Yaaaaay! bye-bye hypocrite SOB!

Posted by: at September 29, 2006 10:44 PM

This is absolutely disgusting and discraceful behavior. Being a victim of childhood sexual abuse from a trusted older male myself, reading the email exchanges makes my blood boil with rage. What a sad hypocrite: during the day, rep Foley is defending the conservative christian base of america by denying gays basic human righs while at night he's sitting in his underwear preying on young boys.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: albert at September 29, 2006 10:45 PM

Kind of lends new meaing to the term, "deputy whip", doesn't it?

Was Jeff Gannon/Guckert around the pages?

Or Ken Mehlman? Or David Dreier? Or any of the other apparent multitude of closeted freaks the Republican Party seems to be composed of right now.

No disrespect to open gays, it's the closeted ones who make a living out of professing to hate homosexuality that end up like this, and it usually ends up being destructive to those around them.

This current Republican Congressional leadership is so morally lost that they seem to think that the fact that Congressional pages were warned a year ago to stay away from Foley is NOT going to end up being the big story here.

They knew and did not make him step down then. Just like the Catholic Church protecting pedophile priests. The kids are expendable, as long as one of their own is protected.

Foley ain't the only sick puppy here, either. How many more closeted gays and bisexuals are in this corrupt gang?

Anybody else out there remember when Bush went to Canada last year and couldn't stop talking about "what a purty mouth" the Canadian PM's Press Secretary had?

Memorable presidential quotes from that visit: "You've got a purty mouth", "Your mouth is real purty", "You're mouth is prettier than my Scottie's mouth". Is this how a man in his 50's speaks to a subordinate in a professional setting?

Are there any empty closets in the White House or the Capitol Building?

I'm starting to think these guys hated Clinton so much because he was unquestionably straight and loved it. Not a lot of gender conflict in the Big Dog. That must drive them crazy.

Posted by: roooth at September 30, 2006 1:04 AM

Nothing makes me happier than seeing another Christian hypocrite exposed.

Posted by: at September 30, 2006 10:46 AM

How perfect! Another deep-in-the-closet Republican anti-gay (but actually gay!) nutjob. Being a gay Republican makes about as much sense as being a Jewish Nazi.

Posted by: Brian Houlihan at September 30, 2006 1:00 PM

This is exactly the behavior that Wilhelm Reich categorized and dubbed 'the emotional plague'.

The Republican party is fuelled by control schemes, exploitation and subversion of natural impulses - and seek to oppress others under these laws. The pedophilia aspect is also common to the Republican party.

This country is MORE warped than the '50's, which was cited as an example in the article. People are more oppressed than ever.

I wonder how bigoted Republicans react to news like this. Do they feel swindled? Turned on? What?

Posted by: wilhelm reich at September 30, 2006 6:01 PM

This is not about Republicans being hipocrits, or Democrats being more riteous...this is about a sick individual. Don't try to politicize it.

Posted by: Brian Houlihan at October 1, 2006 1:28 AM

As a gay man I am offended that Mark Foley is even being labeled as a gay man. Mark Foley is not a gay man. He is a pedophile. He is not a gay man. Please understand this middle America and please stop equating pedophilia with gay culture. The Christian right have been using these types of sick individuals as prime reasons why gay men and women and transgendered individuals should be denied their full civil rights. Pedophiles are not part of gay culture. They are as repulsive to me as they are to any my heterosexual friends. Pedophiles are sick individuals. Pedophiles are criminals. Gay men are not pedophiles nor are they criminals. Mark Foley is a pedophile. He is a criminal. He should be indicted and tried as a pedophile. Don't insult me and the gay community by labeling him gay or even a closeted gay man. Even real closeted gay men deserve better than to be compared to some sick pervert like Foley.

