A House subcommittee report released last week on the Rep. Mark Foley scandal admonishes many of his colleagues who may have known of inappropriate communications between Foley and former House pages for a "disconcerted unwillingness to take responsibility," but did not issue any formal reprimands. Thus this highly politicized "October surprise," launched in large measure by certain gay Democratic outing activists feeding pre-election reports to the media, ends with a whimper.
But the effects are not so easily dismissed. According to the Washington Blade, a Human Rights Campaign poll conducted shortly after Foley resigned showed the scandal made 23 percent of Americans feel "less favorable" toward gays, leading Matt Foreman of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force to comment, "It's going to take us some time to make up that lost ground.... Without in any way, shape or form condoning Foley's egregious and stupid behavior, the uproar that it caused clearly points to continuing evidence of homophobia."
As noted in this Washington Post essay by Philip Kennicott, the new movie The History Boys (based on Alan Bennett's Tony-winning play) focuses on a group of late-teen British students who take a casual attitude toward the flirtations of one of their male teachers. Kennicott points out the contrast with the hysteria unleashed in American society over any sexually tinged intersection between teenagers (especially boys) and adult men. He writes:
The American drama of sexual abuse, played out almost weekly in hysterical terms on [NBC's] "To Catch a Predator," has very little room for the larger continuum of the sexual interactions between adults and youth suggested by Bennett's play.... there is a lot more to be learned about how sex is negotiated-especially between adults and youth who are almost adults-than American popular culture is quite ready to acknowledge.
20 Comments for “Foley, the Wrap Up.”
posted by Regan DuCasse on
One can come up with these scenarios as cause for hysteria when it’s GAY men and boys…
But STRAIGHT men and their johnsons don’t stand much of a chance either-but that issue doesn’t get in the papers or national discussion for as long and in such a belabored way.
Monica Lewinsky, a privileged girl, had a longtime affair with her college professor when she was barely eighteen. He was married with two children. She followed him to another city. Eventually, after that affair was revealed and the teacher’s life was left a shambles, she moved on to the White House and it’s charismatic resident.
Usually though, the toughest result to hide from such affairs would be a pregnancy and a possible abortion, or birth of a child.
Therefore, the reminder of the affair could be ongoing for that reason.
All teens are vulnerable, and there are certainly very mercenary teens out there who want to stack a competition to their favor.
But as always, it’s the ADULTS who have the ability and moral obligation to just say no.
posted by Randy on
“Thus this highly politicized “October surprise,” launched in large measure by certain gay Democratic outing activists”
Uh, Stephen — I know you are a Repubican, but at least get the facts right. The Foley October surprise came about from Republican interns and other activists who were fed up with the fact that the Repubican establishment refused to address the issue at all.
Okay? So please stop saying that the Democrats “outed” Foley. This is was a republican scandal through and through: they ignored the issue for many years.
Sheesh — this scandal is only a few months old, and already you are trying to change history.
posted by James on
Could it be, maybe, that Mark Foley did something, you know, WRONG? That maybe all forms of homosexual expression aren’t moral? But, sputter, but. . .straight guys hit on teen girls! That means it’s OK! Well, no, maybe straight guys are doing something immoral, too. Wouldn’t this be a good opportunity for the gay community to stand up in agreement with everyone else with values and morals in America and simply say “Mark Foley did something immoral and wrong, and whether gay or straight, we condemn adults exploiting teenagers.”
(crickets chirping)
posted by JimG on
It is my understanding that these pages were sixteen years old when the e-mails were going on. And in DC the legal age of sexual consent is 16. If the city of DC determines that someone of sixteen is capable and responsible enought to enter the sexual arena, is it not the height of hipocracy to “hang” someone for approaching them sexually? Is the problem that he is over 50? Should there be an age ceiling on who can approach these now available sixteen year olds? So far all they have found is that he flirted with these kids on the internet. The time table on the Washington Blade article says that an investigation is still going on to determine whether any illegal acts were committed by Foley or not. It will be interesting the see those results. Because if he did not, then it becomes a privacy issue and one of free speech.
posted by James on
It is this kind of answer which explains why people are not excited about letting gays get married or adopt children. The fact that it may legal doesn’t mean that it is not wrong. It is also creepy. I wouldn’t want someone who condones a 50-year-old man hitting on a teenager to adopt children, either. Does the gay community have no moral boundaries whatever?
posted by ETJB on
Yeah, got to love the gay Republicans who rant about the poor, but seem to have a soft spot for molesting boys…
posted by Ed to Jim on
seek help now!
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James, do you come by your righteous indignation naturally or do you have some sort of chemical imbalance. The point of the post was to foster an honest discussion on consent and propriety VS community ethics…but you (as you always do) used this forum to spew hatred at your fellow homosexuals for some perceived abstract moralizing. Somehow gays are to blame for DC’s consent laws? Do you really despise your own homosexual traits so much that you project your own insecurities on everyone else? No one is giving Foley a pass, he has been ruined and disgraced. JimG was pointing out (as was the original post, which you seemed to not read or comprehend) that he BROKE NO LAWS…please note that making this point is not the same as condoning his behavior. Maybe if you had an ounce of intellect you could have figured that out on your own. Maybe you should spend less time studying your Bible hoping to find a loophole and more time working on reading comprehension.
posted by dr on
JimG-
Though not illegal, it is creepy as hell for two reasons- the first is that Foley is an old man. He has 30+ years on the pages. That’s reason enough for him not to do it.
