October 06, 2006
Ephebophilia In Congress
Ephebophilia is the diagnosis for people like Mark Foley (Ex R. Fl), not pedophilia. A pedophile is someone with a sexual attraction for pre-pubescent children, whereas an ephebophile is someone with a sexual attraction for pubescent adolescents, i.e., those who have some degree of sexual maturation. "Why does this matter Roper," I can hear some of you asking. Well, it seems to me that if I'm going to rant, at least I can be accurate about what I'm ranting about.
Mark Foley has certainly made a name for himself, and probably not one he wanted to make unless one accepts the pseudo-Freudian concept that he must have wanted to get caught. Perhaps he did, he is now claiming that he has a drinking problem and that he has lived with the "shame" of having been molested when he was 13 up through the age of 15 by a priest. Well, that really is just an excuse, he lacked power in his early teens and it is difficult for an adolescent to resist the "power" of an older adult who may be very, very skilled at making it seem "fun" to have a little "romp." But, that is where it should have ended, his own victimization does not excuse his victimizing others and he is the predator here, the guilty party, the bad guy. No doubt, while he was busy seducing young male pages he didn't see himself as such, but that is the case whether or not Foley likes it.
I'm not surprised at the episode, nor am I surprised that it was a Republican that perpetrated the "dirty deed." I've been a counselor for to long and have dealt with too many pedophiles and ephebophiles over a 35 year career, with too many substance abusers etc. It can be said, and probably has been said that if you have 100 pedophiles (or ephebophiles, or alcoholics, or substance abusers, or pederasts, or _______ [you can fill in the blank here] you will probably have 300 "reasons" why they are the way they are.
But I digress, let us get to the meat of the issue. Many on the left are having mental orgasims regarding the Foley brouhaha! In fact, it has all but replaced the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the NIE, and the "tax breaks for the rich" as election day topics. As Roger L. Simon says:
Meanwhile, does anyone think it is ironic that so-called progressives who excoriated eavesdropping on terrorists are feasting on the publication of supposedly confidential email and IMs? You can forget about privacy. It no longer exists, if it ever did.”Too, those very same Democrats who expressed astonishment and dismay at censuring Gerry Studds who, turned his back on the reading of the censure and was re-elected time and again despite having actual sex (vice internet sex) with a page. Following which
[...] at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own."But of course, Studds was a Democrat and so while it may have been newsworthy, it wasn't worth a feeding-frenzy such as found with Mark Foley's behavior [Author's Note: A Google search of Gerry Studds yields some 133,000 cites whereas a Google search of Mark Foley yields some 20,500,000 cites; and this "scandal" is only a few days old]
In a previous post Sex, Lies and E-Mails I noted the "dispicable" predatory behavior of Mark Foley and was taken to task by a commenter "Why did I know that you could never acknowledge a bad actor in the Republican parth, without justifying it by bringing up Clinton? You know what? Clinton lusted after a FEMALE!" (full disclosure, the commenter is my beloved, charming, witty but oh-so-very liberal Uncle who I both admire and cherish and will note that he and I agree on many things, politics not, however, being one of them). It seems that Clinton's predatory behavior is still a sorespot with the left. It doesn't seem to matter that he used his power over an underling (fully agreeable to the relationship though she was) only that he lusted after a (shudder) FEMALE! As though that makes it right. Of course, my point that the Democrats are having a joyful time with this scandal while at the same time don't want any mention of Studds or Clinton, because after all, this is a Republican scandal, not a Democrat one. It doesn't seem to bother the left or their adherents that the majority of the right are excoriating Foley. When I noted that the commenter may be homophobic, he rightly responded with a quote from Bernard Chapin
In America today, a powerful case can, and will, be made that heterosexuals all too readily defer to homosexuals regarding claims of oppression or that we suffer some kind of psychological malady due to our refusal to celebrate them to the full extent they desire. Most “straights” seem to silently accept the validity of bogus concepts like “homophobia” which maintains that many of us harbor hate for those who happen to be physically attracted to members of the same sex. I hold that the concept of homophobia is fallacious, and that, in fact, the opposite of homophobia, “heterophobia” is a more pressing concern." [see Jimmy, that is one of the areas you and I agree on]
Of course, drudge is reporting that the whole thing may be an ABC misrepresentation of the facts, and that wouldn't surprise me at all. The Foley "scandal" is beginning to sound like another Democrat attempt at dirty politics (not that the Republicans - damn them all) haven't been capable of the same kind of thing.
