Republican Congressman Sends Sex Messages to Underage Boys

So you are trying to say that it is ok for a 50 plus year old man to cybersex and masturbate over the internet with 16 year olds. You seem to at least be saying that it isn't really a big deal.

Keep saying it, and I will disagree with you. You can pretend that it is ok for grown powerful leaders to do that with 16 year old boys, and I will never agree with you. I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.

 

Not defending anyone here. It brings up an interesting question though.

At what age does it become OK (legally and morally)? I think we can agree that this case falls in the "not OK" for both legal and moral considerations.

When would it not?

 

Awesome - giddyup is dragging out the old deliberately obtuse Jungle Jack Hannah routine.

"Crime!? Well, I didn't see a crime..."

 

Even I did not think you'd go so far as to argue age of consent. This is the party of family values right? The whole "we don't want gays getting married" or "no teenage sex" bull**** right?

But suddenly this is all under review because of a congressman? Your motivation is all too clear...

 

Oh, you're quibbling. No doubt about that. You're parsing, excuse making, just plain disgusting attempting to excuse what Foley did. Spin it however you want, giddy, but that's what you're doing, and I find it very, very disturbing. I'll tell you this... if it were my son who'd been preyed upon by this sick ****, whether he was 16, 17, or 18, with that sick **** in a position of power and a US Congressman, with my son, a Congressional page, hoping to use being a page as an educational experience, and a way to get into politics, and other related fields... and was attempting to seduce my son, I have no doubt that I would be in jail, with the b*stard still looking for his teeth, if he hadn't already run and hid in his bull**** "facility."

I can't believe I'm reading some of this crap. I'm astonished. You have no idea of the power someone like a congressman, a top executive in a company, or government agency, can have over a young person trying to make their way up in the world, do you, giddy.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

So it would be wrong to use that power for this purpose in any circumstance or is it just the age that makes it wrong?

I think it's both but if you agree with me then you'd have to admit that you can't say the Clinton/Lewinksy thing wasn't a big deal. Power was used in the same way.

 

Sure no one is saying that power wasn't an issue then either. There are, however, issues that most people simply aren't acknowledging.

1. It's hypocritical that Republicans are going after Clinton and then now holding back and defending their boy Mark Foley.

2. And even more ridiculous, is the fact that they're using legal tactics as a defense. What Clinton did, while morally wrong in the eyes of most, was NOT illegal. Back then, Republicans hounded him for being morally reprehensible and today Republicans are defending foley on legality while somehow pretending that morality is irrelevant in this situation.

3. Let's be realistic, it may be unfortunate but its true that the sex lives of our leaders has become fair game to sink them. Gary Hart's presidential bid sank like the titanic the moment that picture of him with a girl sitting on his lap came out. That guy Jack Ryan, who ran against Obama, got killed when it came out that he had tried to get his wife to commit public sex acts and the fact that he frequented strip clubs quite regularly. Of course we know about Clinton and what that did. Both parties are guilty of taking advantage of sexual deviance to further their own political goals, but for Republicans to claim that this is somehow "different" is ludicrous.

Clinton was wrong and Foley was wrong. I would say Foley was probably worse simply because what he did was not only wrong, but illegal. Power is inherent to ANY human relationship but in the case of Foley's relationship with kids, that power is magnified substantially.

 

Copy of email sent to Rep. Alexander's office from first Page that Hastert and others say they acted upon appropriately.

Notice the plural "pages." Probably enough for most normal folks to turn it over to the Bipartisan Page Committee or start an investigation. That they did neither speaks volumes.

 

Dude....there is no way that anyone can defend a grown man hitting on a minor.......PERIOD.......

 

I think there are multiple levels of 'wrong' here and they're getting confused.

