October 3, 2006

"I am fairly sickened by the Republicans and as much as I cannot stand statist, liberal polices, will not mind seeing the Republicans chastened."

If you're looking for the Foley discussion, including the Washington Times call for Hastert to resign, go back to this post from last night, which has a nice comment thread going, including that quote.

And by the way, how long do you think it will take before some terrible story about the sexual failing of some Democrats in Congress hits? I'll see you one representative and raise you a Senator. Aren't you expecting that? There must be a hundred members of Congress sweating now over something they once said in email or that porn they looked at on the computer.

71 comments:

Doug said...

This behavior is disgusting. Is there no EEOC that applies to Senators and Congressmen/Congresswoman?


I know congress exempts themselves from many of the laws that they force upon the rest of society and I think that may be one of them.

Anonymous said...

I think most congresspeople are relieved. There's nothing like a scandal to relieve them of the responsibility of dealing with substanative issues. Dump this guy overboard and get back to the business of the people. But that will never happen, of course. We'll go through round after endless round of moralizing and finger pointing. I'm so sick of Congress.

Randy said...

I bet there are many in Congress, state houses, and private houses throughout the country sweating this out. How many people do you think ever thought someone would keep copies of Instant Messages for 3 or 4 years?

Anonymous said...

Ann, as the Washington Post points out, Democrats are not hurt by sex scandals as much as Republicans are, because the element of hypocrisy is not so clear.

Also, the trule explosive part of the Foley scandal is the dereliction of duty by the Republican House leadership. It's not so easy to come up with a comparable Democratic distraction.

Ann Althouse said...

gj said..."Ann, as the Washington Post points out, Democrats are not hurt by sex scandals as much as Republicans are, because the element of hypocrisy is not so clear. Also, the trule explosive part of the Foley scandal is the dereliction of duty by the Republican House leadership. It's not so easy to come up with a comparable Democratic distraction."

False. Sexual harassment. Period.

Anonymous said...

False. Sexual harassment. Period.

If you look at the current press coverage, most of it is focused on the response by the House leadership team. Foley has hidden himself away, so the press can't do much more with him. There will be lots of interviews with former pages, and maybe more e-mails will come up. But other than that, the only thing that the press has to chew on is the House leadership.

Of course, the House leadership is helping this along by engaging in on-camera fratricide. But really, as far as schadenfreude and political drama, the story is currently all about Hastert and how Republicans have screwed themselves (pun accidental but appropriate) for the upcoming election.

But we'll see, maybe you're right. It will come out that some Dem had an extramarital affair with a former staffer and the whole country will be riveted.

MadisonMan said...

This scandal makes Bush campaign headlines like Bush Says Democrats Shouldn't Be Trusted and President Bush Says Democrats Shouldn't Be Trusted to Hold Reins in Congress immediately brings up memory of the current House Republican Leaderships' apparent failings. Maybe that's my non-Republican view of it, though. But perhaps the chastening will occur.

Perhaps Bush should modify his message so the headlines written about it explicity include GWOT, his perceived strength.

MadisonMan said...

They sat on the story for months, waited to do maximum damage.

Even if this is true -- as Ann noted elsewhere, it shows the Republican Leadership in even worse light. Let's give the Democrats something they can use against us, and let's let them control when they use it. Idiots.

Beth said...

The GOP didn't go after Foley because they were afraid of looking homophobic? Give me a break! That's the new GOP defense and damn it, they're sticking to it.

No one accused anyone of homophobia for prosecuting pedophile priests. And homosexuals aren't jumping up and down defending Foley; the right to sexually harrass a teen-age subordinate isn't on the queer agenda.

What's clear to me is that in the GOP, there is no sense, not a shred, of personal responsibility. If a GOP rep gets caught with his pants down, it's the Dem's fault for making hay over it. If the GOP leadership gets caught covering up scandal, it's someone else's fault for making them do it.

Beth said...

Fen, you're way wrong here. Foley wasn't "outed" as gay; he was outed for sexually harrassing young people. You can say it all you want, but it won't make it true that revealing his offense would have resulted in accusations of homophobia.

NAMBLA is not part of mainstream gay politics, or society. That's a pernicious, evil, right-wing slander. They are not welcome at our table; no reputable gay rights organization includes them in their ranks.

When I talk about the lack of personal responsibility, I'm speaking of how commenters here grasp at straws to shift the blame for the behavior of the GOP leadership over the past months, and blame their choices on other parties. You've done it again here, in your post, so thanks for the illustration.

Beth said...

Fen, I agree that there's no party lock on bad behavior. But you're too sure that the Dems would offer only a slap on the wrist. Dollar Bill Jefferson was removed from the Ways and Means Committee by means of a proposal by the Democratic Caucus. They moved quickly to do that--the raid of his office was May 20, Pelosi asked him to resign from the committee on May 24, and the caucus voted to strip him from it on June 15, with the House following on the 16th.

Just as a sidenote, I've got my Karen Carter sign in the yard already (she's his leading opponent in November's election). I hope there aren't enough boneheads to put him back in office, but I never misunderestimate the whims of voters in either party.

Beth said...

