Asymmetrical Information

By the same token, I hate how some people say that when an adult male has an inappropriate relationship with an 8-year-old boy, that's not "really" homosexuality because, uh, "I don't approve of *that* male-on-male act." (Normally, I'd compare that sentiment to "Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme because I like it.", but then, that would be a thread-jack, wouldn't it?)

First let me state that I completely agree with Jane on this one. Foley had inappropriate sexual relationships with minors, sure, but they were above the age of consent in the state (or district) and, therefore, while I find it repugnant that a person in a position of power solicited teenagers, it was just ooky, not illegal.

But Person, there is a difference between sex between two consenting adults, whether Man/Woman, Man/Man or Woman/Woman and an adult of any gender and a child of any gender. Just as most hetrosexual men don't have to desire to sleep with 8 year old girls unless there is something wrong with them homosexual men don't have the desire to sleep with 8 year old boys.

Pedophilia is not homosexuality. Pedophilia hurts children by its very nature. Homosexuality does not. Huge, huge difference.

I, too, have been bothered by the indiscriminate use of the term pedophilia. It's sloppy, imprecise and inflammatory. Without diminishing the inappropriateness of his actions, there is no reason to refer to this as pedophilia. Is there a word for adults attracted to post-pubescent minors? If he'd succeeded with any of the boys, he'd be a pederast. I guess we're stuck with inappropriate and reprehensible, which (actually) is enough to ask for more from the Speaker when initially informed of his behavior and generally damn the Republican leaders for their lack of leadership in this situation.

Wow, I didn't think someone would actually defend that practice:

Kate: I know, someone who wants a young minor is "different". I "get" that. But when a male wants to have sex with a male, that is the same sex. homo = same. Ergo, homosexuality. It may be a different kind, but it still is "homosexuality". To say otherwise is to do violence to the English language and let your connotation override a denotation.

I must dissent from your position that "no one" thinks that adult males who are attracted to teenage girls are pedophiles. I think they are.

Some 30 year old guy lusting after a 16-year old girl is just sick. Such men should be forced to get mental help.

Ragerz, the number of years where human cultures have married off girls younger than 16 to men older than 30 as a matter of course exceed by at least one order of magnitude those when simply "lusting" in such a way could be considered "sick."

We disapprove of such relationships today because of concerns about emotional development and power imbalances. But as a matter of simple biology it's entirely natural.

16 year olds pretty much have all the physical characteristics that make 18 year olds attractive. There isn't anything special that happens when a woman turns 18. That's just the arbitrary line that some states choose (and indeed, 16 is the arbitrary lines for other states -- 14 in some countries). Being attracted to a teenager is nothing to be embarrassed about.

Acting on this, on the other hand, is social unacceptable. And I do agree that it is socially unacceptable for good reasons. Of course, I think it should also be socially unacceptable for fifty-year-olds to marry twenty-year-olds, but it's not. Just goes to show that societal mores can be pretty irrational.

I wonder how much of this unacceptable behavior would go away if adult prostitution was legal in this country (except Nevada)?

There's plenty of evidence the GOP leadership knew Foley was gay for many years. To their credit, they did nothing about that. However, if
they knew he was getting too friendly with underage pages, they should have had a come to Jesus talk with him. And if it still continued,
taken their concerns public. Why haven't people learned that exposed coverups are always worse than coming clean and dealing with the situtation?

Jane, I’m not a fan of Speaker Hastert but I think it’s a bit much to try to blame him for any of this mess. From what I can tell, the only thing he knew about last fall was that Foley had sent some emails (click on my name for the text of the emails) which while odd weren’t sexual in nature and Hastert promptly spoke to Foley about them. The sexual content was in the IM which only recently came to light and Hastert only learned of them when the page’s parents contacted him and asked him to deal with this quietly to protect their son’s privacy.

I have to agree with Thorley Winston here. My first impression on the emails was "Is that it?" If Hastert talked with Foley about them, and Foley gave him his word that nothing was going on, how would it look if Hastert investigated him? It'd look like Republicans think all gays want to screw little boys (yes, we have established that the pages were not little boys, but there would be people who would frame the argument that way).

As far as pedophilia goes, this is really an example of a homosexual pederast, like the majority of the cases with the catholic church sex scandals. And that was a true cover up. I'm afraid that the evidence just isn't there that Hastert should have known.

