs should go to lesbians and straight females. We know for a fact that men pose a higher risk of child molestation and other crimes than women do.
Yet somehow, when it comes to straight men, we are able to distinguish between those behaving well and those behaving badly. This double standard was quite apparent as the Foley scandal broke. Around the same time, admitted heterosexual Charles Carl Roberts walked into an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania and fatally shot five female students. It turns out that Roberts told his wife that he had previously molested young girls. Yet no one took this story as tarnishing heterosexuality. No one concluded, "Aha! Can't trust straights." That would be a foolish inference.
Just as foolish as making inferences about all gays from the case of Mark Foley-who, it is worth repeating, did not even have sex with the pages (as far as we know), much less kill anyone.
The point is that some gays, just like some straights, behave badly. This is not news. Nor is it a reason to draw blanket inferences about gays.
Some years ago I was invited to Nevada to debate a Mormon minister on same-sex marriage. One of his central arguments-I am not making this up-was that we should not support same-sex marriage because research shows that gays are more likely to engage in domestic violence than straights. I had never heard of the studies he cited, so it was difficult to challenge him directly on his sources. Instead, I asked, "So, because some asshole beats his husband, I'm supposed to stop loving mine? And everyone else should stop supporting me in my loving, non-abusive relationship? Is that what you're arguing?"
He never had an answer to that.
7 Comments for “The Pedophilia Smear”
posted by Regan DuCasse on
John, my dear…
You put forth a fair and logical question.
But many in the straight world, as you well know, don’t seem to feel obligated to answer to GAY people or justify such prejudice and illogical if not schizophrenic statements.
Simply making the statement without substantiation seems to be quite enough for the general public to buy it.
And if ONLY a gay person challenges it, then you’re the one with the unfounded bias, not the other way around.
Well, this straight sister prefers to challenge other straight people the same way you do.
I don’t like being talked down to as if I’m a dupe of the ‘homosexual agenda’.
How is THAT even possible anyway?
When straight men abuse, everyone is a potential victim.
But straight folks feel violently victimized if they witness gay men hugging.
Pope JP 2 virtually said as much that adoption of children by gay people is ‘doing violence to them.’
Such outrageous exaggeration isn’t beneath a man of such high office and influence.
Easy for him, unfair and dangerous for loving and contributing gay parents.
But this Foley mess is hardly even close to the outrage of the latest misogynistic school shootings.
And was off the page of news media way too soon, while the Foley situation is taking up WAY too much analysis.
It’s not even a tragedy.
But the violent executions and maiming of innocents truly is.
Whether by school invasion of strangers, or the domestic violence that massacres whole families.
It goes on because of the priorites this nation has twisted around for the sake of prurience.
posted by Jim G on
You state in your article “one thing research does clearly show is that men are far more likely to be child molesters than women”. That is true when it comes to the sexual aspect of abuse. But the CDC reports that the majority of chile ABUSE occurs in the home at the hands of the mother. Please be careful that you do not perpetrate a stereotype against straight men while you are trying to dispel one against gay men. Again you state “we know for a fact that men pose a higher rise of child molestation AND OTHER CRIMES than women do”. Just what OTHER CRIMES are you talking about?Most straight men do NOT commit any of these crimes and yet your inference that these crimes are somehow a “gender” issue does us all a disservice.
posted by Fitz on
One element left out of your analysis is that sex abuse is disproportionately committed by men. (gay or straight)
Men feel this stigma and live with it as a reasonable protection for the young. Young women are hired as baby sitters, or day care workers, or school teachers ect. No one sends a male girl scout leader off into the woods to go camping.
Most cases are not pedophilia (pre-pubescent) but rather pederasty. (post pubescent young people) what is sometimes called ephebophile . Yes, pederasty is much more common then pedophilia. Its an important distinction. Although both are heinous, pedophilia is more so, and much more rare. Pederasty is much more common and has greater cultural sway- with the sexualizing of youth. I would think a pederast to be deviant and perverted but not monstrous like a pedophile.