The second reason is that Foley was a congressman. His position, which included oversite of the Pages, IIRC, put the Pages in a situation where it would have been tough for them to say “no” and end it. It was a blatant abuse of his power. I’m still amazed there wasn’t a sexual harassment lawsuit out of this.
So while entirely legal, Foley’s behavior was definatively creepy, and I’ll agree with James on this, that it certainly does not merit any defense from the gay community. However, happily those trying to defend this behavior seem to be in the minority (or they’re chickhawks themselves).
posted by raj on
dr | December 18, 2006, 1:08pm |
The second reason is that Foley was a congressman. His position, which included oversite of the Pages, IIRC…
I have seen no indication that Foley was a member of the House Committee on House Administration, the committee that oversees the Office of the Clerk, which, in turn, runs the page program. He was on the House Ways and Means committee, which writes tax bills, and a Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, which is not involved with the pages.
References I have seen on Foley include the Vanity Fair article and Wiki entries here and here
posted by Randy on
And actually, James, all major gay rights organizations DID in fact condemn Foley’s behavior, often in very strenuous terms. Were you awake in October?
What more should they have done to satisfy you?
posted by dr on
raj- Guess I was wrong then. There was still a power differential, and congress is insular enought that had he wanted there to be retributions from someone rebuking him, there could have been.
posted by raj on
dr | December 18, 2006, 4:03pm |
There was still a power differential…
I wouldn’t be so sure. From what I had read, all of Foley’s Email and IM activities were with former pages, not with current pages. If so, there would be no obvious power.
It has been suggested that former pages oftentimes wanted to go into politics, and Foley might have been in a position to influence their career prospects, but I find that highly speculative.
posted by Carl on
The results are saddening, but the truth is, 23% is lower than I expected in terms of people thinking less favorably about gays. And keep in mind that in spite of this, Arizona defeated an anti-gay marriage/civil unions/partnership ban, and a slew of pro-gay candidates won elections on various federal and state levels.
posted by ETJB on
Well he has pretty much ended his political career, although I would agrue it was over anyways after he gave up the Senate run.
posted by JimG on
Thank you Colorado Patriot. You got my point. Others did not.
posted by Marc on
The gay community may have come out against this, but we know that Foley is hardly an exception. Many older men seek out gay teens (and vice versa), and, indeed, I had my first encounter with a gay man (much older than me) at 17. And why do we keep making this only a gay thing? Many older hetero men still lust after teen girls, as the success of “Girls Gone Wild” videos shows, and the old cliche of the middle-aged man in a sports car with a young blonde bimbo so proves.
More importantly, the Foley scandal points out an odd dichotomy in this society: What constitutes consent? Is a 16 year old mature enough to make a decision on this? If not, why do laws about consent vary wildly not only in the US but throughout the world? Until very recently, we were sentencing 13 year olds to death for murder, because we said they were mature enough to make such a decision. And explain to me how a country can tell an 18 year old he is mature enough to fight in a war, but not mature enough to buy a beer? It all really comes down to politics.
We find Foley’s downfall more of a comeuppance not because of the age difference but because he is a Republican who preached anti-gay rhetoric while trying to hide in the closet. The gay community needs to stop sounding so moral about this, and say what is really at the heart of his demise.
posted by Bobby on
“We find Foley’s downfall more of a comeuppance not because of the age difference but because he is a Republican who preached anti-gay rhetoric while trying to hide in the closet.”
—Foley never preached anti-gay rhetoric, he was against same-sex marriage, but never stated why, which shows you he was only doing what the voters wanted.
Foley got canned because republicans take stuff like that more seriously than democrats. That’s why Gerry Studds got away with cavorting with a 17 year old page. That’s why Barney Frank got away with bringing a hooker to his office.
If Foley had been a democrat, all liberals would be making excuses for him. But he’s a republican, and thus other republicans turn their backs on him while democrats and liberals call him a pedophile. Isn’t it ironic? Foley never molested anyone, never harassed anyone, the only thing wrong he did was those online chats.
But if you listen to Bill Maher and John Stewart speak about him, they talk about him like a predator.
Well, pages don’t belong in congress anyway. DC is not a place for stupid young people.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“The fact that it may legal doesn’t mean that it is not wrong.”
Whether it’s legal or not is the only question that matters. Whether you consider it wrong or immoral is irrelevant.
“Does the gay community have no moral boundaries whatever?”
Considering your religious community’s dreadful track record of massacres, persecutions and destructions over the centuries, I don’t think you’re in a position to give lessons in morality. Mark Foley sent naughty emails; he didn’t kill people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The Foley October surprise came about from Republican interns and other activists who were fed up with the fact that the Repubican establishment refused to address the issue at all.
LOL….the Dembots have been very successful in erasing their memories, it seems.
Via (deliciously) lefty blogger Glenn Greenwald, linked thereon:
But the Report also found that “the Communications Director for both the House Democratic Caucus and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also had copies of the emails in the Fall of 2005” (p. 76). Specifically, the Report documented that back in October, 2005, the Communications Director for the House Democratic Caucus (Matt Miller) was sent copies of the Foley e-mails, and he was very disturbed by them.
Convinced that the GOP-led House Committees would take no meaningful action, Miller sent the e-mails to various newspapers in Florida (The Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times), as well as Roll Call. He also provided copies of the e-mails to Bill Burton, the Communications Director of the DCCC (pp. 45-46).
Add to that the fact that the so-called “anonymous blogger” who posted all of these was a former Democratic Congressional staffer and current HRC, aka Democratic Puppets Club, employee, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the result.
But of course, gay leftists have to hide the fact that the outing campaign they spearheaded at the behest of their Democratic masters backfired in terms of helping attitudes toward gays.