Middle Browser,

The word you are looking for is ephebophilia.

Obvious? What's obvious is that politicians who have done nothing wrong shouldn't resign. That's just stupid. Jane, Hastert was not Foley's boss, and IMs are not stored on third-party computers. The only interesting thing about this is why the media have been sitting on this story for almost a year, only to dribble it out now, even though supposedly everyone in Washington knew about Foley. Please stick to economics.

Um Jane?

The reason we have laws against sexual congress between adults and "underage" persons is because if it were legal, you thirty-something broads would experience even more competition -- and we can't have THAT.

I think your call for Hastert to resign is absurd. As the WSJ pointed out yesterday -- based on what was known at the time (slightly icky emails) and what was known and condoned in the House in prior years:

What next was Mr. Hastert supposed to do with an elected Congressman? Assume that Mr. Foley was a potential sexual predator and bar him from having any private communication with pages? Refer him to the Ethics Committee? In retrospect, barring contact with pages would have been wise.

But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices 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. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

One aspect of all this that isn't getting the play it deserves is the hypocrisy by (who else) the Dems in claiming that the Republican leadership should have taken steps to minimize contacts between a known homosexual and under-age pages.

Hey -- let's talk about the Boy Scouts!

Here we have a very well run, valuable, and effective organization that gets the joke -- keep homosexual men AWAY from young boys. And the Democrats vilify the Boy Scouts of America and have been pushing local governments to cut off ties because, "the BSA descriminates against homosexuals".

I think the blogosphere ought to take this up, don't you?

Person: I think Kate's point was that the "homosexuality" is not the important or indictable part of the problem with adult men who want to have sex with pre-pubescent boys. (The fact that we make no mention of "heterosexuality" when adult men wish to have sex with pre-pubescent girls should make it clearer that the sex of the target of these desires is not the scandalous and immoral part of it.)

The "real" homosexuality people defend by saying "pedophilia ain't it" is exactly the counterpart of "real" heterosexuality that also isn't pedophilia.

Normal (in the statistical and, er, normative senses) heterosexuality doesn't involve pre-pubescents, and neither does normal homosexuality.

I concur completely with Jane's second paragraph, but I don't really see why Hastert should resign, given the current state of knowledge of what he knew about Foley's behaviour and when.

Jane before rushing to judgment on this, I’d highly recommend reading Tom McGuire’s rather detailed description of the events.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/10/i_smell_a_rat.html

Flag me for piling on, Jane! I don't see any reason for him to get the boot because of this.

I haven't liked Hastert since day one and I certainly won't miss him if he leaves. But while he has not covered himself in glory in this situation, I don't see the point of booting him except for political reasons.This was a no-win situation for the GOP leaders right from the start.

Is there any Democrat who is going to stand up and say, "If any gay member of the House sends an overly friendly e-mail to a page, we will do MORE than Hastert did?"

All e-mail and IM conversations between all Congress members~ straight, gay, and undecided~ and pages should be released. Let's see how many people calling for Hastert's head go for that.

Sigivald: no, that wasn't Kate's point at all. Kate's point was that she's willing to bend the English language to pursue a political agenda. On that, I'll have to respectfully disagree.

There's nothing wrong with saying that an adult male having an inappropriate relationship with a little girl is a "heterosexual relationship". Just because it's not normal, doesn't mean you can override the meaning of "hetero" and "homo".

One aspect of all this that isn't getting the play it deserves is the hypocrisy by (who else) the Dems in claiming that the Republican leadership should have taken steps to minimize contacts between a known homosexual and under-age pages.

What Democrats are claiming this? Mark Foley was not a known homosexual. He was a rumored homosexual who had been accused by an underage page of hitting on him. Unless there's some kind of Democratic movement that's in favor of letting people who are subject to specific, credible allegations of child molestation be scoutmasters, there's no hypocrisy here at all-- just your agenda.

His behaviour is reprehensible because grown men in positions of authority should not hit on teenagers.

I would just like to request, for the record, Jane's position on Bill Clinton. Should he have resigned for committing the same offense as Foley?

"Is there any Democrat who is going to stand up and say, "If any gay member of the House sends an overly friendly e-mail to a page, we will do MORE than Hastert did?""

