"Pedophilia"
Not to get too thick in the weeds of apologetics here, but it's certainly true that use of the term "pedophilia" in the context of the Mark Foley scandal should be resisted. What Foley was up to was sleazy and wrong (and, it seems, possibly illegal) but being attracted to older teens isn't pedophilia. I think the gay angle clouds people's thinking about this.
You'll see on the right a photo of Scarlett Johannssonn in Ghost World. She was born on November 22, 1984 and the film was released in 2001, so it would have been shot was she was sixteen years old. I think it's rather self-evident that to classify anyone who thinks this is a picture of an attractive woman as a pedophile would be to drain the term of any real meaning. One could fairly subject a much older man actively persuing a sexual relationship with a sixteen year-old to all sorts of criticism, but pedophilia isn't a plausible candidate.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, it's possible for something both to be wrong and to not be pedophilia. Lots of things that aren't pedophilia are wrong. I'm trying to defend the English language here, not Foley's conduct.
Comments
This is terrific pedantry, Matt. However, when a party that has prospered by telling us all that we aren't sufficiently concerned about sex in all its horrific manifestations, I'm content to let them suffer the unreasonable consequences. Sowing, reaping, all that business.
Stupid textarea fields...lousy for editing:
However, when a party [] has prospered..."
Oh, and of course, Scarlett Johansen (sp?) is totally teh hott. But as any good GOP fearmonger would tell you, that's totally different--there's nothing GAY about it. And again, there's the sowing/reaping business on the wrongness of THAT distinction...
Sowing, reaping, all that business.
I'm all for that, but I'd actually like them to do less sowing in the future, not to generate a situation where liberals do more sowing.
Thank you Matt. I'm really quite sick of hearing this characterized as pedophilia by people who absolutely should know better. On Kos, a very emotional plea laying out how wrong this is was met by most with a "who cares, it's the best meme for the general public to understand". The original diarist was not just making the point that the terminology is wrong, but that by combining it with the homosexual angle of this particular scandal was doing irreparable harm by feeding the false stereotype of gays trying to recruit children.
> but I'd actually like them to do less sowing
> in the future, not to generate a situation
> where liberals do more sowing.
From the party that just declared stopping gay marriage "more important that Iraq"? I wouldn't count on it. Not until they have had a _very_ stiff dose of their own medicine.
Cranky
It's like the way "genocide" has been kicked around until its meaning has been worn off. Or "fascist," for that matter. A word should be used according to its meaning, not according to the speaker's need to feel slashing and hard-jawed.
Yglesias is clearly trawling the local high-schools with Hastert and the rest of them.
To get at the issue of pedophilia, it would probably be helpful to see the actual pages, and no one wants to do that to the kids, even if they are Republican kids.
DAMN! I've got to watch that movie. And yes, I'm so old that my lusting after a 16/17-year old like her would likely be termed by the Sex Police as "creepy".
I'll add that I agree with Matthew completely. It's not pedophilia, and we ought to quit it with having the Sex Police judge relationships between older and younger persons, so long as the younger persons are at or above the age of consent.
Attack the hypocrisy instead.
To get at the issue of pedophilia, it would probably be helpful to see the actual pages, and no one wants to do that to the kids, even if they are Republican kids.
The point is, they're not kids.
One quibble: To the misery of teenage girls everywhere and especially my teenage self, teenage boys, on average, are nowhere near as mature as girls. We all sort of know about this on the emotional side, but it's also true on the physical side: A sixteen year old guy is a lot more likely to look like a kid and innapropriate sex object than a sixteen year old girl. Now, the kid Foley was hitting on may have been an early-flowering linebacker, but considering that a disturbing share of Hill geek type boys I know in their twenties still look like 16 year olds, I doubt it. I just don't think the Scarlett Johanson comparison is appropriate, though it is a damn good reason for you to post a hot pic on your blog. (care to post Jason Dohring or Francis Capra in the Veronica Mars post as equal opportunity for female readers?)
But you're right: The pedophile term is clearly incorrect. Pedophiles are people who are turned on by pre-pubescent children, which Ms. Johanson and even most 16 year old boys clearly are not. There is, however, another clinical term for inappropriate sexual attraction to kids who are going through puberty or just barely out of it but still to young be appropriate sex objects--it came up a lot in the context of the Roman Catholic priest scandals a few years ago, because, once again, a large number of those cases weren't actually pedophilia but this other thing involving kids in puberty. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the word.
Matt, you are correct on the psychological issues. You are wrong on the legal issues.
"That's what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, they stay the same age." - Wooderson
They're called jailbait for a reason.
Well, the "pedantry" Matthew is indulging himself in is one of the charming things that separates the party of complexity and nuance ('liberals') from the party of bold primary colors ('conservatives'). As if Bill Clinton would be extended the same courtesy by rightwing bloggers in a similar case.
You are wrong on the legal issues.
Are you sure? My understanding is that there are some states in which age of consent laws apply only for females (the purported purpose being originally protection of their fathers' property, later adjusted to preventing teen pregnancy, but never particularly having all that much to do with protecting the kids themselves). Although I don't know where this is the case or if it still is anywhere.
What Foley is accused of isn't simply sitting around being attracted to teenagers, though. He's accused of actual predatory conduct.
The case against the word "pedophilia" is that it doesn't go far enough.
I'm with you on this. It might seem helpful in the short run to use the word 'pedophile,' but it really confuses the issue.
If Foley had been harrassing 16-year-old girls, I doubt anybody would be using the term.
What Foley is accused of isn't simply sitting around being attracted to teenagers, though. He's accused of actual predatory conduct.
How do you figure? He was pursuing a relationship with a person who was above the age of consent. How is that "predatory"?
It was clearly a case of pageophilia.
Just for your edification - in doing a little research, I ran across this term that seems a better fit for Foley's prediliction: 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.
Exactly what limits (regarding age), if any, that Foley placed on his deviant behavior remains to be seen. Regardless, the Christian right SHOULD be outraged in ANY case because sex outside of the marriage relationship is considered a SIN! Of course, it's also ILLEGAL in most places, but even if the age of consent is 16 in Virginia, the laws against internet predators that Foley helped pass make it illegal to solicit anyone under the age of 18. He SHOULD be "toast" - legally, morally, religiously, etc., etc. - unless, or course you're Matt Drudge or Tony Perkins!
There is, however, another clinical term for inappropriate sexual attraction to kids who are going through puberty or just barely out of it but still to young be appropriate sex objects--it came up a lot in the context of the Roman Catholic priest scandals a few years ago, because, once again, a large number of those cases weren't actually pedophilia but this other thing involving kids in puberty. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the word.
Flippantangel: is it "ephebophilia"? I'm not going to google that at work.
Isn't 'pederasty' also applicable to post-pubescent youths?
If Nancy Pelosi wanted to put the moves on Scarlett I don't care what they called it just sign me up for pay-per-view. Then I'd move to California just to vote for her!
Matt,
until you lower the law to considering a minor to be 15 or younger, 16 is a big no-no. Especially with staff, especially if your in the values party of congress, amd even more epsecially if you are leading the fight to keep kids safe.
pedophilia stands as the appropriate word here.
Speeding is Speeding is Speeding. The lines are there for a reason.