Fen, nice attempt to change the subject. Of course the left uses homosexuality as a political issue. So does the right. But claiming that you're "certain" that revealing Foley's sexual harrassment would have triggered that reaction from the left is just a dodge. Homosexuality isn't the issue with Foley. Yes, I do think the anti-gay stands of the GOP amount to bigotry. I also think legislators ought not to be sending dirty IMs to teenagers, of either sex. Enough with the red herrings and changing the subject.

As for reputable as a qualifier? You are grasping at straws. There are probably thousands of gay rights groups. None of the national or international groups with which I am familiar include NAMBLA. Most include in their material statements specifically repudiating NAMBLA and its efforts to piggyback on our movement. Reputable is a good qualifier for any institution, so I offer no apologies for using it.

I'll meet you halfway on the responsiblity issue. Most comments here have shown disappointment in Hastert, and yes, Malkin is saying "Deal with it," but she's saying that to reluctant conservatives. The fact that she's saying it points to the fact that there are too many still yelling about this being about the Democrats playing politics. And today, actually starting late last night, I've started seeing the "we didn't reveal it for fear of being labeled homophobes" meme. That's nothing but a cheap dodge, which should be nipped in the bud right now.

Anonymous said...

What's clear to me is that in the GOP, there is no sense, not a shred, of personal responsibility.

Elizabeth,

Foley was forced to resign as soon as the three year-old nasty IMs (with a consensually aged former page who participated without seeming offense) surfaced. Do you have any evidence that Hastert knew about these IMs? What kind of legal authority do you presume he has to go on a fishing expedition into Foley's hardrive to find evidence of something illicit other than a creepy but legal request for a pic of a page?

At the time, the parents of the boy did not want the "send me your pic" email to become public knowledge. Hastert was stupid enough and far too lax to take Foley's word that there was nothing more to the episode, but for the life of me I can't figure out how he should have gotten hold of Foley's cyber correspondence without a criminal complaint being lodged by someone.

Also, to officially tell House pages and their parents to watch out for Foley 'cause you heard on the grapevine that he flirts with some boys, without proof of wrongdoing, is skirting slander. Obviously, Repubs were hoping Foley would mind himself after being asked about possible misbehavior.

And so the proverbial rock and "hard" place. Foley let everybody down with his gross behavior and hypocrisy, and Hastert is on the ropes for not seeing how serious a problem Foley presented to the teenage pages (and also his party.) But, unbelievable as it seems, we still don't know if Foley actually broke any laws.

Beth said...

Fen, 1983? That's what you have to turn to? Come on, what about Gary Hart (1988)? Surely you can get even more current than that? Or can I tar the GOP eternally for the crimes of Richard Nixon? Why not just agree that given the ability to peer into the dark hearts of our species, we'd find plenty of evil in the reps of both parties? But I don't particularly care how Dems or GOPs responded to scandals in 1983.

Catherine, there was more than one boy involved, and the "investigation" by Hastert, Reynolds, et al, consisted of asking Foley what was up, and accepting his response of "oh nothing." It's useless to speculate now, though. It's all unfolding still.

My only purpose here, has been to point out that the current GOP response seems to be to try to change the issue and shift blame. All you have to do is read the interviews in the media with GOP leadership and follow the right-wing blogs to see that what I'm saying it true. Instapundit's now blaming the HRC and liberal bloggers. Oh, excuse me, he's not doing the blaming. He's just linking to sites that do.

Beth said...

Fen, wow. Well said. But are you happy with a party that is stuck between resigned and defensive? There were other choices:

[responsible]: yeah, the other party will make hay out of this, but we need to act with integrity anyway.

They seem to have moved to:

[deflective]: let's blame the Dems. What were we to do? We were stuck being resigned or defensive, so we chose to stay silent.

Beth said...

shanna, sadly, I agree that they all suck. I cannot think of more than a very, very few elected officials in or from my state that I have any genuine respect for or faith in, of either party.

garage mahal said...

Elanor Mondale perhaps.

Often overlooked, is the last Republican man-boy scandal. Anyone remember the "call-boy" ring under Reagan/Bush 41 ?

Just google "Franklin Coverup"

Anonymous said...

Catherine, there was more than one boy involved...

Elizabeth,

Could you please be more specific? Boys of what ages and were they, at the time, still pages? Do we know that Hastert had the evidence? How long ago were these episodes, and do we know whether Foley has been recently sex-IMing pages?

Far worse evidence could still emerge on Foley and he might face charges of some sort, not just the shame of resignation. But to date many of us are clamoring to run all the Repubs out of town on a rail without knowing any specific crimes, other than how gross one man acted and thoroughly obtuse another. More info is needed to indict, much less to convict.

Also, I think we're all owed an explanation as to why we're just now hearing about three year old IMs- who had them and why did they hold onto them for so long if "children were at risk" (even though they were with older, former pages, as far as I've seen)?

garage mahal said...

Which political party would best serve a politician that engages in or facilitates hidden, illegal sexual activities?"

Republicans?

Beth said...

Elizabeth and I are just bumping heads. It can get heated, and I'm prone to overkill, but one of us will always be buying the drinks afterwards.