Were there any Democrats that demanded the resignation of Congressman Gerry Studds in 1983, when he admitted to having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old page? The Democrat-controlled House censured him, but as the censure was read out, he turned his back on the Speaker and the chamber.

He and the former page later held a press conference, telling everyone that his having had a sexual relationship with a page was no one else's business. Studds continued to serve as a Democrat congressman until 1996 or 1997. What did Grandma Pelosi have to say about that?

Fling,

I think it should also be socially unacceptable for fifty-year-olds to marry twenty-year-olds, but it's not.

Dude, you should consider moving out of Hollywood.

I read and re-read Megan's original post, and nowhere in it do I see her saying Hastert should resign because he screwed up, but rather that he should resign "if the Republicans would like to maintain some slim chance of holding onto Congress come November."

So, fellow readers, what insights does anyone have on the strictly political question? Do you agree with Megan or not?

It's amusing to me how elastic the terms "children" and "child" have become. The age range for "child/children" expands and contracts to suit one's particular world-view and requirements for a particular argument.

I don't think internet sex is all that bad because if there is no personal contact, its very nature it is concensual. The idea that teenage "childern" are innocent victoms and not active participants is used for political purposes and fostered by people like Foley. I grew up before the sextual revolution and we were very interested in sex, sharing pictures from National Geographic and secret stashes of porno. There was also a great deal of sextual expermentation. People seem not to remember that the teenage pregancy rate peaked in 1955. To me, it is just that "if you live by the sword you die by the sword" so he is getting what he deserves. So is the Republican leadership. I am quite sure that that the Democrats turn will come.

A few things:

1)Person: Please don't tell other people what I meant when I spoke. First, you're wrong and second, it makes you look like an idiot. Sigivald was absolutely right.

2) I have no idea of what Hastert knew or what he didn't know but the IMs I've seen are not merely naughty or suggestive but are actually extraordinarily sexual in nature including describing orgasms, talking about penis size and asking when they will get together. The point is that there should have been some sort of investigation initiated when these emails and IMs were found and it does not appear that there was. More to the point it is my understanding that as long ago as five years ago pages were "warned" about staying away from Foley. That's pretty damn creepy if you ask me. Why didn't someone look into this? Hastert is being targetted because he is a convienent scape-goat and the defacto Republican boss. Foley is a sick guy, fine, but I think the view is that Hastert is complicit in allowing the sickness to continue.

Let me put it in other terms, If Foley was a hetero guy who like to send sexually explicit emails to women in their 20s who worked at the capitol, if women were "warned" to stay away from Foley or their boobs could be manhandled or that he might send them sexually explicit emails, if the Republican leadership was made aware of this behavior a year ago and did nothing to stop it, that would be a problem as well. The fact that these were pages have very little to do with it. The fact that they were male has nothing to do with it. The fact that there was admitted misconduct, that the leadership was aware and that they then did nothing seems to me to be the problem.

Roderick, as you note a problem develops with the use of the word "child" because it applies to babies, toddlers, kindergartners, grade-school kids, pre-teens, and teenagers. And yet, all these groups are distinct from each other, most especially in terms of power and control--what we usually term "maturity."

The point is that "childhood" should be thought about as a contrast to "adulthood" rather than as a contrast to some other subgroup of "child." Just as a teen has vastly greater power and control than a kindergartener, an adult has proportionally greater power and control than a teenager.

It is because we recognize that power imbalance between adults and children that sexual relations (or cybersexual relations) between the two are prohibited. It doesn't matter that a teen is more developed than a pre-teen. All that matters is that he (or she) is not as mature as an adult.

I think it should also be socially unacceptable for fifty-year-olds to marry twenty-year-olds, but it's not.

Oh I agree, I don't think it should be socially acceptable either. And I don't think it is as I know far too many people who turn up their nose to huge age differences in marriages.

It is legal, not necessarily acceptable. So if you are in your 60s (or whatever) and you really don't care what other people think of you, you are free to marry anyone 18 or older.

joan, it doesn't matter if the sex (or cybersex) is consensual. That's why they call it statutory rape rather than just plain old rape. The point is that the power difference is too great to allow for reasons of health, safety and morals.