Well, the "pedantry" Matthew is indulging himself in is one of the charming things that separates the party of complexity and nuance ('liberals') from the party of bold primary colors ('conservatives'). As if Bill Clinton would be extended the same courtesy by rightwing bloggers in a similar case.
Indeed. I'll be more than happy to help set people straight on the concept of pedophilia once we've extracted our pound of flesh, and not a moment sooner. It's not necessary that nuanced folks argue that Foley's behavior is pedophilic, but they really ought to STFU while 'wingers insist that it is. The 'winger anti-sex ideology will do the work if we let it.
Patience, if 16 is the age of consent, that doesn't mean that 16 is illegal; it means 16 is OK.
Okay then, so let's find an alternative. How about "pervert"?
Pedophilia: People with pedophilia have fantasies, urges or behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). Pedophilic behavior includes undressing the child, encouraging the child to watch the abuser masturbate, touching or fondling the child's genitals and forcefully performing sexual acts on the child. Some pedophiles are sexually attracted to children only (exclusive pedophiles) and are not attracted to adults at all. Some pedophiles limit their activity to their own children or close relatives (incest), while others victimize other children. Predatory pedophiles may use force or threaten their victims if they disclose the abuse. Health care providers are legally bound to report such abuse of minors.
This activity constitutes rape and is a felony offense punishable by imprisonment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Above extracted from MedicineNet.com. The definitions at this site are arrived at by consulting a wide range of experts and physicians in the particular field being discussed.
flippantangel: Pederasty?
Al: what's our current line on Monica Lewinsky?
Al, if your high-school-aged son or daughter got similar messages from a middle-aged man (in a position of authority, natch), I'm sure we'd be hearing a similarly subtle legal argument.
Pedophilia? No. Predatory? Yes. "Sick sick sick"? Oh hell, yeah.
Re: A sixteen year old guy is a lot more likely to look like a kid and innapropriate sex object than a sixteen year old girl.
On the appearance side this may be an artifact of style and fashion. Women's fashion and grooming embraces the explicitly sexual and alluring for adult (and near-adult) females in a way that men's clothing simply does not, except at the more extreme and outre ends of the gay subculture's garb. There's really not a lot of diference between men's clothing and boy's clothing and where male youths do dress to shock the image they go after is not one to entice, but one to intimidate (e.g., the Goth and Gangsta looks).
I've been hearing for five years from Republicans that I'm a amoral terror-loving treasonist and now I'm supposed to give a good God damn whether Mark Foley is being unfairly and inaccurately labeled a pedophile? Cry me a river. If Foley doesn't like being called a pedophile he shouldn't have tried to fuck those juveniles.
On the other hand, let's do have the discussion over whether or not this was really pedophilia. Let's have it on TV, and let's discuss it from now until Election Day. Foley is a pedophile or technically not a pedophile? Now that's what I call a frame!
I'm just a few years younger than Foley and from my perspective pedophelia is not too strong a term for what he did. He was more than attracted to a sixteen-year-old; he acted on that attraction. It's one thing for somebody in his twenties to act on such an attraction but it's a whole different ball game for somebody in his fifties to do so.
Also, In addition to being creepy and possibly illegal, in anyplace except the White House or the Congress, which are exempt from such statutes, it would, because of the power differential and the pervasiveness of Foley's acts, be sexual harassment. Even aside from that, it would, for the same reasons, be morally wrong.
How do you figure? He was pursuing a relationship with a person who was above the age of consent. How is that "predatory"?
Remember, friends, it's liberals who are supposedly out of step with the average American. Conservatives like Al have their fingers right on the pulse.
Al: what's our current line on Monica Lewinsky?
My line on Clinton and Lewinsky is now, and always has been, that the relationship is none of my business and was none of Ken Starr's business. (Nevertheless, the fact that it was none of Ken Starr's business didn't give Clinton the right to lie under oath.)
And my line is that I see absolutely no difference between what Clinton did and what Foley did, other than the fact that Clinton actually had sex and Foley didn't.
Pederasty is a reasonable expression, though old fashioned. Here's a modern, slangy alternative, as defined by Wikipedia:
As an idiom within and referencing the LGBT community, chicken hawk (also called chicken hunter, chicken queen or coke-roller) is gay slang used in referring to an older gay man who seeks out much younger men or boys for sex (See pederasty and Homosexual recruitment).
Regarding the "person with authority" issue: what authority did Foley have over any of the people he contacted? I thought they were former pages, and even if they were current (at the time of contact) pages, pages don't work for Foley, right?
As an idiom within and referencing the LGBT community, chicken hawk
I wonder if there's any correlation between people who are "chicken hawks" under that definition and people who are "chicken hawks" in the "I'm willing to send kids to die in Iraq even as I'm not willing to go myself" or similar senses?
Whether pedophilia or not legally, children reach an age of responsibility or awareness at some point. To use one identifier to lump adult contact with a 16 year old and with a 6 year old is to understate the horror of the latter. Use of a more horrifying, but not exactly appropriate, word is a tactic of the Right and perhaps we need to use their tactics if our objective is entirely political. Perhaps not. From my point of view, if a page is able to live away from home and have responsibility at age 16, he is not the victim of pedophilia. He is a victim of many other things, not the least of which is sexual harassment by someone in a position of power.
I guess it's too bad for Foley that the legislation he sponsored didn't bother, as far as I know, with the same semantic nuances that MY points out. I mean, yeah, OK, I'll knock off using the word "pedophile" -- now. Now that the word's been pretty solidly planted in heads from one coast to the other.
C'mon Matt, do the math. If he's hitting on the 16-year old boys with whom he works everyday, he's probably not asking for birth certificates and drivers licenses when he's trolling on the net for action. And the Scarlett J. example is irrelevant. The fact that she was attractive six years ago, and obviously has remained such after she became a public figure, doesn't mean anything in the context of whether it was appropriate (or legal) for Foley to be hitting on teenage boys today.
Al, I'm operating on the assumption that a member of the House leadership could make life difficult for a page, if he so wanted, and that a former page might aspire to someday be a Congressional intern, aide, or political operative.
But you're right. It's not creepy or sleazy at all.
Anyway, I guess I'm feeding the troll. Is this the same (infinite set of) Al(s) that's been trolling Kevin Drum since time immemorial?
Sexual fantasies about a sexually mature individual -- like the Scarlett Johansson photograh -- is perverted? In what universe? "Pedophilia" to have any meaning, has to be about sexual fantasies and acts regarding pre-pubescent and pubescent individuals.
There's certainly reason to distrust the judgment of some young individuals (post-pubescent to ???) regarding sexual conduct, but that's a whole other kettle of fish than perversion. One of our paradigms of sexual intelligence -- Romeo and Juliet -- speaks through the persona of a 13 year old. Mary, Jesus's mother, has tradtionally been understood to have been 13. Etc.
That we've expanded the infantilization of adolescents to the age of 16, 17, and 18 speaks to the expansion of societal infantilization in general. Modern capitalist society dreams of the infinite world enough and time of the Marvell poem and so promotes endless adolescence. There's real perversion in that.
I think it would be helpful in deciding what to label Foley (besides goddam closet case) in knowing where his other sexual interests lay. There's a wide spectrum of ages available on Capitol Hill - was he also flirting with staffers in their 30s and 40s and elevator operators in their 60s and the whole Hill was his playground? - or were his activities solely confined to the shallow end of the pool? I think there's quite a difference between a between a standards-lacking complete horn dog and a pedophile/pederast.
