This was going to be a short note on why I don't think Mark Foley is a "pedophile" but still think he deserves everything he's getting
>
You knew it had to come up, which is why from the "launch" of the current Mark Foley scandal I have avoided the words "pedophilia" and "pedophile," and wish everyone else had too. Because it seems quite clear to me that that isn't what this is about at all. Eventually this had to murky the whole subject.In a post yesterday, Howie wrote:
One of my oldest friends--hint: I met him at a Doors concert I booked for $400-- has been calling me a McCarthyite and witch-hunter for my coverage of the Foley cover-up. He insists Foley's victims were young men, not children and a bunch of other stuff. I'm encouraging him to write up his position and I hope he will.
Now Howie didn't suggest that he agrees with his friend, just that he would be happy to seem try to him make his case. And in fact Howie appended a press release from People for the American Way that seems to me to get the subject right, and is very much worth reading.
In addition, we've already had this interesting comment posted, from sidhedevil:
What the holy living fuck is your friend talking about? Even if one considers said pages "young men" how would it be appropriate for Foley to be hitting on them, seeing as they're volunteers working for his organization?
Sexual harassment is sexual harassment even if it were to take place between adults. I myself don't think that 16-year-olds are adults.
Also, it's hardly "McCarthyism" or "witchhunting" to point out that Foley made his political career on 'OMG MUST PROTECT UNDER-18S FROM SEX ON THE INTERNETS' while, you know, having sex with under-18s on the Internets.
Maybe we should just leave it at that. And boy, do I not want to get engaged in a debate about what "pedophilia" is. Still, it seems to me quite clear that no evidence has been presented, or indeed any reasoned suggestion been made, that our Mark is a pedophile.
A pedophile is an adult who has a sexual interest in children, and no, I don't believe a 16-year-old is a child in the sexual sense. But that doesn't mean it's the slightest bit okay for responsible adults to be fooling around with 16-year-olds.
It isn't even necessarily a legal issue, since there are states where the "age of consent" is 16 or even lower. The reason we have such a thing as an "age of consent," whatever the actual age is, is that we accept that there is some minimum age below which a person isn't capable of giving societally acceptable consent to sexual relations. (And no, "Oooh, I wanna do it, I wanna do it real bad" doesn't qualify.)
What better--purely hypothetical--illustration could there be than a member of Congress trying to seduce 16-year-old pages? And note that it wouldn't matter if it was the 16-year-olds trying to seduce the member of Congress. The power relationship is simply too unequal for society to smile and look the other way.
I don't think this hypothetical congressperson of ours is a pedophile. But I have no problem describing him or her as a sexual predator. "Predatory" seems to me quite an apt description for such behavior.
Is sexual predation enough to cost a nonhypothetical congressman his career? Well, why on earth not?
Let's say there was a corporation that had an intern program for high school juniors and seniors. And let's say that an executive of that corporation was caught trying to seduce those teens. Do you think there's any chance that that executive could hold onto his or her job? I don't think so.
And I think the exec would still be in deep doodoo if the interns were high school graduates--say, 18 and 19. Yes, it does become a different situation, because at some point we have to accept that a person does have the right to consent to sexual relations.
I appreciate that we have no scientific way of divining the "right" age. I think this is because, psychologically, it probably differs widely, depending on the individual. Unfortunately, you can't write laws this way. Which is why our patchwork of state laws doesn't provide us with much guidance. Doesn't change the principle, though, that a human has to reach some level of emotional maturity to be capable of giving "informed" sexual consent.
There's no question in my mind that by the age Monica Lewinsky had reached when she was an intern, she was fully adult in this respect, and that therefore the sexual relations she had with President Clinton were unequivocally "consensual." That made it a very different situation from what we're talking about now, but not a totally different one. Above all, that still didn't make it okay.And it's not just because Bill Clinton was breaking his marital vows. This is another deeply personal moral issue, and everyone has to make his/her own judgment about the seriousness of it. I might note, though, that if we banned all adulterers from public service, or from corporate service, the employment pool would thin out rather severely.
In general, I think "judging" adultery is mostly a matter for the parties of the first part. But then, that's just my opinion. It's not just my opinion, though, that even "consensual" sex between an executive and an intern is wrong. It's an abuse of the executive's power and a violation of the intern's trust (again, even if the intern is begging for it).