Fen, thanks; I very much enjoy our discussions, and I think highly of you. I'll raise one to you this weekend at my first weekend of Oktoberfest.

Beth said...

Which party? I'd guess Libertarian. But I'm pretty sure that link leads to the Democrats, otherwise you wouldn't post it.

Beth said...

Catherine, as I said, and as Fen has noted, it's all still coming out. I'm going on news reports that refer to more than one page, over time. No doubt all be revealed. As for children at risk, I am always wary of appeals to "we must save the children!" As you note, we're talking about teens here.

When I was in high school, two male teachers made explicit attempts to have sex with me. I knew at the time that they'd done so, in some instances successfully, with others. Neither I nor any other of the girls involved told anyone. I've never been able to explain that to myself as an adult, but at the time it made sense. Perhaps I assumed other adults knew and didn't care; I liked both men as teachers and felt conflicted about "ratting" on them. I don't know. But it doesn't surprise me that the situation with Foley wasn't exposed by the teens he was targeting.

garage mahal said...

Fen,
One need only to look at the title to your link, for me to decide.

Which political party should you join?"

If I were to "join" a party, this would be in the now, in the present. No?

At the present, it is your party that is involved in a nasty scandal, and apparent cover-up.

When you ask:
"Which political party would best serve a politician that engages in or facilitates hidden, illegal sexual activities?"

I would have to say Republicans. Look at the title to this thread!

paul a'barge said...

What's clear to me is that in the GOP, there is no sense, not a shred, of personal responsibility says Elizabeth.

you're staring in the mirror, dearie.

You just sit back on the morality-sidelines and watch, as the Republican Party, the only party with constituents who still value their principles, demand accountability.

Foley? Gone within a hearbeat of notoriety. Hastert? Getting a deserved beating.

Compare: Bill Clinton. Y'all circled the wagons on that one, and you sacrificed feminist princples rather than stand for accountability.

Compare: Barney Frank. Y'all still sit with hands over eyes, ears and mouths.

Compare: Jefferson from LA, with the money in the freezer. How's that moral progress working out for you there?

You have no standing to criticize us. You bitch-shriek all you want, but no one takes you, your party or the wing of your party to which you belong with a shred of credibility.

You just STFU and watch as the moral party begins to clean its own house.

Take notes, and keep ranting at that mirror. Who cares what you think?

MadisonMan said...

I could be wrong (Wouldn't be the first time), but I seem to recall that Studds' behaviour, though censured in '83, actually took place in '73. It seems it was dredged up so that when Crane was censured for something that happened in '80, the House could look Bi-partisan, and all the smug moralists could then shake hands afterwards.

Perhaps the Republican Leadership were waiting for a Democrat to be caught doing something, so then a similar ritual purge could occur.

MadisonMan said...

Dick: what Studds did was repugnant. But it was not illegal. What Foley did was repugnant. It was possibly illegal -- jury's still out on that -- because of Foley's own legislation.

Your argument should be with Studds' consituents, some of whom were likely quite conservative. Why'd they keep electing him? My guess would be that the Republican party offered up no palatable substitute.

If you can't beat an opponent who's tarred down with a sex scandal, something is wrong.

Beth said...

I always feel lifted up, invigorated even, after a good "STFU" from paul a'barge. In another thread, someone actually called the GOP "The Party of Integrity," as if such a thing exists in America.

paul's right that Foley was "gone within a hearbeat of notoriety," but alas, not within a heartbeat of the GOP leadership knowing about his indiscretions. Once the cat was out of the bag, we dealt with it! We'll handle it, if we can't cover it up any longer!

There's nothing funny about Foley's actions, but the flailing and whining as commentor after commentor tries to change the subject away from Foley and the months of GOP inaction is just getting funnier and funnier.

MadisonMan said...

Studds was not stupid. The contact (if I can use the euphemism) occurred overseas. In Morocco, I believe.

Revenant said...

not within a heartbeat of the GOP leadership knowing about his indiscretions

I keep hearing this and I've yet to see any evidence of it. The only reports I've seen are that the leadership knew of the earlier emails he'd sent to the one page -- which weren't indiscreet or inappropriate. I hope we're not at the point in this society where asking for a picture -- not a nude picture, just a picture -- of a teenager merits an automatic assumption of pederasty.

Anonymous said...

The breathless latest ABC News:

"Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupted a vote on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page, according to new Internet instant messages provided to ABC News by former pages.

"ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys under the age of 18."

The bold font is mine, and those sections seem to translate as, Foley did the cyber nasty with two 17-year olds still in high school who were former pages. IOW, they were age of consent and no longer "underlings" serving in the hypocritical Halls of Congress. Also, the messages they cite are three years old, not recent, and ABC gives no evidence that Hastert or other House Repubs had ever been given copies of these private IMs.

Certainly, Foley is a disgusting predator and good riddance. The teenagers who IM'ed along with him seemed willing enough, but still Foley is no kind of friend that any missing or exploited children would ever want. Wonder whether he thought his chairing that committee was a joke or some kind of expiation for his exploits with teenaged boys (of consensual age, that we know of)?

Revenant said...

