Political Crossfire Forums

Richard Owl Mirror · Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 9002

http://clerk.house.gov/members/electionInfo/Florida_16th/index.html

U.S. Rep. Mark Foley resigns over e-mail
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., Friday resigned in the wake of revelations he sent inappropriate e-mail messages to an underage former Capitol Hill page.

Congressman Mark ‘Page Boy’ Foley Resigns
Addendum: Foley was a founder and co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus

Exclusive: The Sexually Explicit Internet Messages That Led to Fla. Rep. Foley's Resignation
Florida Rep. Mark Foley's resignation came just hours after ABC News questioned the congressman about a series of sexually explicit instant messages involving congressional pages, high school students who are under 18 years of age.

In Congress, Rep. Foley (R-FL) was part of the Republican leadership and the chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children.

He crusaded for tough laws against those who used the Internet for sexual exploitation of children.

They're sick people; they need mental health counseling," Foley said.

But, according to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges.

Read an instant message exchange a former page says he had with Rep. Foley in 2003. Warning: sexually explicit language, reader discretion advised.

Sixteen-Year-Old Who Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with Congressman

Quote:
They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.

Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley's prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact.

~@~

I'm posting this here since it has something to do with Homosexual behavior.
In my opinion the guys behavior is sickening but, is it typical homosexual behavior or is there more than homosexuality going on here?

Are 'May~December' romances typical within the homosexual community or is this guy simply a pedophile as well as being a homosexual?

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Why is it that homosexual behavior gets equated with pederasty or pedophilia? Why is it that when an older man does such a thing to a girl, no one goes on and on about the heterosexuality of such person, but when it is done between the members of the same sex from different age groups, somehow other homosexuals are accused of being responsible for this type of behaviour?

F'losrix

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: In my opinion the guys behavior is sickening but, is it typical homosexual behavior or is there more than homosexuality going on here?
There's more than homosexuality going on here, and no - this is NOT typical homosexual behavior.

Quote: Are 'May~December' romances typical within the homosexual community
I don't know that I'd say typical. Possibly more common than with heterosexuals, but not like Foley's behavior. It's more along the lines of young adult male trying to make his way in the world looks to older man for security and guidance within the framework of a relationship with romantic/sexual elements.

As I see it, there's a difference between someone taking advantage of a teens vulnerability versus the mutually beneficial relationship that can arise from May-December relationships betweeen adults. With adults though, what you sometimes find is the younger man taking advantage of an older man's loneliness to take him for a financial ride.

Always two sides to the story. But for an adult to take advantage of a teen whose initial involvement with him may be related to the teen's search for role models? Utterly disgusting.

Quote: or is this guy simply a pedophile as well as being a homosexual?
:think: - I usually associate pedophilia with someone going after pre-teens and younger (which I suppose is an arbitrary distinction) - before they've developed the stronger sense of self that emerges in adolescence. Once they're older they're generally less susceptible to manipulation. On the other hand, once they hit puberty the upsurge in hormones could lend itself to acting on impulse.

Either way, underage is underage and I feel it's completely unacceptable for adults to be messing with kids who are still in the process of shaping their own sense of identity and who lack the maturity to understand the full ramifications of their actions.

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject:

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Why is it that homosexual behavior gets equated with pederasty or pedophilia? Why is it that when an older man does such a thing to a girl, no one goes on and on about the heterosexuality of such person, but when it is done between the members of the same sex from different age groups, somehow other homosexuals are accused of being responsible for this type of behaviour?

Exellent point!

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:46 pm Post subject:

Let me just add this:

When we find an older man going after teen boys like this, a broader examination of surrounding context more often than not reveals that the perpetrator is closeted, lacking the social support structure and contacts that would provide him with the opportunity to find and sustain an actual adult relationship matching his orientation. Lacking this, they never move beyond the mentality of teenage experimentation focused on the purely sexual.

So it's perhaps a bit different from a true pedophile who chooses a victim based on proximal availabilty and malleable personality - not necessarily based on their gender. Pedophiles are primarily about power and control expressed through sexual acts. Closeted gay men going after teen boys is probably about combining power and control with not owning their orientation or believing it can only be expressed on the sexual level, not in a more permanent relationship requiring commitment.

Heterosexuals have well-defined social structures that help move them along into more adult, mature relationships. Those structures are not so well-defined for the gay community, thanks to our marginalization in a society that still largely demands we keep our true nature hidden from view.