Again, I digress, the whole point of this exercise is to condem congress-critters who take advantage of their positions to exercise their power over the rest of us. It doesn't matter whether they are Democrat or Republican, it only matters that power unchecked is power tending towards tyranny, and that is the problem.
Democrats this time, who next?
Posted by GM Roper at October 6, 2006 06:51 AM
| TrackBack
While I find Studds' behavior reprehensible, it may have been legal. Has anyone researched what the legal age of consent was in Studds' case? Seventeen years old may legally be old enough for one to decide whether or not to participate in a same sex relationship. It's still pretty despicable though. I think its wrong for a manager to make passes at his employees or for a professor to make passes at his students regardless of age or sex.
Posted by e. nonee moose at October 6, 2006 07:15 AM
AWESOME POST GM!!! You're spot on here too- while this Foley affair is imploding, we forget what is really at issue here. BOTH parties need to GROW UP and stop making politics of such a serious issue...grow up, fix this, and move on to the more important things this country faces right now.
Posted by Raven at October 6, 2006 07:15 AM
Moose, I can't vouch for the accuracy, but, to address the legal question, a recent post over at Drudge Report said that the page was 18 rather than 16 as reported.
Posted by Woody at October 6, 2006 08:10 AM
GM,
Great rant!
Posted by Always On Watch at October 6, 2006 09:00 AM
This Foley "Non-event" (since it seems like the page was 18 at the time) is precisely what we expect our elected representatives to ignore. I expect them to pay attention to, and focus on, such things as taxes, inflation, the WoT, Social Security reform, etc. I'm very quickly coming to the conclusion that we shouldn't re-elect anyone! Lets wipe the slate clean and start afresh, if that's possible, except that I fear that the system that gave us the current group of retards would just ante up more of the same.
Posted by Vulgorilla at October 6, 2006 10:14 AM
The only thing I can add here has already been said by Vulgorilla -- all this BS our "leaders" are offering up, in its sum total, comes nowhere near giving us any kind of bang for our tax buck.
We're paying these %&*$#@&*s to govern the country and all they're doing is B.S.ing on our dime. In the private sector, these knuckleheads would all be typing their resumes or collecting unemployment as a result of ten times what they're accomplishing now.
Foley the Fegala needed to be bounced, as they say, you don't defecate where you eat, now they need to move on to other business. I don't see where the hourly equivalent of what we compensate members of Congress should finance so much less than the value given by someone working for the minimum wage.
Posted by Seth at October 6, 2006 01:26 PM
Yep, Damn them all, they are drunk on their own power. that is the power we give them to represent us and they are failing to accomplish that one simple task.
Posted by Michael at October 6, 2006 09:33 PM
Kudos Guy! That was a post that even a liberal democrat can appreciate and agree with. Now, lets not reelect a single one of the "congress critters". Carry on.
Posted by James S Melbert at October 7, 2006 08:19 AM
Oh yes, just a small correction to your "rant"
I believe that expresident Clinton did not use his power over a underling, I believe that the underling use her sex to seduce a powerful man.
That happens a lot in real life just as in politics. It seems that power make a man desirable to a lot of female folk. It must be the primordal urge to have the most powerful man to father your children.
Also note that I separate real life as distinct from politics.
Posted by James S Melbert at October 7, 2006 08:26 AM
James, if I remember correctly, Ronald Reagan countered the Democrats campaign rhetoric of change during his presidency by saying that it was the Republicans who were, in fact, the party of change, which they were at the time after decades of Democratic control of Congress and bad leadership from Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter.
But, after Reagan, rather than changing America, the Republicans eventually changed themselves into Democrats, who left a void when they changed themselves into raving, big-government socialists.
If I want changes, which I do, then I want the Republicans to change themselves back into conservatives and quit acting like the old Democrats.
* * *
On Bill Clinton being the victim of Monica...puleeeze. A grown man, who is President of all things, should be able to resist the immature school-girl affections of someone enamored with his power. I understand young people having problems of judgment. I don't excuse an adult for taking advantage of them and encouraging more.