@Steve Smith
Did you even read the post? Where in the post does Matt say its appropriate for Foley to be hitting on teenagers? He just says its not pedophilia. I guess that is as close as anyone will come to defending Foley, but it's hardly a defense. Maybe that's a new campaign slogan for the Rs 'Iraq is bad, but hey it's not pedophilia!'
Crack
On second thought I was probably wrong about the defense, Drudge already said that those kids were asking for it.
When the pursuer is over 50 years old.
When the pursuer knows the pursued is 16.
When the pursued is a member of group over whom the pursuer had and obligation in loco parentis.
Pedophilia n.
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.
...might be a reasonable description.
Parents who send their 16 year old children to washington to be pages expect that they will not be subject to the sexual advances of those with power over them. It would be like the ghostworld director hitting on the 16 year Scarlett Johannssonn. Not Pedophilia, but not at all unobjectionable.
Actual pedophilia wouldn't be as much of a scandal because it would by necessity been kept secret by Foley and wouldn't have had other congressmen covering up for and betraying the trust of pages and their parents.
Mmmmmmm ... Scarlett ...
--Was there supposed to be a post next to that picture? Guess I missed it.
I liked Thora Birch better in Ghost World; I have a brunette with glasses thing. Scarlett got better looking as she got older.
At 50+ it becomes permissable to look again, although always from a safe and ironic distance. Contact is forbidden. The nostalgia and regret makes any romance so pathetic. It is by nature predatory, a vampirism, a desire to suck the youth from the prey. What decent person would want to give a 20 yr old thirty years of experience?
No kidding. The worst is hearing people talk about this guy as a "sexual predator". It's absurd. By that definition, anyone who seduces anyone else is a 'sexual predator'. To me the term always meant violent racists.
It's such a crude attempt by partisans to score as many 'points' off this as they can, just like how republicans talk about anyone who disagrees with them as 'terrorists'.
What foley did is creepy and wrong, but it doesn't rise to the level of 'sexual predator' or 'pedophile'
It is amazing to me to see so many so-called liberals on the thread turn into the Sex Police. Jeez, when did liberals turn into sexually-repressed conservatives?
Does anyone really think that the reactions here would be even remotely the same if the person hitting on the 16-year old ex-pages was a 26-year old Democrat legislative aide instead of a 56-year old Republican Congressman?
Also, I'm curious about all those you are excoriating Hastert for not investigating further. Do you really want Republican House Speakers investigating anytime anyone working in Congress makes a pass at another over-the-age-of-consent employee of Congress? Really? I just can't believe that the Sex Police are out in such full force on this one. I expect it from the sexual neanderthals on the right, but not from the supposedly enlightened crowd on the left.
It became pedophilia the moment he engaged in a sexually oriented dialogue with the intent of arousal. Oogling a 16 year old isn't pedophilia, it's creepy sure, but not pedophilia. Foley went beyond that and engaged the teen, he didn't make comments from distance.
Predator is the exact word to be used on Foley.
> Does anyone really think that the reactions
> here would be even remotely the same if the
> person hitting on the 16-year old ex-pages
> was a 26-year old Democrat legislative aide
> instead of a 56-year old Republican Congressman?
1) A congressional aide does not stand in a position of supervision or in loco parentis to a page. A Congressman does.
2) For a 26 y.o. to pursue a 16 y.o. is somewhat poor judgement (and perhaps illegal in some jurisdictions). For a 52 y.o. is a colossal misjudgment and IMHO grossly immoral. There is a bit of a difference in the ages between your two examples. And the Radicals have been exactly the party trumpting the lack of this morality in our society for the last 6 (nay, 26) years.
Cranky
Also, I'm curious about all those you are excoriating Hastert for not investigating further.
You went from Pecksniffian humbug to ludicrous with that one: sexually trolling minors over the internet is illegal.
We need another word. Not calling it pedophilia leads us right into the conservative's argument that "it's a problem of homosexuality" and gives them another excuse to gay bash.
Of course, we never hear the claim, "it's a problem of heterosexuality" when teachers seduce students of the opposite sex.
I liked Thora Birch better in Ghost World; I have a brunette with glasses thing. Scarlett got better looking as she got older.
That's funny, I have a blonde, Scandinavian-half-breed thing. I even date one.
Seriously, though, I hope no one is trying to use ephebophilia to mean lusting after fair Scarlett. Ephebos means, essentially, male only. I'm not sure why we need terms for any of this, but it's a clinical age, so in defence of precise usage, I'd point to the appropriate gender non-specific term corophilia. Impeccably Greek, though I don't think in use. Anyway, like Matt, just trying to defend the language.
Crack: Did you even read the post? Where in the post does Matt say its appropriate for Foley to be hitting on teenagers? He just says its not pedophilia. I guess that is as close as anyone will come to defending Foley, but it's hardly a defense. Maybe that's a new campaign slogan for the Rs 'Iraq is bad, but hey it's not pedophilia!'
I don't draw distinctions between hitting on minors (15 and younger) and pedophilia. If you're a middle-aged male whose sexual proclivities focus on children in that age group, you have problems. The fact that the male pages were barely over the age of consent indicates that Foley was on the borderline, at the very least.
Don't ever try to use that word "corophilia", MY. Or type very carefully.
The irony of the legal argument is that Foley's infraction has nothing to do with the age of consent for engaging in sex...it is against the law to solicit sex from minors (defined in the act as under the age of 18), and the law was sponsored by Foley. Is it a good law? No, it is a grandstanding law with some bad provisions. But here it is:
http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/library/soma.htm
(7) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF `SPECIFIED OFFENSE AGAINST A MINOR' TO INCLUDE ALL OFFENSES BY CHILD PREDATORS- The term `specified offense against a minor' means an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:
(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving kidnapping.
(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving false imprisonment.
(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.
(D) Use in a sexual performance.
(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.
(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of title 18, United States Code.
(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child pornography.
(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.
(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.
The point is, they're not kids
Would you like to explain that to the parents who entrusted them to Congress' care? Now that's something I'd really like to see on TV.
Foley is done. The story now, rightfully, is the cover-up of known inappropriate sexual behavior, legal or otherwise, by the House leadership. Who can say with a straight face that in a just society, Foley should have been free and proud to IM 16 years olds about their orgasms in the middle of House votes? Liberals can call Foley what he is--a degenerate bastard sexual predator, pretty plainly guilty of breaking his own laws; saying that doesn't make us less liberal, it doesn't make us homophobes. I don't even know why we're talking about this angle of the story, except as an excuse to post pictures of Scarlett Johnanson.
Oh, wait, I do know why we're talking about this--goddamn Jonah Goldberg, never too far away from the thoughts of Tapped and its alums (because of his "interesting mind", no doubt.) Jonah, who is trying, in his small way, to use the whole sorry scandal to paint Dems as hypocrites--because as Jonah suggests, a big part of the Dem's natural constituency is the Gay Left, aka dirty old men who cruise teenage street hustlers. Jonah's only musing on the semantics because he's simultaneously dropping a giant load in his pants (live the nickname, nepotism boy!) over what this sick shit is doing to GOP chances in November.
