Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Are you guys arguing semantics with Spanky or something else? I would never generalize to say all heterosexual men like anything, so if that is your issue, fine. But I'm wondering whether you actually debate his point that a lot of the beauty ideals in our society, both among str8 men and homosexual men involve standards that tend to coincide with youth. Because I would be interested to hear the counter to that.

I'm arguing that Foley's interactions with 16 year old boys are not normal and should not be considered so.

Spanky seems to be taking the position that Foley's actions, whether you think of them as spicy flirtations or soliciting, are not in any way abnormal and that Foley's desire to have sex with 16 year old boys does not qualify him as a pederast.

Yea, stuff gets sold through pictures of young looking beautiful women/girls. Pictures of 16 year old models caked with makeup make any number of men hot (I myself am not a caked with make-up kind of guy). That doesn't mean that in real interpersonal relationships it is normal for a 40 year old to solicit a 16 year old.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm arguing that Foley's interactions with 16 year old boys are not normal and should not be considered so.

Spanky seems to be taking the position that Foley's actions, whether you think of them as spicy flirtations or soliciting, are not in any way abnormal and that Foley's desire to have sex with 16 year old boys does not qualify him as a pederast.

Yea, stuff gets sold through pictures of young looking beautiful women/girls. Pictures of 16 year old models caked with makeup make any number of men hot (I myself am not a caked with make-up kind of guy). That doesn't mean that in real interpersonal relationships it is normal for a 40 year old to solicit a 16 year old.

I don't read Spanky as saying what he did was right or normal. I thought he said it was right for him to resign. But, by all means, I'll let Spanky speak for himself. Because I'm pretty sure I come at the issue from an entirely different planet than Spanky would. I'm not sure whether I've mentioned it or not, but my planet rocks.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think the Democrats made a bad political decision when they defended Franks and Studds, and that screw up makes it difficult for them to fully take advantage of the current situation.

Why do you keep bringing up Barney Frank? Other than the fact that he's gay, what does he have to do with anything?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I don't read Spanky as saying what he did was right or normal. I thought he said it was right for him to resign. But, by all means, I'll let Spanky speak for himself. Because I'm pretty sure I come at the issue from an entirely different planet than Spanky would. I'm not sure whether I've mentioned it or not, but my planet rocks.

I wouldn't consider a man that is attracted to or solicits sixteen year olds is a paedophile or a pederaist. I think it is normal for men of any age to be attracted to sixteen year olds. In most states it is not even a crime to have sex with a sixteen year old. It also very common (and was extremely common in our history) for men of all ages to mary sixteen year olds.

Should forty you old men solicit sixteen year olds, no. Should you cheat on your taxes. No. But many men are tempted to. That is just a cold hard fact. A homosexual that tries to have sex with a sixteen year old, is in the wrong. But are they acting on impulses or desires that are abnormal or deviant? Absolutely not.

Hugh Hefner is eighty and has a twenty year old girlfriend. Is that wrong, probably. But there are a lot of men that are jealous of him.

Many sixteen year olds, expecially women, are physically women. That are completely developed. Mentally they may be immature but physically they are all grown up. And to deny that there isn't a physical element to sexual attraction is just ridiculous.

His conduct was wrong because he was in a power position over the boy and for other reasons. But to say that the average homosexual is not physicallyl attracted to some sixteen year old boys is pure B.S. It is just a denial of reality.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm arguing that Foley's interactions with 16 year old boys are not normal and should not be considered so.

Spanky seems to be taking the position that Foley's actions, whether you think of them as spicy flirtations or soliciting, are not in any way abnormal and that Foley's desire to have sex with 16 year old boys does not qualify him as a pederast.

Yea, stuff gets sold through pictures of young looking beautiful women/girls. Pictures of 16 year old models caked with makeup make any number of men hot (I myself am not a caked with make-up kind of guy). That doesn't mean that in real interpersonal relationships it is normal for a 40 year old to solicit a 16 year old.

oldest daughter's age PLUS 10 years seems about right.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you keep bringing up Barney Frank? Other than the fact that he's gay, what does he have to do with anything?

As I understand it, he had a boyfriend that was on the federal payroll and was running an escort service out of Barney's house. Franks was censored but Tom Foley (house speaker) defended letting him stay in the party. The smart political move would have been to expel him from the Democrat party. Same with Studds. If they had expelled these guys there complaints about Mark Foley would seem a lot more credible.

