It con­tin­ues. Pam of Pam’s House Blend posted on an inter­est­ing arti­cle from USA today that includes some real howlers.

For starters, we all surely know now that Foley claims to be (1) an alco­holic; (2) a sur­vivor of child sex abuse; and (3) gay. What he doesn’t admit to being is (4) a cheap sleazy excuse for a human being.

But here’s some­thing just stu­pid from his camp.

Lawyer David Roth said … Foley “does not blame the trauma he sus­tained as a young ado­les­cent for his totally inap­pro­pri­ate e-​​mails” and instant mes­sages, Roth said. “He con­tin­ues to offer no excuse what­so­ever for his conduct.”

Except, of course, for the excuses that he is allegedly (1) an alco­holic; (2) a sur­vivor of child sex abuse; and (3) gay.

(We also learn in the arti­cle that he’s Catholic, which I pub­licly won­dered about when this story first broke.)

Here’s another good one.

Roth insisted Foley had no phys­i­cal sex­ual con­tact with a page: “Any sug­ges­tion that Mark Foley is a pedophile is false.”

That’s prob­a­bly true. He’s not a text­book pedophile; he’s more likely an ephebophile, a per­son sex­u­ally attracted to post­pu­bes­cent youths. For those of us who don’t speak lgalese, this is equiv­a­lent to Clinton say­ing he didn’t have sex with Monica Lewinsky. It’s tech­ni­cally true, but it’s a disin­gen­u­ous thing to say.

As for “phys­i­cal sex­ual con­tact” … does that mean the cyber­sex he had with them is okay?

And revis­it­ing the point I made yes­ter­day about the sub­tle coer­cions that can lead to rape with any inequity in power — and which, I think, means that any claim of “con­sent­ing” sex between an adult and a youth is bogus, we have this statement.

In an inter­view with USA TODAY, a for­mer page said he was always sur­prised that Foley would pay so much atten­tion to the pages, espe­cially the males. Tim Ford, a fresh­man at Stanford University who worked as a page in 2004-​​05, said Foley would rou­tinely pat them on the back or place his hand on their legs. “I would always give him the ben­e­fit of the doubt because you just like it when a mem­ber of Congress notices your work,” Ford said.

This tends to bol­ster my argu­ment that, even if Foley had legally-​​acceptable sex with some­one of age, an argu­ment could be made that it was coerced. And that’s why we have the laws that we do — and why we should enforce them uniformly.

As an aside, the Repubs are bleat­ing about the Dem scan­dals of two-​​plus decades ago. They seem to think that point­ing the fin­ger and say­ing, “But they got to!” some­how exon­er­ates them.

Finally, Pat Buchanan (grr) has been spout­ing the non­sense that a “dis­pro­por­tion­ate” num­ber (30%, accord­ing to his fig­ures) of man-​​boy child moles­terrs are gay, which (to him) sug­gests there’s some­thing innately wrong with the “homo­sex­ual lifestyle”.

In light of this, Pat, have you stopped to con­sider what it means that vir­tu­ally all man-​​girl child moles­ters are het­ero­sex­ual?

Share

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.