The History of Page Porking
An interesting bit of history: back in 1983 there was another Congressional Page sex scandal, in which one GOP lawmaker confessed to relations with a female page in 1980, and also in which Gerry Studds -- a Democrat from Massachusetts, the first "out" Congressman, and posessor of an apt name for this story -- admitted to a relationship with a 17-year-old male back in 1973.
Studds won re-election and the Republican did not. Most of Studds' constituents already knew he was gay, and he basically didn't apologize for what he did:
Studds, however, stood by the facts of the case and refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man was legal and consenting. Studds did not break any U.S. laws for that time, in what he and page called a "private relationship."[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996
Bill Clinton could have learned quite a lot from this guy.
Now, let's be clear. Being an adult and getting intimate with a 17-year old is ethically dubious. It's almost certainly unethical if there's a workplace power relationship. If you happen to be considering trying something like this, don't.
However, I think the response of Studds shows the power of standing behind your choices. I may find Studds and the 17-year-old iffy, but if the 17-year-old is willing to stand by his man ten years later and say it was all good, that's a strong statement.
This requires you to embrace your actions in the first place, of course, and to have a solid internal moral gyroscope you can live by. But if you've got those things and a clear head, you can potentially break a lot of social rules to little ill effect.
Anyway... cloudy post I know, but it's late and I had a long day working at the coffeeshop in town and then driving to SF. Flight to NYC tomorrow morning. Haw!
Ethics Schmethics
Thu, 2006-10-05 10:02 — TreslerI took a course - or rather sudited, its the only course I ever thought I was going to fail - at NYU about ethical relativity. Glorified paper writing course that can be summed up in "There are very few if any universal ethics" - In some cultures in history cannabalism is A-OK, and mutilaing the dead is expected elsewhere.
The reason that the qualifier has to be 'very few if any' as opposed to 'no universal ethics' is because there are a few things that we've never found an culture the world over to not frown on. Largely things that can be tied to evolution and survival - incest is pretty much a no-no everywhere (except European Rennaissance royal familes, I guess), as is murder for absolutely no reason - murder for fun.
What I didn't like was that the class too the standpoint that ethics had to be a cultural standpoint - and this is where I tie into your post. You see most often (admittedly not always) I've found the most difficult situations to judge being the ones where the individual didn't believe that they were doing anything ethically wrong. In this case, Foley knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that what he was doing was crossing the line - having written some of the laws that will apply to his actions.
In the previous case (Studds) there weren't existing guidelines (laws) that stopped him. But, in my opinion, what is more important to a constituency is (if we don't know or can't assume, lets say so for hypothesis' sake) that Studds percieved himself as doing no wrong. Whereas Foley has made it pretty clear what he feels about dirty old men who prey on younger members of society. In Studds' believe, he stood up and was accountable.
Which is more important to a constituency - the actual ethical element - or the ability of the offender to stand by their actions? A lot of people in America weren't upset by a blowjob in the oval office as they were that Bill lied to them.
I subsequently have to wonder how many people, whether they realize it or not, are more upset that this man stood up - denounce this activity as wrong, and was doing just this out the backdoor, than they are that he IMed dirty things to 16 and 17 year old kids?
I reference McGreevy. Were people offended that he was gay? You just mentioned an 'out' senator from 1973. That he had an affair? - again, seems like public office can be held while porking the neighors wife (of husband as the case may be). Nah. I'd stipulate that the public outrage comes from the deception.
And to drag it all out into the hideous light... this administration. "we'll be in and out in 6 months" "Weapons of Mass Destruction" - not showing soldiers funerals - not acknoledging soldiers sacrifices.... "No one could have foreseen the beech of the levys" and on, and on, and on...
Vote Tresler/(koenig?)(slusarz?)(yarwood?) 2024 - running on the Honesty Platform
Or...
Thu, 2006-10-05 10:05 — TreslerOf course, I could also say that if you just don't do anything you'd be ashamed of, you'd probably stay in the clear with most of the public.
Not for me
Thu, 2006-10-05 10:42 — John YOn the subject, I think I agree with you, but I'd like to add a bit. First, I think the prolonged moral repugnance people associate to these scandals does evolve form deception, however like many things it needs a catalyst, and that tends to be the action, whether it be little boys or girls, internet, back rooms, or dorms. There is an initial disgust with the inciting action, but it takes on a whole new life with a cover up. I think it's interesting to point out in the cases Josh cites, that there are some variances, i.e. the girl was definitely under age, and the boy was or wasn't depending on what state you're in, so legality comes into play. Also, while you're right that ethics are relative, I think we can say that universally in the Capitol building, it's considered wrong to sleep with the boys and girls who your constituents send to learn civics while interning for Congressmen. So, in all three circumstances, the men in question were ethically wrong. But, to your main point, the GOP case from 1980 fully supports it, as the guy in question apologized and admitted his shame, shame, shame to the full House.
I'm all for the Honesty Platform, but maybe more of a supporter than face. I'll arrange for the strippers, weed, interns, and blow at the $5000 a plate dinners. You can tell everybody about it. That sounds like a plan.
Pages