Wonder whether he thought his chairing that committee was a joke or some kind of expiation for his exploits with teenaged boys (of consensual age, that we know of)?

Or he simply didn't think flirting and talking dirty with willing teenaged boys was "exploiting children". I certainly don't think it was. If an older woman I was interested in had wanted to talk dirty to ME when I was 16 or 17 I wouldn't have considered it exploitation. I'd have considered it totally awesome.

In any case it is perfectly possible to be sexually attracted to 16-year-olds while still thinking that people who are sexually attracted to 8-year-olds should be thrown into a woodchipper -- just as it is perfectly possible to think Kirsten Dunst looked hot in "Dick" while still thinking only depraved perverts could think she looked hot in "Interview with the Vampire".

The Exalted said...

ah, some things never change.

when in doubt, no matter what {insert GOP scandal} has occurred, bring up clinton.

rinse, repeat.

good thing that argument is sooo persuasive.

garage mahal said...

I keep hearing this and I've yet to see any evidence of it. The only reports I've seen are that the leadership knew of the earlier emails he'd sent to the one page -- which weren't indiscreet or inappropriate

So, you would have no problem with your 16 yr old kid, who while in D.C. with virtually no protection, getting emails asking for his pic by a 52 yr old dude?

Yes or no.

Beth said...

God help us, more unsupported, unsourced, hysterical data from cedarford. And just for fun, what color is Jeffords, cford?

Beth said...

I can't believe you passed on my bi-partisan offer to put all the drinks on Ann's tab.

Fen, since I'm registered Independent, can we make that a non-partisan pub crawl? And if you think Ann won't notice--spendthrift that she is, I'm sure we can slip it by her--make mine a bock, please, in honor of the season.

Anonymous said...

Revenant, I said "exploits with." I haven't seen anything yet to show that Foley actually committed any crime or even Congressional ethical lapse with an underling, save for asking a sixteen-year-old page for his photo, and even that's a subjective call.

Foley did the right thing by resigning and not fighting it out on legal grounds. He had kept his behavior from his colleagues and constituents because even he realizes nobody likes the idea of their teenagers being hit upon and explicitly engaged online with older people, especially authority figures. Especially by lawmakers who make a big showing of supporting a law to help protect children from online sexual predation. At least three years ago, Foley stepped too close to the line for anyone to trust his actions or respect his judgement, again. Or at least until after rehab, he hopes, in vain.

I still think there are some opposition researchers and Congressmembers who sat on this story, until this election season and when it would be too late to replace Foley on the ballot. Offensive sexual and political gaming all 'round.

Revenant said...

Revenant, I said "exploits with."

I know, I was referring to the perceived contradiction between talking dirty to teenagers and being concerned about "Missing and Exploited Children". My point is that Foley is, so far as I can tell, sincere in condemning the exploitation of children, and that his behavior with teenagers does not fall into that category in my opinion.

Foley probably *did* break the law, as there have been all manner of absurdly draconian laws restricting the very idea of teenage sexuality in the last 20 years. Inasmuch as he helped push for those laws he deserves, Clinton-style, to get nailed by them. But I don't think what he did is something that would normally be deserving of imprisonment. The bad publicity and resultant shunning is enough.

I still think there are some opposition researchers and Congressmembers who sat on this story, until this election season and when it would be too late to replace Foley on the ballot.

That is pretty clearly the case, yes. Smart call on their part, really.

Anonymous said...

Edward! And the Greeks' same-sex interest in adolescents was probably caused in part by the intense homophobia of the institutional Greco-Republic in which they operated, yes?

And Clinton's perverse serial philandering and harassing is probably caused in part by the intense slackness of the instituational Democrat Party in which he still operates as ever the operator today?

It's fun to blame others!

MadisonMan said...

But I don't think what he did is something that would normally be deserving of imprisonment. The bad publicity and resultant shunning is enough.

The ironic thing is that he apparently did.

It's not clear to me that others sat on this story to change the timing. I think that, like Hastert, they thought there was nothing there, that they didn't know just how deep the roots went of this tiny little weed on the surface. Maybe I'm not cynical enough.

Unknown said...

I assume Cedarford is caucasian. I'd like him to please explain the actions of the KKK. After all - since he's white, he's obviously connected to them.

And we know that he's a right-winger. How does he justify the Oklahoma City Bombing? Because we know that all right-wingers had ties to Timothy McVeigh.

Revenant said...

The ironic thing is that he apparently did.

Oh, I don't have any problem with *him* being locked up, for that very reason -- the same reason I thought Clinton deserved every bit of the sexual history questioning he had to endure, because he signed the damned law that made it allowable.

I just don't think, in the abstract, that people who act like Foley need to spend time in jail.

think that, like Hastert, they thought there was nothing there, that they didn't know just how deep the roots went of this tiny little weed on the surface

I'm not sure if they knew about the IMs, but they pretty definitely knew about the emails to the one page.

I would guess that they hoped to use that story, weak as it was, to get the media to rehash the past questions about Foley's probable homosexuality and possibly cost him support. The Dems pulled the same stunt by repeatedly referring to Mary Cheney's sexuality during the '04 campaign.

