Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I did look it up. American Heritage said: "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy". It also refers to paedophile as a synonym. The term male child is also used. So the inference is to a young boy or child, not a sixteen year old, or young man.
I would consider a Pederast a pervert or a sexual deviant. I would not consider a man who had sex with a sixteen year old boy a pervert or sexual deviant. What he did may be wrong, but not something most other homosexual men have an inkling to do.
Just as I would not consider a man that had sex with a sixteen year old girl a pervert or sexual deviant. It would be wrong, but not an unnatural proclivity.
|
I understand what you are saying. It is not a particularly PC thing to say, but you are right to some degree. I haven't bothered scrolling back for the whole debate here, so I'm sure that I lack the background to jump into the fray at this point, but I'm kinda reckless and foolish that way...
I think that you are right that there is something (possibly biological in basis) that makes men value youth as a part of the analysis of attractiveness. Not pre-pubescent youth, but post-pubescent youth. Britney Spears didn't cause such a sensation in the not-that-innocent schoolgirl outfit solely because 12-year-old girls wanted to buy her music. Any QAF fans may remember the uproar caused by the high school kid who started hanging out at the gay bars because a lot of men in the gay community value that look (sure it was fiction, but it was based on some not-so-fictitcous ideals in parts of the homosexual community).
This Congressman did something wrong. Not only is it creepy for an old man to be flirting with, etc. a 16-y-o boy because of the mores of our society (despite whatever biological drives perpetuate this sort of youth idealism), but he was in a position of authority, so it was doubly bad. The yelling and screaming for mass resignations by any republicans who knew about it seems to me like business as usual in Washington. Neither party lives up to the ideal of sticking to issues of national importance and elevating the level of debate and discourse. They both try to find weaknesses in members of the other party and exploit it for their (or their party's) personal gain. Call me cynical, but that is the way it seems to work.
Should other people resign? I have no idea, and, sadly, I don't even care at this point. I hate our politicians. Every last one of them. Find me one who isn't a two-faced, glad-handing, money-grubbing, lying piece of shit and I'll be duly surprised.
My question is why not get rid of the congressional page program all together? It is probably 99% benefiting people who don't need the help (these kids are all sons and daughters of important constituents or other political donors anyway, no?). The kids can't be serving a particularly important purpose that couldn't be filled by older, more qualified people anyway. And then the Congressman and the Page scenerio won't have to play out again like a sick joke every couple of decades. Problem solved.
I should run our government. Or maybe Sebby and I should run our government. There would be some big big changes. Unfortunately neither of us wants the job.
