La Cage Aux Foley

Neither have you. And wouldn't you agree that the IM's don't exactly indicate a nonconsensual, or traumatic, relationship?In any case, I am unaware of any evidence for PERMANENT SCARRING, which is what berb talked about, occuring through long distance media. Indeed as far as I am aware the only long term trauma suffered by sexual crime victims is due to more immediate violence within the acts, or perhaps in some longterm cases the inability of a person to escape abuse.And by longterm, it is not the length of a page's stay on capitol hill where the person really can escape any time they want. Certainly a 16yo knows how to hang up. Right, people could stay away if they wanted, or leave if they found out later. That people don't like a person and warn others to stay away from that person, does not indicate the person has done anything criminal, or in some other way demanding punishment except in a social ostracism sort of way. That is an assertion.The question of whether a nation should invade another which does not pose a direct threat, and is not acting in a threatening manner, is to my mind quite simple. The question of what constitutes harm, sexual exploitation, and what counts as "underaged" is much more complex.In fact we had laws in place that barred something like Iraq when it happened. We do not have clear laws to address what Foley did. Even dems are questioning whether any laws were actually broken.Ironically years back he could have been tagged for simply being gay, and then someone could have made the same statement you just made using that as the "misconduct". The concept of sexual misconduct is primarily a moral and subjective one and differs in definition across the nation.The fact that people are dying and that a right held by all (for centuries) is being lost is not a matter of subjective opinion, and it effects many more people.I get the hypocrisy angle you've developed, both for Foley and other reps that might be involved. Indeed I am interested in more quotes and legislation by him that focus directly on his own actions. I suppose they could be chalked up to a person hating himself, or trying to hide, rather than a reason to believe the legislation he created was correct and so should be held against him. Kind of like a white congressman that was against integration and miscegenation while having relationships with blacks. But it does raise the eyebrow.Of course he resigned already, so as gatsby suggested the story is pretty much over, and as berb suggests, there are much more important issues to be focusing on.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm sorry, but what makes you think you're someone I could possibly want to talk to? Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

crashfrog writes me:

quote:

---

Oh? You talked to them? Assessed their mental status?

---

Those are silly questions. I would've expected better from you, crash.I was 16 once. In recent years I've known four or five 16-year-olds pretty well, and I have a nephew who will be 16 in just a few months. Neither I nor any of these others was so immature at that age that we could have possibly been scarred by an unwanted sexual advance from some old lecher like Foley.If, certainly by the age of 16 if not by the age of 2, parents have done nothing to prepare their kids for that sort of thing then as far as I'm concerned those parents are negligent. If those same parents sent such an unprepared and immature kid to live among other kids with a politician in loco parentis in a distant city, I'd call them criminally negligent.None of this is meant to excuse what Foley did in any way. But all this caterwauling about those poor, damaged kids is just so much bullshit.

---

W.W.E.D.?

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

Why? Other than people are making an issue out of it, why is it actually an issue? Especially one requiring legal action?

---

We've had this argument before, a long time ago. Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica was the immediate subject, I believe. It looks like neither of us has changed our positions.I said "I suppose" because I'm not entirely convinced that it should require action of the law enforcement sort. But I am absolutely convinced that any sexual activity between some sort of intern or low-level employee and one of his or her ultimate superiors is necessarily an abuse of power on the part of the superior. I don't think it should be tolerated in any work environment.

---

W.W.E.D.?

quote:

---

BTW- Check out the last cartoon in the link I gave Omni.

---

Love it! Thanks.

---

W.W.E.D.?

I went back through the thread and I don't see anybody "caterwauling about those poor, damaged kids". Maybe you can point out the statements to which you are referring? My understanding of the law is that it's not necessary to prove epic levels of mental anguish to conclude that Mark Foley committed an illegal act of sexual predation.Here's Mark Foley in an email to one of the pages:

quote:

---

We will make you successful, as long as you don't mind me grabbing your [deleted] once in a while,

---

That's quid pro quo sexual harrassment, sexual coercion. Exactly what I was talking about. Foley used his power as a Congressman to coerce unwanted sexual contact from teens. That they weren't emotionally destroyed as a result is immaterial and irrelevant.The enthusiasm for sex with minors that Holmes and now you seem to radiate is quite creepy. Don't get me wrong. It's entirely possible for a legal adult to be in an equal relationship with a similarly-aged legal minor, and it's unfortunate in the extreme that our legal code prosecutes those relationships.But a powerful Congressman exploiting teens in his employ with veiled threats or promises of career rewards for his own sexual amusement, by definition, is not that relationship. It's a reprehensible abuse of power and anyone who so abuses should be removed and prosecuted; anybody who enabled that behavior should be investigated. Anybody who gave it their tacit approval - Hastert - should be castigated. Hey, here's a guy you might get along well with:

quote:

---

"As for the alleged abuse, it's time to ask some tough questions. First, there is a huge difference between being groped and being raped, so which was it Mr. Foley? Second, why didn't you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?" - Catholic League president, Bill Donohue.