A gay man who finds the courage to be honest with himself and others about his difference in orientation, and who takes action to find a place for himself in the gay community by establishing friendships focused on something besides mutual sexual gratification, and who can find ways to overcome society's attempts to instill shame in him for it, will be much less likely to devolve into unacceptable, irresponsible manipulation of teens to satisfy his sexual needs while sublimating his desire for real, honest same-sex love & affection.

It's no excuse for the actions of the Foley's in the world, but it's clear (at least to me) why those people exist - forcing gay people to stay closeted is detrimental both to the individual and society.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

F'losrix wrote: Heterosexuals have well-defined social structures that help move them along into more adult, mature relationships. Those structures are not so well-defined for the gay community, thanks to our marginalization in a society that still largely demands we keep our true nature hidden from view.

This is a very important point that many often disregard. When a homosexual teenager becomes aware of his/her sexuality, he/she has no actual social structure to help him/her in dealing with the world. It is a story of square peg and the round hole. Your society stigmatizes you. It's no surprise that substance abuse, depression, and suicide happen more often among homosexuals as they struggle to be part of any meaningful community.

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:50 pm Post subject:

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: It's no surprise that substance abuse, depression, and suicide happen more often among homosexuals as they struggle to be part of any meaningful community.
Indeed. What's surprising is that most of us are able to overcome all of the negatives, going on to lead productive and otherwise 'normal' lives.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20234 Location: Minnesota

Are sexually active 17 year olds "exploited children"? When I was 17 I was very sexually active with other 16, 17 and 18 year olds. Now, I wasn't sleeping with old women (or men for that matter) but in most states it is entirely legal. I was young and stupid and if I could doit again I wouldn't have but that is all neither here nor there. Just because something is "legal" it doesn't make it "right" and just because something is "illegal" it does not make it "wrong." So did Foley do anything illegal? Not from anything we've seen. Was it wrong? Well apparently his only crime was wanting to be in a homosexual relationship with a young man -- which is entirely legal in most states in this country and would have been where he and the boy could of, ya know.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

What's disturbing is that if this was a woman senator doing it with an underage male page, this whole thing would have been reported differently with comments like "lucky guy" blah blah blah ... or if it was a woman senator with an underage female, this whole thing would have been "oh, that's hot" blah blah blah ...

the outrage seems to be more about the fact that this was happening between members of the same sex ...

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8242

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: What's disturbing is that if this was a woman senator doing it with an underage male page, this whole thing would have been reported differently with comments like "lucky guy" blah blah blah ... or if it was a woman senator with an underage female, this whole thing would have been "oh, that's hot" blah blah blah ...

the outrage seems to be more about the fact that this was happening between members of the same sex ... Two men especially.

What I have never understood is how some men can scream and yell about the immorality of gay relationships (nearly exclusively focusing on gay men), then go masturbate to lesbian porn.

But, on the original post, anyone who attempts to have sex with a minor (regardless of gender of either party) deserves the legal ramifications of the act.

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1715

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: http://clerk.house.gov/members/electionInfo/Florida_16th/index.html

U.S. Rep. Mark Foley resigns over e-mail
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., Friday resigned in the wake of revelations he sent inappropriate e-mail messages to an underage former Capitol Hill page.

Congressman Mark ‘Page Boy’ Foley Resigns
Addendum: Foley was a founder and co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus

Exclusive: The Sexually Explicit Internet Messages That Led to Fla. Rep. Foley's Resignation
Florida Rep. Mark Foley's resignation came just hours after ABC News questioned the congressman about a series of sexually explicit instant messages involving congressional pages, high school students who are under 18 years of age.

In Congress, Rep. Foley (R-FL) was part of the Republican leadership and the chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children.

He crusaded for tough laws against those who used the Internet for sexual exploitation of children.

They're sick people; they need mental health counseling," Foley said.

But, according to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges.

Read an instant message exchange a former page says he had with Rep. Foley in 2003. Warning: sexually explicit language, reader discretion advised.

Sixteen-Year-Old Who Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with Congressman

Quote:
They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.

Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley's prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact.

~@~

I'm posting this here since it has something to do with Homosexual behavior.
In my opinion the guys behavior is sickening but, is it typical homosexual behavior or is there more than homosexuality going on here?

Are 'May~December' romances typical within the homosexual community or is this guy simply a pedophile as well as being a homosexual?

