Foley - Who gets to claim him?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 11 2006, 11:47 AM) [snapback]331163[/snapback]</div>

You are too kind - thanks.

What are your thoughts of allowing homosexuals to be put in the position of power when caring for younger boys?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 11 2006, 11:00 AM) [snapback]331170[/snapback]</div>

Same as my thoughts of allowing heterosexual men to care for younger girls, or heterosexual women to care for younger boys. As soon as they cross the line into inappropriate behavior, they should be removed from that position, as Foley should have been, years ago (removed from the position of mentor to the pages); as so many teachers we have been hearing about lately (e.g. Mary Kay Latourneaux or however you spell it) have been. Same deal.

What does being homosexual have to do with it?

 

Let's face it boys and girls, it's CLINTON'S fault just like everything else which has gone wrong for the past 6 years. Grow up and face reality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 11 2006, 09:06 AM) [snapback]331173[/snapback]</div>

No, that time it was straight Republicans. Mary Kay LeTourneau, the teacher convicted of child rape with a sub-teenage student, is the daughter of the late Rep. John Schmitz from out here in Orange County.

A protégé of Sen. Joe McCarthy, he was so right wing he got himself thrown out of the John Birch Society, a pretty high bar! Nixon and Reagan were too far left for him. When Nixon made the ground-breaking trip to visit China, Schmitz was asked what he thought about a president visiting a communist country. "It's not his going that bothers me," he said. "It's his coming back!" He was soon un-elected but Orange County later forgave all and made him a state senator.

He, himself, had children of a wife and mistress and was involved in a sexual mutilation scandal concerning an infant son of his. A real piece of work this guy. Makes Foley look like a Boy Scout, if I dare say those things in the same sentence.

(In case you were wondering why his daughter was so screwed up.)

 

Ok, nice background story, but I'm still waiting to hear what homosexuality has to do with whether adults should be in the care of children - dbermanmd, please answer the question.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 10 2006, 09:34 PM) [snapback]331020[/snapback]</div>

Nice piece of obfuscation, but every state I have had the ability to check differentiates between a child under the age of entering puberty (12 - 14) and those over that age. That's FL, CA, NY and NJ, and I haven't checked others, but I'd challenge anyone to find one. They all have laws against inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor over 14 or 15, but it is not classed as "pedophilia".

While your first link makes brief mention that "many courts interpret this to mean children under 18" it provides no supporting facts for that mention, and goes to great lengths to describe the symptoms, diagnosis, and treatments available for this mental disorder. Did you even read it? Go back, read it, and then tell me you think that Mr. Foley meets that definition.

Not even the congressmen who have had sex with pages, who were censured and refused to leave the House, meet that definition.

What I have read regarding the first emails, that were the only evidence provided to the House leadership "years ago", is that they were provided by the parents of the teen who were understandably concerned. The text of those emails is in no way a "smoking gun", but a bit creepy, like the guy without kids who coaches Little League, the gay man who wants to be a Scout leader, etc., they show an unnatural interest in the teen and his affairs. They were not sexual in any way. The leadership talked to Foley, he broke off contact, the parents asked that the matter be closed without further action, and all seemed fine until the revelation that Mr. Foley likes to talk about masturbation with former pages who are now over the age of 21.

So far, all of the later IMs were with an adult, and they were indeed sexual. If it was "pillow talk" between a 50 year old man and a 21 year old college graduate woman who was the 50 year old's former student, no one would be having this discussion. I still maintain that it is because its a closeted gay man who positioned himself as a "values candidate" that the news broke so widely (the "hypocrasy factor") Its the same media event as a woman who has sex with a teen ... because its "man bites dog" and out of "character" for older women to be interested in teens, it makes big news.

Your second quote only reinforces my original statement, in that the cite to the government's program mentions pedophilia, but then does NOT use the term for the quote you provided; an omission that reinforces my point about this issue.

The Democrats are hoping to blow this up into a major issue to try and "nationalize" the mid-term elections and discourage Republicans from voting. I doubt that will happen, as House races are almost always local in scope, and no Republican in PA is going to link his candidate to the deviant behaviour of Mr. Foley.

But that strategy by the Dems is an entry onto a slippery slope. With all the bro-ha-ha about "protecting our <16 year old> children", perhaps the religious right will get enough momentum to outlaw any talk of sex with anyone under 18. Would you support that? Are you prepared for censorship of the Internet, with sites such as Jackinworld.com shut down?

The answer from some will be, yes, we're ready to do anything to gain power. And that's a bit scarier than adult gay people instant messaging about their penises.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 11 2006, 09:41 PM) [snapback]331494[/snapback]</div>

Case in point - the Boy Scouts - don't you agree that by preventing homosexuals to occupy positions of power over young boys keeps them safer than if they allowed the "foley" types access you young boys. How about keeping child preditors who have been released to safe houses away from school areas?

With heterosexual "preditors" the "victim" has to be at least the age of having gone through puberty and should have somewhat better capabilities to protect themselves than a child under the age of 10 or 11. In other words, homosexual preditors can pray on the very very young while heterosexual preditors cannot.