It's frustrating for me to see Matt here and Sam at Tapped listen to Jonah's line, rub their chins and find themselves nodding in agreement. Maybe 16 doesn't seem so young when you're a bright 25 year-old wonk bopping around Washington, but hell, I'm 35 and Scarlett sure looks like a kid in that picture to me. I imagine to a 52-year-old, a 16-year-old might as well be in training pants. It's fucked up any way you slice it. Is "pedophile" the incorrect term? Great. Point, Goldberg! But I don't think that will really matter too much in the final score. As Lynn just said, try telling the parents of these pages being hit on by Foley, asked to measure their penises and take off their boxers, that their children are "not kids".
scarlett is an early developer....
Like Johansson is a typical teenager. And like a movie still is a genuine image of what she really looks like.
I'm the parent of a 16-year old. I spend a lot of time with a lot of different kids at school and sports, and I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of teen-aged boys are just that- boys. They are not at their full height, and they are very far from having the musculature of a grown man. Most of them don't shave.
Emotionally, they remain highly dependent on adults in positions of authority. They are impulsive, reckless, and rebellious, but also insecure. They crave approval, and are easily swayed by peer pressure. They are not yet interested in pairing off, preferring to socialize in groups. Very few are "sexually active," - and those that are not virgins do not have a mature sex life.
Take a look at an ordinary 16 year old, Matt. Like this:
http://www.student-management.com/nsmg/uploadedfiles/web-students/6048.jpg
Any grown man hitting on a child who looks like this is a pedophile.
Did I ever tell you about the time I nailed a 16 year old Urma Thurman?
Yes, but she was wearing a baseball cap, so you had to kill her.
I find Matt's update hilarious. Trying to defend the English language? You butcher it on a daily basis! Is this one of those "you only hurt the ones you love" things?
Today's Word: LECHER
I'd call Foley a dirty old man, but he's younger than me.
Okay, he's not a pedophile, so lets just say, "Lech" (rhymes with "Yech".)
"He’s not a pedophile — pedophiles love children..."
Aviva, from Solondz's Palindromes
Re: Scarlett Johannssonn ...
I have a friend who, except for her much darker, typically Nigerian skin color, looks almost exactly like Ms. Johannssonn.
Here's what the Dems ought to do for next Sunday's TeeVee gasfests: Get some canny operators (NOT the standard milquetoast dullards or TNR idiot-savant wannabes!) to go up against the usual GOP shills and goad them into describing precisely how, in exacting semantic and legalistic detail, this is not about pedophilia. I want to hear all about how 16 year olds aren't really minors, and how there wasn't any sex per se.
Play it right, and this could be the greatest pigfucker moment since LBJ's Senate days....
I have a Nigerian friend too who looks like Scarlett also. Funny thing, my Nigerian friend has $45 million dollars stashed in a safe place in Lagos, but we need money to bribe the officials to get the money back to the US. If anyone can help, please wire me your bank instructions and you can have a cut.
Anybody else find Lost in Translation to be a really creepy movie?
Anybody else find Lost in Translation to be a really creepy movie?
Well, that's just it: no. Because they keep it from being sexual. Scarlett's character gets jealous, showing that she's starting to feel some confusion, but that's not creepy--the emotions are on her side, not his. (Leaving aside, she's supposed to be 22 or so.)
It's actually a rather sweet, sad movie: older person whose life is stuck & going nowhere meets younger person whose life is stuck and going who-knows-where.
"It's actually a rather sweet, sad movie"
Yeah, it's a tricky line and Murray could have won an oscar. He isn't quite fatherly and not really romantic; but the friendship has just enough of both qualities to help Johansson.
I didn't like LiT;too much a chick fantasy.
The Johansson character in Ghost World is clearly a teenager. If you want to see what she looked like in that movie, go to http://www.mgm.com/ghostworld/ie/index.html and and look at the "photo gallery." You'll see the pic that Matt selected, and you'll see a half a dozen others where it's clear that she is not a grown woman.
"There is, however, another clinical term for inappropriate sexual attraction to kids who are going through puberty or just barely out of it but still to young be appropriate sex objects"
A 16 or 17 year old is not just "barely out of puberty". That would be a 13 or 14 year old.
As others have noted, the term you are searching for is Ephebophilia.
Ephebophilia is not an inappropriate sexual attraction, but instead is a totally normal and healthy sexual attraction. Not being sexually attracted to 16 and 17 year olds is a bit odd and difficult to imagine. In other words, almost everyone is an ephebophile.
Even the actual act of engaging in sexual relations with 16 and 17 year olds (which is very different than being sexually attracted to them) remains legal in most states, as well as in most European countries.
Foley's problem has much more to do with abusing a position of trust than anything else. (And given his MO of seemingly waiting until the pages were out of the program, he may be innocent about that as well.) Of course, the politics of Foley-gate are rather separate from the actual justice of what transpired. Politics, rightly, is about appearances and symbolism.
note that the latest batch of IMs (see Atrios, for example) shows Foley plying his object of affection with the promise of alcohol. the kid admits he's underage, Foley doesn't care.
this is in the same batch where Foley is having IM-Sex with a teenager while the House is voting on a military appropriations bill.
maybe "pedophile" isn't the legal term for what's going on here, but as the poster above said, if the Republicans would like to argue that, i'd be more than happy to let them. $10 to the first Republican who utters the phrase "that depends what the meaning of 'pedophilia' is".
I think "pederasty" is the precisely correct word for what both Foley and Clinton did. Pedophilia has the connotation of a psychological illness that leads to destructive behavior, and I would agree that as the victim approach his or her late teens, a grey area forms.
"Pederasty" has a social and historical connotation -- describing the sense of entitlement on the part of the older, more powerful person, and the relative powerlessness of the younger victim who may be misled into thinking they are getting something out of the relationship. Note that some of the pages who knew Foley described him as a "mentor." Note that Monica Lewinsky, rather touchingly, wanted Clinton to hear her public policy views, and Clinton apparently encouraged her to discuss policy to get sex.
The legal questions surrounding pederasty are somewhat arbitrary. In Foley's case, the fact that his victims were under 18 probably means he can be charged with a crime, whereas Clinton faced no such risk because Lewinsky was past the age of consent.
Thousands of parents send their kids to Washington DC every year to be pages or interns. Are our leaders so far above us now that they think they've earned the right to view these kids as fresh meat, and to view themselves as akin to Roman emperors? Well, to be fair, most don't. But I'm sure Foley and Clinton are part of a much larger cohort, and if this scandal leads to more exposure of it, fine. A real debate on this issue is overdue. Pederasty is not a "private, sexual matter." It's a cultural question. The only reason the young victims like the House pages or Lewinsky would even consider diddling with geezers like Foley or Clinton is because WE, the American people, sent them to Washington and gave them power. Do we, the people, agree that this is an appropriate perk of the power we gave our leaders? Should CEOs and other leaders enjoy the same perks? Should we encourage our own children to put themselves in position to be "mentored" in this fashion? Or do we think this is wrong? And if we do think it's wrong, how do we propose to stop it?
Lost in Translation isn't sexual? What movie are you people watching? Of course it was sexual - there's great sexual tension between SJ and BM. The fact that the tension isn't resolved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yikes.
