<p>Look for yourself, kluge, it’s not like we can’t check multiple sites on the internet for the information. Here’s one of many that seem to all say the same age. (I can’t help but notice most of the sites listing ages of consent seem devoted to practioners of certain acts. Not that it’s any of my business.) </p>
<p>I don’t know if Foley is technically a pedophile but based on his interest in very young men and the content of the emails, I would not be surprised if it turns out his “outlet” was young male prostitutes after whetting his appetite with the salicious IM’s to innocent pages.</p>
<p>“Did Foley participate in emails and IM’s? And at least for part of the time, was that ex-page of the IMs under 18?”</p>
<p>who knows. This story is so darn bizarre that it’s not possible to tell where it will end up yet. I was a lot more disturbed by the allegation that Foley was drunk and had to be turned away from the pages’ dorm by the capitol police.</p>
<p>Okay, back to Foley, just for Strickt, shall we? If he had really done nothing wrong, why quit> Why hide? Why not go to Hastert, etc., and come clean and stand up, in public and say, the IMs were with consenting adults? Why talk about himself being molested, an alcoholic, etc? If he is innocent of breaking any laws, why go into hiding…I think at rehab, you aren’ in jail, and can come out and say, LIAR LIAR pants on fire if you needed to…</p>
<p>Well I hear that OPEC is cutting back oil shipments so I guess Bush’s control of them to support his party must not have been as strong as some conspiracy buffs thought.</p>
<p>citygirlsmom, interesting question. Put aside for the moment that this form of sexual harrassment (gay or straight) is pretty dispicable. Do we know if he knew what the age of consent in the District was? The page himself clearly assumed it was 18, might not Foley?</p>
<p>Their knowledge or ignorance of the law doesn’t change the legality of what they were doing. You know what I mean. If 18 had been the age of consent and Foley thought it was 16, the law would still hold him responsible for any violation, ignorance is no excuse. The law can’t do any less when his error is in the other direction, it’s legal whether he or the page thinks it was or not.</p>
<p>So why did he quit? He felt guilty and the party probably asked him to. At the time the legal issue wasn’t clear (still isn’t clear despite my appearance of confidence). Could he have ridden it out? Yes, if he were a Democrat, it’s been done before.</p>
<p>zoosermom, where did you read that? interesting…the capital police…</p>
<p>why did he run again…if he is gay, just be gay and run for office</p>
<p>but if you are showing really bad judgement and approaching pages in an overly friendly manner, don’t run…and practice what you preach in all the laws you helped get passed</p>
<p>Last I looked unwanted sexual advances at work when one person is in a postion of power is sexual harrassment. It seems clear to me that at a minimum Foley is guilty of that.</p>
<p>The reason the term “pedophilia” has been used in this case and in most of the others (the Catholic priest situation, for instance), by the media is because this term presents the practice of gay men hitting on post-pubescent boys as an aberration.</p>
<p>True pedophiles are a very small percentage of the population (gay or straight).</p>
<p>Gay men who desire relationships with post-pubescent adolescent boys are not a very small percentage of the gay population.</p>
<p>When men who desire sex with adolescents (Studds, Foley, etc.) are described as “pedophiles” by the media, psychologists (who should know better) and others, it is because by using that word they are able to say: “Wow! that is really aberrant behavior! Most gays are not like that! We are shocked, shocked!”</p>
<p>There is a reason they do not use the more specific term, pederast: it is because this term describes a practice that gay men have HISTORICALLY been interested in. In our politically correct society, we are not able to speak of that love which “dare not speak its name” (pederasty, not pedophilia).</p>
<p>This is tragic, because in this media and educational blackout, gay male teens are contracting AIDS at an ever increasing rate. We are not allowed to educate them in our schools that men-on-men sex is still the biggest cause of AIDS. Nowhere; most especially in our politically correct textbooks. </p>
<p>And liberals are accusing Republicans of hypocrisy?–funny.</p>
<p>I wonder if Bob Beckel will be invited back on television to comment on the Foley scandal? (My guess is probably not.)</p>
<p>“Strick:
Perhaps the legal issues aren’t clear to you, but Foley was the head of the sub-committee in charge of writing them.”</p>
<p>I was aware of that, though I don’t believe he had anything to do with setting the current age of consent in DC or that his committee’s work was related to the behavior of consenting adults in anyway. </p>
<p>Besides, we agree that even if this is “nothing” more than a dispicable case of sexual harrassment, Foley’s a creep anyway, don’t we? That falls into Bill and Monica territory, but not much else.</p>
<p>HH:
AS I understand the terms (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that pederasty refers to sexual relations between adult men and boys, in particular anal intercourse with the boy as the ‘passive’ partner. Pedophilia refers to sexual relations between an adult and a child, either boy or girl. So pedophilia is the more general term of which pederasty is a particular form. Not knowing just what exactly Foley di or was going to do isn’t pedophilia a more apt description?</p>
<p>Do you attribute the fact that homosexuality and/or safe sex practices are not discussed in school textbooks to a conspiracy of political correctness? My impression was that religious conservatives objected to it.</p>
…as opposed to the percentage of straight men who would go for a “relationship” with a post-pubescent adolescent girl if they thought they could get away with it? I mean, this is news?</p>
<p>Considering that liberals own the teacher’s unions, and the educational establishment in general, I doubt very much that religious conservatives drive what is being taught re sex in schools, other than a very small number of communities (about which we tend to hear a lot about).</p>
<p>I guess it’s news to you, kluge, judging by your previous posts.</p>
<p>What kills me is that people like kluge are condemning kids to contract AIDS because they refuse to let go of their politically correct ideology (gays as a victim-status, specially protected group).</p>
<p>To wit: the gay/straight alliances all the rage in high schools: teaching the kids the facts, are they??</p>
<p>It’s disgusting beyond all belief, but I don’t think there’s a crime involved until there’s an attempt to set up a meeting. I hope I’m not repeating what someone else has said, but I just don’t have the attention span to keep up with all of these posts!</p>