In the same way that we recognize that children are not mature enough to make medical decisions for themselves, we recognize that they are equally incapable of making sexual decisions. Indeed, we go a step further in the realm of sexual protection because we allow parents and guardians to make medical decisions for children and yet prohibit them from making sexual decisions about their children. The potential for mischief in the realm of sex is so great that the law recognizes that those choices can only fairly be made by an individual at maturity.

Maturity in the U.S. is generally recognized to be 18 (though I believe it is 16 in some states). If you don't like it, I encourage you to vote.

Let me put it in other terms, If Foley was a hetero guy who like to send sexually explicit emails to women in their 20s who worked at the capitol, if women were "warned" to stay away from Foley or their boobs could be manhandled or that he might send them sexually explicit emails, if the Republican leadership was made aware of this behavior a year ago and did nothing to stop it, that would be a problem as well.

The e-mails were not sexually explicit. The instant messages were.

It is because we recognize that power imbalance between adults and children that sexual relations (or cybersexual relations) between the two are prohibited. It doesn't matter that a teen is more developed than a pre-teen. All that matters is that he (or she) is not as mature as an adult.

The District of Columbia disagrees with you, and has decided that, for purposes of consenting to sex, 16 year-olds are "adults."

So, fellow readers, what insights does anyone have on the strictly political question? Do you agree with Megan or not?

Worst idea ever. Admitting wrongdoing when there was no wrongdoing makes people believe that there was, and the Republican House campaign will collapse. I also don't think immediate concession upon accusations of wrongdoing by partisan opponents is a healthy strategy in general.

But AT, there was actual wrongdoing here. Engaging in cybersexual relations with a minor is illegal. The correct response for Republicans wasn't the apologies and "we tried, we tried" but rather a public tarring-and-feathering of Foley.

That would have countered any potential political loss.

But AT, there was actual wrongdoing here. Engaging in cybersexual relations with a minor is illegal. The correct response for Republicans wasn't the apologies and "we tried, we tried" but rather a public tarring-and-feathering of Foley.

Yes, which nobody but Foley, the page, and apparently ABC News knew about until when, Friday? The day Foley resigned? What was the leadership supposed to do? Ask him to resign?

Actually, making inferences about whether a pedophile "heterosexual" or "heterosexual" by looking at the gender of his victims is what requires "twisting the language," at least as it's used by psychologists who study this stuff. Child molesters are almost all men, and often their victims are male, but almost none of these men are "homosexual" in the colloquial sense. That is, almost all are either totally unattracted to adults, or attracted to adult women, and very very few are attracted to and pursue relationships with adult men. The phenomena are discontinuous.

Think of it this way: If someone likes to have sex with goats, you don't conclude that he's "homosexual" or "heterosexual" depending on the gender of the goat.

Kate: think about it for a minute. You just tried to claim that the prefix "homo-" means "same, but in a normal way I approve of". And you're claiming I look like an idiot? I just like it when words have meaning, that's all.

Gabriel: referencing "power" that many times to make an argument is a sign of sloppy reasoning. Say what you really mean instead of the old fallback, "power".

Julian: I'm sorry if basic English interferes with the worldviews of psychologists, but I'm not sure what exactly that is supposed to prove.

Julian, that may well be true, and I realize that lots of people insist that it's true, but it's not at all obvious to me that it has to be true. In any case, it's irrelevant to any discussion of attraction to adolescents.

1. Foley did not commit a crime.
2. Foley did cover up his not-crime.
3. Martha Stewart, anyone?

The e-mails were not explicit, but the IM's were.

The IM's were just discovered a few days ago.

Hastert knew about some of the e-mails, and took action, but never knew about the IM's until they were discovered a few days ago.

The Republicans have been condemning Foley ever since the IM's were discovered.

Sure looks to me as if Hastert did nothing wrong. But based on the comments in this thread, it looks like a lot of folks are conflating the e-mails with the IM's. If the people on this thread are making mistakes about the facts, is it any wonder that the general public is making similar mistakes?

But being in the right has never been synonymous with winning elections. The question now is whether or not Hastert and the Republicans can get the facts out in the face of a generally hostile media and a virulantly hostile Democratic Party. And will it make a difference if they can?

Some 30 year old guy lusting after a 16-year old girl is just sick. Such men should be forced to get mental help.