As usual, Petey is exactly right: "Ephebophilia is not an inappropriate sexual attraction, but instead is a totally normal and healthy sexual attraction. Not being sexually attracted to 16 and 17 year olds is a bit odd and difficult to imagine. In other words, almost everyone is an ephebophile."
"I'm the parent of a 16-year old. ... Very few are "sexually active"
You just keep on believing that. All the stats that paint a very different picture must be lying.
"Any grown man hitting on a child who looks like this is a pedophile."
If you follow the Alice in Wonderland philosophy of making words mean only mean what you want them to mean, then sure...
Of course what this scandal is really about is that the Republican leadership was covering for Foley's unsavory behavior. They didn't even let the Democrat on the page board know of the emails. But they did let the Republican in charge of getting Republicans reelected to the House know.
That is prima facie evidence of a cover-up.
And Matthew having the hots for a 16 year old Scarlett in 2001 when he was 20 (Matthew was born 5/18/81 same day as my oldest son) is not particularly creepy.
"I think "pederasty" is the precisely correct word for what both Foley and Clinton did."
This is true only if Monica Lewinsky is secretly an adolescent boy.
The meaning of words is not your private definition of them, but instead, is the commonly accepted definition of them.
It's a little creepy that you know Matthew's birthday, though! :-)
Lost in Translation isn't sexual? What movie are you people watching?
What I said was, "They keep it from being sexual." Meaning "the characters." But I suppose "it" = "relationship" could be mistaken for "it" = "the movie," which I didn't mean.
Considering what an utter disaster Virgin Suicides was, LiT was freakin' brilliant. I await with trepidation the concert pic of Marie Antoinette ...
"They didn't even let the Democrat on the page board know"
Yup. That, I think, is the legitimate scandal.
Of course, politics is a game of symbolism, and scandals that aren't legitimate can still be very real political scandals.
It's not much of a stretch to expand the definition of pederasty to include young women, given the fact that in most professions where interns, pages, etc. are recruited, men and women have an approximately equal opportunity to advance -- unlike previous civilizations where those paths were open only to young men. The cultural issue I raised is the same. Is it okay with you for older men (or women) in power to sexually exploit teens and young adults of either sex in exchange for "mentorship?" Is this something they are entitled to? Is this something that the interns should expect, even cultivate? Or should this kind of relationship be sanctioned?
I just thought Matt's question was a really good one, and deserved some thought. If the only question on the table on this forum is "Is (blank) good for the Democrats in '06?" then fine. Of course the Foley affair is good for the Democrats, because Democrats would never, ever do something like this, the public will see that clearly, and will vote the Democrats in.
The cultural issue I raised is the same. Is it okay with you for older men (or women) in power to sexually exploit teens and young adults of either sex in exchange for "mentorship?"
Jeebus. I thought we solved this question in 1998.
I loved "Lost in Translation". After its opening shot parody of all those Japanses paintings of Mt. Fuji, it could do no wrong.
I thought we solved this question in 1998.
We resolved it? Which way?
"It's not much of a stretch to expand the definition of pederasty to include young women"
It's also not much of a stretch to expand the definition of "blue" to include green.
"I just thought Matt's question was a really good one"
Then I think you badly misunderstand Matthew's post, which was all about folks using the word "pedophilia" to mean things quite different from the commonly accepted definition of pedophilia.
Ephebophilia is not an inappropriate sexual attraction, but instead is a totally normal and healthy sexual attraction. Not being sexually attracted to 16 and 17 year olds is a bit odd and difficult to imagine. In other words, almost everyone is an ephebophile.
Petey, I'll give you that most men straight men are probably sexually attracted to reasonably attractive 16 and 17 year old girls (who often aren't visibly different from adult women--hell, I see 14 year olds on the subway everyday who look more "developed" than I ever will).
BUT if you honestly think more than a few troubled adult women find 16 year old boys attractive (Leave out the 1% of kids who are way ahead on the developmental curve), you either know some screwed up women or are still in thrall to your adolescent fantasies.
"Considering what an utter disaster Virgin Suicides was..."
But I loved Virgin Suicides :)
It is very important (and pertinent to this thread) to understand that the expression of sexuality in LiT is one-sided, controlled and limited largely by Murray in order to provide Johannson with a learning and growth experience. It is a "safe place" for Johansson to experiment; there is no possibility of actual romance or even misunderstanding.
That is why it is a chick fantasy; most of us men would either mess it up or run away. Murray, in the movie, is an actor and a pro, a husband and a father.
Is it okay with you for older men (or women) in power to sexually exploit teens and young adults of either sex in exchange for "mentorship?" Is this something they are entitled to? Is this something that the interns should expect, even cultivate? Or should this kind of relationship be sanctioned?
Exploiting people over whose jobs/careers you have some kind of influence sexually in return for the promise of career advancement is always wrong. It doesn't matter if the people who are being offered career assistance in return for sex are older or younger than the person offering. And, no, interns should not expect or cultivate such relationships. The expected value of professional harm far outweighs that of the benefits in most cases.
"BUT if you honestly think more than a few troubled adult women find 16 year old boys attractive..."
I think that the cliche of older males being attracted to younger females, and vice versa, is not without a pretty huge grain of truth. There's a reason this cliche is much more prevalent than the opposite cliche.
And I also agree with you that, especially in the adolescent arena, males tend to lag a bit behind females.
And finally, I'd mention that the correlated factor of lack of sexual experience is more unattractive on males than females.
But all those caveats aside, I do indeed think that more than "a few" adult women find some element of sexual attraction towards a pretty-boy 16 year old male.
Who cares whether it's precise or correct or whatever. Do Republicans worry about such things when calling Democrats terrorist appeasers? Hang the pedophile tag around their necks. Make'em deny it. Keep it out there. Fire with fire, just desserts, and all that.
Half the screen time in LiT is the camera languidly caressing Scarlett Johannson's curves as she lounges around her hotel room in her underwear. I wish my girlfriends spent as much time lying around in elaborate lingerie and sighing as she does. So there's plenty of sexuality in the *movie*. As for Murray and Johansson's relationship, I don't think it's unrealistic that a man in his 50s would be able to keep the correctly modulated distance from her. Even for men, sex all by itself gets tired with enough experience and you learn to appreciate nuances in relationships that can only be preserved by not crossing certain sexual boundaries.
Re Foley: the Republicans almost certainly won the 2000 election because of residual disgust over Clinton's behavior, behavior that was legal and only came out into the public because of an elaborately orchestrated Republican conspiracy financed with public money. A conspiracy that I might add harmed the national interest by creating a massive distraction to good governance. It's very just for the Repubs to lose a bunch of seats now over behavior that is explicitly illegal because of a dumb law passed by Republicans, and came out with no Democratic conspiracy to sting the perpetrator.
"And, no, interns should not expect or cultivate such relationships. The expected value of professional harm far outweighs that of the benefits in most cases."
While this may be true as a general rule, for those that are sexually and emotionally precocious, I'd say the benefits probably outweigh the harm.
In other words: if you know the rules of the game, and if you enjoy playing the game, it's probably worthwhile for your career to play the game.