Posted by: David G. Corey at October 1, 2006 2:19 AM

Wow, what outrageous comments by those obviously blinded by their own political bigotry. An obviously perverted man resigns and suddenly, all members of his party are all held up as examples of Christian hypocrisy. I thought that after being exposed, he did the right thing by resigning. No special merits, but how many times have we seen politicans guilty of crimes continue to stonewall until they are forced out of office. Unfortunately it's almost always our beloved Democrat friends. Making their guy get the hell out is just doing the right thing. As a Christian, I take great offense by those who see ALL Christian Republicans as charlatans and hypocrites. I have many friends on both sides of the aisle who have their beliefs, and stick to them, and are both openly straight or gay. It doesn't make them radical Republicans, or Godless Democrats. It makes them people with the same faults as you and me, and they realize that. Shame on you who don't.

Posted by: voice_of_reason at October 1, 2006 2:23 PM

I have always wondered how many of these Republican sickos have paid for abortions!
Who knows...maybe a Supreme Court Justice!!

Posted by: Nancy Erickson at October 1, 2006 4:53 PM

Yes, I agree. It is that he is a pedophile. And that he abused his power to prey on constituent minors.

Him being gay is irrelevant, but many won't see that.

Posted by: Reeuth at October 2, 2006 12:04 AM

The notion that a man who is attracted to teenage boys is a "Sick Pup" is rediculous. The gay community for years has organized gay youth groups that are typically 13-23, thus mixing the under age with the over age.

Mark Foley is 54 not 23. So the issue isn't under age its ageism, and hypocracy.

Pedophiliaphobia

An irrational fear of pedophiles, is sweeping the nation. The existence of draconian laws plays into this falsehood because only those who are accused of committing crimes come to the attention of the public, or for that matter, nearly anyone�s attention.

It is characterized by stereotyping (assuming that an individual has traits and behaviors generally associated, rightly or wrongly, with a group) and demonizing.

The general public seems to believe that a man who is attracted to boys cannot control himself. People have this false view because the only boylovers they know about are those who are put on trial. Boylovers are in the closet the way Gay people were in the 50�s.

Some of you don�t think that we have the same capacity for genuine love and affection that you have. How arrogant that is, how outrageous.

Given the prevailing attitude in society, mere knowledge that a man is attracted to boys could easily lead to loss of employment and physical attack. Even so, some boylovers have non sexual relationships with boys. Others stay away from boys altogether. Some have an intimate relationship with a boy that never comes to the attention of law enforcement. If people knew which of their friends and relatives were boylovers, their opinions would be changed. In the meantime, there is the net.

The World Wide Web has provided a place for a virtual community of boylovers to develop that it would be impossible to duplicate in a physical environment. BoyLover.net is one of two main centers of the on-line boylove community, Free Spirits is the other. The latter consists of a set of message boards, the principal one being BoyChat, and an extensive set of links (boylinks) to almost everything else. Because of the interest, Free Spirits has issued a news release-- http://www.freespirits.org/release0806.html

From boylinks a surfer may connect to The Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center, the foremost BL scholarly site on the web. Other sites of significance include The Church of Zeus and Ganymede, NAMBLA (of course), and PAIDERASTIA among many others. There are extensive listings in the areas of art, music, movies, literature, photographs, personal pages, sports, magazines, news, opinion, chats and forums.

There is also a large set of links at BoyLover.net. The site at http://boylover.net/ puts an emphasis on building community by requiring regular posting for full membership and the use of a buddy system for new members. Here and elsewhere on the net you can read about how men who are attracted to boys have gone about living their lives. There is a lot of variety, perhaps as much variety as there are boylovers. Information of this sort was not available when I was young, not even about being gay. At least in this way life is better now.

If you take the trouble to look into it, you will find that we are not monsters after all. Simply being a boylover is not wrong, what one does with these feelings can be.

There are men who really abuse kids: real kidnapping, real rape, and real harm. That is wrong and illegal. Also illegal are some actions that do no harm, expressions of love and caring that are wanted and reciprocated. The sensible boylover takes the law, irrational as it is, into account both for himself and any young person he cares about.

