I just had to address this somewhere...
Sixteen year old boys may be "boys." They are minors. But, they also tend to be sexual beings who act with agency. Was Foley incredibly stupid? Absolutely. Did he take advantage of a position of power? No question. But, is he a pedophile? Who knows? I do think that to refer to him as a pedophile based on the "evidence" the public currently possesses misses the mark. For one thing I believe it makes it more difficult to address dangerous pedophiles who prey on children. For another, it's one more example of how we just can't decide where adolescents fit in our world.
One minute the sixteen year old who commits a violent crime is thought to be "old enough to know better" and thrown in the slammer for decades. The next minute he's an innocent, taken in by an older man who wanted to get his jollies IMing about masturbation. It doesn't get any better at eighteen. One minute we throw you an M-16 and send you off to Iraq. But don't get any ideas about having a cold beer the night before you leave.
I'm not saying there's an easy fix here. Some sixteen year olds are more mature than some eighteen year olds. And, some sixteen year olds probably shouldn't be trusted with mom's car and $5. It's not that we can truly fix an "age of majority" and that's that. Hell, I happen to think - based on what I see every day at work - that a sixteen year old today is not what a sixteen year old was in 1974. But, I also don't think a sixteen year old in 1974 was identical to the sixteen year old in 1944. And, we could also speculate on variety based on urban/rural, birth order, etc.
My point is that while Mark Foley may have been a complete fool who was thinking with something besides his brain, to call him a pedophile and accuse him of molesting boys does a disservice both to the young men involved in this situation and to those who work to prevent the sexual abuse of children by adults.
Call him stupid. Call him arrogant. The evidence, in my opinion, supports those conclusions. But, a pedophile? Save that for the other guys.
10 months ago
3 comments:
I find that most "discussion" by public officials and talking heads on TV is just posturing and name-calling. There's no place for nuance and deeper thinking about a situation/problem/issue. And the media feeds this in the era of the "sound bite" and "teasers."
What I found funny (not ha-ha funny) about your post is that I don't know that I, as a gay man, would have had the bravery to write what you did. There's always that lingering stereotype that gay men lure/recruit younger men/boys.
From a biological standpoint, secondary sex characteristics are the signs of adulthood. (I am not speaking psychologically, emotionally, or socially.) True pedophiles, I imagine, would be turned off by muscle development, body hair, deepening voice, etc. etc. And I completely agree with you about the hypocrisy of how the "justice" system treats teenagers. (That is, I think it is too easy to try a teenager as an adult -- the U.S. even imposes the death penalty on underage offenders. The rest of the world thinks we are barbarians.)
Somewhat related to this, I am dismayed that the ages of consent for same-sex sexual contact and different-sex sexual contact are not the same in Canada. While pinning down one age that someone becomes an "adult" is difficult, I do feel this situation is about equality under the law.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. And, yes, I agree that it is often easier for some to speak. E.g., I have het colleagues who could say the same words I do and be perceived as having greater credibility. For some reason the general masses only think of GLBT people as having "sexual orientation."
You might be interested to know - though the general sentiment we both express remains true - that the U.S. Supreme Court, just last year, ruled, in Roper v. Simmons, that "the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed." Of course we're still viewed as barbaric (for good reason) by many outside the U.S. Well, one step...
Thanks, again!
I had not been aware of the Roper v. Simmons decision. I had thought that there was a decision but not a definitive one that actually put an end to the practice. A nugget of good news in an otherwise pretty dreadful time. (Lawrence v. Texas was another nugget.)
Post a Comment