Petey- You're correct, "very few" was an exageration. But the average age of first intercourse has been rising for over a decade. And according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood's research arm), 82% of boys are virgins at age 16. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html
This is self-reported data, which means in the case of boys that you would expect over-reporting of intercourse. And intercourse once or twice is not genuinely sexually active, although the stats define it that way- which is why I put the phrase in quotation marks.
"Who cares whether it's precise or correct or whatever. Do Republicans worry about such things when calling Democrats terrorist appeasers? Hang the pedophile tag around their necks. Make'em deny it."
In terms of electoral politics, sure.
"according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute ... 82% of boys are virgins at age 16."
I'd define "sexually active" to include certain behaviors other than intercourse, which would bring the numbers up noticeably.
Re: I expect it from the sexual neanderthals on the right, but not from the supposedly enlightened crowd on the left.
The Left does have a problem with sexual advancse that persist when they are unwelcome and with underlings being pressured into sexual situations by their superiors. See: sexual harrassment.
And as a gay guy let me note that I find it ludicrous and obnoxious when other gay men chase after "bois" young enough to be their kids (or even grandkids). My feelings when straight guys do this with young girls are identical. A congressman especially ought have some sense of his own dignity and maturity. Besides which, well-experienced partners are much more fun than awkward virgins.
I suppose it is inevitable that, along with "Totally Zero" softdrinks which proudly advertise that they contain absolutely nothing, we should have movies in which the sexuality consists of not having sex.
Yo, I am so totally like, on the edge of my seat.
Damn, I'm so old I can remember looking at girls in their underwear in the Sears Roebuck catalogue, which we used to consider the faintest of prologues to the real thing- not the thrilling climax.
I'm guessing this society has a lot more in common with boob-fearing jihadists that we like to think.
Pedophilia, by definition, involves pre-pubescent minors. I believe an attraction to adolescents is called ephebophilia.
I liked what Susie Bright had to say at the Huffington Post. Don't infantilize the boys. In a slightly better world, this would be a not-incidental labor and workplace conditions issue, rather than a criminal justice one (which it seems most likely to become).
No one should be sexually harassing anyone at work, and Foley should lose his job over this kind of conduct. On the other hand, it is sad to see some Democrats (Kos has become a scary place in recent days) engage in the same sort of law n order demagogy Republicans have employed with such vicious stupidity over the decades. It doesn't surprise me - people, even my own tribe, often disappoint - but it would nice to see a little less of it.
It would also be nice to see a good 30 point increase in the average IQ (which may be the hope for getting people to pay more attention to Abramoff, and less to sexual predation). But alas...
Can I at least have a pony? Do you suppose Foley would buy me one?
As for Murray and Johansson's relationship, I don't think it's unrealistic that a man in his 50s would be able to keep the correctly modulated distance from her. Even for men, sex all by itself gets tired with enough experience and you learn to appreciate nuances in relationships that can only be preserved by not crossing certain sexual boundaries.
Yeah, I think that's the whole point - BM found a great relationship that he didn't want to mess up with sex. Which is fine. But you know that he wanted to have sex with SJ, and that not being able to (so as to preserve that relationship) was killing him, from the simple fact that as a result of the sexual tension he went out and had a one night stand with the singer.
So what can we take from the movie that is relevant to this discussion? That BM absolutely did want to have sex with SJ, but that he didn't do it because he had a stronger reason not to, and that the stronger reason not to had little to do with SJ's age. If sex with a teenager was so creepy, then we absolutely should have been creeped out by BM's character. We weren't.
The Left does have a problem with sexual advancse that persist when they are unwelcome and with underlings being pressured into sexual situations by their superiors. See: sexual harrassment.
Agreed. But that is not the case here.
"I liked what Susie Bright had to say at the Huffington Post. Don't infantilize the boys."
Susie Bright is god on all sexual topics.
And off-topic of the subject of pedophilia, but I find it remarkable that if Hastert goes down, this will make the third Speaker in a row to go down over sexual matters - Gingrich, Livingston, and Hastert.
Welcome to life in Ken Starr's America.
The Repubs made a bit of a deal with the devil when they put themselves completely behind Starr's judgementalism and snooping. It was worth it for them -- as I said I think it ended up winning them the 2000 election -- but it made all this sexual stuff fair game. The Repubs are at least as likely as any set of powerful men to have fooled around on their wives, hit on their underlings, etc. That all used to be accepted behavior with a code of silence. But all this stuff started I think with Gary Hart in 84, it's been building momentum for a while.
"And off-topic of the subject of pedophilia, but I find it remarkable that if Hastert goes down, this will make the third Speaker in a row to go down over sexual matters - Gingrich, Livingston, and Hastert."
I look forward to the fall of Speaker Blunt over the lurid myspace photos of his unusual encounter with a llama while visiting Senator Smith's dude ranch outside Bend.
What could top that pederast Hannerhan? Tune in next time kids.
"The Repubs made a bit of a deal with the devil when they put themselves completely behind Starr's judgementalism and snooping. It was worth it for them -- as I said I think it ended up winning them the 2000 election"
It was a bit of a mixed bag in terms of immediate elections, I think.
It probably won the Presidency for them in 2000, but it also probably is why they didn't make big gains in Congress in 1998, which should have been a good year for them.
And their inability to extend their majority in the House in '98 is an enormous part of the reason why we're going to see Nancy Pelosi as Speaker come January.
-----
But the specifics of the '98 and '00 elections aside, I think do think L'affair Lewinsky did enormous damage to the Democratic brand.
And in that sense, Ken Starr was indeed a godsend for the GOP.
that the stronger reason not to had little to do with SJ's age.
Then what did it have to do with? Certainly not loyalty to his wife, or some moral objection to adultery. Not fear of retribution from her husband. Not fear of being rejected. He might have been rejected, but his character didn't seem like the type who would shrink from such a possibility.
No, he decided that it would be irresponsible to hit on her because it would take advantage of her trust in him -- trust that had everything to do with his age & experience. That scene in bed -- all her questions could be prefaced by, "With your 30 years of additional experience, can you tell me..."
Mentoring of this nature is, of course, what Bill Clinton told Hilary he was up to with Monica and unnamed others. But Clinton apparently believed that along with mentoring, and being president, a few perks should be expected. The Bill Murray character could have pushed things in that direction, given his movie star status, but held back purely because he thought he shouldn't go there. The writer, Sofia Coppola, had plenty of chances to see up close this kind of relationship -- Hollywood is full of Bill Clintons. Maybe this story was her wish-fulfillment of how a powerful older man should behave with a young lass. And look how audiences reacted to it.
As I said, he mentioned his birthday once and it stuck in my mind because it is the exact same day and year as my oldest son. Believe me, as a man with four kids and a 29 year old marriage, this remembering dates has served me well.
flippantangel:
I don't find teenage girls sexually appealing. They are just too young. Sexual attractiveness is at least as much about behavior as appearance. And I find it impossible to not think of my daughter and my kids' girlfriends when I see someone that age.
Are middle aged men sexually attracted to their pretty young daughters? No? Exactly. It's about a lot more than physical appearance.
"I don't find teenage girls sexually appealing. They are just too young."
What's the cutoff for what you find sexually appealing? You don't see the sexual attractiveness of 18yo's or 19yo's, but suddenly everything falls into place at the 20th birthday? Or is the cutoff more around 25yo to 30yo?