Unknown said...

And someone should remind the bigot Cedarford that the Boy Scouts happen to ban BOYS who are gay from becoming boy scouts. What - is he afraid the cub scout is going to molest the scout leader?

Beth said...

The Dems pulled the same stunt by repeatedly referring to Mary Cheney's sexuality during the '04 campaign.

Mary Cheney's gay? Wow.

Unknown said...

Fenrisullivan is denying using the slur "fag".

What a joke. Who is actually kidding?

He says that all gay people are associated with NAMBLA and then he wants us to believe he doesn't use the word fag?

Stop acting like a victim fenrisullivan.

Unknown said...

And I'll say it again.

Any straight male who denies using the word "fag" is a liar.

Anonymous said...

Edward, you are so full of it I cannot believe that you are an accomplished scholar. Certain men all over the world and throughout time, to include male Democrats living among homo tolerant friends, hit on adolescent boys. That you blame their sexual interest in them on the Republicans and homophobia is beyond all logic. American society is fairly tolerant of gays, and homosexual men have all sorts of same-age outlets, whether they are closeted or not.

Do you blame heterosexual men's interest in adolescent girls on the Republican Party, as well? Are mean Republican mommies responsible for men's shoe fetishes?

BTW, Clinton does have a sexual problem- he can't keep it zipped up around women to whom he isn't married. Many women have testified to the fact and one took him to court for harassment.

Unknown said...

I see you're afraid to admit you're a liar. Afraid of the wrath of your pathetic little God?

Don't think you can slander all gay people as pedophiles fenrisulven and still expect to be treated with respect.

Unknown said...

Anyone who can read fenrisulven's statement above will clearly see that he thinks all gay people are child molestors, by trying to link us to NAMBLA.

The crudest form of anti-gay bigotry.

Fenrisulven thinks it's okie dokie to slander all gay people as pedophiles. But, gasp, don't call him a bigot!

What comes around goes around Fenrisulven.

Unknown said...

This story is getting really boring though.

If Democrats are smart, they will exploit this for all they can. The really smart thing for them to do would be to use anti-gay prejudices to gather more votes. "The Republicans are the party of gays and pedophiles" has a nice ring to it. That should help them get a slice of the anti-gay-bigoted electorate, about 93% of American according to the poll Ann published today.

Works for the Republicans, and I think it would be sweet to see it used by the Democrats against them.

Of course I wouldn't approve of it. And I'll be voting Libertarian. But it would certainly win votes.

Anonymous said...

This blaming the GOP for a man hitting on teens is beyond the pale. Edward hasn't answered my simple logic questions. Further, I'd like to ask him whether he blames Republicans or "homophobic" society, for Scandinavian, Dutch and German man-adolescent relations, that occur in greater numbers in permissive Europe than here.

By Edward's reckoning, evey place on earth (and even classical Greece) is homophobic and liable to contribute to gay men seeking out teens as opposed to other gay men (which makes NO sense, of course.)

Unknown said...

Chris,

Tip O'Neill was furious about the Studds incident (sex with a 17 year-old page) and wanted him out of the House. Studds was 35 or so. And the Studds incident had happened a decade earlier - in 1973 I believe. And the page stood with Gerry Studds a decade later and supported him and said it was nobody's business but theirs. So the page that Studds slept with was certainly not a victim as it was consensual. I can only imagine what it was like to be gay in 1973, and I don't think the comparison to Foley is apt. Foley is a creepy predator.
Regardless - it was still an abuse of power - and he was rightly censured. And Tip O'Neill was furious.

Hastert - an apologist for creepy old men - did not want Foley to resign when he first heard of this.

Beth said...

By Edward's reckoning, evey place on earth (and even classical Greece) is homophobic

I don't agree with Edward's causal reasoning exactly, other than to the extent that, as someone pointed out yesterday on some thread here, any part of a person's psyche is likely to get a bit twisted when hidden and lied about. But he's right about classical Greece, and Rome as well, being homophobic about adult male-male relationships.

garage mahal said...

Just in from Drudge...

Barney Frank 2nd shooter in Dallas

Developing...

garage mahal said...

Dallas 1963 that is...

Anonymous said...

Edward, did you read what I wrote? I never said anything at all about pedophilia, but good try at setting up a straw man. I only spoke to man-adolescent attraction, as in teens. I don't buy your verbiage about ancient Greece and you still haven't answered my logic questions.

What does the GOP have to do with any adult's sexual interest in teens, as opposed to other adults? Since you brought up pedophilia, do you also blame the GOP for an adult's interest in younger children and if not, why?

Surely, you're aware that men have shown sexual interest in teens, both male and female, throughout the world and history. Teens have youth, vitality, reproductive attraction, and often naivete/ innocence. Also, fixations on teens happen a a result of early experiences, arrested development, power issues, etc. Your attempt to politicize some men's sexual attraction to teen boys is weak and constitutes blame-shifting at its worst.

Revenant said...

Any straight male who denies using the word "fag" is a liar

Well I'll be damned. And all these years I was *sure* I was a straight male. Now, after all these years, I learn that I'm not allowed to be straight until I start calling people "fags".