I understand male heterosexual preditors can travel down the chain to the very young, but most of the examples here have been female teachers taking advantage of young males.

Either way this whole thing disgusts me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 11 2006, 12:09 PM) [snapback]331175[/snapback]</div>

I tend to agree with you in part because of the whole Monica thing and how it occupied the airwaves, the print media, the internet for years - talking about stained dresses, oral sex not being sex (although email sex now is??), of the president carrying an an adulterous relationship and suffering no repurcussions (my wife would have had me out the door in a NYC second not to mention 50% of my assets), of lying under oath -- in general a course given by the President of what not to do, of how not to behaive, etc. I kinda like my people under the lights be them the President or a major sports figure to be good people.

Politcally clinton has left several huge messes - NoKo, OBL, al-Qaeda, terrorism in general, a weaker military, a weaker set of intelligence services, a nuclear India and Pakistan, to name a few.

He also did good stuff like the economy, Ireland.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 12 2006, 07:04 AM) [snapback]331615[/snapback]</div>

Of course I don't agree. By this logic, you would not allow heterosexual men to be teachers to girls, or heterosexual women to be teachers to boys. Is this what you're advocating?

I believe there are laws in place addressing this, at least in California, and of course I agree with this, but it has nothing to do with the question.

What the #%*# are you talking about? A predator is a predator, and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Do you think that there aren't men who rape 3 year old girls?

Give me a break. There has been exactly one example given here, which was May Kay La-whatsit, a heterosexual.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 12 2006, 10:47 AM) [snapback]331680[/snapback]</div>

So you would favor homosexual men taking charge of young Boy Scouts and gay Priests are cool too? Mind you I am not telling you my opinions about these things although you are acting as though I have.

And I can tell you for sure that there are "safe houses" or "locations" for released sexual predators within shouting distance of schools in NY State and i am sure other states as well. Where would you put them after they are "released" into the general population?

And you still have not addressed the issue of what crime mr foley is being charged with...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 12 2006, 10:12 AM) [snapback]331700[/snapback]</div>

I wouldn't "favor" homosexual or heterosexual. Doesn't matter. Gay priests are ok too. If they "hit on" the children in their care they should be removed immediately.

I'd keep them away from schools, as they do in California.

Yes, I have.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 12 2006, 11:22 AM) [snapback]331707[/snapback]</div>

So what is the crime he is charged with - i cannot find it anywhere.
thanks

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 11 2006, 12:06 PM) [snapback]331173[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you.

There seems to be some unstated assumption that homosexuals are prormiscuous and heterosexuals are not, or that homosexuals have less control over their actions than heterosexuals do. I don't subscribe to that assumption!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeannie @ Oct 12 2006, 12:16 PM) [snapback]331744[/snapback]</div>

That's because you don't feel the need to make homosexuals boogey-men. And I mean men. You rarely (if ever) hear about lesbians the same way. Dr. Berman, can I assume you are against lesbians being Girl Scout leaders, too? If so, you better rally the troops 'cause they've had them for years.

Of course, most of the sexual predators you hear about are men. Maybe being male is the problem, not sexual orientation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Oct 12 2006, 01:11 PM) [snapback]331765[/snapback]</div>

Again, my posts are not my opinions in this case - just case scenarios. I am not against homosexuals, etc.

i am still waiting to hear from someone as to the charges against mr foley

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 12 2006, 12:31 PM) [snapback]331776[/snapback]</div>

I answered it. In this very thread. Go back and read it. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeannie @ Oct 12 2006, 09:16 AM) [snapback]331744[/snapback]</div>

The political hyperbole has really confused the issue. I'll try to clarify my postion, and in the process make sure no one likes me anymore (that seems to be what happens when you try to inject some facts into a debate these days).

Pedophiles are (usually) men who are attracted to pre-pubescent children. Sometimes they are also men in adult relationships with varying degrees of relationship success. The interesting thing about pedophiles is that their interest in the children often crosses their "normal" sexual preference, i.e., heterosexual men will be attracted to boys, instead of girls. It doesn't make sense, but then purient interest in children doesn't make sense anyway. Gay men who are also pedophiles may be attracted to girls or boys. A decade or so ago I corresponded with a psychiatrist who had studied pedophilia, and she indicated that often pedophiles were abused themselves as children. I don't know if the current research still reports that. Pedophilia is a medical term that has a specific meaning, and is considered by the American Psychiatric Assoc. as a mental disorder.

Many straight men and gay men are attracted to POST-pubescent young people in age ranges from 15 to 18. This attraction follows their "adult" sexual preference. The young people who are the objects of their affection are sexually mature individuals who would be married off 300 or 400 years ago (the females, anyway) and are not prepubescent children. This attraction is not a mental disorder, unusual, evil or immoral. BUT, we have decided, as a society, that acting on that attraction is immoral and illegal, because we feel it is in the best interest of the young person to protect them from someone older, smarter and more persuasive than they.

