Apparently, I am an idiot.
P.S. I am amused by the notion that the same people who were, just a few years back, howling hysterically over Bill Clinton's tortured, pedantic parsing of "sexual relations" are now the very people who are obsessed with (you guessed it) the tortured, pedantic parsing of "pedophilia."
It's a context thing, you know?
ALL RIGHT, ENOUGH OF THIS CRAP! I'm going to deal with two issues that have become annoyingly and increasingly common, then I'm going to drop it and move on so as to stop wasting any more of the oxygen in the room.
First, we have the irritating Backseat Blogger who, at the link above, writes:
I gotta love Canadian Cynic. He’s as dumb as a sack of hammers but if you think snarkiness is humour then his blog is the place to go.
For CC Foley is a “sexual predator” Yikes. That calls up images of dirty old men hiding in bushes on the look out to rape all the ripe young boys who happen to come along.
Dear BB: Let me attempt to educate you. Being a "sexual predator" has nothing to do with age, it has to do with behaviour. And when you consider a 52-year-old congressman whose pattern of behaviour involves, year after year, online sexual solicitation of various members of an incoming class of pages over whom he wields enormous power and who were, by their own admission, scared to say anything for fear of damaging their careers, that is pretty much the textbook definition of a sexual predator.
If you want to take exception with that characterization, you're more than welcome to continue to make an ass of yourself in public. Feel free. Knock yourself out.
(As an aside, I find it moderately amusing that the wingnut community has, for years, criticized gays for being promiscuous, non-monogamous, unable to commit and having such low morals as to flit from one partner to the next, but their reaction to strikingly similar behaviour from Foley is, "Hey, what's the big deal? He didn't break any laws, right? Right? So lay off." No hideous double standard there. But I digress. Onward.)
The more irritating complaint is precisely the one voiced by commenter "thickslab": that it's hideously unfair to describe Foley as a "pedophile" since, according to the actual law, he doesn't (arguably) appear to have done anything wrong. This so misses the point.
Whether or not you're a pedophile has nothing whatsoever to do with the law or whether you've broken it. The basic definition of a pedophile is simply (emphasis added) "an adult who is sexually attracted to children." Note carefully that that definition has zero to do with statutes or age of consent -- it has to do with mindset. And, taken in that light, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that a pedophile is exactly what Foley is. And why can I say that? I'm glad you asked.
Over the last couple of days, the new GOP talking point to excuse Foley's behaviour is that he's not a pedophile, he's "just gay." This is, of course, terrifically convenient since it gets the GOP off the hook to some extent and lets them indulge in some delightful gay bashing, their sport of choice. But, if you think about it, that claim makes absolutely no sense on its face.
If Foley were "just gay," one would think that he might be attracted to other gays in a wide range of ages. Certainly, it wouldn't be hard to find appropriate partners in D.C. Come on -- middle-aged, long-time congressman, lots of political power, probably financially well off; what's not to like? And if Foley liked them younger, I can't imagine that would be a problem either. I doubt he'd have any trouble having his pick of partners in their 40s or 30s, or even the occasional 20-year-old cabana boy. But that's not what happened, is it?
Rather than simply gravitate to other gays, Foley (to the best of my knowledge) targeted exclusively teenage boys. That simply doesn't seem to fit the profile of someone who is "just gay," does it? However, even after that fact is accepted for the sake of argument, you still have people taking the position of, "Well, they were all technically over the age of consent so it's not pedophilia." With all due respect, that argument is unspeakably asinine.
If Foley had his pick of the D.C. gay community and chose to focus primarily on teenage boys, that's pretty much a pedophile red flag right there. I don't give a fuck if it was technically legal -- the man likes boys. That makes him a pedophile. But, at the risk of belabouring this, let's drive home the point with a thought experiment, shall we?
Imagine, if you will, a 40-year-old named John who likes girls. And by "girls," I mean young. Really young. There's nothing that turns John on more than a cute 12-year-old. But John's not an idiot -- he's very aware of "age of consent" laws and he has no intention of getting into that kind of trouble. But that's OK, because John knows how to handle that.
When John goes prowling for 16-year-olds, he doesn't just hit on any of them. Oh, no, he deliberately picks out the ones that look young for their age, and there's certainly enough of those. Just as some girls will look old for their age, some will, naturally, look young. So it's not surprising that John is going to be attracted to those girls who, while legally of the age of consent, don't look any older than 12 or 13. Because that the way John likes it. But John doesn't stop there.
Back at his place, John has an assortment of cute baby doll clothes for those girls he brings home and, if he slips them a few bucks, they're more than happy to dress up for him. But, again, John is always careful to check birth certificates or drivers' licenses, so there's not a chance John is going to get busted. In short, John can satisfy his craving for little girls, but stay out of trouble at the same time. Which, naturally, inspires the following question:
Is John a pedophile?