I think that would depend on which guy and what girl, and whether it was merely a one-sided lust or a genuine mutual interest. At any rate, it's a lucky break for you that you weren't born in Victorian England.

'Norms' are often merely what people make of them at a given point in history, and not objectively-grounded rules. I've known mid-20s girls I wouldn't trust to find the correct orientation of a leaf rake, and I've known mid-teen girls who are mature and responsible enough to run a small business.

For that matter, I know a 69-year-old widower who recently became engaged to a 58-year-old bachlorette; not too usual but there's nothing wrong with it, either, since they both seem genuinely interested in each other. Norms only go so far in dealing with the nuances of the real world.

You just tried to claim that the prefix "homo-" means "same, but in a normal way I approve of".

Gabriel: referencing "power" that many times to make an argument is a sign of sloppy reasoning. Say what you really mean instead of the old fallback, "power".

Person, if you have a problem with my argument then make a counterargument. I made clear what I meant by "power." I invite you to make a point.

Hastert should resign, and Mark Foley should be tarred and feathered

Looks like Jane is trying to shed that "Republican shill" image of hers...

Ok, let me have a show of hands, please:

How many people on this weblog demanded that Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil resign when it was discovered that Rep. G. Studds (D - Ma.) had been having physical sex with a 17 year old page? Not IM's, not phone sex, not innuendo-filled-email, but sack-time. How many demanded that the Democrat Party "do something"? How many worked against Studds subsequent re-election?

Just let me see the hands. Then we'll know just how serious you all are about what you are saying. Because if you demand Hastert's head now, but had no problem with O'Neil supporting Studds, you clearly have one standard for the Republicans and another, very different one, for the Democrats.

Hands, please? Don't be shy...

RMc: no, those of us who actually believe in ideas et al and have been disgusted by the Repubs for their budgeting etc are calling out Hastert on this and many other issues. Lots of us (doubt that this includes Jane) still think that R is better than D, but in that D will impeach the president, defund Iraq, replay the Church committee, put Berger and Gorelick back into powerful positions, etc. not because R is great, especially this bunch of idiots. I'd support a D team composed of Liebermans and Kauses, but not Kos' and Pelosis.

As to what should have been done: "overly friendly" emails should have resulted in an investigation. They are like cockroaches, one horrified parent equates to a vast number hiding in the woodwork. With the outpouring of IMs we are seeing that the cockroach rule is true. Further, given Foley's "type" (20 something males) he shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. A straight congressman who dates 20 somethings and has to talk down an enraged father of a teenager is indicative of a problem, and a gay one should be treated the same.

16 year old girls (and younger) are fashion models. Some guys of that age also look mature (nowhere near as many) and they tend to be superb physical specimens. Beyond the normal issues, these pages are interested in politics, are hoping for excellent college and scholarship recommendations thanks to their page work, and hope to lever these connections to work in the future. There is at least as much leverage as a coach or a teacher here, and that is why Foley should be tarred and feathered (beyond the federal felonies thanks to wire statutes).

Too many people see this as homophobia and are trying to say that there is nothing wrong or illegal here. It is wrong thanks to the power imbalances and it is illegal thanks to federal statutes that Foley passed and the laws of Florida, Foley's and some victims home. This last fact makes FLA law controlling, as one would expect Foley to be trying to arrange assignations on his visits home, rather than flying the beefcake to DC where it would be legal.

Hastert should go, as should all of his aides. The big scandal is that an ex Foley aide who covered for him for years so that his legal dating didn't get out also covered up his illegal dating. The aide, now working for Reynolds, worked hard to keep the story buried and resigned today.

Oh, man, looks like the right wing spin machine is in overdrive in this thread. I love it!

The reason Hastert will resign is because the 16-year old is male and though the base of your party would forgive Hastert (and Foley) if the page had been female, they cannot stomach the fact that Foley is gay. The bigotry of the republican party will sink Hastert, not inappropriate emails.

No Democrat is going to change their vote because of this issue. It is the nutjob right wing of your party who may stay home and cost you congress.