I guess it's a good thing I never married. Explaining my newly discovered sexual orientation to my wife would be tricky.

Revenant said...

What does the GOP have to do with any adult's sexual interest in teens, as opposed to other adults?

Nothing at all, and if I were you I'd stop trying to reason with people who say otherwise.

Foley stands accused of homosexual net-sex. He could just as easily -- and a LOT more safely, politically and legally -- had anonymous gay net-sex with adults. The idea that he was pushed into IMing teens instead of adults because Republican homophobia is Horribly Dangerous and Warping to Poor Gay Republican's Psyches is a load of horse shit. He probably IM'd teens for the same reason STRAIGHT men IM *female* teens for sex -- because sex with young, healthy, sexually mature and active people is an incredibly common sexual fantasy. There's a good reason the word "jailbait" has the word "bait" in it!

Beth said...

I don't buy your verbiage about ancient Greece

You can refuse to buy the verbiage that the sky is blue and the grass is green, but the state of adult homosexuality in Ancient Greece is not based on opinion or subjective belief systems. It's described in the contemporaneous writings and laws. Any adult male playing a passive, or receptive role would be mocked and ridiculed. This isn't kept hidden in some secret academic vaults. Do a little googling and you can find some verbiage to buy into.

Beth said...

I don't buy your verbiage about ancient Greece

What we know about the state of adult homosexuality in Ancient Greece is not based on opinion or subjective belief systems. It's described in the contemporaneous writings and laws. Any adult male playing a passive, or receptive role would be mocked and ridiculed. We know much less about lesbianism during the period.

Anonymous said...

Ann Althouse wrote:
And by the way, how long do you think it will take before some terrible story about the sexual failing of some Democrats in Congress hits? I'll see you one representative and raise you a Senator. Aren't you expecting that? There must be a hundred members of Congress sweating now over something they once said in email or that porn they looked at on the computer.

I have an acquaintance who used to be a Capitol Hill staffer - and came away with a thoroughly bipartisan contempt for Congressmen, and she put it to me quite bluntly. Anyone who thinks there aren't more than a few Congressmen with long histories of treating young men and women at the bottom of the staff food chain as sex snacks is either naive or a liar. All this is going to do, IMO, is return the culture of sexual exploitation and abuse of power to the old school norms - keep your harassment F2F, because when it's your world against an intern's who is going to be believed?

MadisonMan said...

Or did hearing aboyt Foley suddenly stir your memories of a scandal from 1983?

Completely natural. If Foley had been fished out of the Tidal Basin, who wouldn't recall Wilbur Mills?

Anonymous said...

You still didn't answer my logic questions, Edward, such as why would man-on-boy teen sex in permissive Europe be so prevalent if homophobia caused that very particular obsession somehow? Perhaps you're indulging in a little avoidance behavior that no doubt can be laid at the the feet of disapproving Repubs.

Last night I researched online and found volumes of research and writing on pederasty in old Greece. I'm not going to clog up the cyber inches here with citations, but readers can go online and see firsthand how the practice would either include sexual relations or no, depending on the region and era.

And, yes, a man taking on a handsome adolescent student/ lover was often encouraged and even lauded in a number of places of Classical Greece; likewise, the boy teens were often counseled to "be" with an older man, to include in a sexual way.

Plato himself supported the practice up until the time he decided it was too widespread and contributing to the breakdown of good civil order (sounds like a Family Values stump speech to me!) However, Plato still frequented the youth male brothels, along with many other men. He never wrote that pederastic sex was an outcropping of repressive Athenian society. Quite the contrary- he argued for the practice to be repressed to get society more orderly.

Nowhere did I see any authoritative work on the "homophobia" of old Greece causing pederasty. I'd love to see some extensive citations on this, since you claim it did and are linking lust for teens to our "homophobic" Republican US regime, 21 C. I found many discussions on the areas and times of Greece in which non-carnal love between men and adolescents was considered the ideal and physical love a debasement or debauchery. But, according to the evidence, many Greek men, not all, indulged in sexual pederastic practice or had sex with teens without them or their milieus seeing it as perverted.

You and Sullivan are doing gay understanding no favor by pursuing this line of thought. Blaming one group of people for another's practice, when they most certainly condemn it, is twisted. Let's not add pervy scapegoating to the sad situation.

Anonymous said...

Edward,

At random, I checked out one work you listed, The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens by Eva Keuls, and skimmed what was available over the web. It is a feminist take on how phallicentric Athenian society was, and nothing I saw even comes close to attributing pederasty to homophobia.

Rather, Keuls is interested in how institutionalized male domination affected wives and women by both neglecting and exploiting them. She writes, "the institution of slavery provided (the Athenian male) with ample sex outlets, female and male, and he much preferred his hetaerai and pleasure-boys over his wife." (pg. 99)

Wikipedia and elsewhere characterize Keul's thinking on pederasty as such: "A modern line of thought leading from Dover to Foucault to Halperin holds that the eromenos did not reciprocate the love and desire of the erastes, and that the relationship was factored on a sexual domination of the younger by the older, a politics of penetration held to be true of all adult male Athenians' relations with their social inferiors – boys, women and slaves – a theory propounded also by Eva Keuls.[38] From this perspective, the relationships are characterized and factored on a power differential between the participants, and as essentially asymmetrical."

