When Mark Foley reads, he doesn't use a bookmark... he just bends the pages over!
If I had a nickel for every email, facebook message, or text message I'd gotten regarding Mark Foley and how he's going to be the downfall of the Republican party, I'd have... well, I mean, I'd have like 30 cents. But still, that's six messages too many. But I'm sorry, I guess I just don't see it as that big of a deal.*cue gasps*
Yeah, I said it, and it's something that's been irking me for quite some time now. I'm sick of everyone talking about how Foley is a pedophile, and how different this would be handled if it were a 16-year-old girl involved, as in, he would be in a jail right now had he sent those IMs to a girl.
Are you kidding me? You honestly think they would have been MORE severe on him had he sexually harrassed a girl?
Now is where I'm sure about 80% of you will stop reading, because it's inconvenient for you to read something you don't like. The majority of females in this country, regardless of their age, race, and/or sexual orientation, will be sexually harrassed at SEVERAL times in their lives, and not a damn thing will happen to the harrasser.
That statement didn't come from NOW or any other feminist organization. It came from first-hand experience, and just plain common sense.
When I was 14, there was a 30-year-old (at least) manager at the local Food Lion who used to wait until I was on an aisle by myself and approach me, making sexually explicit comments to me. It was embarrassing, and I never told anyone, I just started requesting we use a different grocery store. The argument could be made that I looked older than 14, but I certainly didn't look 18.
These boys were 16 and 17. I've read the infamous IM conversations that are circulating. The boy in question sure didn't seem offended or uncomfortable by the remarks. In fact, he even started some of the dirty talk. I've been involved in conversations that you don't feel like pushing any further, and you certainly don't lead on the other person like that.
I read that it was pretty much common knowledge that Foley was homosexual, and some of the male pages have now come out and said that he made them feel uncomfortable at times. So how much of that was actually him making unwanted advances, and how much was just their own homophobia?
When an attractive girl gets a job working in any type of office setting, there is always the possibility that she will receive unwanted advances, even if it's something unspoken like a stare. It would be ridiculous if everytime something like that happened, she complained to Human Resources. There are laws to protect a girl who has the guts to do that, of course, but the majority of the time, it goes unsaid.
At the age of 19, I was left alone in the office with my married employer for the first time. He had me come in his office, made small talk with me, and then started making comments and asking questions that I did not feel comfortable discussing with anyone, let alone a (supposedly) happily-married, 40-year-old man. I left his office that day and never came back, never returned any of his calls (or those of anyone else in that office).
My point is, that is the correct way you react to unwanted advances. If any of you have read the IM conversations between Foley and this 16-year-old boy, you should know that the tone is clearly consentual.
Furthermore, the way the Democratic Party is handling this news is quite disgusting. They are using this opportunity to frame themselves as the new family-oriented political party, since the Republican Party is so obviously full of pedophiles. But given the fact that we know this information has been "common knowledge" for some time now, what does that say about the Democrats' family values? They are so worried and frightened for the children of America, and yet they hold on to this information until a month before a crucial congressional election. Concerned for the welfare of these pages? Hardly. The Democratic Party is looking out for their own interests, as usual.
But maybe the Democrats are right -- maybe they are the more moral party, in light of this new information. Let's see, in our party we have an unmarried man who sends flirty messages to boys who are at the legal age of consent. Meanwhile, they have a man who is married and has a child receiving oral sex IN THE OVAL OFFICE, who, rather than come clean when caught, tries to argue the semantics of the term "sex" in front of the entire nation. Yeah, that's right, cheat on your wife, completely forget about your daughter, get some on the job from your employees, and lie about it for as long as possible. Great role models, those Democrats.
To pretend that the Foley scandel is any more horrendous than the Clinton scandel is pure homophobia. The only thing that interests Americans so much in this ordeal is that *gasp* a male is hitting on other males!
And the same can be said of those former pages that said he made them feel "uncomfortable". I have no doubt that they knew of his reputation and simply couldn't believe that a gay man WOULDN'T be obsessed with them. These kinds of guys are the same ones who, in a matter of years, will be oogling the sexy secretaries and the pretty interns. They'll do the same things to those girls that they feared Foley was doing to them and won't even think twice.
I say, if we're going to make an example of Foley, we find every single politician in Washington who's ever done something similar to a young page of the OPPOSITE sex and kick them out of government.
