Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky


1) What Mark Foley did was wrong but what he did does not make him a pederast. A pederast is someon ewho preys on young children. Generally prepubescent children. Foley was not preying on a young child.

Where are you getting "prepubescent"? My understanding has always been that the the definition stems from Greek relationships between older men and adolescent males. This is to differentiate from pedophiles. The Wiki seems to agree, but then Wiki can be wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
As I understand it, he had a boyfriend that was on the federal payroll and was running an escort service out of Barney's house. Franks was censored but Tom Foley (house speaker) defended letting him stay in the party. The smart political move would have been to expel him from the Democrat party. Same with Studds. If they had expelled these guys there complaints about Mark Foley would seem a lot more credible.

Hastert should have moved on Mark Foley much sooner, but at least he did move on him. My guess if a strong coverup comes to light the Republicans will turn on Hastert also.

Republicans are less loyal to their fellow members. They will throw their friends to the wolves much quicker for political expediency.

There are plenty of congressmen of both parties who have suffered through scandals without being expelled -- think of William Jefferson, or James Traficant, or Bob Ney, or Duke Cunningham. Barney Frank has no particular relevance here, and it's hard to escape the thought -- which I hope you don't intend -- that you keep mentioning him because he's gay. Unlike Republicans Phil Crane and Mark Foley, he did not prey on congressional pages.

I have a hard time believing that Foley quit because he was expelled from the GOP. He held out for a day when ABC had the e-mail, but once they had the IMs, he knew he was sunk.

[J. Fred Muggs]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The guy was kept in charge of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. You think that's not a political issue?

Who better to be in charge? It's like putting a guy from Louisiana on a panel on corruption

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There are plenty of congressmen of both parties who have suffered through scandals without being expelled -- think of William Jefferson, or James Traficant, or Bob Ney, or Duke Cunningham. Barney Frank has no particular relevance here, and it's hard to escape the thought -- which I hope you don't intend -- that you keep mentioning him because he's gay. Unlike Republicans Phil Crane and Mark Foley, he did not prey on congressional pages.

I was talking about sexual scandals. And when a member of either party is caught up in sex scandal (and the allegations are true) the party should get rid of them.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have a hard time believing that Foley quit because he was expelled from the GOP. He held out for a day when ABC had the e-mail, but once they had the IMs, he knew he was sunk.

I am pretty sure he quit because he was told he would get absolutely no support from anyone. I am not saying the Republicans are perfect at this, they are just better than the Dems.

The second that stuff came out about Delay he should have been pushed out, and Doolittle and Pombo should be pushed out, but people tend to protect their own. Keeping those bozos around does nothing but help the Democrats.

You don't get the fundraising letters and hit pieces form the GOP that I do. Ever since Barney Frank's male prostitution ring that little tid bit of information has been used in endless fundraising letters and political pieces.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Gary Hart's is the one I regret the most. He coulda been a contendah.

If he hadn't been so stupid?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Where are you getting "prepubescent"? My understanding has always been that the the definition stems from Greek relationships between older men and adolescent males. This is to differentiate from pedophiles. The Wiki seems to agree, but then Wiki can be wrong.

I have a knee jerk reaction to the term because it is a term constantly used by the Christian Conservatives. There is that "man boy love" website and group (NAMBLA) that encourages relationships between men and boys and all the other homosexual groups are always trying to distance themselves from NAMBLA. It has always been my understanding that NAMBLA encourages pedestry where most homosexual groups disavow pederasty. The Christian Conservatives are always trying to lump them together and say that all homosexual are pederasts.

When I think of a pederast I have always assumed they are talking about a ten to twelve year old, not a fifteen to eighteen year old. If you say that any homosexual that is attracted to sixteen year old is a pederast then you seem to be supporting their argument.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have a knee jerk reaction to the term because it is a term constantly used by the Christian Conservatives. There is that "man boy love" website and group (NAMBLA) that encourages relationships between men and boys and all the other homosexual groups are always trying to distance themselves from NAMBLA. It has always been my understanding that NAMBLA encourages pedestry where most homosexual groups disavow pederasty. The Christian Conservatives are always trying to lump them together and say that all homosexual are pederasts.