Context is important. The overall problem of Pederasty is quite common. The most incidents occur between young women and their mothers boyfriends/live in lovers (as apposed to natural Fathers) The incidents occur in equally high numbers in any field were adults have close contact with minors. This includes Religious denominations like Catholics, Episcopalians & Lutherans. Evangelicals have had a problem with choir directors and youth ministers. Indeed the problem persists in organizations like Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the Boy Scouts, Athletic Coaches (especially wrestling) and so forth.
Young men need special protection from gay predators. Certain reasonable precautions are necessary and fair. Young men are less likely to report incidents of male on male molestation (as young girls) Parents, teachers and authority figures are less prone to identify potential abuse when it?s male on male. A man in a position of authority over young girls is viewed with a certain suspicion that is absent when young men are involved.
posted by raj on
Fitz | October 23, 2006, 2:38pm |
No one sends a male girl scout leader off into the woods to go camping.
This is incorrect. As was brought out during the controversy following the Supreme Court’s Dale Boy Scout decision, the Girl Scouts do, indeed, allow for male leaders, and do not forbid them from leading camping trips. The Girl Scouts do not allow leaders of any sex to lead a camping trip alone–there always has to be at least two leaders on any camping trip. This is not only a good idea to minimize the likelihood of sex abuse, but also to ensure that there is at least one leader if the other falls seriously ill or is otherwise incapacitated.
posted by Matt Sigl on
To say the Foley situation has gotten out of hand is to put it far too mildly. Clearly here we see how anxious society is to demonize gay people and conflate them with molesters at the slightest provocation. (The Wall Street Journal passage is most telling indeed.) But equally strong is the publics desire to be titillated at this (indeed ANY) naughty little sexual scandal. After all, those E-mails are just so juicy aren’t they! The fact that Foley was talking to teen boys only multiplies the taboo factor. Let?s face the fact, it’s far more pleasant to be indignant and offended by a dirty little secret exposed than it is to deal with Iraq or the myriad of other serious problems in society. I am reminded, as others have noted, of a little scandal in the late 90’s, one involving a cigar. That distraction took about 2 years of America’s time and focus away. (Might of we had a better counter-terrorism policy if the President could have devoted more time to it?) Certainly the Foley scandal will pass through the cultural spotlight swifter than the Clinton one, but it nevertheless illuminates the national fetish with any sexual transgression by public figures. I don’t know if it even makes sense to say that one can psychoanalyze a nation, but if it could be done, it might do some good here.
posted by Bobby on
I found this on the web. What do you think? The Foley scandal could be a liberal conspiracy to hurt republicans.
“mmm..let’s see…Foley sent emails to minors…Studds slept with minors. Foley resigned, Studds stayed in office. Foley being investigated, Studds hailed as gay hero. Foley a Republican, Studds A Democrat. Does this make it any clearer what the agenda is here?”
posted by Patrick Casanova on
I’m glad someone else is making these observations. It confused me when people gave Foley the “pedophile” label. That’s an insult to the majority of 16/17 year olds. I remember when I was 17 and I was more than grown up enough to make a choice regarding sex (not that I ever had sex as a 17 year old and the first half of being 17 was blurry due to neurological problems — but you know what I mean).
I’m not saying I’d ever date a 16 year old (I’m 20). But I think we need to draw a distinction between cultural disapproval and *moral* disapproval. I’m a Christian, so from my perspective an action is “immoral” when it’s disapproved by God. And for the record, I don’t see any problem with gay sex per se, and I’m not just saying that to be politically correct — it’s what I believe. Anyway, there seems to be a lot of hype and moral exaggeration about an older man flirting with young guys. I don’t think it’s immoral in a per se sense.
I am NOT justifying Foley’s actions though. Harassing people is another matter altogether (assuming Foley harassed the pages — I don’t know whether the pages were leading him on or not). It’s also a classic example of hypocrisy and Foley should have practiced what he preached. Anyone who goes around condemning gay marriage but then secretly makes sexual innuendo with people of the same sex should be ashamed.
So hypocrisy and and harassment were Foley’s shortcomings. Pedophilia wasn’t. The suits in Washington (on both sides) need to get that straight (pardon the pun).
— Pat