If you don't want to identify Foley as a pedophile that is fine with me

Just don't demand that I or others begin using the same talking points that Foley's lawyer and longtime friend is using.

That is my only request.

Don

I guess i'm not sure where this is coming from.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

I just don't want anyone telling me what Republican "spin" that I must use. Thats all.

Don

have another category. I understand that these are adolescents, not children who are obsessed on and targeted.

When a person has a particular obsession, say only having sex with natural red heads, it's bizarre but not a breech of the law. However, when a person consistently FOCUSes on our youth (studies show that those under 18 y.o. are not mature enough to give informed consent to a significantly older ADULT), they are LEGALLY considered sexual predators. If your sole focus is on adolescents, you are targeting only those who are not emotionally mature enough to understand the full gamet of emotional and perhaps, physical fallout from sex, you are a sexual predator.

Several studies also suggest that part of the increase of teen pregnancy, often among minors is with ADULT men who are significantly older than them. (5-10+ years).

Yes, there should be a medical term for those significantly older ADULTS who obsess on adolescents (13-17) for sex. It's criminal - both an obsession and a compulsion that they need to have treated to prevent future victims, i.e., emotional trauma, unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc.

I don't CARE about dictionary/medical definitions, he preyed on underage youth, full stop.

We still don't have any proof there was any contact between Foley and these pages...acts that would constitute a pedophile crime. All we see, AT THIS POINT, is his attempts to engage these boys and that it may be that this was his form of gratification. I say this just looking at the facts at hand...not trying to get ahead of ths story.

I'm sure we're going to hear about Mr. Foley's partners...consentual and otherwise...once these people emerge, then I reserve the right to extend and revise my remarks.

Cheers...

Peace.

Don

contact has been made. Attempting to meet, in and of itself, through the Internet is a crime.

I think the stings on Dateline are purposely set up where the perp has to take a step other than electronic to show intent of their actions. That means luring them to a home...they can't be arrested before they walk in, but once they've crossed the line from cyber to reality, that's where the boom is lowered.

Again, we stil don't have proof that Mr. Foley had actual contact with any page. This could change at any minute...but I'm just looking at the facts as they're on the table at 8:30am...no one has yet to step forward and admit any real contact with Foley.

Now I would imagine Foley has violated some of the laws he helped write and push through (the delicious irony), but that's a different crime...or in this case, a sin of ommission and I wouldn't called him a pedophile if his actions were only limited to words and not deeds. This falls under a different statue and still will probably make a felon out of him...which is fine and good with me. All we're playing with here are words...and fortunately it's not in defense of a Democrat.

Cheers...

If he sent them anything that could be recognized as porn, it's off to the Grand Jury and a likely indictment.

I served on a Grand Jury recently and such was the case. There had been no physical meetings in these cases.

I think the solicitation is still a crime but I don't know how high on the felony chart it rises.

Now it'll be interesting if his House machine was locked down the moment he walked out or if its been scrubbed. Several years ago, an acquaintance was nailed for sex with an underage girl..no sooner was he busted and they had his home address, then police got a warrant for his home and grabbed his puter. Unfortnately on the hard drive were emails and pictures (attachments that you note) and he ended up spending 4 years in a state correctional facility.

I'm just posting with the facts that most of us know...and at this point. It's alarming that it took that long for Foley's office to be secured and we still have no idea if his personal machines were confiscated. With so many days past...and we have no real trail of Mr. Foley's whereabouts between his resignation on Friday and when his attorney claimed he went into a rehab, which wasn't announced until at least Tuesday.

I've served on a jury as well and am sure solicitation is a crime...especially under the new internet laws that Foley pushed, but, as you state, we don't know how far up the ladder this rides. I would imagine that if a young intern shows up with a pic of Foley...especially greased up or a Jeff Gannon pose...and we've entered a whole different realm.

Cheers...

in his IM's in familiar terms ('you're under age so we'll have to go to my house').

He's a republican so I don't believe him.

Calling him a republican is worse then calling him a pedophile.

He used the ambiguous term "inappropriate relations". Now under DC law, age of consent is 16. Lawyers are soooo good at this...and my bets are this one's on some GOOP payroll.

Right now the focus should stay on the enablers...those who knew there was something wrong and looked the other way. That paints the GOOP as a party that puts power ahead of the safety of children. We'll learn plenty about Mr. Foley and other Repugnicans before this is over.