When I think of a pederast I have always assumed they are talking about a ten to twelve year old, not a fifteen to eighteen year old. If you say that any homosexual that is attracted to sixteen year old is a pederast then you seem to be supporting their argument.

Fucking NABLA. The Wiki addresses this:

Currently, in the news media the term tends to be incorrectly used as a synonym for pedophilia, even though the latter designates the sexual attraction of adults to prepubescent boys or girls. This confusion may arise from the fact that a single organization, NAMBLA, is the most prominent public advocate for both groups, making the practical distinction between pederast and pedophile activism difficult to define, whatever their theoretical differences.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Fucking NABLA. The Wiki addresses this:

I don't think GGG was using it as a complimentary or even judgement neutral term. I think he was assuming it had a negative connotation. I did also.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
You and S_A_M are so full of it, it makes me want to puke. Does your wife read this page? I am not attracted to young women is a bullshit line all men tell older women and you know it. It is similar to "check is in the mail", "if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about" etc.

You know, Spanky, I was coming back on to post a link to this article in the WaPo, entitled "The Redder They Are, The Harder They Fall", which discusses the issue you've been batting around today and sort of supports your view on the apparent double-standard in scandals between Democrats and Republicans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100201302.html

Their bottom line is that the different treatment can be traced back to different constituencies. (Apologies in advance for the fluff, its an article from the Style section.)

But now, I see you come back with this spew at me, so I've got to address your shit. I will treat what you said with more respect than it deserves.

Originally posted by Spanky
You would think that at least on an anonymous board idiots like you would cut your B.S. but I guess that it too much too ask.

First, why did you leave Hank out? He said that he hadn't been sexually attracted to 16 year olds since he was around 20 (just as I did).

Second, from what you've posted on this Board and elsewhere, I don't think you're married or have children. Let's just say both events change your perspective -- especially if the kids are girls.

Third, why are you so fucking invested in arguing that every "normal" male MUST BE sexually attracted to 16 year olds? Feeling a little sensitive about the subject?

I'd guess that some are and some aren't, but I'd also think that what most people person finds attractive changes over time as a function of age and maturity. The relative definition of "young" changes, Spanky. I find plenty of women in their mid to late 20's attractive (which is unfortunately, a pretty big age gap).

Bottom line -- been there and done that. I'm not saying that I could not possibly ever be attracted to an underage girl, but when I see high school girls walking by, my reaction is not "Whoa, check that out!"

If that is your reaction, more power to you, stud.

I was going to joke that you might have spent a bit too much time in Asia -- but now I don't think its a joke.

S_A_M

P.S. No, my wife doesn't read this Board.

P.P.S. As to the whole "Catholic school girl uniform" thing -- agreed. But it seems to me that is different because you're dealing with women whom you know are of age, and who generally look of age, pretending (by costume or otherwise) not to be. taps into a variety of taboos, heightens the sense of illictness, etc. -- which many folks get into.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think GGG was using it as a complimentary or even judgement neutral term. I think he was assuming it had a negative connotation. I did also.

It does have a negative connotation, but not nearly so much as pedophilia. Probably for the more universally lustful reasons that you've been articulating all day.

[Tables R Us]

In Richard Burke's book The Senator, Burke alleged that Ted Kennedy was banging a 17 year old page, turned her on to coke and poppers, and tried to have her do a three-way with him and another woman. And he had sex with a reporter under a table in a restaurant. Was this ever confirmed or refuted?

From Burke's book:

I spent much of the following summer keeping Pam, our bubbly teenage intern, under control. She fell head over heals for the Senator rather quickly and, just as quickly, became upset and jealous about his other relationships. She turned to me as confidant, freely admitting that she and the Senator had slept together, and detailing how the Senator had turned her on to coke and the joys of poppers. The only time she balked was when he tried to get her into bed with himself and another woman at the same time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It does have a negative connotation, but not nearly so much as pedophilia. Probably for the more universally lustful reasons that you've been articulating all day.

The bottom line is I think it is perfectly normal for a homosexual male to find sixteen year old boys attractive. Being the total sexist that I am, I think that women are much more sexually vulnerable than boys.

