<p>Newt has a heck-of-a-lot more apologizing to do than that.</p>
<p>I did mean it as a real question. Foley may be affected by ephebophilia, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he ever acted upon it. There are, for example, many instances of collectors of child porn who have never touched a child (and would be appalled at the idea.) There are folks who engage in “illicit” conversations with teens, but get their jollies that way and never act upon them. For all I know (and I would like to know), Foley is one of these, in which case all the studies about who had sex with whom would be irrelevant.</p>
<p>“…it is totally misleading to argue that Foley, because he is gay, presented a higher risk of sexually predatory behavior than did his heterosexual colleagues.”</p>
<p>I think Republicans bent over backwards to indeed give him the benefit of the doubt, which is now what Democrats are loudly protesting. Ironic, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Hereshoping, it’s not helpful to get huffy. I wasn’t attacking you personally - homophobia is widespread. My point was that even a very smart and statistically knowledgible guy like Xiggi can hopelessly conflate “identify as homosexual”, reports of same sex predation, and male vs. female reporting and come up with a conclusion which he is absolutely savvy enough to be able to recognize is nonsense - and still hang it out in front of everyone here as “proof” that homosexuals belong in the same societal garbage can as the other “degenerates.” That’s a product of homophobia interfering with analytical ability. The bottom line is: pederasty is a button-pushing topic. The creepy guy who knocks up a 16 year old girl and marries her gets a hearty “congratulations!”</p>
<p>Most people who target adolescents are men. Most of those men target girls. Of the ones who target boys, many self-identify as heterosexual. Heterosexual predation is under-reported, in part because it is societally approved - formally in the case of marriage, with a wink and a nod in the case of adult female teen male predation.</p>
<p>I don’t doubt your sincerity Hereshoping, it’s just that the facts don’t back it up in my opinion, and so much evil has been motivated by homophobia that yes, I do think it’s important not to let casual excuses for denigrating gays pass silently.</p>
<p>P.S. - that *was *from the study you cited, regarding school-related predation.</p>
<p>"The creepy guy who knocks up a 16 year old girl and marries her gets a hearty “congratulations!”</p>
<p>That is ridiculous, imo.</p>
<p>Xiggi’s point about the gay population (2-3%?) relative to the numbers of same-sex adolescent solicitation/grooming/molestation stands. I would be willing to bet that, for OBVIOUS reasons, it is even more underreported than heterosexual underage molestation.</p>
<p>Your self-righteous sermonizing about the evil motivated by homophobia is astounding to me. Actually, there is a lot of evil being perpetuated by people who are afraid to look honestly at some ugly scenarios. Why don’t you take a good, clear, clean, unbiased look into some of the real numbers yourself, without your self-congratulatory homophobia-free rose-colored glasses? </p>
Actually, at the time of the press conference 10 years after the fact the “squeeze” would have been 27 years old, and he stated at that time that the matter was nobody’s business. Yes - at 17 the “squeeze” was a year older than John Mark Karr’s ex-wife was when they got married…</p>
<p>Hereshoping, you’re just not paying attention. A lot of same-sex adolescent solicitation is performed by men who self-identify as heterosexual. It’s not a rare phenomenon - check out “the down-low”. Xiggi’s point doesn’t “stand”, it’s comparing apples to oranges. And let me repeat: an adult male can legally marry a 16 year old girl. However ridiculous that may be in your opinion it does happen. And it isn’t included in any predation statistics, is it?</p>
<p>And when you can come up with some reliable reporting of heterosexual men being beaten up by gay guys just for being “straight” we can talk about evil, OK?</p>
<p>“But there are references to visiting one kid in San Diego, and to attempts to set up rendezvous with others. If there was no physical contact, it would not appear to be for lack of trying.”</p>
<p>Zoos, I have absolutely no idea who “Bob Beckel” is, but if he’s an American male, chances are that yes, he is. Look - virtually no one is immune to homophobia. It is as endemic in our society today as racism was 50 years ago, and for pretty much the same reasons. It takes a conscious effort not to give in to that irrational fear. I don’t claim to be immune myself - I’m just conscious of it instead of excusing it with half-baked theories and pseudo-science.</p>
<p>It should have set off alarms becuase it set off alarms with the boy and his family…</p>
<p>Foley wasn’t a mentor, he barely knew the kid…two different things…</p>
<p>and consdiering that some of the laws Foley pushed for, the committee he was one, he should have had the highest of standards with regards to contact with minor children…his whole political life was about the dangers of the interent and such…</p>
<p>and there is a difference between talking about a students talents and his body…and talking about one’s own physical characteristics…</p>
<p>If the page and the congressman had had some sort of formal relationship…had actually worked together…then MAYBE the congressman’s questions about how it was back in LA would be okay, but for him to ask for a picture, totally out of the realm of anything reasonable…again different than of someone performing…</p>
<p>To me, if the child feels it is “off” it is “off”, if the parents feel it is “off” it is “off”…and a man in Foley’s postion absolutely knew better than to even present a doubt in the minds of anybody…</p>
<p>If Beckel said, as you (zmom) previously wrote, that “since the republican leadership knew that Foley was gay he should have never been allowed near pages because that would be like ‘leaving Willie Sutton alone in a bank vault,’” his apparent willingness to assume, simply on the basis of sexual orientation, a heightened inclination on the part of a particular individual (Foley) to engage in sexual relations with minors demonstrates a degree of ignorance and misunderstanding that would be simply laughable if it weren’t so appalling.</p>
<p>No idea whether Bob Beckel is a homophobe, but he sure is a loser, paid by Faux News (come to think of it, he has the same owner as Bill O’Reilly.)</p>
<p>Yes, yes, yes, Kluge–very clever–it was the person that Studds had violated as a 17-year-old page, entrusted by his parents to the Page program, run by, at the time of both the incident and the censure (when he got caught), the Democrats. If you’re going to Wiki, at least cite the whole passage:
<p>Yes, yes, yes, Kluge–you’re so smart–it was the person that Studds had violated as 17-year-old page, entrusted by his parents to the Page program, run by, at the time of both the incident and the censure (when he got caught), the Democrats. If you’re going to Wiki, at least cite the whole passage:
<p>We are still waiting for Newt’s apology…Rudi, of course, is beyond the pale. The New York City taxpayers paid for the bedrooms where he could hold his trysts.</p>
<p>"Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail pioneer, said that the leaders were “enablers” by doing nothing to investigate Foley earlier, and said they should not be allowed to hide behind a criminal investigation until Election Day.</p>
<p>“This isn’t an isolated situation,” said Viguerie, author of a book accusing the White House and congressional Republicans of violating conservative principles. “It is only the most recent example of Republican House leaders doing whatever it takes to hold on to power. If it means spending billions of taxpayers’ dollars on questionable projects, they’ll do it. If it means covering up the most despicable actions of a colleague, they’ll do it.”</p>