Matt,
What the fuck? It's ok to say she's 16 and beautiful to your friends. It is very fucking wrong to hit on her and ask her to measure her boobs or whatever.
Foley asked the guy about masturbating & to measure his penis.
Do you that with 16yr old girls?
That's fucked up. Even if you are just a 20something slacker.
"Foley asked the guy about masturbating & to measure his penis. Do you that with 16yr old girls?"
Asking 16yo girls to measure their penises indicates a level of disfunction that extends far beyond this particular topic.
"Also, In addition to being creepy and possibly illegal, in anyplace except the White House or the Congress, which are exempt from such statutes, it would, because of the power differential and the pervasiveness of Foley's acts, be sexual harassment."
Sexual harassment for sure, but outside of Camille Paglia books and the bar where you get drunk with your friends no one in America is allowed to admit that it is the power differential that often makes sex sexy. (And age difference is just one manifestation of power differential.)
For an example of an actual pedophile, see this story.
Now, compare that to Ghost World-era Scarlett Johanson lust...
Petey:
Agreed: for humans, male sexual development typically lags behind female by a few years.That you experience a relatively greater decrement in your desire for sex from experience in your male conquests than your female is correlated to this fact only by taste.
I don't agree, but de gustibus non est disputandum.
Petey, for most of us attractiveness is on a sliding scale, because there is more to attraction than looks. You'd like to have something in common with a partner, and the life experience of a 50 year old is simply radically different than that of a 21 year old. A 50 year old probably doesn't want kids, and a 21 year old probably does. Etc.
The Foley situation stings so deeply - yes, for liberals - because it is a fundamental breach of trust. When you take on certain roles you make certain commitments. This is why teachers and professors shouldn't sleep with students - even if their ages are close - and why congressmen shouldn't sleep with pages. It's why the people in charge of folks in roles like that should take their oversight responsibilities seriously. When Hastert got info about Foley, the first thing in his mind should have been along the following lines: has he crossed the line? And if so, with how many boys - and to what extent? ***You investigate.*** You rule out the worst case, and then you figure out what to do. If there's nothing there, you don't have to make a federal and public case out of it - and if there is something there, you did your job with honor, even though it is unpleasant.
"That you experience a relatively greater decrement in your desire for sex from experience in your male conquests than your female is correlated to this fact only by taste."
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence, but my best guess is that you mean that I'm saying that inexperienced females are more desirable.
If I am indeed reading you correctly, that's not what I mean at all.
What I was saying is that a sexually inexperienced male may be of less use to an adult female than a sexually inexperienced female would be to an adult male, for a variety of mechanical reasons.
And this may partially explain what flippantangel was getting at.
Your point is interesting, and may well be true, but then again... I am 61 years old and when I look at the picture you offer of Scarlet Johannsson, I see a vapid teenager, i.e. a young person not of age, in whom I would be uninterested because of the age as well as the attendant vapidity due, at least at that age, on the more or less complete lack of any meaningful experience of any sort in any part of life. Those of my age cohort who might be so interested, I would dismiss as emotionally stunted at least, not to even mention the ick factor they would ellicit in me.
I guess being attracted to Ralph Reed can be classified as paedophilia.
I agree with Matt. Remember that in mentor or co-mentor like relationship the bar of priopriety is raised above the "legal minimum", and a college professor sending creepy messages to, say, 21 year old students would pretty quickly be a former college professor. I would view a Congressman to be in a mentor relationship with pages and interns.
So we have a question of abuse of trust. Parents sending their children to Congress hope that they will be trained in gross abuse of power that they would hopefully be able to practice themselves later and properly expect that the grossness will be limited to the rape of taxpayers, the environment, obscene grandstanding and the like.
grackel: ... meaningful experience of any sort in any part of life...
Ah, discrete charms of Magdeleine Albright! Ms. Rice, I must admit, looks rather vapid.
While this may be true as a general rule, for those that are sexually and emotionally precocious, I'd say the benefits probably outweigh the harm.
In other words: if you know the rules of the game, and if you enjoy playing the game, it's probably worthwhile for your career to play the game.
Well, no, the danger has nothing to do with sexual or emotional risks, which exist with every relationship: the danger is being written off professionally, assumed to be a twit who has nothing to offer but your body; and that older colleagues who have a problem with the relationship (particularly older women who've seen their friends get dicked around by asshole husbands with younger women) will take out their objections on you professionally. The likelihood of these professional dangers alone outweighs the potential benefits. If you're smart enough and good enough to deserve the boost the "mentorship" would give you, you ought to be able to find someone to mentor you without the quid pro quo. Or at least, you would if so many people with positions of authority in Democratic politics weren't total asshats who are scared of new talent and try to drive it out rather than fostering it.
What I was saying is that a sexually inexperienced male may be of less use to an adult female than a sexually inexperienced female would be to an adult male, for a variety of mechanical reasons. And this may partially explain what flippantangel was getting at.
Sexually experienced male is not of much use to me, anyway:) Perhaps, though, this is an argument for my notion of creating some kind of formal system of sexual mentorships for younger men by older women. But teenage boys just give me the skeez, so I'm not volunteering.
Petey:
There is no cutoff, it depends on the woman. They need to have enough life experience to be able to talk to me on my emotional level.
For about 15 years I used to live on the campus of one of the largest institutions for the developmentally disabled. While many, even most, seriously intellectually impaired people are different-appearing enough (FLK's, funny looking kids, as the geneticists say) that they fail the common conception of beauty, some are beautiful indeed. But not sexually attractive to me. You Petey?
And what if you had a pretty 18 year old daughter Petey. If you had such a daughter, would you find her sexually attractive but tell your erection NO? Or would she not be sexually attractive to you?
If your sexual relations involve real people and not just pictures, behavior matters more than appearance. And older women are kinder and more generous overall.
"And what if you had a pretty 18 year old daughter Petey. If you had such a daughter, would you find her sexually attractive"
One can repress a sexual feeling quite effectively, if one so chooses. If I had a sexually attractive 18 year old daughter, that would be the course I would likely choose.
The cliche about a father sexually pursuing girls the same age as his daughter is a tale about displacing the sexual attraction one feels for the daughter towards a less taboo target.
But on the whole, I'd say that incest needlessly complicates the discussion on the hotness of Scarlett Johansson and the acceptability of such feelings.
"the danger is being written off professionally, assumed to be a twit who has nothing to offer but your body; and that older colleagues who have a problem with the relationship (particularly older women who've seen their friends get dicked around by asshole husbands with younger women) will take out their objections on you professionally."
I agree with the danger you cite, but discretion is a virtue. Both the mentor and the mentoree have incentive to keep things quiet as a mouse.
And I repeat my former caution that this isn't a smart path for most. Sex involves a thicket of pitfalls, and if you're not a wily navigator of that thicket, the risks will indeed outweigh the benefits.
But for the wily navigator, this has long been a shortcut to advancement. And note that I'm not saying this is a positive thing for the common good. I'm just pointing out the ways of the world.
"Or at least, you would if so many people with positions of authority in Democratic politics weren't total asshats who are scared of new talent and try to drive it out rather than fostering it."
Meh. I think that's a universal problem. Power and position in almost any field is like the mafia. Those who are already made like to keep the club to themselves pretty much everywhere. Getting made is always difficult.