Although pedophilia and pederasty are actually staistically less likely to occur in homosexuals I would say that relationships with a large gap in ages are more likely among gay men than among straights. Why this is I do not know, nor do I see a problem with it. Rep Foley is a hypocrite, but that is normal among politicans. Hopefully he is seeking medical treatment.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:58 am Post subject:

John Galt wrote: Are sexually active 17 year olds "exploited children"?
I would argue that they certainly can be. Just because one is sexually active, that can hardly be viewed as negating the possibility of someone exploiting the fact. Just because one has achieved the chronological age of 17, that doesn't guarantee possession of the emotional maturity required to handle sexual relationships responsibly.

John Galt wrote: When I was 17 I was very sexually active with other 16, 17 and 18 year olds. Now, I wasn't sleeping with old women (or men for that matter) but in most states it is entirely legal. I was young and stupid and if I could doit again I wouldn't have but that is all neither here nor there. Just because something is "legal" it doesn't make it "right" and just because something is "illegal" it does not make it "wrong." So did Foley do anything illegal? Not from anything we've seen. Was it wrong? Well apparently his only crime was wanting to be in a homosexual relationship with a young man -- which is entirely legal in most states in this country and would have been where he and the boy could of, ya know.
So politicians should not be held to any moral standard, only legal standards? Or is the morality factor only important when it makes a useful tool for causing the other party political pain?

One wonders then how it is that any political party can continue to get away with hoodwinking the voters into believing they represent 'moral values' while trying to paint their opponents as being devoid of the same, since morality apparently isn't a real consideration, or at least only a consideration when it's politically convenient.

One also wonders if the exploits of NAMBLA would be viewed as any more tolerable if their focus was on 16 & 17 year old boys. I tend to think not.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20234 Location: Minnesota

F'losrix wrote: John Galt wrote: Are sexually active 17 year olds "exploited children"?
I would argue that they certainly can be. Just because one is sexually active, that can hardly be viewed as negating the possibility of someone exploiting the fact. Just because one has achieved the chronological age of 17, that doesn't guarantee possession of the emotional maturity required to handle sexual relationships responsibly.

John Galt wrote: When I was 17 I was very sexually active with other 16, 17 and 18 year olds. Now, I wasn't sleeping with old women (or men for that matter) but in most states it is entirely legal. I was young and stupid and if I could doit again I wouldn't have but that is all neither here nor there. Just because something is "legal" it doesn't make it "right" and just because something is "illegal" it does not make it "wrong." So did Foley do anything illegal? Not from anything we've seen. Was it wrong? Well apparently his only crime was wanting to be in a homosexual relationship with a young man -- which is entirely legal in most states in this country and would have been where he and the boy could of, ya know.
So politicians should not be held to any moral standard, only legal standards? Or is the morality factor only important when it makes a useful tool for causing the other party political pain?

One wonders then how it is that any political party can continue to get away with hoodwinking the voters into believing they represent 'moral values' while trying to paint their opponents as being devoid of the same, since morality apparently isn't a real consideration, or at least only a consideration when it's politically convenient.

One also wonders if the exploits of NAMBLA would be viewed as any more tolerable if their focus was on 16 & 17 year old boys. I tend to think not.

But 18 year olds are okay? Since there is something magical about being 18, right?

The "problem" here is that the guy is gay and likes young men. If it's legal at 16 what is the difference between a 16 and an 18 year old? If I recall I was as stupid as I was at 18 as I was at 16.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20234 Location: Minnesota

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: What's disturbing is that if this was a woman senator doing it with an underage male page, this whole thing would have been reported differently with comments like "lucky guy" blah blah blah ... or if it was a woman senator with an underage female, this whole thing would have been "oh, that's hot" blah blah blah ...

the outrage seems to be more about the fact that this was happening between members of the same sex ...

Lies.

There is no woman Senator who is sexually attractive.

But even if there was I think it just has to do with the fact it's a "kid" even though he is an older teenager. Even if he was say, a 22 year old intern working for him, it's still using a poisition of power against the young and stupid. There were people who were accepting of say, President Clinton's actions, but those same people ought be accepting of this. I was pretty much appalled by President Clinton's actions strickly because he used the office upon a young mind -- he held the most powerful office in the world, who wouldn't submit? This is the same type of thing for me and has nothing to do with the genders involved.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject:

John Galt wrote: But 18 year olds are okay? Since there is something magical about being 18, right?
If 16 is okay, why not 14, or maybe even 12?