When sending a message to freepers, you have to 'keep it simple stupid'

by all means carry on.

Yeah, that's a big old nasty PE DO PHILE in my book.

Jesus.

Consider returning it for a refund.

Age of consent my ass. That's fucking sick. Guess you're not a parent, because if any old bastard IM'd "you're getting me hard" to my kid, they'd better pray the police got to him before I did.

And you know what, fuck the snark. Seriously. OK, technically, he's an "ephebophile", since age of consent doesn't factor in the proper definition of "pedophile". I wasn't aware that there were clinical distinctions of dirty old men with the unfortunate condition of being aroused by teens, pre-teens and boys. How about we just label him "sick hypocrite asshole" and be done with it?

is a perfect description. It encompasses so much!

And, sorry for the snark. At the time, I thought I was being comical, but now I see how it could come across differently.

My kid's 11. I'm inundated with almost daily school shooting stories, this whole "Jesus Camp" thing and now this. Knowing that there are people out in the world who have oversight of a congressional committee to protect teens and adolescents from predators placed in their hands, turning out to be predators themselves, wanting to arrange liasons with these teens . . . it makes me never want to let him out of my sight for any reason, and I know I can't be there to protect my boy all the time.

Some of the downright evil things this guy wrote in his IMs to these teens makes your blood curdle. You find it hard to believe humans can be that sick until you see people on our media channels excusing his actions and going into Dem-blame mode.

It's better I know now what exactly we're dealing with, so we can be the liberals we're supposed to be rather than knee-jerk like I did in that post. So thank you for that.

and abuser of federal employees. There are laws against THAT and age is not an arguable point. Send the winger enablers the memo.

It's about the power over others, sex or no sex. Person in authority gets off wielding power over subordinates. Not a gay issue and still an issue even if the enablers argue teens are OK targets for sexual predators.

It's about the abuse of power. People who abuse power need to be removed from power. If their abuse manifested in breaking other laws, like sexually preying on UNDERAGE people, then they get locked up too. AND they get to register as sex offenders if/when they get out of jail.

Time for America to STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR THOSE WHO ABUSE POWER!

Jesus H. Christ! The government is supposed to be afraid of the people, not the other way around. It's no democracy if we sit for the abuse of power, sex or no sex!

:banghead:

is the ten dollar description of what Foley is.

The fact that he preyed on straight kids who were upset by his, um, attention is very telling. It's almost as though creeping them out was even more fun than sex would have been.

"Pedophile" is just shorthand for folks outside the psychiatric setting who don't know there's a distinction between those who prey on kids before puberty and those who prey on kids shortly after puberty.

it seems to be only from a psychiatric standpoint. A pediatrician is a physician who sees children from birth up to the age of 21 years of age. And see below:

Description
The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child. Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18. Most mental health professionals, however, confine the definition of pedophilia to sexual activity with prepubescent children, who are generally age 13 or younger. The term ephebophilia, derived from the Greek word for "youth," is sometimes used to describe sexual interest in young people in the first stages of puberty.

http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/pedophilia?utm_term=pedophilia&utm_medium=mw&utm_campaign=article

Perhaps Mr. Foley is an ephebophile, but whatever you call him, he is trespassing into forbidden territory. The distinction is muddy, to say the least.

Edit: Spelling.

As you indicate.

Depending on the state, having sex with a minor can result in myriad of different legal charges. "Corruption of a minor" is one of the catch-all charges and only requires that the victim be a minor. Age of consent laws may not automatically excuse this charge if, for example, alcohol or authority were used to coerce the minor into giving "consent".

More specific charges are available and they almost always involve the age of the victim. Sex with a minor over 16 may be a class C felony, for example, while sex with a minor under 8 years old may be a class A felony.

Essentially, I don't entirely agree that the distinction is muddy. I think our society has given it a lot of thought and made some pretty clear distinctions.

Furthermore, any and all of these crimes can result in a person being labeled a sexual predator.

And I don't think it's a moot point, really.

A person who is attracted exclusively to pre-pubescent children is very different from someone who finds a 16 or 17 year old attractive. Depending on the individual, a 16 or 17 year old's EXTERNAL development may be complete. Of course, it's still inappropriate for a fully mature adult to exploit the INTERNAL (lesser) development of the 16 or 17 year old. But it's not quite the true ILLNESS of the person who wants to have sex with an 8 year old.