Now that I have calmed down a bit, has anyone else noticed the timing? Some newspapers knew about this over a year ago. Brian Ross of ABC seems to have known quite a bit, possibly for months. It's like the TANG documents, or the DUI charge of 2000; come September of an election year, the MSM starts rolling out whatever dirt they have on Republicans on a weekly basis. The National Intelligence Estimate didn't hurt? No problema, roll out the dirt on Foley. If that doesn't stick, something else will be next. Of course, Foley resigned and Studds didn't, but the MSM won't even mention that.

I don't mind the MSM taking sides, they've done it all my life, but the blatant nature of it nowadays when combined with the Walter Cronkite-like claims of "professionalism" just makes me gag.

'Jane,' your comments here are in part very interesting for the high standard deviation of their truth quotient, at least from a male perspective. I find your suggestion that a female of age about 16 might be more psychologically adroit, than a male of 16, at deflecting being a sexual object of an older man or person remarkably insightful. For a boy, perhaps somewhat still in the 'you go talk to her' stage, finding themselves seen as the object of sexual aggression in fantasy is more threatening; it may in fact remain so. As to Hastert resigning, it doesn't make sense to men. I think we look at the 'facts' of the e-mails. We don't see, not usually perhaps having experienced it, the intuition you would bring in Hastert's position as to what Foley was up to. This is a part of the deflection in which the chess moves were anticipated and the bishop moved to protect the queen.

Jane, you do not go far enough.

It is time to take a step back and look at the broad historical picture. Politicians, by their very nature are amoral predators, no matter if they are in city hall, the state capitol or the federal government. Our history books are crammed with sexual misdeeds, rapes and murders committed by politicians.

Now, surprise! Surprise! Here comes another. Let us not stop with Hastert. The entire congress is guilty - they all knew what goes on - indeed too many have sampled the pages and will continue to do so. They should all resign.

There is no conceivable reason why children should be pages. That children are recruited by the Congress to serve as pages is a disgusting reminder that Congressmen prefer their pages young, tender and inexperienced.

The time has come to remove this blemish from our nation's honor. No longer shall children be offered on the altar of sexual excess. Let all members resign, together with their staffs, and be put in jail - for surely though they may not have actually done this vile deed they are all complicit. Indeed, as is so often said in those hollow chambers, our representatives, like Caesar's wife, must be beyond reproach.

The reason Hastert will resign is because the 16-year old is male and though the base of your party would forgive Hastert (and Foley) if the page had been female, they cannot stomach the fact that Foley is gay. The bigotry of the republican party will sink Hastert, not inappropriate emails.

Whiffing too much of the reaver gas, Wallster? Not that one should expect more from the intelligent and tolerant crowd these days.

There is no conceivable reason why children should be pages. That children are recruited by the Congress to serve as pages is a disgusting reminder that Congressmen prefer their pages young, tender and inexperienced.

...except that such jobs are low-skilled positions that mainly serve to create resume padding and political networking, and therefore will be most attractive to a self-selecting coterie pre-collegiate youths who are grooming themselves for a future in political society.

The idea that politicians seek young pages in order to obtain a ready access to licentious sex (in the District of Columbia, of all places?), is a stretch.

Speaking from the other side of the aisle here:

No, I don't believe that Hastert should resign as Speaker. What more could he have done than what he did, especially within the Rules of the House. The only other thing possible for Ol' Denny to do would be to assign this to the House Ethics Committee, which (at the time) produced only slaps on the wrist rather than appropriate punishments.

Some 30 year old guy lusting after a 16-year old girl is just sick. Such men should be forced to get mental help.

What a way to attempt a thread derailment. Completely misses the concept that age of consent is not universally established at 18, and sets a completely socially acceptable age range as being "sick", at that. Next time, use a guy in his late 50's and a girl under the age of 15. That would be much more useful of a signifier.

Of course, that could be just me, who has a stepmother exactly 5 years older than I am and 26 years younger than my father.

P.S.: Someone whack the webmaster upside the head and give them this bug report:
Odd number of elements in hash assignment at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 71. Use of uninitialized value in list assignment at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 71.

ellipsis:

Just in case you weren't asking a rhetorical question.

How many people on this weblog demanded that Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil resign when it was discovered that Rep. G. Studds (D - Ma.) had been having physical sex with a 17 year old page?

I was in 3rd grade and still thought that girls carried the cootie disease, which was instantly fatal to any boy who came into contact with it. So it is highly doubtful that I would have even known those events had even happened.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with having sex with a 16-year-old guy if the guy consents. Lord knows I'd have appreciated a little more sex when I was that age.

