Redefining Monster
R. Alex Whitlock
In the movie Half-Baked, Dave Chapelle's character goes to a drug rehab meeting and is booed off the stage when it is discovered that his only addiction is to marijuana. He had been incovenienced by the drugs, but others there had their lives ruined by much more addictive stuff.

I came a tentative conclusion that is bound to be unpopular as I haven't yet heard anyone reputable state it aloud.

Like most political nerds (and some with actual lives) I was paying really close attention to the whole Mark Foley mess. For those of you that are unaware, Foley is a conservative Republican congressman that apparently gets his jollies by flirting with 16 year old male congressional pages.

It seemed like a pretty cut-and-dry case. Foley was caught red-handed, didn't deny having done it, quit congress, confessed to having been sexually abused earlier in his life, admitted that he is gay, and has checked himself in to rehab. All within a couple of days!

Some, however, didn't want to stop there. Democrats wanted to use this pan to fry bigger fish and went after Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and others that are accused of having known about it. Many Republicans agree. At the moment, it appears that the Republican leadership heard mutterings about Foley's peculiarities and were aware of some of the earlier, less weird, correspondences between Foley and young pages. Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner were not helped by the inconsistency of their statements.

Here's the realization I came to today:all of the hysterics surrounding the entire issue are built upon the premise that a 16 year old kid, protected by a computer monitor, is utterly helpless in the face of power.

Note the language being used. A word that I am seeing brandied about is "predator." A predator is an animal that eats its prey. Or it's a person that plunders, pillages, or obliterates. Whatever a predator is done with will never be the same again. Mark Foley would be a predator if he physically raped or psychologically tormented the young men, but not simply because he grossed them out.

And then there's the word "pedophile," which carried a certain weight to it. A pedophile is one that "loves children". Children. To date, the youngest victim is 16. That's not an adult, but it's not a child, either. We do society a great disservice to futher infantize young adults. The longer we treat young people like children the longer they will act like children. Adolescence already spans into the mid-twenties for a lot of people. They need to be expected to take control of the situations they find themselves in to a much greater degree than we expect them to now.

And lastly, just about everything I've heard that he's done has been behind the safety of a computer monitor and involved kids that were quite a distance away. If all he's done is produceable in IMs and emails, then he really hasn't done that much. Whatever meetings he might have arranged were quite consensual. That's not to say that it's all okay, but to attach the same level of condemnation to this that one would attach to a serial rapist or child molester does a disservice to the genuinely raped and molested.

I should state that it's possible that we are (or at least I am) fully unaware of the worst of Foley's transgressions. If he's guilty of something more then my argument is undercut. But most of what I've heard thus far involves being a crappy congressman and a sick man, but not a predatory monster.
Posted to Sex and Consequences
 
 

Observations

 
Kavey wrote:
"We do society a great disservice to futher infantize young adults. The longer we treat young people like children the longer they will act like children. Adolescence already spans into the mid-twenties for a lot of people."

I had that same thought after watching Unforgiven. What gave me that idea was watching as Clint Eastwood's character leaves to go on his mission and leaves his 2 children home alone to take care of the homestead. Granted he makes sure someone is available to "check in on them" but essentially he leaves 2 kids (the oldes not being more than 12 definitely) home alone.

I thought "wow, those kids seem so young for that." Truth is, that boy, if he ever was in school would have been out of school for quite some time already working hard on the families farm.

Of course, where do you draw the line with something like that? Is it ok to for some creepy guy to be texting your children? What if it didn't stop there? What if later his fantasies played themselves out?

I think the idea behind being upset about this is the idea that you might help prevent a worse situation. Although I agree in part that just texting someone is not "that bad" it can certainly lead to something worse.

You can also look at how times changes. I mean many years ago the legal age to be married was 12 or younger. Now in a lot of places you need parental concent up to about 17-18 years of age. Of course back them people were married off to people for political or financial reasons more so than love.

Although I don't agree with people that baby their kids until they are in their mid 20s, I also don't think 15-16 year olds really know what they are getting themselves into either.

I certainly don't agree with what Foley did, but I wonder what is beign done with the "kids." Will they just move on to talking to other similar adults in inappropriate ways? Will there parents take a more active role in finding out what they are actually doing?
10/4/2006
 
RAW wrote:
I don't think what Foley did was okay. I believe that he deserved to lose his job and a lot of what else may happen to him. From a societal standpoint, we should not condone this sort of behavior or look the other way in large part because, as you mention, it can lead to worse behavior (and in part because such behavior on a wider scale is at best not productive to society and more likely actively harms it).

On the other hand, there's a difference between what saying what he did was wrong and that the things he did were the actions of a monster and that his victims are even remotely equivalent to a molested child. That seems to be the premise on which much of the discussion is based.
10/4/2006
 
Kavey wrote:
Ah yes. Well in that respect, isn't he a member of some sort of Ethics Committee? To me that would ring a "monster." Someone who is two-faced and dishonest. I understand your point, but I don't think the statements are completely out of line.
10/4/2006
 
RAW wrote:
A hypocrite, sure, but not a monster.
10/4/2006
 
Kavey wrote:
I see, you're only factoring in the act itself. I think you're leaving out his importance. If an average citizen were doing what he was doing, and saying something completely different, I would have to agree with you. The act itself is not that bad. But now you're talking about an elected official on an ethics committee. This sets him to much higher standards than the average joe. Much the same was a Doctor or an Engineer is set to higher standards than everyone else. Hypocrit is unfortunately not strong enough. Monster might still be harsh, but I'm not exactly sure how many levels you have in between to describe it.
10/5/2006
 
RAW wrote:
I think "scumbag" would probably be sufficient.
10/5/2006

Add an Observation

Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.

:

:
:



 

 

Home || RSS || Archives || Ten Second News || FURL || Blogrolodexical (Full)