 Observations of a sex scandal | Oct. 3rd, 2006 @ 03:20 pm  |
|---|
In the scandal involving Florida Representative Mark Foley and his sending seductive and sexually explicit instant messages to underage congressional pages, things are lining up mostly as I would expect. Well, with a few exceptions.
First off the Democrats are of course pouncing on this, trash talking Foley, asking why this wasn't prevented, who knew about his inappropriate conversations with 16-17 year old boys and why they didn't do more to investigate it. And I suppose they have a point. Afterall, most of the instant messages and emails in question here are from 2003, and several people in Congress were made aware of at least some of them. Nonetheless, the Democrats are definitely turning this into a political vendetta, 'let's see how many Republican's we can burn with this guy'. They seem to again be painting a picture of a 'culture of corruption' attached to the Republican party. I can't say that I blame them, afterall the November elections are just 5 weeks away, and the Democrats know they must win at all costs. Of course they've also been on the receiving end of this sort of witch hunt before haven't they? Monicagate... The Republicans went well out of their way to make a public spectacle of Clinton's unethical however not illegal affair with Monica Lewinsky. Republicans have on so many occasions made the grandest of issues out of social scandals.
Republicans for their part are living up to what I would expect. Foley has been strongly condemned, he's already resigned, and GOP leaders are making a point to let the public know they would have demanded it had he not. I must admit, the Republicans have been rather good about making sure those in their party that are implicated in illegal or unethical behavior resign their post. Of course lest we get the idea it's because they really are such honest and morally upstanding fellows we should remember that there have been quite a few Republicans who have had to resign posts over the past 6 years. It's not that their behavior is so much more ethical than Democrats, it's just that the party is shrewd enough to know that distancing themselves from the controversial person and seemingly punishing them encourages voters to think Republicans have so much integrity. Of course I would also argue they get caught less. Well, at least prior to Plamegate and the Abramoff scandal.
What surprised me about the Republican response at first was when several members of the GOP, most particularly social conservatives, were not only blasting Foley of course but also demanding to know {along with many Democrats} who knew what, for how long, and what did they do about it. Several have voiced concerns about how much Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert knew about some of Foley's behavior and whether or not he investigated it. Some are concerned he was aware that something very inappropriate may have been going on yet did nothing about it either because of incompetence or to cover it up hoping to avoid a huge scandal in an election year. Several Republicans, including House Majority Leader John Boehner {a major Bush apologist} are making it clear that the responsibility for dealing with such misconduct involving the page program would fall to the Speaker, they are not, however, asking for his resignation. A shame, I suppose as I'd love to see the party split over this. So far, the Republicans seem to be keeping at least enough of a unified front to not fall into the sort of circular firing squad that they and the Democratic party have fallen into so many times in the past.
While many in the top GOP including Bush are defending Hastert, many other social conservatives in the public forum as well as right-leaning newspapers are taking aim at him as well as Foley, asking that Hastert resign. They are concerned that he in fact was privy to some 'overly friendly' email conversations Foley had with a male page back in 2005, suggesting that these should have been a red flag to investigate further yet no one apparently did. Two Republican Representatives, one of which was chairman of the House Page Board, discussed these email exchanges with Hastert. Hastert has claimed he doesn't recall this. They have said of the emails that while they were questionable they were not sexually explicit. Supposedly Foley was asked about the emails and he swore that nothing inappropriate was intended. He was then warned not to have any more contact with the teen and to watch his contacts with other pages. Apparently as far as Hastert was concerned, or whoever is going to step up and take responsibility for being in charge, the case was closed.
While I don't care for Hastert, and I am suspicious of his claims of knowing nothing about the "overly friendly" emails that Rep. Reynolds claims to have brought to his attention, I think he may be telling the truth. I think he probably was aware of these emails but the content of them just didn't add up to much. Hindsight is always 20-20, and while many are trying to insinuate that red flags should automatically go up when an adult sends an 'overly friendly' message or takes a somewhat unusual interest in a minor, I think some of the things Foley had said to these kids are being blown way out of proportion. I haven't seen the entire exchange with the boy in 2005 of course, but what the media has been making available so far, which is seemingly the smoking gun that should have set off red flags, I didn't find it all that suspicious at all. Of course then I'm not paranoid of the motives of every adult/minor contact. I'm trying to keep this in perspective. Knowing what I know now about the guy I can see how it fits together, but some of the things he asked the boy didn't seem suggestive or inappropriate at all, for instance asking for a picture of him, how old he was, talking about hobbies and asking him what he wanted for Christmas or some such. If that is our society's idea of seducing or taking an unusual interest then we've gone way the hell off the deep end in our paranoia over adult/minor conversations.
