One of the balloon heads on CNN actually said today that the network does not wish to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. She must have lost the memo.

Bill Maher, talking later on CNN, said that he was reluctant to call Foley a pedophile because his victims were not children. Maher went on to talk about how the adolescents had "all the power" in their relationships with Foley. This, of course, is true only in the narrowest sexual politics definition of "power." In reality, they were vulnerable to exploitation from an authority figure.

I do agree with Maher, however (and I have written as much on my blog) that the repression of homosexuality and bisexuality probably does contribute somewhat to the seeking of inappropriate relationships--something James McGreevey talks about in his book.

A sixteen year old is hardly "pedo". They are of legal age in many jurisdictions, and the age of consent is pretty arbitrary. Still, it was a pretty dumb thing to do, even if not illegal. So far I haven't heard that the attention was unwanted or refused in any way. It looks like the Monica scandal all over again to me. It is a strange country where sexual interactions will get you into more trouble than illegal wars. Still, the raging hypocrisy in this case should, and I say 'should', lead to the downfall of evryone involved, except the poor innocent pages, of course.

The 16-year-old brain is not advanced enough in the vast majority of adolescents for the person to make reasonable judgments in many areas. Though I agree that there is certainly a difference between 16 and 6, what we know about cognition (and through common observation) is that a 16-year-old having sex with a 52-year-old is exploitation. That 16 is the age of consent in some places is disturbing.

Monica Lewinsky was an adult woman, albeit one with poor judgment. I think she was 22. There is a world of differnce between 16 and 22.

>> There is a world of differnce between 16 and 22.

Maybe in female brains, but males are morons from 12 until about 40. Then they just become sexless morons.

Slate has an interesting article (http://www.slate.com/id/2151018) making the distinction between pedophile--a person who is interested in pre-pubescent youth--and an ephebophile--one who is interested in people just past puberty. Foley is the latter. But if you read his emails, which Clara links to from this blog, you won't have doubts that the boys' ages was a major part of the attraction for Foley.

Maybe it's true that repression of homosexual desires leads to some abuse, but so do a million other factors. 75 percent of abusers abuse girls, so the total lack of repression for male heterosexual desire seems to be a pretty major problem too if we accept that logic.

Speaking of sophistry...

Pedophilia is by definition (DSM-IV) sexual attraction to *prepubescent* children. A sixteen-year-old boy or woman is hardly prepubescent. As a previous poster remarks, the age of consent is somewhat arbitrary. Usually eighteen, but could be sixteen, could be twenty-one, why not?

Not to excuse the loathesome Foley.

Cameron, I should have made myself clearer. I did not mean that repression leads to abuse on the abuser's side, but the other way around. Young gay males--unless they live in large cities or in very liberal communities--usually do not have role models. They are often unable or unwilling to seek peer partners, and therefore are readily available when adult men seek them out.