<p>“a wife who responds to the infidelity of her husband by obtaining a court order to keep the girlfriend away from the house needs a good divorce lawyer!”</p>
<p>She got one too. $6.8 million worth (tax free). But what she was trying to do, and with which the judge agreed, was protect her children from Rudy’s smutty ways. </p>
<p>If he could afford $6.8 mil, he certainly could have afforded a motel.</p>
<p>“…when all of the evidence refutes that claim.” What evidence is that, AM? What you just read posted on cc?
I do not want to disturb your liberal utopia which includes gays as a major protected group–continue to feel free to believe that Foley is an aberration. I think otherwise; certainly we are free to hold our own opinions on the matter. :)</p>
<p>Oh please, HH. Do away with the condescension. I noted way that your claim was wrong before any "evidence’ was posted (in my post #451).</p>
<p>wow…seems so many here think the wives should be the ones to leave…a squatter? it was her home…it was her childs home…</p>
<p>wow…to fault the wife for trying to keep her child in the home she has known for half her life…what a horrid thing to do!!!</p>
<p>HH:
I believe the statistics you posted do indeed show that the preponderance of abuse is committed by heterosexuals. Did I do the math wrong on my previous post?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re welcome. But don’t be too happy! </p>
<p>Of course, there are MORE heterosexuals offenders, but looking at the absolute numbers is pointless. For example, if 90% of the Eskimos were child molesters, we would sequester them. It is necessary to compare the incidence of offenses with the distribution of the population. </p>
<p>This should help you. Even if the numbers were off by a factor of 5 or 10, the ratios would still be 90-98% of population cause … 68% and 2-10% cause …>32%. </p>
<p>The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.</p>
<p>Well please post YOUR evidence, AM!
gla: I didn’t post any stats!
Please read xiggi’s #486</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What exactly did Haster and Shimkus do to investigate this incident?</p>
<p>Sorry HH, the stats were from Xiggi.</p>
<p>Xigg.
Ok. Homosexuals are more likely to engage in sex with minors, but more minors are abused by heterosexuals. Can we agree on that?
But please don’t send any Eskimos to internment camps :)</p>
<p>cgm-
I only said the wife should leave because it was the GOVERNOR’s mansion. If it was their private home, then he should go.</p>
<p>I’ll be honest with you all: I did research on this stuff three years or so ago, when I was deciding where to send my son to high school. I really do not want to go there again, as I said previously. I hope you understand; it is not the most pleasant of topics! The information is out there if you really want to find it, and keep your mind open as to where it may lead you.</p>
<p>All this talk about who preys upon children and adolescents sexually at a statistically higher rate, homosexuals or heterosexuals, seems to me to be rather beside the point. Why? Because it is virtually useless - or maybe even worse than useless (because it can be highly misleading) - in trying to predict the likelihood of predatory behavior by any one individual. </p>
<p>As relevant here, I think that it is wholly misleading to argue - on the basis of statistics showing a higher rate of sexually predatory behavior by homosexuals (which, for present purposes, I’m assuming to be valid) - that Foley, because he is gay, presented a higher risk of sexually predatory behavior than did his heterosexual colleagues. Would one argue, on the basis of statistics showing a higher rate of violent crime by blacks, that a black politician posed a higher risk of violent behavior than a white politician?</p>
<p>In response to:
I did look it up - in the study cited in the article Hereshoping linked to about sexual predation in schools. Here’s what it has to say:</p>
<p>
Additional factors also skew the numbers. Adolescent males are less likely to consider sexual attention from an adult female to be molestation, and therefore underreport heterosexual predation. Also, an adult male shacking up with an adolescent male is, as Hereshoping has helpfully informed us: “pederasty”, while an adult male shacking up with an adolescent female has its own label: “marriage”. (See John Mark Karr.)</p>
<p>Bottom line: no one has hard and fast numbers on this. But there is more sexual predation being perfomed by men who identify as heterosexual than by men who identify as homosexual - and by a very large margin. The no doubt sincere belief of HH and Xiggi, et al to the contrary is, in fact, a product of social hysteria - i.e. “homophobia.”</p>
<p>Foley was an icky jerk, and regardless of the gender of who he approached, they were minors, he knew it, and didn’t care</p>
<p>the focus on the sex of the page is irrelevent…he crossed the line…but it bascially ignored, and he was trusted, even though he showed at minimum extremely poor judgement with the emails…</p>
<p>again, if it was a female page, would the leadership have acted the same? I have no clue</p>
<p>interesting stuff, kluge…</p>
<p>I had heard the same kind of studies…</p>
<p>kluge: I do not intend to revisit these studies as I said, but please be careful to separate out pre-pubescent children and post-pubescent adolescents. This is another means of obfuscation which is typically used. The study above refers to “child sex abuse.” When I referred to that article we were discussing child abuse in the classroom. I make no claims about statistics about gay men and pre-pubescent children. The parallel discussion going here was adult male-adolescent male sex. Two different topics. Please do not refer to me as a hysteric or homophobe again. I did not direct any ad hominem attacks toward you.</p>
<p>In response to Epistrophy–
Absolutely, much of this current brouhaha is wholly misleading. I’ll say for the record that many of my music conservatory-bound son’s most important mentors–who are now some of my dearest friends–are gay men. They exchange emails with him all the time. They want pictures of him…in his tux, soloing in front of orchestras. They talk about other students and their advancing talents. They keep in touch with former students. They want to know if he’s ok when we’re stranded in NYC during a blizzarded-out Juilliard audition. A suspicious mind could call that “grooming”…although all of those emails have come addressed to my account, since I’m the one that takes him everywhere, and he’s just now turned 17 and developed and interest in having his own email account and IM-ing. Yes, his growth is stunted in those areas.</p>
<p>I also think that men, being men, have a greater tendency toward promiscuity than do women (at least until recently–I can’t speak to the new norms), and that males looking for males are more likely to get it on than their hetero counterparts (of all ages), who have to deal with (what used to be) more cautious females. </p>
<p>Having said all that, it does seem that Foley was putting out feelers for a teenaged partner; I just disagree that what was known at the time–about the emails-- should have set off more alarm bells than it did. I also don’t think that the Democrats waxing indignant about all of this care a flying fig about the well-being of the interns or pages.</p>
<p>In 1982, both Congressmen Crane and Studds had inappropriate relationships with a female page and a male page respectively. In 1983 they were both publically censured. Crane made a tearful apology, tried to run again in '84 but was defeated. Studds refused to apologize and was re-elected for more than a decade. :(</p>
<p>All the studies aside - are they even applicable? Is there ANY evidence that Foley had sex with any of the pages or former pages? Is there even any evidence that he was “promiscuous”? Why would we be debating studies that, for all we know, don’t even apply? I have seen no evidence that the Foley case is comparable to either Studds or Crane or Rudy or Newt. So if someone has it, could they please post?</p>
<p>(Are there studies of men who hold randyish conversations with minors over the Internet but never actually have sex with them?)</p>
<p>Studds not only refused to apologize, he turned his back on the speaker of the House during his censure (a Speaker of his own party), and then held a press conference with his 17-year-old squeeze at which he stated that it was nobody’s business. A private matter, he said. Worked for him.</p>
<p>Mini, your point is escaping me. You need to tighten your style up and make an identifiable assertion. Studds/Crane aren’t comparable with Rudy/Newt, either.</p>