The answer is that absent some way to measure emotional maturity AND enact something that passes constitutional muster, age restrictions are the best tool we seem to have to deter adults from taking unfair advantage of children.

John Galt wrote: The "problem" here is that the guy is gay and likes young men. If it's legal at 16 what is the difference between a 16 and an 18 year old? If I recall I was as stupid as I was at 18 as I was at 16.
So you don't think there would be a problem if he was going after a teenage girl??? The sex of the person isn't the issue as far as I'm concerned.

What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of Republican supporters who are pretending it's no big deal when you can bet if it was a Democrat they'd be milking it for all the political gain it's worth. As for the Democrats viewing it as a political godsend, I think they're focusing on the wrong issue. On the other hand, neither reaction is unexpected.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20234 Location: Minnesota

F'losrix wrote: John Galt wrote: But 18 year olds are okay? Since there is something magical about being 18, right?
If 16 is okay, why not 14, or maybe even 12?

The answer is that absent some way to measure emotional maturity AND enact something that passes constitutional muster, age restrictions are the best tool we seem to have to deter adults from taking unfair advantage of children.[/qupte]

I agree, but as I noted many states have 16 as the age of consent. So there is no problem here, right?

Quote: John Galt wrote: The "problem" here is that the guy is gay and likes young men. If it's legal at 16 what is the difference between a 16 and an 18 year old? If I recall I was as stupid as I was at 18 as I was at 16.
So you don't think there would be a problem if he was going after a teenage girl??? The sex of the person isn't the issue as far as I'm concerned.

I never hinted at that.

Quote: What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of Republican supporters who are pretending it's no big deal when you can bet if it was a Democrat they'd be milking it for all the political gain it's worth. As for the Democrats viewing it as a political godsend, I think they're focusing on the wrong issue. On the other hand, neither reaction is unexpected.

Newt Gingrich called for the head of both Democrat and Republicans who were involved with pages in the 80s. The Democrat retired just a few years ago actually. I don't see "hypocrisy" here. They all seem to think it is a big deal -- and it is. It would be a big deal if it was a 22 year old IMO. Why? Because 22 year olds are stupid. My point here was the age of consent where they could have consumated their relationship -- if they did -- would have been older than the kid was. So really the only thing left toridicule is the homosexuality of it. I really don't care what sex the kid is, it's still a kid and still inappropriate (I found Clinton's actions inappropriate and scandolous because of the use of his position... it ISN'T an "adult consensual relationship" its a superior and an inferior).

F'losrix · Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject:

John Galt wrote: F'losrix wrote: John Galt wrote: But 18 year olds are okay? Since there is something magical about being 18, right?
If 16 is okay, why not 14, or maybe even 12?

The answer is that absent some way to measure emotional maturity AND enact something that passes constitutional muster, age restrictions are the best tool we seem to have to deter adults from taking unfair advantage of children.[/qupte]

I agree, but as I noted many states have 16 as the age of consent. So there is no problem here, right?

Quote: John Galt wrote: The "problem" here is that the guy is gay and likes young men. If it's legal at 16 what is the difference between a 16 and an 18 year old? If I recall I was as stupid as I was at 18 as I was at 16.
So you don't think there would be a problem if he was going after a teenage girl??? The sex of the person isn't the issue as far as I'm concerned.

I never hinted at that.
Sure looks like you did to me, but whatever.

Quote: What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of Republican supporters who are pretending it's no big deal when you can bet if it was a Democrat they'd be milking it for all the political gain it's worth. As for the Democrats viewing it as a political godsend, I think they're focusing on the wrong issue. On the other hand, neither reaction is unexpected.

Newt Gingrich called for the head of both Democrat and Republicans who were involved with pages in the 80s. The Democrat retired just a few years ago actually. I don't see "hypocrisy" here. They all seem to think it is a big deal -- and it is. It would be a big deal if it was a 22 year old IMO. Why? Because 22 year olds are stupid. My point here was the age of consent where they could have consumated their relationship -- if they did -- would have been older than the kid was. So really the only thing left toridicule is the homosexuality of it. I really don't care what sex the kid is, it's still a kid and still inappropriate (I found Clinton's actions inappropriate and scandolous because of the use of his position... it ISN'T an "adult consensual relationship" its a superior and an inferior).
I said Republican supporters. As far as I'm concerned, Studds and Frank should have had the decency to resign after their antics, too. But they didn't, and the voters they represent made their decision on the matter.

Don't even get me started on Bill Clinton.