If we follow thickslab's logic, we would deny that vigorously. Nothing illegal, no laws broken, therefore, it's totally out of line to accuse John of pedophilia.
On the other hand, I think it's safe to say that anyone with a minimally-functioning brain stem would have no doubt whatsoever that John is a raging pedophile -- he's just smart enough to stay on the right side of the law. Now do you see my point?
Whether Foley technically broke the law is a matter for the authorities and the courts, and they're welcome to have that argument. Whether Foley is a pedophile is not even remotely open to debate, and I'm not wasting any more time entertaining that debate. If you want to, go wild. I have better things to do.
16 comments:
You really should stop the "Foley's a pedophile" thing. Foley may be a lot of things, but he's not a pedophile.
Canadian Cynic writes: The more irritating complaint is precisely the one voiced by commenter "thickslab": that it's hideously unfair to describe Foley as a "pedophile" since, according to the actual law, he doesn't (arguably) appear to have done anything wrong. This so misses the point.
First of all, I didn't say that Foley didn't do anything wrong. What I said was that Foley is not a pedophile. I am not speaking strictly from a legal perspective; what we know of Foley's behaviour does not meet the American Psychiatric Association's DSM definition of pedophilia either.
Sceond of all, your theory about Foley deliberately avoiding 12 and 13 year olds to hide his love of them is based on nothing more than conjecture and imagination. At this point we have no proof, and not even any reason to suspect, that Foley has ever expressed interested in anything other than sexually mature post-pubescent males, though they are sexually mature males who are under 18 (And how do you know that Foley wasn't bonking 20 year old pool cleaners too?)
Basically, your theory can be boiled down to this:
"The fact that he avoided young children and only talked to 16 year olds *proves* that he likes young children."
This is the kind of reasoning used by conservative blogger Steven den Beste who is famous for arguing "The fact that we didn't find any WMD whatsoever in Iraq proves that they *did* have WMD because it means they got rid of them before we invaded!" The absurdity of that statement is obvious. I think the absurdity of your theory is similarly obvious.
I'm not defending what Foley did, because abusing one's position of authority is wrong. For many reasons — not only this sexual harassment but also many others, including his political record — Foley is a conservative asshole. But according to the facts that we know, he is not a pedophile.
My impression of your posts is that you care only about scoring political points, and if your carelessness in making the issue "pedophilia" and not sexual harassment just happens to reinforce the notions of gay haters, well then so be it. Instead of arguing that Foley is guilty of sexual harrassment and abuse of authority, you take every opportunity to call him a pedophile, reinforcing over and over again in people's minds this equation: Foley = gay, Foley = pedophile, therefore gay = pedophile. You don't have to say it yourself and you don't believe it yourself, but that's what people think when they read this stuff coming from the left. Saying "I didn't mean that" doesn't absolve you of the consequences.
Thanks for helping the fag-haters. Thanks a lot.
thickslab suggests that my theory can be boiled down to this:
"The fact that he avoided young children and only talked to 16 year olds *proves* that he likes young children."
Stop being so obtuse. My actual point was that, given the wide variety of partners or online people Foley could have chosen to associate with, he invariably chose to associate with teens, in many cases teens that were legal but only barely so.
If you refuse to connect those dots, then there's nothing more I can do to get this through to you. And your comparison with Steven den Beste is ridiculous. If you don't understand that, I suggest you ask someone else to explain it to you.
There's no question that Foley is twisted. Having the feelings and yet not being able to act on his sexuality.... something wrong with the wiring there.
The funny/odd thing about this 'scandal' is that it's all smoke and no fire. I mean there's been absolutely no indication from anyone that any actual sex took place.
And as to 'connecting the dots' about Foley and pedophilia. You need to educate yourself a bit.
There are tons of gay men who like young men aka 'chicken hawks' and just as many teenage men who like older men('daddies') It's not to everyone's tastes, true, but that doesn't make it pedophilia.
CC you need to blog about 'hoist petard, you know the rest' about the Republicans. Nothing like a little whiff of homosexuality to rile up the true believers
BB writes:
"There are tons of gay men who like young men aka 'chicken hawks' and just as many teenage men who like older men('daddies') It's not to everyone's tastes, true, but that doesn't make it pedophilia."
One more time -- we are not talking about simply liking "young men." We are talking about someone who, apparently without exception, persistently hit on young males that were just barely on the legal side of age of consent. There is, as hard as it may be to believe, a difference.
And at this point, I really don't feel like flogging this any further. The rest of you, have at it.
Oh man, this post is priceless. Foley is a pedophile because he really wants 12-year-olds but doesn't want to break age of consent laws so therefore he pursues 16-year-olds, and we think he's never been attracted to anyone that isn't 16. Voila, a pedophile!
What intellectual pedigree.
