NEWS: Mark Foley.., Likes little boys.. Options

[jgreening]

My 2 cents

First off, as much as people may find this an unappealing image in terms of age involved, you have to keep in mind that what we have here is a MUTUAL situation. I don't see anything predatory in terms of Foley's "pursual" going on here. The page is activly engaing in the conversation, so I don't really see much concern... The page knew EXACTLY what was going on... Second, in terms of all of the information made public, there is no solicitation of sex whatsoever. Therefore, in a criminal sense, ther really isn't even a case to pursue here. Don't get me wrong, I find what Foley did highly irresponsible for an adult to make such a lapse in judgement as to get involved in a situation such as this, but really, what did he do wrong? The kid is even at age of concent, so you cant even get him on decency laws... I'm not condoning what he did, but I also think that the Republican party is going to try and make a martyr out of him just because most people find what he did disgusting...

In terms of this kid now supposedly becoming a risk to young people when he becomes older is, frankly, ridiculous... That idea is such a perpetuation of multiple stereotypes I really don't know where to start...

On a final note, I really have to question how big a deal this would be if the 17 year old was a woman? Honestly, it's inappropriateness rings the exact same, but would there be as much backlash? Like I said above, I think there are a lot of Republicans furious that yet another scandal is in their camp, and that this one could cost them results this November... Someone is looking for blood, and it really is unfortunate for Foley that being gay is political when it comes to Republicans...

I would still call him a scum bag if it were a 17 year old girl. I have no sympathy for people who abuse their positions of power to prey on people. Maybe the kids is not a "victim" in the classic sense but calling this exchange between a U.S. congressman and a high school junion working for him "mutual" is even more misleading.

The other thing is that Foley has claimed to be an alcoholic, a victim of abuse, and tried to minimize the behavior by pointing out that there was no physical aspect. Why can't people that screw up just say "I screwed up and I am sorry. I will not make excuses because there is no excuse for my poor judgement." That would at least pave the way for him to attempting to build an honorable life. Instead, its excuse, excuse, excuse.

Oh, and as far as politics go, don't forget the opportunistic Democrats who are trying to spin this as "a problem with Republicans". Maybe if Foley were a dairy farmer, the farmers who grow corn would say "look at what those dairy farmers are doing now." Can't we just agree that it was the individual and not the group that this should reflect bad upon?

[saleeka]

Oh, and as far as politics go, don't forget the opportunistic Democrats who are trying to spin this as "a problem with Republicans". Maybe if Foley were a dairy farmer, the farmers who grow corn would say "look at what those dairy farmers are doing now." Can't we just agree that it was the individual and not the group that this should reflect bad upon?

I agree 100% with you jgreening- I think that what he did shouldent be politicize at all, but that isnt happening. I'm just saying, in terms of the republicans, gay is a dirty word, and in terms of this situation, some republicans are implicating that this is dirtier because he is gay... Although I must say, the Dems. do have a point because some prominent repubs. KNEW about the communiations we now know and didden't put a proper stop to it... On that note, I think that the dems. have every right to ask as to why nobody did anything about it, and point to the republicans.... The lack of communication between parties is really whats concerning to me, but that in itself is a whole other story...

[saleeka]

Personally, it still would have bothered me if this page was a girl/woman of the same age. Even though girls can mature faster and tend to date older men, I still think that 16/17 is a little too young to be invovled with someone this much older...

especially since this is supposed to be some sort of professional relationship (?) What does a page do, exactly? I'll admit I don't know that...but he had some kind of authority over his page, I assume, and this just seems to be the wrong setting to be looking for sexual release, even disregarding the age factor.

I agree with everything you say except the age difference. I personally am bothered with the fact that Foley got involved with someone at his workplace who was 17- thats my issue. Dumb idea, because it's bound to become a problem...

Ohh, and pages are like courriers/secretaries... They run errands, basically...

[saleeka]

I would still call him a scum bag if it were a 17 year old girl. I have no sympathy for people who abuse their positions of power to prey on people. Maybe the kids is not a "victim" in the classic sense but calling this exchange between a U.S. congressman and a high school junion working for him "mutual" is even more misleading.

I'm curious as to how you figure it's not mutual... We can see he's engaging in a very adult conversation with Foley, and not even in person. How is Foley's power keeping this kid glued to a computer screen? I will say that if Foley intimidated this page in any way, I'd agree that its a much more serious situation and he deserves to get nailed to the wall- but from what is presented to us thus far, and from my personal life experences, I don't really feel like this kid got taken advantage of...

[jgreening]

I would still call him a scum bag if it were a 17 year old girl. I have no sympathy for people who abuse their positions of power to prey on people. Maybe the kids is not a "victim" in the classic sense but calling this exchange between a U.S. congressman and a high school junion working for him "mutual" is even more misleading.

I'm curious as to how you figure it's not mutual... We can see he's engaging in a very adult conversation with Foley, and not even in person. How is Foley's power keeping this kid glued to a computer screen? I will say that if Foley intimidated this page in any way, I'd agree that its a much more serious situation and he deserves to get nailed to the wall- but from what is presented to us thus far, and from my personal life experences, I don't really feel like this kid got taken advantage of...