Note- still no causality between homophobia and sexual pederasty. Whether all adolescent boys wanted the physical attentions of older men does not address your assertions that Greek society was generally homophobic and that repression and disapproval of homosexuality specifically caused men to lust after and engage sexually with teen boys.

Both the above articles lay out the general scholarly understanding of pederasty in old Greece, and neither has a syllable on homophobia causing or even contributing to the practice. No doubt one of your sources above may have an interesting, countervailing thesis on Greek homophobia causing ephebophilia, but I could cite you a professor or two who thinks Cheney masterminded 9-11.

Anonymous said...

Edward,

I'll look into this further today when I have time, but what you describe is not "homophobia" as we think of it today, but rather an emphasis on power sexual politics. It was not necessarily repugnant for a man to screw around with another male, and in fact such activity was openly accepted and even encouraged in a number of places and in certain periods of old Greece.

The distinction you're making without specific citation is that mature Greek men did not often mess around with each other on account of alpha-dog type ranking among themselves only, and as a consequence, they sought sexual congress (sorry about that!), or homosexual relations, with younger males who wouldn't threaten their superior position. That isn't homophobia, it's a matter of domination social-sexual politics.

At any rate, your particular thesis bears no relation to allegedly rampant repression and homophobia in the States and Europe today causing older men to be attracted to younger ones, to teen boy-men. Certainly there are modern western men who are into the power-sexual politics of "mentoring" and dominating adolescents, but it's not because society-at-large thinks it's better to have teen partners than older or same-age lovers.

Please read that last line, again. Current social mores fairly tolerate homosexuality, except when young people are involved with adults.

I still cannot figure out how you square your idea that extreme homophobia leads to pederasty with the fact that pederasty occurs in uber liberal Europe probably more than it does here.

Anonymous said...

Edward,

I don't even know how to answer you- most of what you counter with doesn't logically flow from my arguments. And you are the one making sweeping statements without specific citation. A list of books doesn't do it, especially when the first one I looked into didn't say what you said it did. You just make loose, associative arguments leading to big and unsupported conclusions.

I would like to add that married Greek men didn't have to seek sex with teen boys to feel dominant- they had their wives and concubines to lord over and exploit, which they did. Men who had homosexual inclinations or bi-sexual urges usually (not always) were free to act upon them in a certain way with social approval. To the extent same-age men may have been more or less off-limits for reasons of social standing (I haven't looked into that, yet), an institutionalized pederasty allowed men to use adolescent boys for their pleasure, for power-tripping, and even for true love. Sexualized pederasty was a design feature, not bothersome bug. Only sometimes and in some places was man-to-male teen sex considered a perversion.

You certainly are applying a different definition of homophobia for ancient Greece than what we use today, saying that it was homophobic of Greek society to discourage adult-to-adult gay sex even though adult-to-teen gay sexual relationships were often celebrated, and in the open. By contrast, when you reference Republican homophobia, which btw doesn't exist to near the extent you contend, you conjure up the oppressive burn-em-at-the-stakes social con intolerance of homosexual practice of any kind, period, and then posit that gay-hatred leads to gay men lusting after teen boys because, we must suppose, there is no tolerance for adult-to-adult gaydom and there are no active gay communities in our Cromwellian society. Are we to believe Foley went after adolescent boys in order to keep his "shame" secret, given how teens never talk?? Oh, boy.

Please consider that Foley just has a thing for that age and that he's a thrill-seeker playing dangerous games. It would have been much safer for him to take on a secret adult lover who had nothing to do with Congress or to rearrange his life so that he felt freer to be openly gay, as many American gays do.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and calling me bigoted is fine form, Edward.

Anonymous said...

I'm still researching the frequency of man-adolescent sexual relations in Europe, but here are the ages of consent for European countries.

Also, here's a bit more on Greek pederasty described as a socially normed and "positive" practice (and not as a pathological consequence of homophobia):

"In antiquity, pederasty as an educational institution for the inculcation of moral and cultural values, as well as a sexual diversion, was practiced from the Archaic period onwards in Ancient Greece. As idealized by the Greeks, pederasty was a relationship and bond–whether sexual or chaste–between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside of his immediate family. While most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys, exceptions to the rule were known, some avoiding relations with women and others rejecting relations with boys. In Rome relations with boys took a more informal and less civic, often illicit path...

"...Pederastic couples were also said to be feared by tyrants, because the bond between the friends was stronger than that of obedience to a tyrannical ruler. Plutarch gives as examples the Athenians Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Others, such as Aristotle, claimed that some states encouraged pederasty as a means of population control, by directing love and sexual desire into non-procreative channels, a feature of pederasty later employed by other cultures, such as the Siwan, and perhaps the Melanesian."

Word verification: vwhory and yes it is. I'm probably on some list somewhere for researching this topic.

Revenant said...

The behavior Foley exhibited was almost by definition irrational to a large degree, because it was so inappropriate and so dangerous – dangerous for his career, most specifically.