Hey, look! There's a Republican scandal here. Why don't we gain some easy points by using the tried and true scare tactic of screaming "Pedophile! Pedophile!" So what if we help the conservatives in their attempt so smear fags as child molesters? We'll say something nice about gay marriage later and they'll calm down.
Canadian Cynic writes: My actual point was that, given the wide variety of partners or online people Foley could have chosen to associate with, he invariably chose to associate with teens, in many cases teens that were legal but only barely so.
And my point was that, even if we put aside legal definitions and age of consent questions, Foley's behaviour doesn't meet the definition for pedophilia. Not pre-pubescent ==> not a pedophile.
Despite your repeated assertions, there's no evidence that Foley invariably chose to associate with teens who were "barely legal." (You seem to acknowledge that when you switch in your last comment to the phrase "apparently without exception" — emphasis mine.)
But even if assume for the sake of argument that the objects of Foley's sexual attraction have throughout his life been "without exception" only "just above" the age of consent, that still doesn't meet the definition of pedophilia. Teens of that age are almost without exception post-pubescent, and like I said, not pre-pubescent ==> not a pedophile.
Tell you what: I'll make you a deal if you'd like. If you can provide reasonable evidence — NOT SPECULATION — that Foley is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, I'll withdraw my criticism and concede that you are correct in stating that he's a pedophile.
I cannot for the fucking life of me believe this, but I have to agree with Peter Rempel. Your logic is pathetic.
Can we agree that Foley is a "serial, sexual predator?"
Can we agree that the GOP leadership is composed of enablers?
Can we agree that Foley is a random problem — in the same sense that the man who shot the Amish girls was a random violence problem — and Foley's enablers are a systemic problem?
What are we getting bogged down in what label we place on Foley..Lets concentrate on what his enablers enabled.
I agree with the seer. Pedophile, pederast, whatever, dont be pedantic - the problem is the leadership enabling his actions - for years.
oh and id like you to know that janke the wank banned me for posting utterly tastless foley jokes :)
im quite easily amused when im high
I find the attempts to justify the actions of anyone based on a legal definition and the meanings of pedarest/paedophile etc a disgusting use of semantics and the qualifying of age disgusting, and the current blame the victim he was pranking the perpetrator and drawing him in disgusting. I personally disagree with the Canadian age of consent at 14 for various reasons, but the main one was that it was the last year of my life (not the first) that I was molested and I know the lifelong havoc it can cause. Foley is a paedophile, plain and simple. He is a +50 year old man in a position of power who sends unsolicited messages to teenagers who are in a subordinate position, which is exactly what paedophiles target. Any attempts to qualify the situation speaks to either complete ignorance about the lifelong effect that this can have, or it speaks to a certain thought process that automatically qualifies teenagers as sophisticated adults with healthy interpersonal experience. That's the same excuse that Nambla, or the sex tourists to Thailand etc use to justify their predilications (perversions). I apologize if I've offended anyone, but get real people. What would you do if it were your child, your brother, your sister. How would you feel if you mother or father advised you that she/he had been abused. What do you think Sheldon Leonard was trying to say? Where is your humanity?
"Rather than simply gravitate to other gays, Foley (to the best of my knowledge) targeted exclusively teenage boys."
According to the LA Times he had a longtime partner.
http://tinyurl.com/zecf4
Uh _ _ _ _ While I continue to believe that what is important is what was done, rather than what we call it, actions, after all, speak louder than words, wikpedia seems to lean towards the Cynic's conception of pedophile.
Wikipedia? You're kidding, right?
You don't like Wikipedia, thickslab? Fine, then let's range a bit further afield, shall we? Let's see, how about here:
"an adult who is sexually attracted to children
or here:
"A person which is sexually attracted predominantly by preadolescent children."
or here:
"Pedophilia is a paraphilia that involves an abnormal interest in children"
or ... I think you get the idea. Or you would have if you'd bothered putting in 30 seconds doing your own online search.
Seriously, thickslab, you are this close to being banned from this site for being an obnoxious cementhead, and for incessantly refusing the discuss the actual point I'm trying to make.
Keep it up.
CC: On the contrary, I completely understand your point. One does not need to actually have sex with a child to be a pedophile, all one has to do is be sexually attracted to them. I completely agree with that definition.
My disagreement is that we have no way of reading Foley's mind. Since we have no way of knowing what he is thinking, we can only go by his past actions and statements. My argument is that his past actions and statements are not consistent with pedophilia.
But we don't have to agree as to whether Foley is or is not a pedophile to consider my larger point: I'm adamant in insisting that he's not a pedophile is not only because I think it's false, but also because the focus is being put on sensational charges of pedophilia (rather than sexual harrassment) without any thought as to implications to the queer community. I'm convinced that no real good will come of these attempt. Republicans are evil and ruthless and they'll chew up Foley and throw him back at us as another example of a "gay pedophile."
Post a Comment