First published in the Washington Blade, October 6, 2006
Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) has a problem, but it’s not the one in the headlines.
Last week, as soon as the news broke that the congressman had sent graphic sexual texts to a former page, the first headlines (now changed online) called him a pedophile.
And even now, bloggers and some political commentators keep using the word “pedophile” over and over again.
This makes Democrats celebrate, right? Especially once Foley resigned shortly afterward. Another Republican forced to resign over some sort of scandal! And this one involves sexual advances toward children!.
But gay Democrats need to take a step back. In the short term, this may give us some salacious pleasure. But in the long term, it is not good. Here’s why.
First, the (perhaps not so) obvious reason.
Foley is not a pedophile. Foley is gay.
Pedophiles are sexually attracted to undeveloped children — 6-year-olds, 3-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, 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 “sexual harassment,” which it is.
It is creepy when a 52-year-old makes advances on a 16-year-old.
But when that 16-year-old is a female, no one is that surprised. After all, we sexualize 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 is a semi-closeted gay man. A few years ago, he was outed by the gay press and he would neither confirm nor deny that he’s gay. He 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. In the past 10 years, he’s scored in the 80s or higher on the Human Rights Campaign’s congressional report card. He was a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He’s pro-choice.
In short, he had become a friend of ours in the legislature.
Perhaps there will be a good outcome here. Maybe 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 covered it up. Maybe it will remind moderates and conservatives alike that gay people really are everywhere, even hidden in the Republican ranks.
But long after the November election, 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.