There may be an evolutionary component to the attraction, as sexually mature individuals who are young are most likely to be able to survive the rigors of child birth and care for the young. Our culture has decided that there is an acceptable age for the onset of sexual activity, and we generally recognize that as 18 years old. ("Age of consent" laws vary state by state, with some as young as 15, and others at 18. I believe it is 16 in Washington DC.)

Rational men and women understand the need for the law and sublimate their own carnal desires in order to help protect the young people. So even though the porn shelves are filled with "Barely 18" videos in both gay and straight porn, we are assured that the actors (?) are indeed 18 years of age and proof has been deposited with the Custodian of Records in Van Nuys, CA. And even if we are attracted to a person of 16 or 17, we sublimate that desire by an act of moral willpower.

Confusing pedophilia with normal (yet forbidden) sexual desires clouds the issue and does a disservice to gay men in particular. Because while you stated you don't believe gay men are more promiscious, those gay men who decide to have multiple partners have more "luck" in finding like-minded gay men, as the sex drive is more equal. The San Francisco bath house studies showed that gay men could have multiple sex partners in a single evening, a feat we mere heterosexuals normally only dream of (rock stars and basketball players excepted). Women are often happy with sex very infrequently, usually with the same person each time, with frequency as rare as 3 times a week. Men generally would prefer sex much more frequently (but will settle for once a day if more frequent sex is not forthcoming), and except for moral restrictions, are "hard wired" to be promiscious and engage with as many partners as possible.

Just as young straight women cultivate relationships with older, more secure gentlemen, young gay men can do the same thing. One gay member of Congress is often seen with a college-aged boyfriend, for instance, but because he is "out of the closet" it is considered the same as the numerous straight members of Congress with their "trophy girlfriends". It is scandalous, but not illegal, when we see a college professor marry one of his students, or, like the neighbor of mine ten years ago, live with his daughter's best friend from high school (her best friend became her new mom).

So why do we hold gay men to a different standard?

In the Foley "scandal", we have a gay man cultivating a non-sexual relationship with a teen, then waiting several years (after he is 18) to engage in Internet sex with him. One has come forward and said that, after graduating college, he visited DC and had actual sex with Mr. Foley, where they were in the same room and everything. But alas, the "victim" was 24 at the time.

The case may have sexual talk with actual minors involved, but so far there has been no evidence released of that. And sexual talk, itself, is probably not illegal. So why is Mr. Foley being held to a different standard?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 13 2006, 12:37 AM) [snapback]332157[/snapback]</div>

Well the way I understand it is if Foley had simply had sex with a Page that was 16 years of age or older, in DC, everything would be legal but most likely and IMHO highly unethical. However, and this is where it gets good and somewhat ironic it seems Foley broke a Federal law he ascribed too and I believe helped author (someone hep me out here please) and his Republican brothers insisted on instituting. Demoncrats resisted ratification of this law but that is a different story that I know little about. Anyway back to the subject, the law Foley is alleged to have broken is a Federal law that protects 18 year old and younger kids from sexually explicit communications over the internet. How about that! Talk about irony!

Instructions follow
1) take your shoes and socks off,
2) remove your favorite caliber pistol from its container/holster
3) with a two handed grip (see I advocate for gun control) take careful aim at your appendage of choice,
4) slowly squeeze the trigger until a very loud explosion is heard or a blinding pain emanates from your (preferably) nether regions
5) lather, rinse and repeat. :blink:

There you have it in a nutshell, still trying to find the particular law but that was the gist of what I understand. Whether this has actually happened in this case or not I believe he should still step down

Wildkow

p.s. I have one word or perhaps a few more than that for the “Holy Than Thou’s†posting to this topic. . .

Stubbs (D),

He admitted to having sex with an underage(?) Page but never apologized. He was censored by Congress but then subsequently promoted to several chairs by the demoncratic party. So since the GOP is calling for Foley’s and at least one other wayward member expulsion (Ney?) I believe they still hold the higher ground. [attachmentid=5288] If indeed there is one in the political arena, which I doubt.
BTW what ever happened to that Congressman (D) that stored his mad money in the refrigerator? Did the DNC ever ask him to step down, I thought I heard something about that but can’t remember the outcome, convenient huh?

In addition I asked this question on another topic but never got an answer back, so I ask it again.

Which administration has appointed more Gays and Blacks to positions of power Clinton or Bush’s?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Oct 13 2006, 08:06 PM) [snapback]332588[/snapback]</div>

Is there such a law? The FBI warns parents to keep any email messages where your child has recieved child porn, been sexually solicited by someone who knew they were under 18, or received sexually graphic pictures (which would otherwise be legal if traded between adults). But "sexual solicitation" is different than sexual talk. I don't think there is a Federal law protecting teens from sexual content; if there were, many of the web sites would have to be taken down (such as jackinworld.com, which gives masturbation techniques to young people).

Most of the laws I know about, such as COPPA, pertain to children, not teens ("children" being defined as people 13 years of age and younger).