Sexual desire is always irrational. Nobody sits down and says "hm, I think I'll lust after men instead of women" -- if they did, there wouldn't be any gay people in the first place. Now, was Foley's behavior inappropriate? Sure, I think that's fair to say, but "inappropriate" doesn't mean "irrational" either.

You could argue that it was irrational for him to take such risks, but the widespread shock, even among educated people (e.g. Andrew Sullivan) over the idea that people might save IM logs suggests that Foley might well not have *realized* that he was taking a serious risk.

I stand by my claim that institutional Republican homophobia contributed to Foley’s misbehavior

You're welcome to stand by a claim that the Earth is flat, for all I care. But as you haven't provided any evidence for your claim whatsoever I see no reason to take you seriously. You might as well blame Clinton's tendancy to stick his dick in anything warm and moist on the Democratic party's laissez-faire attitude towards sex.

Anonymous said...

You just don't stick to the facts, Edward. Nowhere did I say you were defending Foley- you like to set up and then knock down those straw men. My clear objection is to you declaratively stating that homophobia, in general, and our climate of "extreme" Republican homophobia, specifically, leads to pederasty.

And then, to support your calling me bigoted against Europeans (*eyeroll*), you wrote: "You basically said in an earlier post that pederasty runs rampant in contemporary Europe. You have no evidence to support this outrageous claim, and you virtually said that most Europeans think pederasty is perfectly fine and OK."

No, I didn't. I said, without opining about it, that on average Europe was "uber liberal" and more (sexually) permissive than the States (you disagree?), and only used the term "rampant" to describe the alleged repression and homophobia in the States and Europe your argument would conclude exists if occurrences of man-teen lust are, indeed, a direct consequence of discrimination and disapproval of gay expression.

I also said these pederastic occurrences happen in greater numbers in Europe than the States- old Europe has lower ages of consent than much of the US, and Eastern Europe is lost in a state of sexual wilderness right now. I am still looking for the stats I had seen a while ago. At any rate, saying that it is more prevalent over there than it is here does NOT mean it "runs rampant over" there. You completely mischaracterized what I said, and I do resent it. You seem to be looking for excuses to accuse people of bigotry. You have no problem making sweeping, derogatory assertions and rewriting the facts to fit the theory.

Tidbits:

Amsterdam - "Dutch paedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals.

"The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Website it would be officially registered on Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

"In Europe, which has the lowest age of consent laws among industrialized nations, nations wanting to join the European Union were forced to eliminate these supposedly discriminatory laws. What follows is a list of some European nations and what they have established as their age of consent: Spain-12, Italy, Iceland, Albania-14, Denmark, France, Greece, and Sweden-15. These nations believe that children of these ages can consent to a sexual relationship with an adult."

"[Brongersma] cites a number of examples in the Netherlands and Germany where man/boy relationships stopped the boys from becoming repeat criminal offenders. He says that in Germany this was actually something that was advocated by their courts. Repeat juvenile offenders were assigned to a known boy lover to be taken under his wing to prevent the boy from committing more heinous crimes, which could result in him receiving considerable jail time."

Anonymous said...

Edward, last comment here, a quick correction, and half apology. I did say pederasty was "prevalent" in Europe and then later said it occurred there "probably more than here." I meant both times that it's more common than one thinks, and in Europe, while there are many conservative or even disapproving liberal citizens (feminist groups for example), there exists more legal and cultural license to consider adolescents sexual beings. Please realize that "more" does not mean "tons."

I never said most Europeans approved of man-boy sexual relationships, just that their more liberal attitudes toward sex allow for more of these relationships to happen. Here in the States, NAMBLA has become the leading org for advocating pederasty (and esp. pedophilia) in the West, as far as I can ascertain. But when its agenda comes out in the open here it generally is reviled. I believe we're also less tolerant of older man/ teenage girl relationships than are the Europeans.

Question: Why would you give Falwell and his followers the ammunition to say that even ancient Greece was homophobic? They'd like nothing better than to say gay coupling is so unnatural that nearly every successful society has condemned it. 'Course, all the homoerotic pretty vases in museums would suggest otherwise.

Also, arguing that Republicans have caused an extreme homophobia to descend upon the land and cause pederastic perversions, among others, sounds like an unhealthy persecution complex and scapegoating. In this case, what would the gay community gain by playing the victim card, making excuses, and looking damaged, helpless?

The last word is yours, if you wish.

Anonymous said...

Terrific answer, Edward! I'm still not at all persuaded that we live in extremely homophobic times or that the Republican agenda contributed to Foley's sexual transgressions (an offensive assertion to me.) And I'm not sure why you term ancient Greece "homophobic" when male to male sex was often approved of, even institutionalized, no matter the respective ages, and considering how the poleis were not space colonies in which women were never available for any carnal delights.

BUT, you answered my question as to why show the Greeks as at least ambivalent toward homosexuality, if not hostile to the fullest expression, with convincing reason and passion. As for me, I've supported the (legislated) legalization of gay marriage or civil unions for almost twenty years.

I'm sorry for going back on my word to give the last word to you. Please post at least one more time to claim it back!