Foley Quits Amid Allegations of Email Sex Scandal

Thanks for posting that Krugman piece referencing Hofstadter's Paranoid Style in American Politics. It's a gem of analysis...

dlowan wrote:

Don't know about the public's, but as someone who has worked with offenders originally, (four years) and children who have been sexually abused and adults who were sexually abused as children for the past 17 and a half years I can tell you that such categories do not mean a brass razoo to me...........what matters is the individual's experience of that abuse, and a big factor in that (if it was not very violent physically) is the degree of trust that the abuser has violated, as well as a plethora of other things.

... and how does the age and the gender of the abused change things in your view? I don't think I understand your opinion on this from reading your post. On the one hand you say "those categories don't mean a brass razoo to me". On the other hand later in your post, "I think the age (non legally adult) thing and the duty of care stuff makes the page situation more morally culpable."

So, suppose the pages had been a 25 year old intern, something like Foley's version of Monica Levinski. Same violation of trust, different age, different gender. How do you think this changes the case from the victim's perspective?

A 25 year old consenting adult is not a victim.

My understanding is that the pages were being hit on, not consenting, flirting with Foley, agreeing to have contact because they were as hot for him as he was for them. The e-mails indicate to me that the page was uncomfortable with the advances. Monica was not. Age aside, that is the difference. One makes a victim. The other makes a dumb choice.

Clinton would agree that what he did was immoral.

In the case of Foley, the difficulty for the Republican Party is that it makes a joke out of their "moral values" campaign strategies.

squinney wrote:

My understanding is that the pages were being hit on, not consenting, flirting with Foley, agreeing to have contact because they were as hot for him as he was for them. The e-mails indicate to me that the page was uncomfortable with the advances. Monica was not. Age aside, that is the difference. One makes a victim. The other makes a dumb choice.

Nobody ever consents to being hit on. That's what hitting on someone is all about: to find out what the person hit on would consent to do with the person hitting. The rest of your post puzzles me. Are you saying Clinton didn't hit on Lewinski? When she had sex with him she was hotter for him than he was for her? Kenneth Star's phone sex protocols show she was comfortable about everything that happened? Do you have evidence for any of that?

First, I didn't say "Hotter." I said "as hot"" indicating a mutual attraction.

Sure there was a power issue with the Lewinsky case.

If it comes out that one of the pages saved a blue shirt with Foleys semen on it as a souveneir of their time together, I'll reconsider whether or not Monica was a victim.

Others will, of course, disagree that gender in this case does not makes a very big difference, but I don't; as to the substance of his transgressions. It does make a very big difference in terms of media coverage because there is no way anyone can avoid the irony and (as some would argue the hypocrisy) of a conservative Republican being found out as a homosexual with an obvious penchant for post-pubescent boys.

If the objects of Foley's attention had been female pages, the transgression would have been no less and no worse, but I don't think the story would not have been quite as steamy.

As it happens, Foley was not much of a social-conservative. He was undoubtedly a conservative but not one in the vein of a Brownback, Inhofe, or Stearns, who each received 100 ratings by the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, and Christian Coalition.

In comparison, Foley had an average rating of 82 which made him 176th on the list of rated representatives and actually below at least one Democrat, Lucas of Kentucky.

Whether or not Foley was a "true" social-conservative has no more bearing on the extent of his transgression than the gender of his targets, but it is interesting to see how both factors are treated in the media.

It is also interesting to consider that if an adult female has sex with a 16 year old male, the general reaction runs from "ho-hum" to "way to go kid!" If the genders are reversed we tend to have a much harsher view of the adult and an entirely different view of the status of the victim.

It appears that what applies to Adult Male - Underage Female affairs almost applies to Adult Male - Underage Male affairs. I don't know though, perhaps in Gay communities the young homosexual male is getting the same high fives as the young heterosexual male.

I don't think we are going to get serious consideration of the issue because of the politics involved, but somehow I doubt that most people will see homosexual underage boys in consentual sexual affairs as having the same victim status as underage females in the similar affairs with the same degree of consent.

Our thinking on sex is quite complex.

There's also whether a page started it all by flashing his thong at Foley...

Hi Finn,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Others will, of course, disagree that gender in this case does not makes a very big difference, but I don't; as to the substance of his transgressions. It does make a very big difference in terms of media coverage because there is no way anyone can avoid the irony and (as some would argue the hypocrisy) of a conservative Republican being found out as a homosexual with an obvious penchant for post-pubescent boys.

Yes, I agree.

Quote:

If the objects of Foley's attention had been female pages, the transgression would have been no less and no worse, but I don't think the story would not have been quite as steamy.

As it happens, Foley was not much of a social-conservative. He was undoubtedly a conservative but not one in the vein of a Brownback, Inhofe, or Stearns, who each received 100 ratings by the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, and Christian Coalition.

In comparison, Foley had an average rating of 82 which made him 176th on the list of rated representatives and actually below at least one Democrat, Lucas of Kentucky.

Whether or not Foley was a "true" social-conservative has no more bearing on the extent of his transgression than the gender of his targets, but it is interesting to see how both factors are treated in the media.

It is. I think it's inevitable from an entertainment standpoint that the more conservative he is, the better story it makes. Not necessarily anything politics-driven there (though not necessarily good journalism, either).

Quote:

It is also interesting to consider that if an adult female has sex with a 16 year old male, the general reaction runs from "ho-hum" to "way to go kid!" If the genders are reversed we tend to have a much harsher view of the adult and an entirely different view of the status of the victim.

I started to take issue with this as I do not consider situations in which an adult female in a power position uses that power to have sex with a young boy to be ho-hum -- have in fact argued the opposite of ho-hum in several threads on the subject on A2K. And I was responding to Okie's question posed to liberals as a liberal, that is, what I think.

But I do think you're right that society in general does tend to be more outraged when it's a female victim.

Quote:

It appears that what applies to Adult Male - Underage Female affairs almost applies to Adult Male - Underage Male affairs. I don't know though, perhaps in Gay communities the young homosexual male is getting the same high fives as the young heterosexual male.

I don't think we are going to get serious consideration of the issue because of the politics involved, but somehow I doubt that most people will see homosexual underage boys in consentual sexual affairs as having the same victim status as underage females in the similar affairs with the same degree of consent.

It's an interesting question, I'm not sure what I think. There is an overriding "ew!" factor for many when the relationship is homosexual but I'm not sure which direction it would go -- that it's even worse for the poor boy because it was ya know homosexual, or if it's not so bad because if the kid was going along with it he must actually be homosexual and also at fault. :-?

Dunno.

(If it needs to be said again, my take is that the problem is age and abuse of power and gender is immaterial.)

Quote:

Our thinking on sex is quite complex.

True. Then again, so is sex.