"The term ephebophilia, derived from the Greek word for "youth,"
It's worse than that - in the idiomatic classical context, it means "military cadet."
Ooh what a giveaway.
epistemology:
Petey:
Well Petey, parse this:
The sentence of yours I referred to. Now does it say that you find sexual experience in men is more attractive in women, as I said, or does it say:
as you later claimed. Yeah, right.
Petey:
OK, you are just a lot younger than I am. I'm sure there was an age when I would have found her sexually attractive, rather than just pretty. But then there was a time when you found a ten year old girl attractive. Today? Repressed? Sublimated? Matured? You report, I decide.
epistemology,
I fear you are no longer participating in the discussion in good faith.
Cheers.
You're not wrong [Matt], You're just an asshole!
Why is it that if people don't buy into my bluster
I end up slinking away with my ass in a sling?
Is it because you are all secretly jealous of my awsomeness or that I continually talk out of my ass?
I really want to know.
I think "ephebophilia" is the correct term we should be using.
It is not that uncommon for men (and women) going through mid-life crisis. This whole disgusting thing is really about an abuse of power. Right now it is difficult to get a good reading on what really went on. I can't figure out how many young guys were involved. Apparently they were no longer pages. So this might make them 17 or 18.
I am somewhat amused by the similarity of reactions between the House leadership and the Catholic bishops.
The difference between pediphilia and ephebophilia? A whole lot of rationalization! Feel free to appreciate teen-aged beauty from afar, acting on it is a crime. Enticing a teen or being "overly friendly" is called grooming. Pediphiles and "ephebophiles" build trust, befriend, and are generous with children in order to satisfy their own sexual desires. If you think that an emotionally stable sixteen year old girl (or boy) finds a 50 year old man (or woman) to be sexually attractive you aren't having a mid-life crises, you are delusional. I remember, as a teenager, being revolted by suggestive "attention" by older men, but I grew up in a stable home and had enough self-esteem and common sense to see these "nice" people who were "appreciating my youthful beauty" for what they were - perverts.
Matthew,
you demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the meaning and origin of the term pedaphelia.
As definied by the NIH, NLM, and Department of Health and Human Services' UMLSKS, Pedophelia is "A sexual disorder occurring in a person 16 years or older and that is recurrent with intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child."
So, technically, if these 16 year-olds are developed beyond puberty, it is not "pedophilia."
Then, what is it? Look at the word. Pedo-, here meaning "prepubescent," -philia meaning "sexual urges."
In a basic sense, pedophilia is part of a broader class of disorders known as PARAphilia. Paraphilias include many things, including necrophilia (sex with dead people), frotteurism (rubbing and orgasming on people in crowded areas like trains), exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism, etc, etc...
So, a 54 year-old congressmen, in a position of power and influence, to engage in sexually explicit conversations with 16 year-olds, is indeed an inappropriate and problematic situation. It is indeed a disorder, and an "ism" if you will.
So, no, Pedo- is not the right prefix. On that you are correct. But don't neglect to point out that this is indeed a paraphilia, and in the eyes of the law (the young men were minors) probably illegal.
sorry i kept misspelling pedophilia.
If you can't see the difference between identifying a teenager girl as attractive and coming on to a teenager that you know on the internet, you may already be a pedophile!
And this is why the dems won't pick up the house.
Would republicans be debating whether it was pedophilia or not? Hell no.
They would be saying it twice a sentence and dems would spend all their time being forced to say "he was not a pedophile". Grow a spine and get some offence, republicans should spend the next four weeks explaining why it isn't pedophilia, not dems.
The other big thing is imagine you are a parent of a 16 year old page who a 50+ year old congress man is after, do you think you will still post pictures anf claim its not pedophilia, again hell no.
Offence, not defense.
"what authority did Foley have over any of the people he contacted? I thought they were former pages, and even if they were current (at the time of contact) pages, pages don't work for Foley, right?"
Pages don't work for money. They work for future references from congressmen. That is their real pay. A bad reference from Foley could essentially negate the entirety of the page's work.
Re: Agreed. But that is not the case here.
Most of the liberal/left based outrage I have seen here has focused on either the sexual harrassment aspect of the issue (of which the gross age dispcrepancy is indeed a part), or else on the rank hypocrisy angle (party and champion of moral values engaging in and winking at acts they publicly disparage-- and criminalize). Can you cite any leftwing gay-sex-bashing that has occured?
I have to disagree about whether or not the question is pedophilia. No, they aren't 11. But they aren't 18 either. There's a lot of brain development that occurs in the three years in question, during which time they can be exploited, intensely, by people who really should be called pedophiles, for their inability to form adult relationships with people who are their equal in social and emotional terms.
Matt, I like you and it's a matter of record that I've tried to fix you up, but if I had a 16 year-old daughter and you came sniffing around, I'd beat the crap out of you. I wouldn't worry about what to call it, I'd just beat the crap out of you. Same with anyone else your age.
Pages don't work for money. They work for future references from congressmen. That is their real pay. A bad reference from Foley could essentially negate the entirety of the page's work.
Foley was the only Congressman from whom they could have received a reference? Then telling Foley to stay away from pages is ALSO like "negat[ing] the entirety of the page's work".
Stephen Green: No, it is sexual harassment. But it's not pedophilia. 17-year-olds are not prepubescent.
I really wish people would get that calling someone a "pedophile" just because they are predatory is a bit like calling brunettes "red heads" because you only like blondes.
There's nothing unusual about finding teenagers attractive. But pedophilia - an attraction to actual, biological children - is definitely a minority taste. They are very much two different things.
Being predatory knows know age limitations. The most predatory creatures I've ever encountered are teenaged guys. But then, unlike most of you, I'm a woman, so I have seen a lot of that in my life - and they don't seem to care whether I'm younger or older than they are. This has nothing to do with pedophilia.
I'm coming very late to this thread but really Matthew, I don't give a shit if Foley was a pedophile or ephebophile or philatelist or a butt spelunker.
If the GOP can smear a decorated war hero as a coward while running a cowardly deserter on their side, then calling Foley a pedophile is fine by me. He is 53 years old and he likes to fuck 16 year old boys. Let the Rethuglicans explain that one away all they want, so long as they're doing it for the next five weeks.
Being predatory knows know age limitations. The most predatory creatures I've ever encountered are teenaged guys. But then, unlike most of you, I'm a woman, so I have seen a lot of that in my life - and they don't seem to care whether I'm younger or older than they are. This has nothing to do with pedophilia.
It also has nothing to do with Foley and his fucking pedophiliac tendencies. But whatever...
He is 53 years old and he likes to fuck 16 year old boys. Let the Rethuglicans explain that one away all they want, so long as they're doing it for the next five weeks.
DING DING DING DING DING!
We have a wiener!!!
Legitimate Democratic Issues:
Foley broke his own law.
The Republican leadership covered it up.
Foley's a hypocrite for hiding his own sexual predilections.
The GOP are the most elephantine of hypocrites in electoral politics.
The age difference between Foley and his intendeds is icky and ludicrous.
To me the point about Foley is hypocracy, not his conduct. He lied about who he is. He was in charge of penalizing the very behavior he engaged in.
What disingenious garbage. Would a 50 year old man sleep with a 16 year old girl and think that that is socially acceptable behavior?