Hastert should have moved on Mark Foley much sooner, but at least he did move on him. My guess if a strong coverup comes to light the Republicans will turn on Hastert also.

Republicans are less loyal to their fellow members. They will throw their friends to the wolves much quicker for political expediency.

[Spanky]

True Story: In 1994 I was having a party at my house in Tokyo. It was a four story town house and my bedroom was on the top floor. I went up to my room to grab some CDs and found one of my friends (who was also a client who owned a major record label in Tokyo) who was forty three at the time, was talking to really attractive model (who worked for an agency I represented) who I guessed was around twenty. They clearly had been fooling around but stopped when I came in the room.

I detest Prince, and had a large label on my stereo that stated no Prince was allowed on the Stereo. Of course one of my comedian friends, while I was upstairs, put on the Prince song "1999". While I was changing my wine stained shirt, and the two of them were waiting for me to leave, my friend said that he wanted to be in Manhattan for the Millenium and asked the hot model where she wanted to be. She said she didn't care but she would be excited because she was going to turn twenty one just two days before the millenium.

My friend, who had a fifteen year old daughter completely freaked out and immediately left without saying a word. The fifteen year old model looked at me totally perplexed and said "did I say something that caused him to freak out?".

:shrug:

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Minors are involved. Minors he had authority over.

You're hanging the difference on a 17 yo and a 22 yo in a directly subservient position?

Sidd--sorry, but the age of consent argument isn't looking quite so bad.

There are three possible wrongs here:

1) Older man flirting/sexually soliciting a younger man, with a substantial age differential.

2) Man flirting/sexually soliciting a boy under the age of consent in some (but not all) states.

3) House leadership with knowledge of 1 and 2 failing to take action.

How are 1 and 2 not fully cured by Foley's resignation, plus possible criminal penalties? How is 1 different from Clinton/Lewinsky? How is 2 different from Studds/page X?

So it boils down to 3, and whether there was knowledge, and obligation (legal or moral) to take appropriate action, and whether that action was taken. But why should leadership here be more severely punished that either Clinton or Tip O'Neill and other D leaders in Congress in 1983?

Why, when there are so many other things on which to beat up Rs, would you opt to push forward when the principal perpetrator is resigned and gone?

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
You and S_A_M are so full of it, it makes me want to puke. Does your wife read this page? I am not attracted to young women is a bullshit line all men tell older women and you know it. It is similar to "check is in the mail", "if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about" etc.

Are you trying to tell me that anyone who found Tracy Lords attractive in one of her videos is out of the normal? I use to represent a few modeling agencies in LA and Tokyo. When I worked in Tokyo I represented one that did not have a singe girl over the age of eighteen (and all the models were caucasian). They had models that were thirteen. When they had partys every male employee in my firm wanted to go (and every male I knew, regardless of age). When we were at the partys, if we were with females lawyers from our firm all the men would say that they were too young to find attractive, but when the girls left all the men agreed it was amazing how hot these young girls were.

There are many playmates, strippers, pent house pets, hooters employees that are 18 and they don't look much different than they did when they were sixteen.

You would think that at least on an anonymous board idiots like you would cut your B.S. but I guess that it too much too ask.

Hustler enterprises revitalized their brand and is making millions with the "Barely Legal" line.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
I wouldn't consider a man that is attracted to or solicits sixteen year olds is a paedophile or a pederaist. I think it is normal for men of any age to be attracted to sixteen year olds. In most states it is not even a crime to have sex with a sixteen year old. It also very common (and was extremely common in our history) for men of all ages to mary sixteen year olds.

Should forty you old men solicit sixteen year olds, no. Should you cheat on your taxes. No. But many men are tempted to. That is just a cold hard fact. A homosexual that tries to have sex with a sixteen year old, is in the wrong. But are they acting on impulses or desires that are abnormal or deviant? Absolutely not.

Hugh Hefner is eighty and has a twenty year old girlfriend. Is that wrong, probably. But there are a lot of men that are jealous of him.

Many sixteen year olds, expecially women, are physically women. That are completely developed. Mentally they may be immature but physically they are all grown up. And to deny that there isn't a physical element to sexual attraction is just ridiculous.