Would anyone be left to run America?
posted by Melissa @ 12:25 PM
8 Comments:
Here's the dilema: Progressives don't care if an elected representatives are gay. Republicans however have quite a history of appealing to people who are homophobic ("protection of marriage" depends on it). Thus, it is the Rs who are going to be turned off by Foley. If the Rs had a history of advocating for equality and acceptance of homosexuals, this wouldn't be likely to effect any elections. Instead, the Rs will now reap what they've been sowing -- negativity toward homosexuality.
I agree with you there, and the irony of that very situation is one of the first things that struck me when the story first broke. But it still doesn't change the fact that more Democrats have made snide comments about "pedophilia" to me than have Republicans lamented about the immorality of the entire party. In fact, out of all the people I know personally who have stated something along the lines of "I can't believe the Republican Party knew about this and didn't do anything about it, I won't vote for a single one," ALL have been Democrats. The Democratic Party is using the Republicans' homophobia as a way to turn the party against itself.
I say kick all them out and replace them with new people. Make politicians sweat a little. Personally, I find that it matters not what party you're a part of. There's corrupt people in Washington, whether or not you like elephants or donkeys.
So Foley did some naughty stuff. So what. So Clinton got nasty in the Oval office. Okay. So the real question here is... outside of morals, how do we make them accountable?
I say vote all them bums out. Replace them with fresh people. Maybe it's time that young people just do a write-in of Stewart and Colbert, regardless of whether or not they're running. Congress? Let's fill it with the ranks of SNL. Maybe we all need a shot at being a politician for a couple years like in serving jury duty. Either way, it's about time people woke up and smelled the coffee. It's not all a bed of roses on either side of the fence.
Foley isn't a pedophile Melissa. Pedophiles go after pre-pubescent children. These 16 and 17 year old pages certainly weren't pre-pubescent.
You have to admit there is a major difference between pedophilia and the attraction, however sick and inappropriate it may be, to older teenagers. Pre-pubescent children are neither sexually or mentally mature. On the other hand, 16 and 17 year olds might not be mentally mature enough to make important sexual decisions (although some would say that are mature enough), but they are sexually mature.
A normal adult might have a passing attraction to a handsome 16 or 17 year old, because that young person is just as sexually mature as the adult. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE that a normal adult would immediately realize that the 16 or 17 year old isn't mature enough to make many decisions of a sexual nature and a normal adult would immediately re-direct his or her attraction and control his or her natural impulses. That was Foley's problem... lack of mature, adult-like self-control and impulse control.
Although someone could always make the argument that the age of consent in DC (as well as NC) is 16 and that Foley isn't sick at all... Maybe our laws should catch up to our social thought? Maybe the age of consent should be raised to 18? If teens can't vote or buy smokes, why the hell are they given the power to make sexual decisions (which could, of course, have HUGE life implications)?
That's exactly what I was saying, Matt, he ISN'T a pedophile... I mean, I can take notice that a high school aged boy is attractive, and I'm not being perverted. He's not attracted to children, he's attracted to cute guys (I'm assuming, of course, since we ARE talking about a lacrosse player, lol).
And yes, the argument can be made that, being the adult, he should have known better. But when a 50 year old man hits on 16 year old girls, he isn't considered a pedophile -- in fact, if she responds positively (as these boys did to Foley), he's considered a hero! What's the difference?
I don't think raising the age of consent would do anyone any good. In this case, it wouldn't protect Foley, because he is more than 5 years older than the page in question. In the case of a 16 year old, a person 21 years of age would be protected from a statuatory rape charge, but a 22 year old would not be.
The trick is, he never touched this boy, and these internet protection laws only protect children from pedophiles... which we've already established was not the case here.
And whether or not you want to argue what he is legally guilty of, if the Democrats want to claim he is such a threat, why did they wait this long to expose him? It's clearly a desperate ploy to win the midterm elections, and I think it's disgusting the way they are exploiting this issue.
"these internet protection laws only protect children from pedophiles... "
If I'm not mistaken, Melissa, I think the federal laws apply to sexual communications from an adult to anyone under 18.
I'm glad you're bold enough to come out and say what no one else will-it would be a totally different story if the page would have been a female. Then people would have just frowned upon it, not freaked out.
I'm also glad that the dems are showing their stupidity once again by calling it pedophilia-they seriously want votes when they can't comprehend concepts? wow...
Tasha,
Yeah I know, apparently the Dems see no difference between a grown man flirting with a six year old and a grown man flirting with a 16-year-old. I don't know about you, but I personally looked a lot more LEGAL at the age of 16 than I did at the age of 6. That's the difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home