Oh the trouble with words

[Pacifist Patriot]

Pedophilia: sexual desire in an adult for a child.

Child:

a person between birth and full growth (Dictionary.com)

OR

A person between birth and puberty. (American Heritage)

OR

a young person of either sex (Worldnet)

OR

a young person especially between infancy and youth (Merriam-Webster's Medical)

OR

a person below an age specified by law (Merriam-Webster's Law)

Personally, although the DSMV has its limitations, I do believe the DSMV-IV classifies pedophilia as sexual desire for pre-pubescent children and can agree with it. I don't see evidence that Foley has acted improperly with pre-pubescent children though I hope that is an avenue that gets investigated for public safety reasons. Here are my chief concerns.

1. House leadership complicity in a coverup.
2. Florida GOP complicity in a coverup.
3. Foley's exploitation of the power differential. Even if these teenagers were not prepubescent, they were clearly in a subordinate power position and that is definitely a boundary Foley had no business crossing. It doesn't matter whether they were current of former pages.
4. Foley's disgust at the idea he could be considered homosexual.

I can't label Foley a pedophile in good conscience unless other evidence or admissions come to light. But I think I can state with some confidence that he is one fucked up man serving in an incredibly fucked up political party.

Edited to fix grammar.

[Straight Shooter]

1. I don't know if I would call interest in a 16-year-old pedophilia, either.

My problem is that 16-year-old boys (and girls) are very vulnerable at that age in the formation of their sexual identities and standards. To have someone who is 30+ years older than you are hitting on you in lurid details is harmful to someone of that age who is trying to establish autonomy in such private matters.

Yes, the coverup is the worst part, and even worse maybe is that they're trying to spin it that Foley was merely "overly friendly." Asking a boy to measure his penis is beyond "overly friendly." Commenting on how cute a boy's butt is, bouncing in the air (in Foley's imagination as he expressed in the IM), that is most definitely beyond "overly friendly."

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Absolutely...

That goes into the power differential. Not only the gap between representative and page, but between child and adult. Any rational adult should recognize that potential for oppression and manipulation.

<donning flame-retardant suit> I know I'm going to hear it for referring to a 16 year old as a child.

[TahitiNut]

4. The vast majority of former pages ...

... are 17 years old.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. That horse is starting to squeal even though it's decaying.

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl2/ch4/sec88b-1.html

(b) Qualifications
A person shall not serve as a page -
(1) of the Senate before he has attained the age of fourteen
years; or
(2) of the House of Representatives before he has attained the
age of sixteen years.

But aside from that, the issue is not the age of just the "vast majority of former pages" but also of current pages.

"The page who received the first e-mail messages told ABC News that people in the program had warned his class to watch out for Mr. Foley. The page worked for Representative Rodney Alexander, Republican of Louisiana, and sent the messages to a colleague in the office with a note saying they had “freaked me out." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30foley.html

Some have been identified as 16 years old. 16-17. Whatever. Replace the number and I still stand by all of my comments.

[TahitiNut]

3. Agreed.

I have absolutely no doubt that he should have been expelled from the House. I expect (but rarely see) far higher standards of behavior from House members than the general public.

It is, therefore, far more a matter of integrity and diligence in the House of Representatives and the GOP than in the general population, imho.

That's where the focus must remain from the "other side of the aisle."

[Igel]

6. I can agree with that.

I have trouble calling a 17-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old a pedophile.

It's the age difference, with a hint of sexual predation, that puts it over the line. Moreover, homosexuality has to do with it; if the page had been a 16-year-old girl, with the age of consent being 16 in DC, it would be scandalous ... but hardly illegal.

(Mental note to self: When kid reaches teen years, before sending said kid to another state check the age of consent.)