And this didn't even rise to the level of sex. Just internet wanking.

It may just be "wanking" but it is inappropriate for what on a certain level is an employee / employer relationship. The guy may be of "legal" age, but the authority the congressman has over the page can be a coercive situation. Even if no coersion is used, it could be implied in the mind of the page, even if the congressman has no intent of using the position of authority.

I still don't like how this has come out so close to an election. Foley may have put himself in a position to be blackmailed and/or publicly embarrased. But someone felt that exposing the situation for political ends was more important than addressing the problem when it came up.

The TownlyBomb wrote:

[Norman wrote]One aspect of all this that isn't getting the play it deserves is the hypocrisy by (who else) the Dems in claiming that the Republican leadership should have taken steps to minimize contacts between a known homosexual and under-age pages.

What Democrats are claiming this? Mark Foley was not a known homosexual. He was a rumored homosexual who had been accused by an underage page of hitting on him. Unless there's some kind of Democratic movement that's in favor of letting people who are subject to specific, credible allegations of child molestation be scoutmasters, there's no hypocrisy here at all-- just your agenda.

From Ann Coulter's 10/4 column:

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."

We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:

Shawn: Wasn't the "page" in question in the IMs out of the page program entirely by the time the IMs happened, and thus not "in his power" at all (ie, page is in quotes above because he was, at the time an ex-page)?

Gabriel: It's not at all clear that whatever Foley did with the page in question was actually illegal, because it's not at all clear that for purposes of sexual consent, the "minor" was a "minor" (part of the problem with the discussion, of course, is that "minor" for terms of contracts, voting, etc. is at 18 almost if not completely universally, but "minor" in terms of sexual consent varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

If neither DC nor the ex-page's state of residence at the time had him as unable to consent (ie, not a minor in terms of sexual consent with someone Foley's age - many states have age-difference clauses for certain age ranges), then no crime could have been committed - the federal internet/wire/etc statute makes it a federal crime only if it's illegal in some other way already.

DC's code, IIRC, defines sexual consent as starting at 16, but "majority" for other things at 18, and the wording of the precise statutes becomes unclear, mixing "child" (under 16) and "minor" (not specifically defined) in a way that makes it very hard for us non-lawyers to parse.

Suffice it to say that it's not obvious that Foley broke the law; whether he did or not depends on exactly how the law is supposed to be parsed, which I'll leave to the FBI lawyers.

It may just be "wanking" but it is inappropriate for what on a certain level is an employee / employer relationship.

This wasn't even close to an employer/employee relationship. Foley had no authority over the pages even when they WERE pages, first of all, and secondly the IMs and emails seem to have been to ex-pages and non-page teenagers and adults.

Sure, he's a Congressman and they're powerful people, but if you follow that train of reasoning it is impossible for a Congressman -- or, god forbid, a President -- to have sexual relations with ANYONE in a noncoercive manner, their spouses included. They're just too darn powerful to boink.

Even if no coersion is used, it could be implied in the mind of the page, even if the congressman has no intent of using the position of authority.

First of all there's no evidence of that happening -- all of the available evidence points to mutual consent. Secondly, "implied" coercion that exists only in the mind of the self-proclaimed "victim" is entirely the fault of the that "victim". It isn't unethical to flirt with a wuss.

Norman Rogers, Ann Coulter's nonsensical rants (and really, what does the first paragraph have to do with the rest of the column you quoted and how did one Democrat quoted on Hannity and Colmes become the entire democratic party?) is hardly a good argument for your position. Oh, an putting the whole thing in bold, not really helping the case either.

I think most of us feel that this is wrong on an ethical level. Just as I suspect that most of the heterosexual congressmen can be responsible grown-ups around 16 year-old girls I feel that homosexual ones can be responsible around 16 year-old boys. I have seen very few Democrats who have said otherwise. In fact, I just did a google search and could find nothing. If anything, it's the Republican party that has indicated that they can't be trusted around 15 and 16 year olds:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_on_go_co/congress_pages_37

BTW -- I agree with Sigivald, it's not clear that anything that Foley did was actually illegal, just, as I've said before, very ooky.