I sure as hell wasn't that vulnerable when I was sixteen. I had some gay male friends that didn't seem that vulnerable either.

Generally I don't think men should hit on sixteen year boys, but in the end I don't think it is that big of a deal. If I had a sixteen year old boy and a sixteen year old girl, and they were in the same class, I would prefer that all the teachers were either female or male homosexuals. If I had a gay sixteen year old son and he got involved with an older man I don't know how upset I would be. If my sixteen year old daughter hooked up with a forty year old man I would hunt the forty year old down and skin him alive.

I would be worried about my daughter but not too concerned about my son. I just think heterosexual men taking advantage of young females is a much bigger problem than homosexual men taking advantage of young men.

If a man took advantage of my ten year old son I would hunt him down and skin him alive. But that man I skinned would be a paedophile not a homosexual.

That may not be PC but as a male heterosexual that is my biased view.

[ltl/fb]

in terms of responses to people, but I think there is a difference between being attracted to a 16-y-o person and finding a 16-y-o's body/face to be aesthetically pleasing in a lustful way, because it is lithe, and the skin is firm and unwrinkled, etc. The IM conversation creeped me out because it wasn't that he was looking at the guy or anything, it was that he was having a highly sexually charged interaction on a purely mental level. I don't remember who said that a 16-y-o may not be ready mentally, but is physically -- and in a way the Foley thing was about asking the person to have a pretty mature mentally sexual relationship.

OK, there is some other word than mental that I should be using here, but I haven't had dinner and I can't think of it.

That conversation to me was way, way ickier than if Foley'd been hanging out in the page's gym's locker room and jerking off in a shower stall (in an actually discreet way) to what he was seeing. Because he was interacting with the kid and wanting the kid to be an active participant in the conversation. And, btw, the kid didn't seem that into it in that IM conversation, but maybe there were others where he was more into it.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Are you guys arguing semantics with Spanky or something else? I would never generalize to say all heterosexual men like anything, so if that is your issue, fine. But I'm wondering whether you actually debate his point that a lot of the beauty ideals in our society, both among str8 men and homosexual men involve standards that tend to coincide with youth. Because I would be interested to hear the counter to that.

No, that part I agree with. And the party scene he described on the FB, with the 40 year old getting ready to part-tay with the 15 year old model until he found out that she was, well, 15? I can picture that happening.

The issue is did she look 15? Some people, as you (I think) pointed out yesterday, found the whole Britney not that innocent schoolgirl phase hot. Not all did, though, and that was my point to spanky.

Heck, even at the strip joints I frequent, I much prefer to give my Benjamins to "biker chick" than to "hottt cheerleader."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
in terms of responses to people, but I think there is a difference between being attracted to a 16-y-o person and finding a 16-y-o's body/face to be aesthetically pleasing in a lustful way, because it is lithe, and the skin is firm and unwrinkled, etc. The IM conversation creeped me out because it wasn't that he was looking at the guy or anything, it was that he was having a highly sexually charged interaction on a purely mental level. I don't remember who said that a 16-y-o may not be ready mentally, but is physically -- and in a way the Foley thing was about asking the person to have a pretty mature mentally sexual relationship.

OK, there is some other word than mental that I should be using here, but I haven't had dinner and I can't think of it.

That conversation to me was way, way ickier than if Foley'd been hanging out in the page's gym's locker room and jerking off in a shower stall (in an actually discreet way) to what he was seeing. Because he was interacting with the kid and wanting the kid to be an active participant in the conversation. And, btw, the kid didn't seem that into it in that IM conversation, but maybe there were others where he was more into it.

Exactly. We're dealing with interpersonal relationships. Hitting on 16 year olds is squicky. Though from the read of those IMs, Foley was as much looking for a 16 year old sexual relationship as a mature one -- he was trying to behave like he was 16 himself. There's a sickness there.

And it sounds like he may have been a victim itself, which makes the whole thing a very sad, self-perpetuating sickness. The real issue is, did the leadership, Hastert and Boehner and others, protect Foley the same way they have protected DeLay and others?