Asking a kid for a portrait or how old he is shouldn't send us into "oh my god he's a pedophile" mode. Seriously, in the overwhelming majority of adult/minor relations, especially in a mentor/protégé situation making such requests would be rather innocent. While obviously in this case there was more to it, far more often than not there is nothing sinister going on. There are plenty of logical reasons this guy could be curious as to what age the kid is — helps him to know what grade level he's at — in order to carry out more relevant conversation, try to pass along age-appropriate wisdom. It might also be nice in their online conversations to put a face with the name, as adult and minors alike do as a matter of course in internet relations these days. I can see why someone in his position might want to be able to recognize those pages he is in communication with should they ever meet among the halls of Congress. It could help one associate which page was more interested in environmental law and which one had a penchant for foreign affairs.
One reason I think some conservatives are going after Hastert is obvious, sacrifice him for the sake of the party. Less obvious perhaps is that these guys want to seem tough, as if they are really taking action to deal with this extremely controversial matter. More than anything perhaps they want to appeal to their base, social conservatives, and social conservatives are livid that a 'homosexual' man was engaging in such 'perverse' behavior with 'children'. To many social conservatives it doesn't matter that Foley is a Republican, this is sexual deviancy, and to them sexual deviancy should be cut out like a cancer. Social conservatives are clearly out for blood over this, they want the equivalent of public stonings and they want more than one to get it. I suppose this surprised me a bit as I figured they'd try to cover up, do damage control and try to get this behind them as quickly and painlessly as possible.
What doesn't surprise me is how much politics is playing into this. With the Democrats it's obvious, they're trying to take advantage of this to get more votes. But Republicans are working hard to spin this thing too. Lest we get the wrong idea that only Republican politicians are getting all freaky with the sex scandals, they are reminding the public that Congressman Barney Frank, who is open about his homosexuality, was once involved with a male prostitute. Bill Clinton had his intern, and two congressmen from way back in the early 80's were sexually involved with pages {one a heterosexual affair, the other homosexual}.
Republicans, like Ohio Representative John Boehner is questioning the timing of this. They think it is all too coincidental that this is coming up now, 5 weeks from the November elections. Yeah, I guess they should have waited ‘till after the elections, that would have been so much more convenient for them… As disgraceful as all this scandal is and these bums are upset about the timing! I guess that shows where their priorities really are.
It is ridiculously ironic to hear right-wing folks piously talk about how they hope this doesn't get used as a political issue. I'll bet they do hope for that, there is a very important election just a month away! But it's so disingenuous because these same people are foaming at the mouths over past Democratic indiscretions. Talk about turning this into a political issue trying to score some points... While they play themselves off to be above playing political games they are instead wallowing in the ugly mess just as one would expect partisans to do. With some irony comes some karma too, considering the huge issue holier-than-thou Republicans made of Bill & Monica.
I have to say in bringing up these past incidents they might have a point in the scandal involving Democratic Congressmen having sex with pages, especially considering they were not forced to resign and in fact served several more terms. That does seem quite outrageous. However, these events did take place over 20 years ago! How relevant is it really, and how far back will we go to blame those today for the sins of yesterday? Where they really have no argument is to make comparisons with Barney Frank's or Bill Clinton's scandals. It's a moot point considering that regardless how inappropriate or immoral they might have been, those incidents were not illegal, what's more neither involved minors. If they're going to get all self-righteous about how morally bankrupt some Democrats have been and how superior Republicans are then they're inviting a world of hurt to themselves because it is in fact Republicans and, considering the Church, conservatives overall that have been in the middle of the most indefensible — child sex scandals.
Of course all this aside it truly is pathetic to hear people whine about how they shouldn't get in trouble because so & so did it too... Fucking grow up. I think the public is going to lynch them for any attempts at this. People expect the guilty to repent, not whine & snitch.