His conduct was wrong because he was in a power position over the boy and for other reasons. But to say that the average homosexual is not physicallyl attracted to some sixteen year old boys is pure B.S. It is just a denial of reality.

Isn't there a difference between being physicaly attracted to someone who is a minor (but past puberty) and acting on that attraction? I think that you are saying "yes" to that, but you are sort of talking in circles, so I wanted to make it clear (in my head). An adult does have a responsibility not to take actions that harm a child. Where the line is drawn in society between who is an adult and who is a child is tricky, but most would agree that people in their mid teens are still generally too immature to maintain an adult relationship with someone substantially older than them. Interestingly, you are sounding quite like a moral relativist on this issue, and you claim not to be one.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Why, when there are so many other things on which to beat up Rs, would you opt to push forward when the principal perpetrator is resigned and gone?

Because pointing out the irony and hypocrisy is too tempting to resist. And it's too much fun to watch the Republican base go batshit over something stupid that their party did to themselves.

The other stuff will still be there tomorrow.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Because pointing out the irony and hypocrisy is too tempting to resist. .

You're right there, which is why the D's should be squirming about the irony and hypocrisy of attacking something not altogether different from what they were defending as private 6 and 23 years ago.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I blame the Pope.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're right there, which is why the D's should be squirming about the irony and hypocrisy of attacking something not altogether different from what they were defending as private 6 and 23 years ago.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I blame the Pope.

Seems to me that sex scandals are always much more fun than war scandals or lobbying scandals or weird real estate transaction scandals or S&L scandals or pretty much any other type of scandal.

And Ds get caught up in sex scandals so much more often* than Rs that it's hard not to chuckle a little at the pickle they seem to have gotten themselves in.

And hell, we like sex. A very vocal component of the Rs don't, as far as I can tell, like any sort of sex, but most especially the man on man kind. Seems to me that this is the sort of thing they may care about, so it's not shocking that the Ds would want to capitalize on their disgust and suggest that maybe they should stay home this election.


* *sniff* Gary Hart's is the one I regret the most. He coulda been a contendah.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Isn't there a difference between being physicaly attracted to someone who is a minor (but past puberty) and acting on that attraction?

Yes. But I am also saying it is normal for men to have the attraction.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I think that you are saying "yes" to that, but you are sort of talking in circles, so I wanted to make it clear (in my head). An adult does have a responsibility not to take actions that harm a child. Where the line is drawn in society between who is an adult and who is a child is tricky, but most would agree that people in their mid teens are still generally too immature to maintain an adult relationship with someone substantially older than them. Interestingly, you are sounding quite like a moral relativist on this issue, and you claim not to be one.

There are two issues. What is normal and what is moral. The argument started off with GGG claiming that Mark Foley was a pederast because he solicited sex from a sixteen year old. GGG also later said that it was abnormal for a forty year old man to be attracted a sixteen year old. In response I made a few points.

1) What Mark Foley did was wrong but what he did does not make him a pederast. A pederast is someon ewho preys on young children. Generally prepubescent children. Foley was not preying on a young child.

2) Being attracted to young boys or girls is abnormal and deviant behavior.

3) It is not abnormal and deviant behavior for an adult male to be attracted to a sixteen year old (male for homosexual, female for heterosexual).

4) It is morally wrong for a forty year old man to act on their attraction to sixteen year olds but the fact that they are attracted doesn't not make them deviant or abnormal.

5) If any man that is attracted to a sixteen year old boy is a pederast, then most homosexuals are pederasts.

6) I am fairly certain most homosexual men are attracted to sixteen year olds but that does not make them pederasts. That makes them normal homosexual men, and as long as they don't act on their attraction they have done nothing morally wrong. The same is true of heterosexual men.

Does that make sense. I don't undestand where the morally relativity is in there.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Seems to me that sex scandals are always much more fun than war scandals or lobbying scandals or weird real estate transaction scandals or S&L scandals or pretty much any other type of scandal.

They are also much less defensible. Like when Oliver North broke the law, he could argue that he was doing it for the good of the country. It is pretty hard to argue that you were nailing a page for the good of the country.

That is why they are manna from heaven for the other side. Pure political capital.

That is also why there is nothing to gain by defending a member in your own party that has been involved in a sex scandal. If they crossed the line you should purge them so they don't reflect badly on the party.