As I posted over at Konagod:
I was really sorry to hear about this. I'm also sorry that Studds' name was abused by the right to counter the Foley thing. Living in Massachusetts in the early '80s, I knew of Studds as a vibrant, hyper-intelligent congressman who served the people of his district very well. That they re-elected him several times after the censure issue not only indicates what a good congressman he was, it also indicates that the enlightened voters of Massachusetts sincerely did not give a fuck who he was fucking.
I continue to feel that the real abuse in the Foley thing was not the age of his targets (though that's totally creepy), it is the hypocrisy of a man hitting on teenage boys while at the same time voting for the Protection of Marriage Amendment and getting positives all over the place from the Christian Coalition, not to mention the pure irony of serving as chairman of the committee on missing and exploited children. And his bosses covered up for his on-the-job hand jobs to protect a safe seat. The whole sanctimonious Republican crap has had its mask ripped off, good riddance.
Gerry Studds: one less intelligent person on the planet. You'll be missed.
Frickin' Amen, BG...you're preaching to the choir!
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I have to disagree with you respectfully, Blue. The issue is, in fact, that both Studds and Foley took advantage of children, regardless of sexual orientation. Consent is not a defense to what used to be called statutory rape, and is now called sexual assault of a child, and its even more reprehensible when perpetrated by someone in a position of power like a teacher, a boss or a congressman. Yes, Foley was a hypocrite, and by all accounts Studds was an otherwise stellar legislator, but that doesn't absolve him of moral (and possibly legal) responsibility. The teenagers, both boys and girls, who work as pages shouldn't have to worry about middle-aged lawmakers hitting on them. I'm concerned that some on the Left are applying a moral double standard, willing to forgive Studds solely because he was a Democrat, which is precisely as hypocritical as Dobbs, et. al. rushing to minimize Foley-gate soley because he (contrary to FOX News) is a Republican.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree somewhat with Local Crank. I stir up a stink whenever I express my opinion on things like child vs. adult, but here goes. Studds had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page.
ReplyDeleteNow legally, 17 is not considered an adult. But there are plenty of 17 year olds going off to college. What it boils down to, and as I said in a Foley thread once, is that it's rather absurd to define maturity and sexual desires using some arbitrary standard. If the 17-year-old's 18th birthday is October 16, I just think it's absurd to call it "rape" today and "legal" tomorrow.
Wanna buy booze or cigarettes, yep, wait until the legal day. (Although I have issues with 18-year-olds who can legally die in Iraq but can't legally buy a beer at home.)
I didn't particularly care for Foley being called a "pedophile" rather than a sexual "predator." I personally prefer the use of pedophile for those who direct their sexual desires towards children who are going through puberty or younger. There are plenty of pedophiles out there with turn-ons for children who are not even 10 yet. That's a pedophile. Now take a random sampling of actual 17-year-olds in comparison and my point becomes a bit more clear.
Foley was clearly a predator with a penchant for teen-aged boys, no doubt about that. Studds, was about 36 when he had the sexual relationship with a 17-year-old. That's quite an age difference but not so much as Foley being 52 and going after someone 16. And the page involved with Studds did appear with him later in his defense.
It's a murky gray area and both men could be accused of a misuse of their power and positions of influence. However, I don't recall Studds having a "flurry" of activities as we have seen with Foley. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, take a look at marriage laws among various states and the age at which these "chilren" can get married with parental consent. In most of them it's younger than 17.
So, an older person has sex with someone 16 and it's rape. But they can get married and fuck with parental consent -- as long as they are opposite sex.
I don't see it as either a legal or a moral gray area. Some age has to be the age of consent. Currently, it's 18 in most places. And even if it were otherwise, it is morally wrong for people in positions of power to be having a sexual relationship with people who work for them, regardless of any age difference. Period.
ReplyDeleteYou said almost everything I wanted to say and didn't get around to. I left a comment at Crank's place, too. (waiting to be moderated, Mr. Crank) :-D
ReplyDeleteBut I also am really pissed off at Sean Hannity for making this comparison, because to me it's as if he's saying the real "crime" here is that both these men were in politics AND gay. That's totally not the point.
I think the real crime is that Foley was a hypocrite and his bosses covered up for him. Those two things did not happen, period, in the Studds case.
Sorry. "You" meant Konagod. The work thing, Crank, is a problem. Studds was censured, took his punishment, came out, ran for re-election, won, and continued to serve in Congress until retirement. He got married to another man when it became legal to do so in Massachusetts. Foley resigned in disgrace, ran off to rehab, and had his lawyer tell the press that it was the alcohol and that a priest molested him. He also got away with hitting on teenagers over and over again even when his leadership knew this was a problem for some of them. My point is...
ReplyDeleteSean Hannity is a GOP talking points fuckwad. But you knew that.
Blue Gal, oh goddess of the divine snark (and impeccably clean panties):
ReplyDeleteBefore I begin tonight's rant, a disclaimer: there is no excuse for pedophilia, and even when I was a horny 16 year old, I would have expected my elders to know better....
Studds was 20+ years ago, Foley is today, and in the meanwhile the GOP have shoved their self-rightous, family-values agenda down our throats, even going so far as to try to legislate morality with that crass and craven, politically-driven Consititutional amendment to permanently mark gays and lesbians with the scarlet letter.
And I believe that is why Foleygate is resonating with the public: we have too many memories of the GOP tsk-tsking. Every GOPer with a a sex affair, a bribe, a scandal of any sort brings the whole puritan house of cards down on their dirty little heads. To have serial philanderer Newt Gingrich and Rush "Fistfull of Viagra in Pedaphileville" Limbaugh, and that closet case Matt Drudge bellowing about morality is just too rich.
If there is such a thing as divine retribution, this must be it: having those fat fucks in the GOP get caught in a cover-up of a predator in their midst. Add that to all of the other scandals du jour, and it is the perfect storm.
And that is the difference, for what little it is worth, I cannot recall the Dems ever trying to use sex to divide and conquer.
"Sean Hannity is a GOP talking points fuckwad."
ReplyDeleteWe'll stipulate to this point, your honor.
I LIKE this --> 'Goddess of the divine snark (and impeccably clean panties)'.
ReplyDeleteAye, I be back (I was launderin' yer impeccably clean panties, yer Snarkness).
If she's back, she's worth a visit. Frequently.
ReplyDelete"Comparing him to Foley is ridiculous"
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Foley didn't actually have sex with the page in question.