Now for the really disgusting politics about all of this. It comes from none other than, social conservatives. They are trying to further their fanatical agendas, like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council who is suggesting that our culture of permissiveness and sexual tolerance has lead to this sort of thing. And homophobia is coming into play with claims that there is “clear research” proving that homosexual men are more prone to pedophilia than heterosexual men. I'd love to see all this “clear research” he's talking about but since he didn't cite it I'll assume it's a bunch of bullshit, most likely from frequently cited Paul Cameron who was discredited by the APA for using faulty methods in his studies and misrepresenting other people’s work.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the acceptance of homosexuality is already getting the blame. Socially conservative extremists have been claiming for years that homosexuals are secretly pedophiles seeking to indoctrinate children into unnatural sexual relations. Of course maybe they are missing a point here. Permissive homosexual liberals are mostly getting caught up in sex affairs with adults, while repressed homosexual conservatives are having sex with kids. Mark Foley, a Republican; Catholic priests, who are religious and socially conservative are the high profile cases of child sex scandals. What does this say about repression? It is telling that Mark Foley is now claiming that he was molested by a priest when he was 13-15. It sounds like a cop-out but maybe not. Again, religious repression seems to have lead to freaky adult-kid sex, which later lead to more adult kid sex. For those who preach so much about morals, decency, family values, acceptable lifestyles and social norms it's strangely ironic that they seem to be struggling with these issues the most. Go figure...
I'm already anticipating how this will effect the debate over gay marriage. I have no doubt this scandal will be cited as proof of their rationalization that gays are morally debase, perverted, dangerous and therefore we must ban gay-marriage because if we recognize it we'll have to let pedophilia become a 'lifestyle choice' and allow men to marry children and have sex with them too.
Another interesting piece of blame put on homosexuality is that tolerance of it may have lead some to ignore warning signs out of a fear of being publicly chastised for seeming homophobic for questioning an allegedly gay congressmen’s involvement with male teens. What a crock of bullshit! First of all, such concern for being labeled ‘homophobe’ would be major switch for these folks considering there is no lack of regular gay bashing from them. Truth be told, apparently this incident wasn't ignored as Foley was in fact confronted and warned. They didn't skirt around this issue because the guy was gay, and as for why they didn’t run to the press… Gee, isn’t that obvious? According to Hastert and others that were aware of the first email that got attention in 2005, after talking with Foley it seemed like a non-issue, they didn't feel they needed to press it any farther. Of course one could very reasonably conclude that they were also concerned about the public overreacting if the media were ever to get a hold of this. And in an election year no one in their right mind would invite such speculation. What all this bullshit comes down to is more of the kind of nonsense we usually get from these socially conservative pricks. They're always working to promote their warped perspectives about the evils that homosexual tolerance brings.
In spite of all this political garbage that is being played out over this event, I have to admit I have been somewhat pleased that some in the media and the political arena are making a point to say this has nothing to do with Foley's homosexuality or the fact that he was a man trying to seduce young males. It's nice that they make a point to say this, because it really shouldn't matter if it was a man or woman going after boys or girls. Taking a closer look though it really is coming off as politically correct lip service to me. I say this because I notice how frequently they are running with the sensationalism of it all, putting an emphasis on the fact he was a 50+ year old man and these were boys.
Actually, one thing that bothers me about the coverage of this is how there is way too damn much of it. I mean as much as I want to see Republicans take political damage, and while I certainly want to see a hypocrite get nailed {Foley was a big-time advocate of laws to protect children from sex abuse}, I also think it is pathetic when we direct so much public attention to social crimes when far more pressing matters like war, poverty, liberty, torture, deficits, health care, and voting accuracy get swept aside.
I also find it absolutely appalling how sex scandals specifically are so sensationalized. All this aside, though also somewhat related, I'm bothered by how these 16-18 year old boys are being portrayed as "children" — innocent little kids. While they are certainly underage, and his behavior with them was most likely illegal or at least certainly inappropriate, to depict these teens as if they were naive little 12-13 year old children is absurd. While it isn't an excuse for his behavior, apparently some of these boys injected their own suggestive input as well. Some of these kids were probably sexually active themselves. I think all of this needs to be taken into account rather than insinuate poor hapless little children were horribly victimized by the big bad wolf. It's insulting to intelligence and rationality.
And speaking of pedophilia, I haven't heard anyone else bring this up yet but someone needs to make the point that these weren't preteens they were in fact 16 and older. In some states these boys are at the age of consent. So while certainly inappropriate, not only because there were 2 generational gaps between he and the pages and because he violated a major mentor/protégé boundary {as unethical as teachers, ministers, or counselors having intimate relationships with those in their charge}, nonetheless these contacts may not have been illegal, and it most certainly was not a case of child molestation. Not only did he apparently not have physical sexual contact with these boys but they also were not children. For that matter, whatever sexual contact he may have had personally, or via the phone or internet it was seemingly consensual. In the race to 'burn the pedophile', the reality is being glossed over that an adult with an attraction or involvement with teenage adolescents is not a pedophile. The more accurate term would be pederast or ephebophile. There is a very significant difference.Feeling like:  disgusted |
|
|
![[info]](http://img.greatestjournal.com/userinfo.gif){kind=small}