Ask Yourself a Few Simple Questions

Does a thirteen year old boy (most of them) want to have sex?

Do thirteen year old boys (many of them) have sex with someone?

Every time a thirteen year old boy has sex with someone, do you want to put someone (sometimes the thirteen year old boy) in prison?

If a thirteen year old boy can consent to have sex with another thirteen year old (legal in some states) why can�t he consent to have sex with older persons?

The notion that an adolescent boy is harmed by consensual sexual activity is preposterous. It is ridiculous on the face of it. If he is harmed it is by the reaction of his parents and law enforcement.

What might we reasonably hope for?

We might hope that people who are attracted to underage boys are not vilified or abused solely because that is their sexual orientation.

We might hope that the law and the general public would recognize that consensual sex, even if illegal, is not the same as rape.

We might hope that people put in prison for consensual underage sex are not murdered or otherwise mistreated.

We might hope that the attitude of the general public toward sexuality would continue to become less negative and less hypocritical.

We might hope that you will find a way to help.

Finally, check out the editorial guidelines http://www.blmw.info/guidelines/guidlines.html? provided by the BoyLove Media Watch http://www.blmw.info/

Posted by: T. E. Hutchinson at October 2, 2006 10:41 AM

Maybe I'm full of baloney, but I believe to this day that if a teen girl wanted to have sex with me I would tink that there is something wrong with her, that she must have had a bad experience with some young man, or that perhaps she has not had an opportunity with someone of her own age. The main reason is that I would not want some 50 year old man to have been one of my daughter's love experiences. And that is the problem with your "Boylover" argument: where doyou draw the line -13 years, 12 years, 11, 10... and who draws the line, the Boylovers...the child perhaps as the "consenting" party. Furthermore, there will always be the justification by somebody that they are "pushing the envelop".

There are pedophiles that like little girls and pedophiles that like litle boys, but being straight or being gay is not conducive to being a Pedophile; I don't believe that being a Pedophile is another gender, and if we accept your theory and look down the line of what people like to do sexually, at some point in time we'll have the "bestiality" crowd validated by the same argument. ("well the dog has an erection so it is clear that they enjoy it", another form of consent?)

The line has to be drawn by those adults who can still put the wellfare of the young ahead of their own needs, who are able to control themselves and confine their fantasies to consenting adults whose age does not skirt the law.

Posted by: M MACHUCA at October 3, 2006 11:25 PM

It horrifies me that language can be used to by-pass morality. By re-christening old concepts we can give immoral activity a veneer of acceptability. "Pedophilia" may mean the same thing in Latin as Boylove in English, but the English word is somehow cleaner- effectively removing the stigma. Yet boylove is just as immoral as pedophilia. One reason is that there is no way to test “consent”. It is possible to regret consent given. It is possible to be unaware that consent is being given, or even to be completely in control of the consent being given. How can anyone ever be sure that a minor has really given consent and been fully aware of the outcome?

As mature adults our first duty to is defend the will and psyche of minors. We can all do this by asking if we are benefiting by the interaction. If we benefit from someone who is not a peer, especially in the area of sexual or financial gratification, then we are taking advantage of those whom we are meant to guard. You can't guard someone and take advantage of them at the same time. Any number of times I have watched an older child con a younger child out of their candy - and when I have questioned the younger child he declared the act as consensual. But, the older boy knew what he wanted and how to get it, and left the younger boy poorer. That is exactly what pedophiles do.

An as for those who think that they can indulge in pedophilia without at some point dipping into doing it - You can't. Fantasy has a way of becoming reality. All people want to make their fantasies real. Besides provocative images of children are images of real children - those children were being taken advantage of when they were being photographed - that's abuse. To "enjoy" those images is to participate in the abuse itself

Posted by: Scott White at October 11, 2006 4:19 PM