Social/"Moral" issues:

First of all, there's the wrongness of a person in power sexually harrassing an employee. We have laws in place to keep that in check, because it's wrong. (Sexual harrassment is probably way too generous a term for Foley, but bear with me here.) A US Congressman making HUGE sexual overtures to a teenage page... there's not a lot of situations where power is more imbalanced than that.

There's the somewhat taboo 'wrong' of an old man and young person. Some of this taboo relates to the issue of imbalance of power I've already mentioned above.

There's the issue of Foley being gay. Since I'm a morally bankrupt liberal, this is an utter non-issue to me. It's awesome watching the social conservatives tying themselves in pretzels over it.

Then there's the utterly over-the-top salaciousness of the IMs that goes way beyong simple harrassing and into... I don't know what to call it.

Legal Issues:

There are strong federal laws protecting minors from internet predators, because it's a bad problem and it's only growing. Ironically, Foley took part in writing at least some of this legislature. The question is, can the IMs, (both the ones we know about and others not yet revealed), be interpreted as solicitation for sex? If a federal task force, with an officer posing as a minor, saw this IM unfold before their eyes, would they arrest Foley? Investigation is underway and we may find out...

Sex with a minor. If one of the kids did, they'll be horrified of it getting out. If it happened and the authorities are made aware, 1)what age was the kid at the time and 2)what jurisdiction would it be under; i.e., which state, since different states have different age limits.

Providing alcohol to a minor. If he IM'ed about doing it, he has probably done it, though whether the kids will talk about it to investigators remains to be seen. Obviously illegal, but morally I see it two ways: as an isolated, innocent incident with no ulterior motive (for ex, me (33) buying a beer for my 17 year old nephew) is a total non-issue. But an older, very powerful man getting alcohol for a teenage pee-on gopher while making sexual advances- utterly morally wrong and disgusting.


________________________________________________________________


I'm sure there's some things I've forgotten.

Morally, it's obviously wrong- the combination of abuse of power over a minor is inexcusable. I think that even now, with the story only partly unfolded, we can say that the leadership of the house failed to protect the page or pages in question by simply giving Foley a warning.

Legally- well, that part is underway. I personally think that even the IMs we've seen so far would pass for solicitation for sex with a minor over the internet. There's more that ABC and others have that we haven't seen yet, and even more that will come to light as more pages come forward with their stories.
If he had sex with them when they were underage, he's going to jail, no question. But we shouldn't jump to conclusions about that, maybe he's telling the truth when he says he hasn't. We'll see.


Anyway, if there's something to defend here, what is it, exactly?

 

the repubs outrage over clinton

 

I agree with you on this.

 

Is it any comfort that Clinton was put through as much hell as a president can be while still in office?

 

So you're quibbling because of partisanship?

 

... and he could do it live and it's not a crime?

Never did I say it was okay, but I have commented on the irony of "is it live or is it memorex?"

 

This is the first time I've heard this. Can you substantiate it? Where did you find/learn this?

 

I'm on record here, many times, of being in favor of gay marriage.

How can you not discuss the age of consent when you are trying to criminalize behavior? Isn't the age of consent absolutely essential?

Nothing is under review because of a congressman. I'm just discussing the facts of his case rather than responding hysterically like some lynch mob.

Your agenda is out ahead of your thinking....

 

It is generally a built in provision in consent laws. For example, in Colorado, consent rules don't apply if the two people having sex are within 4 years of each other. I think in texas, it has to be within 3 years to get out of the 17 year old limit.

This is standard procedure in the US and other countries.

Remember these are consent laws, not rules governing at what age you can have sex. Consent laws are designed to protect the child from having sex with an adult who could possibly manipulate the relationship from a position of power. (exactly what Foley did, assuming what is being reported is true)

 

I have made no excuse for what Foley did. What I have done is try to delineate a distinction between what is illegal and what is immoral. Is that really wrong to do... or should we just lynch him? Would burning at the stake serve our purposes better?

 

Here's the map: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

You do find some of the vagaries that you describe, state-by-state or nation-by-nation.