Creepy, but not pedophilia by Jennifer Vanasco

Creepy, but not pedophilia by Jennifer Vanasco
Copyright by The Chicago Free Press and Jennifer Vanasco
October 4, 2006


Republican Mark Foley (R-FL) has a problem, but it’s not precisely the one in the headlines.

Last week, as soon as the news broke that the congressman had sent sexually tinged texts to a former page, the first headlines (now changed online) called him a pedophile.

And even now, bloggers and those who comment on them keep using that word “pedophile” over and over again.

This makes Democrats celebrate, yes? Especially once Foley resigned a day or so later. Another Republican forced to resign over some sort of scandal! And this one involves sexual advances toward children! These people are moral hypocrites! That’s what a lot of Democrats are thinking.

But gay Democrats particularly need to take a step back. Short term, this may give us some salacious pleasure. But long term? This is not good.

Here’s why.

First of all, the (perhaps not so) obvious. Foley is not a pedophile. Foley is gay.

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to undeveloped children. Six-year-olds. Three-year-olds. Some researchers even consider pedophilia to be its own perverted sort of sexual orientation. Congressional pages are juniors and seniors in high school, 16- and 17-year-olds. They’ve been through puberty. They’re not children.

Now, I’m appalled by Foley’s actions, too. They were completely inappropriate. But “inappropriate” doesn’t equal “pedophilia.”

The age of consent in Washington, D.C. is 16 years old, which means that this page was legally a sexual adult. A 16-year-old young man is a much, much different target of lust than a 6-year-old boy.

If it had been a 16-year-old girl Foley was after, I don’t think the media and those who consume it would have latched onto the word “pedophile.” I think they would have been more likely to call this “creepy.” Or “sexually harassment”

Which it is.

It is creepy when a 52-year-old makes advances on a 16-year-old. It is an abuse of power when a congressman behaves sexually toward a young person who might be looking for a job in his office someday.

But when that 16-year-old is a female, no one is that surprised. After all, we sexually fetishize young adults. Teenage girls are our fashion models, our pop singers, our national targets of lust. Americans understand why older men are drawn to very, very young women.

What they don’t understand is men of any kind being drawn to other men.

But that’s what we have here. Foley, a semi-closeted gay man (a few years ago he was outed by the Washington Blade and he would neither confirm his gayness nor deny it), was sending provocative messages to a younger man. In the IM messages they exchanged, released by ABC News, the young man didn’t quite encourage him, but didn’t quite discourage him either. He might have been too young and inexperienced to know how to fend off advances.

Foley should have known this—he should never have pressed his power-and-age advantage.

Nevertheless, Foley is being called a pedophile only because both parties are men.

It’s never good for us when “pedophile” and “gay” are joined together in this sort of unholy headline matrimony. It simply reinforces the stereotype that we are sexual predators.

So, this is the first reason this was bad for us. It allowed, once again, a gay man to be targeted as a pedophile.

Secondly, Foley is one of a very small group of Republicans who actually had a decent voting record on gay issues. The Human Rights Campaign was a contributor. In the past 10 years, he’s scored in the 80s or higher on the HRC’s report card. He was a co-sponsor of ENDA. He’s pro-choice.

In short, he had become a friend of ours in the legislature.

Hopefully there will be a good outcome here. Perhaps a gay-friendly Democrat will take his seat in November. Perhaps this situation will also make some moderates think about conservative hypocrisy—congressional Republican leaders knew about this exchange, yet kept it covered up. (I guess those leaders figured that gay is actually OK, as long as it remains within the party.) Maybe it will remind moderates and conservatives alike that gay people really are everywhere, even hidden in the Republican ranks.

But long after the nuances of the political horse race have crossed November’s finish line, those two words “gay” and “pedophilia” will remain etched in the minds of ordinary Americans.

And that’s too bad. Because Mark Foley’s problem is not pedophilia. Mark Foley’s problem is impulse control.