---

That bitch was just asking for it, wasn't she? If it had been rape she would have fought back. That slut. And the way she was dressed...

i dunno what law he is liable to, but seeing as he's a florida resident, he probably made at least one of these e-males from state ground. here, the age of consent is 18 and i really doubt that the state law says you can seduce but not actually fuck a minor.washington dc local law says the age of consent is 16. but, we're not talking about sex, we're talking about the internet. internet solicitation of a minor is a felony. we all know that minors (federally) are those under 18 (or 21 or 25...).he's not just hitting on the boy. it's much simpler than that. he used the internet which changes the way the law looks at it.it doesn't matter how "mature" one of these pages is. the nature of our laws of consent are that minors are not legally able to give consent or make contracts. this is the line that breaks the slippery slope argument my mother makes from "can gays get married" to "can nambla members do what they wish". if you equivocate over what makes a minor a minor, then we have serious issues. it's not a matter of maturity or intelligence. it is a matter of experience and it's a matter of contract law. we have determined that individuals under the age of 18 are not legal contract bearers. if we change this, we have fundamentally changed our ideas of contract law. if we change this to a more subjective scale, we have opened the gates for child molestation.he is a criminal. that is why he is being "pestered".
moreover, he is in such a position as to control federal child protection laws and dared to defy them. he has no excuse. if we cannot hold our lawmakers to the highest standards possible, who can we? they're the ones who are supposed to know how this works.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

brennakimi writes me:

quote:

---

if you equivocate over what makes a minor a minor, then we have serious issues. it's not a matter of maturity or intelligence. it is a matter of experience and it's a matter of contract law.

---

As I understand it in most states 16 is considered the age of consent. I think that's reasonable. If you want to debate whether or not that should be changed by federal law then perhaps a new topic is in order.We allow 16-year-olds enough freedom that it's unreasonable to believe that we can directly protect them from any unwanted sexual advance. The way to protect them is indirectly, through education and preparation in their younger years. So I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with you. I think it very much is an issue of maturity.

quote:

---

he is a criminal. that is why he is being "pestered".

---

I said before that I was in no way defending Foley. What he did was a gross abuse of power. Why isn't that enough? When we have a perfectly reasoned, logical basis for outlawing something we consider bad, why must we resort to morality?

---

W.W.E.D.?

Who has, Berb? I don't see anyone in this thread who has resorted to crucifying Foley on religious grounds.He broke the law by soliciting minors for sex. Moreover he used his power as a Congressman to do so. He violated both the criminal laws that we're all subject to, as well as the code of ethics that applies to those with power.I don't see it as a witchhunt to point that out, or to urge that the leadership who knowingly helped him get away with it be investigated. Can you explain it to me?

This is too silly.crashfrog writes me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

When we have a perfectly reasoned, logical basis for outlawing something we consider bad, why must we resort to morality?

---

​

Who has, Berb?

---

You, for one, in your very next paragraph:

quote:

---

He broke the law by soliciting minors for sex.

---

That's apparently true, from what I've seen, but it's a law based on morality. I don't see the case that making a pass at a 16-year-old would likely cause damage to the youngster. Saying it would is a moral judgement, irrespective of religion. If you can show me some scientific study that refutes this then please present it. As it is, I think treating this as an abuse of power is the best course to take.I don't see the need to outlaw making passes at kids who are beyond the age of consent. If at 16 most kids are too fragile to handle an untoward advance then maybe the age of consent needs to be changed.ABE: Sorry, missed your last question, crash.

quote:

---

I don't see it as a witchhunt to point that out, or to urge that the leadership who knowingly helped him get away with it be investigated. Can you explain it to me?

---

I don't believe I used the word 'witchhunt'. I think I called it overkill. And I fully support investigating all of this further. But from what I know at this moment I think it's going a bit far to call for Hastert's resignation. Just my opinion.That said, let them call for it from the mountaintops! These are republicans, after all. On MSNBC, they've been referring to the republican leaders as a "circular firing range". It's all so much fun to watch!Edited by berberry, : provided within

---

W.W.E.D.?

i see you didn't read what i said. in florida the age of consent is 18. further, this was conducted over the internet which makes this internet solicitation of a minor under 18. this is a felony. further, it is an abuse of authority and sexual harassment of a minor. it's not about picking up a sixteen year old up and boning him, the law is very precise. using the internet makes the age of question 18 regardless of the age of consent in washington dc. further, if foley was in florida at any time in which he made these advances, he is subject to florida law which states that the age of consent is 18. this is not solely a matter of indiscretion, it's a matter of very clear law.i could give shit less if the kid is scarred. he's working for congress, that's scarring enough. but this is criminal activity. i'm not talking about morality. read what i said. this is child sexual law.

And may we assume that brennakimi is an e-female?

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

actually, i'm an e-heathen.

Well then I think Florida law is a bit draconian. I don't write the law, but if it were up to me to set the age of consent I'd set it at about 16. Many (I'd say most) 16-year-olds are sexually active. It's not unusual for them to be attracted to someone older, and so long as their development hasn't been stunted I think they're old enough to make their own choices about sex.But whenever a teacher, boss, coach or a mentor of any sort is involved, be it online or by direct contact, we have an abuse of power and that's what I'd prefer to see prosecuted.

quote:

---

i'm not talking about morality. read what i said. this is child sexual law.

---

But at some point the child is - sexually, at least - no longer a child. Setting any sort of age of consent at all requires some sort of moral judgement. I'm much more comfortable when such judgements can be backed up by scientific knowledge. As I understand it (and I could be wrong about this - if so I'll adjust what I'm saying accordingly) most psychologists say that kids of 16 or older are able to have healthy sex lives. Therefore, setting the age any higher would be a moral judgement that isn't supported by reason.But I see your point that Foley should be bound to the laws of his state. Anyone else would be; I agree with you about that.

---

W.W.E.D.?

the reason the age of consent is and ought to be 18 in florida (and i'd hope everywhere else) is our philosophy of competence of contract. it's not about being healthy for sex it's about being beholden to the law. our law says a minor is under 18. sucks if you have to wait two years to bone someone older than you. you also have to wait two years to sign a legal contract.