Elect Barack Obama
Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Vote Early-Absentee-Nov4
Visit the Democratic Party
Technically, Foley's Not a Pedophile - a Lesson in Modern Sexual Perversion
In an op-ed published in the LA Times, Jonah Goldberg attacks Democrats for hypocrisy for moral outrage over recently "retired" Republican Mark Foley's predatory sexual cyber-stalking and possible statutory rape of Congressional Pages. Using a recently coined term, Ephebophile, to flaunt his supposed intellectual superiority to describe Foley's predilections instead of the "casually" used term pedophile. In light of this semantic hair splitting I think a vocabulary lesson is in order. So class, it's time to sharpen your pencils.
While not technically a pedophile, Foley's Pederasty is not what one could say is acceptable behaviour in most modern societies, let alone George Bush's Amerika... more
Goldberg's use of the unfamiliar word ephebophile led to a dictionary search. Curiously, the term doesn't yet exist in Webster's or Dictionary.com, so a Google search was in order.
That produced some interesting results. Here are the "family friendly" ones...
Turns out ephebophile's only recently been coined in the late 20th century.
Ephebophilia has been defined as a sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to post-pubescent adolescents. It comes from the Greek: (ephebos) variously defined as "one arrived at puberty"... and (-philia) "love".[1] Despite this classical etymology it is a term of recent coinage, created by psychologist John Money in the late twentieth century.
Ephebophilia, as most strictly defined, refers only to an attraction, not to actual love relations or sexual activity (although these can be involved). It is used in contrast with pedophilia, which is an attraction to pre-pubescent or pubescent individuals. In more casual usage, however, pedophilia is often used more broadly to describe an attraction to any person younger than the legal age of consent. For example, the term "pedophile priests" is frequently used instead of "ephebophile priests" or "pederastic priests", in the context of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, although much of the sexual behavior involved was with adolescent (i.e. post-pubescent) teens.
The nature of ephebophilia is unresolved, and a variety of perspectives are held. Some regard ephebophilia as merely a milder form of pedophilia, in which the object of attraction is closer to what is "normal" than with a true pedophile.
The term pederasty or paederasty embraces a wide range of erotic practices between adult males and adolescent boys. Pederastic relations can have widely dissimilar manifestations – they can be spiritual or materialistic, lawful or transgressive, loving or commercial, compassionate or abusive – and have been documented from ancient history to modern times. Rendered as 'age-structured homosexuality', it is, along with gender-structured relations and egalitarian relations, regarded as one of the three main subdivisions of homosexuality proposed by anthropologists.
Getting back to Goldberg's screed against Democrats' moral outrage, I think the winger doth complain too much. It's part of the now concerted Republican smear and distract campaign to divert attention away from Foley's crimes, the self-serving cover-up of Foley's predilections by the House leadership since 1997, and now commenced smear of gays since Foley's much belated coming out.
And it seems to me ol' Jonah's splittin' hairs on semantics on this one. The wing-nut version of the definition of "IS". While not "technically" a pedophile, Foley's pederasty is commonly thought of as pedophilia among folks of all political stripes. Even if the Congressional Page boys were post-pubescent they are still children and in many jurisdictions, including DC in this case, protected from sexual predators even if they've reached the "legal" age of sexual consent. Fellow Democrats.com member Bill puts it succinctly...
Whether or not Foley fits the "medical or technical" definition of a pedophile is not the issue. The "correct" terminology is that: by most legal definitions Foley is a sexual predator, and most likely is a child molester as well. His sexual orientation is not at issue, except to the religious right.He used his position of power to intimidate, and prey on, adolescents who have not reached the age of majority, even if they have reached the legal age of consent. The D.C. law provides that 16 is the minimum age that a minor child can make a consensual decision to engage in any kind of sex with another person who is not more than four years older than the minor. That law applies until the minor child reaches the age of majority, which for D.C. is 18.
The "is he, or is he not, a pedophile" right-wing argument is nothing more than a distraction, and an attempt to gloss over the real crimes that this sexual pervert has committed.
- CactusPat's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
I agree with you-but Bill's interpretation of D.C law is wrong..
Basically, over 16 is not a crime, although it could be considered work related sexual harassment, which someone can be fired or sued for. Basically, what the law says is an 18 year old for example born October 6, 1987 can sleep with a 14 year old born October 5, 1991. However, by definition ofthe law, a person over 16 is not a child.
Tammera Halphen
The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.
In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" wer
If you read the aggravating
If you read the aggravating circumstnces section below the main body of § 22-3008. First degree child sexual abuse....
Seems fairly clear... I'll stick with Bill's interprtation.
Tammera, one question for you?
Do you have a child that is or will be 16 years of age?
If you answer yes, ask yourself this:
"What would I do and how would I feel if this was MY child?"
Under 18 is a child. I have children, one just turned 18 and I can tell you that my child could not cross the street in today's society without me signing a permission slip till they turned 18!
This was a child who was prey for a 50-something pervert who was eschewing his Congressional responsibilties and his oath of office to have cybersex talk with a sophmore in high school!
If you are Democrat, an American and a parent then start looking at this logically. Don't try to use minimalist language or play semantics with what the law books say -- this was a crime and if nothing else it was most certainly a breech of House Ethics Rules and a conspiracy by House Leaders to cover it up!
They had their "Monica moment" that has lasted over seven years (seven years too long) and now we have the "Foley F*ck up" and you want to down play it. I don't think so.
"If being liberal means critical thinking and informed dissent, instead of blind obedience and ignorant nationalism, then I am all for it!"
Crystal Clear....Bill is Correct.
Glen Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory put it best:
"If being liberal means critical thinking and informed dissent, instead of blind obedience and ignorant nationalism, then I am all for it!"
No, you're wrong. The D.C.
No, you're wrong. The D.C. law specifically states that if the "actor" (Foley) had a significant relationship with the victim, and the victim was below the age of majority (18) it is a felony, and subject to even more severe penalties. Under this provision, the "4-year" rule still applies in some cases.
But, you are correct that for the purposes of the D.C. AOC law, a 16 year-old is not a "child." For all other forms of law in most states and D.C. however, anyone below the age of majority is a minor. In these cases, child endangerment laws, contributing to the deliquency of a minor, child abuse, and all other legal protections of a minor would come into play, including the special provision in the D.C. AOC law.
Again, AOC laws are written primarily to establish statutory rape exemptions for same age-group partners (13/17, 14/18, and 15/19) and are NOT a license for adults to prey on minors who are 16 and 17.
The "age of consent" is not even the issue here, and Republicans keep trotting it out in order to muddy the waters, in an attempt to shift the "blame" to the victim. The real issue is that Foley was illegally preying on minors who were under his and the government's guardianship, while the House Leadership (Hastert, et al) looked the other way, and covered it up.
Sexual harassment? Give me a break... That's almost as rich as Snow's "naughty e-mails" remark.
This subject reminds me
This subject reminds me of those who equate Clinton's lie with Bush's lies.
If you hear someone trump that, you just know there is no point discussing any topic. They are a different species.
Another useful source: Reference.com
(Sort of a "parent" site for Dictionary.com)
Ephebephila or Hebephila (the alternate term).