If you want to say that Bill Clinton was guilty of a serious error in judgment, I don't have a problem with that. Note, however, how far we have strayed from our original instance.
We were talking about members of Congress and 16-year-old pages. The parents of those pages entrust their well-being to Congress--to, in other words, our very own elected representatives. I don't understand how anyone can be other than shocked and appalled when one of those representatives is caught betraying that trust by attempting to seduce those young people.
What makes Mark Foley's case especially explosive is the multiple encrustations of hypocrisy. His record of implacable homophobia made his history of sexual predation an obvious subject of public interest. In addition, by carving out for himself the role of public crusader for the well-being of children generally, and in particular a special "protector" of the congressional page program, he offered himself as a target of irony that a lot of parents aren't finding terribly amusing. Well, he did that to himself too.
posted by KenInNY @ 10:25 AM
3 comments
|
Reddit
3 Comments:
In the animal kingdom, of which we are all members, "predators" and "predatory behavior" are said of animals who DEVOUR their PREY. I suppose a sexual predator, since most of them don't literally eat their conquests, would involve physical behavior of a sexual nature. There is no issue (yet?) of this having occurred in the WRITTEN intercourse between the congressman and the Page Academy Graduate, or alumnus or alumni. So whatever moron wanted to know "what the holy living fuck" [so eloquent!]I was talking about when I noted that this idiotic congressman was not a "child molester," since the recipients of the e-mails were hardly children, and were not molested. Unless your very literate (as in "seeing as they're volunteers") correspondent can tell me what "hitting on" refers to in the world of teenage e-mailers and IM-ers, and their sometimes whacky suitors. Pinching the receptionist's bottom, or groping the mail boy's basket is properly considered sexual harassment; I'm not sure of all the legal precedents, but I believe it's the judicial wisdom at this point in history that unless--when it comes to written or spoken flirtations--there has to be an element of "or else!" in the message from the horny older and/or higher ranked person for it really to be in the realm of actionable harassment. Although "I myself," in the words of your barely literate contributor does not consider a 16 year old an adult, that's his own standard. 16 year olds have drivers licenses in many jurisdictions, are free to marry in many others, and are free to have consensual sex at younger ages--cf the Clinton business. I don't give a shit what your friend in his enviable wisdom thinks of as a child; in ancient Greece, I believe, the years from 16-19 were thought of as the height of a male's sexual prowess (and attractiveness)and as I pointed out, this "age of consent" nonsense means what one or one's society wants it to mean. "Romeo and Juliet," you might want to tell sidhedevil were 14 and 12, and their love affair has not been called a filthy thing, ever, as far as I know. If it were, it would be people like sidhedevil who would thus label it. Of course, a considerable difference in age is always remarked upon, whatever the sex or sexuality of the participants, and that difference sometimes upsets people, like your consultant sidhedvil, sometimes amuses them, and sometimes is put aside as one of the lesser crises facing this sick and corrupt planet.
I think it is an exaggeration to say that Mr. Foley "made his career" on the issue of flirting on the internet; I'm sure he "made his career" according to the wishes of the Florida Republican party, and his hypocrisy is just another glaring example of Republican dopey-thinking, albeit an hilarious one, considering.... Yes, it was dopey behavior on his part (doesn't the Party teach you that e-mails and IM's are forever?!)to write thusly to trusting young people, but I doubt that their lives are ruined by a note on the computer. Did he "have sex" with these people, which witchunter sidhedevil thinks he did? THAT'S having sex??? Howie, I didn't think people with mental and emotional ages well-under eleven read your column (although I'm sure it is more educational and inspiring than a great many other things one might be reading).
Aside from being mortified to find myself the target of such inane "what-the-fuckery," it's kind of insulting to realize my letter, drenched in irony as it was, clearly went over this sidhedevil's head, and he has therefore determined that it's me who is a major moron in this whole affair. I may be high on the list of retards whose voices are being heard, but no thanks for the gold medal. sidhedevil (how do you pronounce that witty screen-name, btw? Even the very evil and repulsively dangerous Joe McCarthy was claiming to protect "America" from the vile Commies who wanted to conquer us and take away all our dishwashing machines, but I wonder if protecting 18-year olds from letters written by drunken, lecherous congressmen is something to get all excited about.