Just as I suspect that most of the heterosexual congressmen can be responsible grown-ups around 16 year-old girls I feel that homosexual ones can be responsible around 16 year-old boys.

Except that I would expect that, given that the latter's objects of desire are male rather than female, they will typically be more receptive and hence harder to resist trying to pick up. It is easy to resist having sex with strange 16-year-old girls, because it is pretty much a given they'll have NO interest in sex with you. Getting a 16-year-old guy to have sex pretty much just involves giving him the opportunity to. I can see how a gay adult man might find that temptation tricky to resist.

"We disapprove of such relationships today because of concerns about emotional development and power imbalances. "

And a cultural practice of raising and educating our offspring very slowly, making them remain childlike in behavior and outlook for far longer than necessary.

"It is because we recognize that power imbalance between adults and children that sexual relations (or cybersexual relations) between the two are prohibited."

Yeah, we recognize the power imbalance because we created it by delaying their emotional and intellectual maturity and by granting most of the adults they spend a great deal of time with actual, legal power over them.

"Is there a word for adults attracted to post-pubescent minors?"

Yes, and the word is "normal". Or perhaps whatever the antonym of "blind" is. I'm seeing more and more that people are pretending that teenagers are actually not the least bit attractive and that anyone who thinks they are has something wrong with them... in the long run that'll work about as well as the Emperor's New Clothes.

Ken makes a good point about the infantilization of young people in modern America. Looking back through history, Alexander Hamilton started his business career as a clerk in a counting house at the age of 13 -- by age 16 he was running the business himself, and very successfully. Lafayette was all of 19 years old when he became a major-general in the Continental army -- his military career actually started at age 14. I suspect most young people don't need nearly as much protection and sheltering as society thinks they do.

Kate writes, Norman Rogers, Ann Coulter's nonsensical rants (and really, what does the first paragraph have to do with the rest of the column you quoted and how did one Democrat quoted on Hannity and Colmes become the entire democratic party?) is hardly a good argument for your position. Oh, an putting the whole thing in bold, not really helping the case either.

Um Kate? I was responding to TownBomb's query,What Democrats are claiming this? The answer is Bob Beckel, and I gave Ann Coulter's column as the citation.

OBTW, I emboldened the cite just to differentiate that text from the italicized quotes used earlier in my post.

Are you a rabid lefty, Kate? One of their favorite tactics is to damn the messenger -- to smear whomever they disagree with, with personal ad hominems. That seems to be what you did to the estimable Ms. Coulter ("nonsensical rants").

Think what you like about Ms. Coulter, but she is NEVER "nonsensical" (she ALWAYS makes a lot of sense -- it's just that you may disagree with her). Rant she does.

Just a comment about Washington D.C.'s "age of consent" in 2005 the Omnibus Safety Act used the definition for an adult (for the purposes of consent in a sexual act) as being 18 years of age, EXCEPT when the person was still attending High School, or it's equivalent. Those under 18 were considered MINORS, with those under 16 years of age considered children.

But the law also gave limited consent to MINORS, by stating what was considered sexual assault (rape) with or without consent. It proscribed all sexual activity with minors for those over 21. But for those individuals within four years of the age of the minor over 16 years of age no charges would be filed if consent was given Thus a minor at age 16 could have sex with a 16, 17, 18 or 19 year old with consent. A 17 year old could have sexual intercourse with 16-20 year olds. They could not have sex with anyone under 15, and no 15 year can give consent.

Am I the only one having a real belly laugh at the reversal in the deeply-held principles of the two big parties? Let's see, power imbalances in sexual relationships are either inexcusable or no big deal, the party leadership should either resign in disgust at their own sheltering of a powerful man who likes to hit on his subordinates or should hang tough and ignore the partisan attacks that are trying to subvert democracy. It probably depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

I'm just waiting for someone to start talking about the vast left-wing conspiracy.

I'm very happy to see this pack of incompetent, corrupt fools get swept out of office, and replaced with a new, improved set of incompetent, corrupt fools who at least won't be rubber-stamping the incompetent, corrupt policies of the fool at the top. But let's not pretend like this is a matter of principle to the parties. It's not. If Foley were a Democrat, the parties would simply and unselfconsciously swap their positions and arguments about all this.

Comments are Closed.