First, let me assure you that I don't mean my response to be condescending. Many young people are quite impressionable and are easily manipulated by older people with more experience - particularly ones that have power over them and are highly skilled. The question is not whether this kid WILLINGLY participated in the chat - we can all agree that he did. The question is whether he would have participated in it if he wasn't lead to it by Foley and whether Foley was ultimately trying to spin a web to get in this kid's pants. I would answer those questions "no" and "yes" respectively. Assume for the moment that the conversation lead to inappropriate consensual physical contact, would you still argue that the kid wasn't taken advantage of? Still not convinced? Let me change the hypothetical somewhat.

A group of senior fraternity guys have an annual ritual of seeing how many freshman girls they can sleep with in the first month of school. One of these guys courts a certain naive freshman girl and tells her all sorts of things and she falls "head over heels for him". He is ultimately successful and has sex with the girl. Almost immediately thereafter, the young man ends the "relationship" and ceases all contact in order to continue his conquests. The physical contact was consensual in the classic sense in that both parties agreed and probably even enjoyed the moment. However, can anyone truly say that this girl was not taken advantage of?

Whats the difference in the Foley situation that makes it more benign? I would argue nothing. Of course, there are many reasons to consider it much worse.

[BlackCelicaGT94]

I would still call him a scum bag if it were a 17 year old girl. I have no sympathy for people who abuse their positions of power to prey on people. Maybe the kids is not a "victim" in the classic sense but calling this exchange between a U.S. congressman and a high school junion working for him "mutual" is even more misleading.

I'm curious as to how you figure it's not mutual... We can see he's engaging in a very adult conversation with Foley, and not even in person. How is Foley's power keeping this kid glued to a computer screen? I will say that if Foley intimidated this page in any way, I'd agree that its a much more serious situation and he deserves to get nailed to the wall- but from what is presented to us thus far, and from my personal life experences, I don't really feel like this kid got taken advantage of...

A group of senior fraternity guys have an annual ritual of seeing how many freshman girls they can sleep with in the first month of school. One of these guys courts a certain naive freshman girl and tells her all sorts of things and she falls "head over heels for him". He is ultimately successful and has sex with the girl. Almost immediately thereafter, the young man ends the "relationship" and ceases all contact in order to continue his conquests. The physical contact was consensual in the classic sense in that both parties agreed and probably even enjoyed the moment. However, can anyone truly say that this girl was not taken advantage of?

I just wanna say if a girl fell head over heels for this guy then thats her fault. She wasnt taken advantage of...

thats just my .02.

[saleeka]

The question is not whether this kid WILLINGLY participated in the chat - we can all agree that he did. The question is whether he would have participated in it if he wasn't lead to it by Foley and whether Foley was ultimately trying to spin a web to get in this kid's pants. I would answer those questions "no" and "yes" respectively. Assume for the moment that the conversation lead to inappropriate consensual physical contact, would you still argue that the kid wasn't taken advantage of?

I don't understand what the problem is here? If a person has consensual sex with another person, how are they getting taken advantage of? I can't justify that logic at all unless you put your personal convictions ahead of the involved parties...

Still not convinced? Let me change the hypothetical somewhat. A group of senior fraternity guys have an annual ritual of seeing how many freshman girls they can sleep with in the first month of school. One of these guys courts a certain naive freshman girl and tells her all sorts of things and she falls "head over heels for him". He is ultimately successful and has sex with the girl. Almost immediately thereafter, the young man ends the "relationship" and ceases all contact in order to continue his conquests. The physical contact was consensual in the classic sense in that both parties agreed and probably even enjoyed the moment. However, can anyone truly say that this girl was not taken advantage of?

Taken advantage of in a relationship standpoint, not criminal... So she had sex with him and it turned out to be a mistake? Thats life... He diddent force her to do anything- she chose to act on her feelings, and she was wrong. Applying the above logic to the Foley case requires you to ignore the possibility that mabey the page really did want to have sex with him (there is no proof that they even did. Foley hasn't been accused). And if you consider that bit of information, you have no case against this man so far... He abused his power in the workplace and lost his job because of it. In the face of this embarrasment, he resigned. What more is he required to do?

This post has been edited by saleeka: Oct 4, 2006 - 8:09 PM

[jgreening]

I just wanna say if a girl fell head over heels for this guy then thats her fault. She wasnt taken advantage of...

thats just my .02.

I don't understand what the problem is here? If a person has consensual sex with another person, how are they getting taken advantage of? I can't justify that logic at all unless you put your personal convictions ahead of the involved parties...

Taken advantage of in a relationship standpoint, not criminal... So she had sex with him and it turned out to be a mistake? Thats life... He diddent force her to do anything- she chose to act on her feelings, and she was wrong.

Both of you are looking at the situation from the eyes of the one being pursued. In that context, I actually agree with you. Sometimes life teaches us some hard lessons. But stop a moment and get into the mind and motives of the pursuers. Anyway you cut it, the pursuers under both of these fact patterns are down right low. They are acting with NO REGARD to the well being of the other party. You can stand up and shout "maybe they wanted it" all you want but that ignores the reality of the situation.

BTW, I am not suggesting that Foley should necessarily go to jail over this incident. Similarly, I am not suggesting that the fraternity guy engaged in "rape" or anything wacko like that. However, you don't need to be a criminal to be a jerk.