Now, the cover-up, THAT is exciting. And fun. The Foley guy is pathetic, rather than a witch, but those fuming so volcanically about the horrifying terror of his IM's are indeed Talibanic in their urgency to guard everyone else's morality. I think they're way worse than harmless, clueless Foley.
Reminds me of that priest scandal, certainly a win-win situation for the "victims." At 16, they get a great blow job from Father Whatever (trust me, the boys have compared notes on which ones bite and which ones feel really good); plus, the priests are experienced, unlike their students' 14-year-old girlfriends (well, who knows what the kids are doing in the backseat, and who cares?), and besides, priests as a rule don't wear braces that rip your foreskin to shreads. Anyhow, the on the lacrosse team get a good blowjob (last I heard, it doesn't make you sterile or give you AIDS), and THEN, 20 years later when they're fat slobs living in South Boston or Ozone Park, they sue the church and walk away with $400,000. Now they can pay for their blow jobs, like all the rest of us who are no longer young and cute. Pretty good deal all around, I would say, unless you're running the Vatican's Bills Payable Dept.--in which case you might console your ever tumescing inky-red bottom line, so to speak, with one of them hunky Swiss guards.
First I agree that Foley is not (from all information available thus far) a "pedophile" - in the DSM-V that is reserved for those that the very narrow definition fits: one who has a deep and exclusive attraction to PREpubescent children (i.e., under 12, and getting younger, since our youth are hitting puberty at 9 & 10).
From all accounts, Foley is what is described as an ephebephile - one who is primarily attracted to pubescent youth. There, I said it.
Koduroy wondered how the quoted poster's pseudonym was pronounced. Well, I don't know that commenter, but I can say with some confidence that it is pronounced /shee' devil/, a play on the Irish Gaelic language that "si" is pronounced /shee/ and the dh is silent. Mystery solved.
As for Foley being a predator, I would have to agree somewhat - the psychological definition has to do with forming a relationship with the victim solely (or primarily) for the purpose of victimization. Now Foley was exposed to the pages through his line of work. No doubt the cultivated friendly relationships with them to see who would be open to his advances and who would not. So, yes, I would agree that he formed relationships with these teens in order to potentially victimize them (some were disgusted and cut off communications with him).
And yes, according to existing federal and state laws, THAT counts as "sex" and it also counts as a sex crime - even talking dirty to someone who is NOT a minor, but that the typer *thinks* is a minor is a major sex crime, even if it is a fat, greasy officer on the other end of the virtual conversation. Thanks to Foley, ironically enough.
What is most pertinent about this situation is that the former Congressman KNEW the laws, knew the penalties and still engaged in rephrehensible behavior.
Foley was NOT on the sex offender registry, so that didn't do much to protect these pages, did it?
In fact, the highly-touted new law (Adam Walsh Act) was supposed to protect kids, wasn't it? Well, it didn't and it won't because it is totally wrong-headed: it focuses on those already convicted instead of those who haven't offended yet.
Why would I dare say such a thing??
According to all available literature (DOJ, FBI, DOC reports), the majority of sex offenses are committed by someone NOT on the registry, are committed by someone the victim already knows and trusts - not strangers, not registrants. The whole policy is bass-ackwards and helping no one but the GPS companies.
But we must admit that all of that is carefully crafted to be sound-byte friendly and guaranteed vote-getters, and boy, does it work!!
The whole thing is disgusting, and that no one else sees the real issue is almost as bad.
Thanks, ma justice. I recalled vaguely that there was another word for what Foley seems to be. Ephebephile, eh? I have a feeling I'm going to have to look that one up again next time--or else once again let some smart person out there supply it.
I think the tone of our Mark's IM "interactions" with his young pals makes clear that pre-pubescence is not his thing. I was pleased to note Howie's reference to him today as a "size queen," because it does appear that his favorite sexual subject, or perhaps what he considers a sex-conversational "ice-breaker," is measuring the nearest available penis.
Thanks too to koduroy for presenting his case. I don't agree with any of it, but it's interestingly argued.
Ken
Post a Comment
<< Home