Nothing magically happens at midnight of a person's 18th birthday. A person is really the same person they were the day before. The age of majority is just a borderline drawn because we need to draw one somewhere.

"A person who is attracted exclusively to pre-pubescent children is very different from someone who finds a 16 or 17 year old attractive. Depending on the individual, a 16 or 17 year old's EXTERNAL development may be complete. Of course, it's still inappropriate for a fully mature adult to exploit the INTERNAL (lesser) development of the 16 or 17 year old. But it's not quite the true ILLNESS of the person who wants to have sex with an 8 year old.

Nothing magically happens at midnight of a person's 18th birthday. A person is really the same person they were the day before. The age of majority is just a borderline drawn because we need to draw one somewhere."

I agree, but that is the reason I find the distinction a little "muddy." There are wild variations in the sexual maturity of children, adolescents, and young adults. Some kids, especially girls, can be pubescent at 9 years old. Some kids, especially boys, may be prepubescent at 15 or 16.

Psych was a lo-o-ong time ago.

;-)

I spelled it wrong, too, and had to edit to fix it. I HATE to spell stuff wrong.

It refers to someone with a pathological sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Given the definition, there's more 'spin' in saying he IS a pedophile. I won't identify Foley as a pedophile because he quite plainly isn't one; as far as I'm concerned anyone who wishes to misuse the language and say he IS is free to do so, but I'm still going to regard them as a) ignorant, b) stupid, or c) so motivated by a political concern to 'frame the issue' that they have no regard for fact.

Is what Foley did wrong, creepy, highly inappropriate, and deserving of censure? Certainly. But it's NOT pedophilia.

Congratulations.

Don

apologist.

Oh wait, it's already happened.

This thread was posted as flamebait for anyone who disagrees.

"Commie", "Unamerican", "Terrorist", "Hippie", "Apologist".

The truth is the truth, and I'm not biting my tongue to satisfy anyone, Republican or Democrat.

Understanding the meaning of the word - and the importance of the distinction - does not condone or excuse Foley's criminal behavior.

the pages it was only because he did't get the opportunity or was shot down when he did. Am I supposed to be happy that he didn't force anyone? At least one Page has said Foley invited him up to his hotel room and he declined. The guy was using his position of power to try to seduce underage boys. You can use whatever words you want, it doesn't change what he did.

That's the word for inappropriate behavior with post-pubescent children. A pedophile is someone who is specifically attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Pedaresty and pedophelia are both very bad. The damage done by pedarests is also very bad and long lasting, but it's a bit different. A pre-pubescent child doesn't understand what is going on in the same way and that is very damaging, but a post-pubescent child responds to the sexual behavior and that can cause a great deal of confusion as well. They are both very bad things.

Why is there a problem with using the word that has the specific meaning associated with Foley's behavior instead of a word that means something that he didn't do?

people want to use. I just don't want anyone excusing the behavior...

No, thank you. I'll use the correct words.

Giving up on our language seriously affects our abilities, not only to express distinctions, but to CONCEPTUALIZE those distinctions.

That's the whole point of Newspeak.

the proper usage of terms will get you labelled as a "pedophile enabler." I'm amazed at the willingness of some DUers to embrace the most salacious, if improper, terms to further what sometimes looks like a witch hunt. Now watch while I get flamed for suggesting we should be accurate and precise. Anybody looking for hypocrisy can sure find it here on DU. And now watch me get attacked as a possible freeper, it never fails.

But Cons are smart enough to stay within legal boundaries most the time, and just dip their toes into sewage every now and then.

There is enough evidence that he was trying to eventually get physical with at least one page. Who knows what may have happened if he wasn't stopped?

Please check out this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2307167&mesg_id=2307785

Never mind, those two terms are synonymous these days...

appropriate for Foley. Sexual Predator or Sexual Offender also should be cited frequently, along with "inappropriate relationship". "Predatory Pederast" is even better.

Pederast: an older man attracted to or involved sexually with adolescent boys.

I don't give a rat's ass whether he's homosexual, bi-sexual, or pansexual. I don't believe he's an alcoholic, either. It's all about smokescreens this week.

...even if it is not technically correct. Because for most of the population, the term "pedophile" is a lightning rod. So, if he really isn't technically a pedophile -- well, let him and his apologists explain. They will sound like they are defending a pedophile, or trying to minimize what he did.

Anyway -- it may not be technically correct from a clinical perspective, but still, it gets the idea across.