It was not only wrong, but he put himself, and therefore the country, at risk for blackmail--and, maybe his use of unsecure phone lines to have phone sex with Monica did put him in that position with China or another country, which we'll never know.
It takes a real man to say "no" rather than prey on women outside of his marriage.
Posted by Woody at October 7, 2006 08:40 AM
James, and I also recognize a truth in what you say, however that doesn't excuse Clinton one damn bit. He was married, he could exercise volition and he could have said no. Just because some cute young thing says "Come hither" is not an excuse, a reason or any sort of justification. Unless, of course, one is a democrat who says the impeachement was "Just about sex."
Posted by GM at October 7, 2006 08:49 AM
Yes, good post. What Mark Foley did, and had done for several years as an "honorable" Congressman, was severely improper if not illegal. My initial response was to be in the camp of Michelle Malkin and Debbie Schlussel who wrote about the improprieties they were on the receiving end of during their time as Congressional pages. That is, judge him on the (de)merits of his deeds first, and on the consequences of abusing his office for pursuing his unconventional lusts. I think that's the morally correct way to go. Starting from there is the best way to minimize the fallout from this scandal, esp. among "values voters."
I wish the GOP had declined to accept Foley's resignation and had lined up around him (with him making the appropriate mea culpas) in support of him resuming his Congressional duties with a new commitment to ethics, instead of letting him cave and having the pressure reach up to Hastert. It would also have been a chance for the GOP to steal some of the Dems' fire about being a party for gay pols who firmly believe in responsibility for one's actions, etc.
In terms of football, what had been a fumble that could have been recovered is now a turnover that got picked up and run deep into GOP territory.
Posted by Jeremayakovka at October 8, 2006 03:24 PM
judge him on the consequences of abusing his office...
i.e., the consequences to the teenagers he exchanged all those messages with.
Posted by Jeremayakovka at October 8, 2006 03:26 PM
Well, all I have to add is that you two fellows apparently haven't had the experence of raging harmones. There is no question that if Clinton had an inkling of the republican uproar, he probably would have said no, as you suggest. 20/20 hindsight is almost always perfect, at least to the person having the platform.
Now Woody you said "It was not only wrong, but he put himself, and therefore the country, at risk for blackmail--and, maybe his use of unsecure phone lines to have phone sex with Monica did put him in that position with China or another country, which we'll never know." Wow! where did you ever conceive such an idea? You sound as if other countries don't know what sex is. The only blackmail that ensued from yhis affair was from "whatsername", Monicas friend.
As a certificated liberal, I deplore the clumsy performance of Clinton and Monica. But, to criminalize the behavor as the republicans did for two years, and as you and GM have bought into, is pure politics.
Is there a puritan section of the republican party?
Posted by James S Melbert at October 8, 2006 03:34 PM
James: "But, to criminalize the behavor as the republicans did for two years, and as you and GM have bought into, is pure politics."
James, actually you are the one that has bought into the DEMOCRAT talking points. There were three instances of criminal behavior here.
1. Perjury before a grand jury (perjury statutes don't have an exception for lying about sex). He was impeached for that.
2. Clinton was in violation of the Federal laws against sexual harrassment in the workplace which clearly state that his superior position vice her essentially clerical position, makes it a violation regardless of who initiated it.
3. Although there was no charge, the statement you made about what's her name (hell, I don't remember it either.. . Oh, yeah, linda something) had nothing to do with blackmail, it had to do with protecting herself against monica's suborning perjury, a felony in any other court of the land and why it wasn't charged against Monica can only be laid to prosecutorial judgement... if that.
You merely repeat the "It's all about sex" mantra of the democrats... but that's ok, it's what Democrats do and it's called Framing the Message.
As to "raging hormones" you are off base, totally. I have taught at the college level and university level for some 18 years and have, at least twice, been propositioned for a better grade and each time, my response has been essentially the same:
Me: "You'll do anything for a better grade?"
student: "Anything!"
Me: "Good, go study more."
It's called ethics Jimmy. Plane ole ethics! Sorry that Clinton didn't have any when his hormones raged.
Posted by GM at October 8, 2006 05:45 PM
