Warren Throckmorton

Boo - I mention this not because I think there is a link but because it is being discussed in the media and among pundits. I also do not think the Foley case has any real relevance to pedophilia as his interests have not been revealed to be about children.
 

I only favor outing someone if they are clearly being hypocritical -- for example talking trash about gays when they are gay themselves.
 

I don't understand this closet thing. I read that he has a partner in FL and goes out with his sister and her family with his partner. Is it only a closet thing in DC but not in FL?
 

ed,

"Seems that more than a few people knew...aren't they then also responsible? In some states, I believe they may even be criminally responsible?"

In order to be criminally responsible, a crime has to have occurred.

As best we know, Foley's youngest sexual conquest was 21. But even had he been 16, that is not a crime in Washington DC. Sending emails asking what someone wants for their birthday is not illegal anywhere (that I know of).

If there was a crime, it might have to do with the explicit nature of some of the instant message (IM) conversations but to date I've not heard anyone say that a crime has in fact occurred.

Let's stick to the facts. Foley's behavior was creepy and inappropriate. And it appears that those who knew of parts of it made efforts to confront him.

What is uncertain is whether official or semi-official complaints were ignored by Hastert or others in power. If this is the case, they need to step down. Otherwise, ironically, Foley (as icky as he has been) has shown more admirable character than Hastert.

But, of course, refusing to do the honorable thing is also not criminal. And it seems to have very little political cost.
 

It's all about relationships and trust. Which is why you get this weird dichotomy between family/friends/work/etc. and how "out" a gay person may or may not be. I personally would like for either hetero sex to become MORE "icky poo" in general society or homo sex to become less so. Something to level the playing field somewhat would help.

I'm naive, I know, but could it be that people might not give a rip about sexual preferences (and that's all it is as far as i'm concerned) and could just treat each other as fellow humans....if we didn't have such judgemental attitudes toward the individuals based on those private behaviors? Am I just stupid? Completely off base here?

In a fog,

grace/pam
 

Jim et al: What of the argument that straights commit such offenses but they are not closeted about their sexuality?

Back to writing...
 

< Eroticizing youth tends to result in the exploitation of youth.b>

I think we are always in some difficulty when we try to make a clear meaning and draw clear conclusions about a public figure's personal life. I think it gets even worse when we try and squeeze that into some agenda.

To do so we have to emphasize certain facts and ignore others and we tend to do that based upon worldview and political goals. In essence we either quickly oversimplify or make overly complex the target of our curiosities.

This is true of Mark Foley, Barney Frank, John Paulk, Annie Heche, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Swaggart and many others. There are plenty of "dull axes" out there, ready to grind away.

I would just ask us all to remember that Foley decided, as an adult to deal with his Same Sex Attraction in a way that best suited him. Describing him as "in the closet" seems contraindicated by the facts. To describe him as "gay identified" seems contraindicated by the facts. His behavior with minors seems as if he is trolling, but to date, that is all that it can be characterized as. Some heterosexuals in positions of power make the same poorly disguised advances which I find offensive.

I think it is safe to draw this conclusion: Eroticizing youth tends to result in the exploitation of youth.

I just had a thought about maturity. Since girls tend to be more emotionally mature than boys throughout adolescence, is it even more exploitative to hit on adolescent boys than adolescent girls (whether gay or straight?).

I think one of our options on this blog is to maintain a true sense of curiosity. The kind of curiosity that ultimately will change each one of us, because it is sincere and humble.

It is awful tempting to restrict curiosity to searching for those events which will confirm our preconceptions or political agenda.

David Blakeslee
 

Yes, i think everyone should be outed, just so the rest of us know who we are dealing with.

I would no sooner allow my son to spend private time with a gay man that I would my daughter with a straight man.

But when that man appears and claims to be straight, but is actually gay, he is engaging in a deliberate deception that puts children at risk.
 

Jim,

Thanks for your comments and transparency about your own journey and your values on responsibility.

Regarding teens, gender and initiation: I think adolescent boys tend to take more risks and are more immature than adolescent girls. They are less likely to use language related tasks to mediate problem-solving. I think this makes them more vulnerable to exploitation.

I think we agree that our older minds give us an advantage, we are less impulsive and tend to be more contemplative. We are also less egocentric, able to engage in a form of empathy which adolescents struggle to achieve. That emphathy drives us to think about what is in the best interests of the risk-taking, initiating adolescent.

That is all true, if I apply my maturity appropriately. If I do not, I can use my empathy and planning skills to "troll," for the impulsive, the needy, insecure and the naive. The older male (regardless of sexual orientation) can also use those skills to try to reclaim lost or regretted youth. It is hard for me to really see and care for someone when they are a means to an end.

Older objects of affection have more neurological and physiological maturity to better choose for themselves than do adolescents. Sometimes we misunderstand the adolescent male's risk-taking behavior as "choosing" in an informed manner. It is choosing risk, but not in an informed manner.

Enjoying the conversation.

David Blakeslee
 

-Is the closet to blame?

No. Individuals are to blame for the bad choices of individuals.

-Did gay staffers and congressmen cover up his activities?

I don't know. There are certainly many reasons to do so, none of them good.

-Blogactive blogger, Mike Rogers, thinks the answer is to out all closeted gay Republicans. Is this a good thing?

That depends on what your values are and what the fallout will be. According to my own values, I really can't tell becasue I have no idea what the fallout would be. At first, I thought that the Mark Foley thing would be bad for gay men because of the Democrats' desire to gain political points through the demonization of gay men. At the same time, I suddenly heard Ann Coulter defending gay men, so I really don't know if this is going to be bad or good. Likewise, I don't know how outing all gay republicans would help or harm.

-Will this scandal impact the November elections?

I don't know.

-Does this scandal have any relevance to pedophilia and/or homosexuality in general?

It will be spun that way. Anti-gays will continue to exploit the fear of the "gay predator" to make it appear that all gays are inherently untrustworthy around children or even around adults. If this question intends to ask, "Does the Mark Foley scandal lend credence to the all-gays-are-predators fear?" I would say no, it does not.
 

jim burroway wrote:

"Jimmy Gatt, and others.. About outing. I said before I'm generally opposed to outing."

And I suppose I should have been more clear about my response.

Would it be a good thing (for gay men) if all gay Republicans were outed? I don't know.

Is outing, in general, a good thing? No way!