I mean im a liberal so I should really despise what he did as a republican, but I dont. I mean he should step down I think as should the speaker for knowing about it and covering up. Would you look at it different if it had been a 16 year old girl? I mean 16 isnt like ten, its not as disgusting as it could have been so maybe people should stop calling him a pedophile?
2006-10-04 03:53:38 · 12 answers · asked by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree, pedophile isn't the correct term, or the correct crime. Inappropriate conduct for an elected official, on a subordinate would be closer to reality.
2006-10-04 03:59:37 · answer #1 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree that the child's gender doesn't make a difference, and 16 is the age of consent in many states (in my state it is). What makes it so nasty is that he is an authority figure to these kids. Thus, he's taking advantage of his position of power to sexually harass young men.
Look, they may have been willing participants in it, but that in no way makes it right for a man his age to cavort - in person or via email - with young people under his care. To a certain extent the members of the House are acting in loco parentis (as a school does). Would you not be freaked out if a parent talked to their child in such a way?
It's not too horribly different.
And, yes, pedophile does get tossed around a little too easily. How many of the guys who are using that term got turned on by 17 year old Britney Spears in a Catholic School girl outfit? Does that make them pedophiles. Until there's evidence that he actually committed any physical crimes, I think the use of pedophile is over-the-top. Having worked in a mental health facility with the severely mentally ill for a while, the closer term would be hebophile (similar to pedophile, but it's a specific attraction to boys or girls that are post-pubescent but not of the age of majority - strange that there's a term for it, but there you go - something I had to learn for my job).
And kent s above does a good job of explaining why it's wrong.
2006-10-04 11:20:13 · answer #2 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's not a pedophile. A pedophile is attracted to pre-pubescent childrent. The people he contacted were 16/17 years old. These young men could be married in many states - and t hey're only one year away from being legal to enlist and be slaughtered in Iraq.
What he did was WRONG. It's always inappropriate for a person of authority to make sexual comments to a subordinate. He was wrong, period. However. He's not a pedophile. IF they had had contact, he would be guilty of statutory rape. But they didnt.
When people sling words like that around, the words start to lose their meanings.
edited:
a lot of people seem to think that the age of consent is 18. They're wrong. The vast majority of states have the age of consent at 16.
http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm
2006-10-04 10:57:27 · answer #3 · answered by tristanrobin 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's about the oppertunity to deface your opponent. That is how the Democrats have taken it. It isn't bad enough that a politician did this, but now they want to profile all republicans that way. I am not going to say the Republicans don't because if the shoe was on the other foot it would be reversed.
What it comes down to is that people are so caught up in their Political beliefs and our politicians are so caught up in capturing the vote that they don't care about the facts, only what fits the political agenda.
Make no Mistake, we are in sad times.
2006-10-04 11:01:00 · answer #4 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There has always Been a lopsided justice when it comes to Home hetro Law and yes it would have been a wash if it was a girl but all of this I am sure is Fabricated as a cover By KARL ROVE to get the media off the George Tenet Book
2006-10-04 10:57:31 · answer #5 · answered by kirkboi 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't have been any different if it was a girl. While 16 is nearly an adult, in most places in the U.S. someone who is 16 is still a minor and considered a child. Sexual contact of any kind with children of any age is illegal. If a boy is 18 and a girl is 16 he can be charged with statutory rape if they have sex, even if it's consensual.
2006-10-04 11:00:15 · answer #6 · answered by Joanne B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Really any 50 year old man or woman messing with a 16 year old boy or girl are perverts, it just so happens this one is a repuglican, the only party with morals remember.
2006-10-04 11:00:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that 10 is far worse than 16, but there's a reason consent laws are at 18, not 16 - while teens think of themselves as grown up, and biologically their bodies are telling them that, too, their judgment levels have not fully developed and they are easy prey for perverts of any poltical persuassion.
2006-10-04 10:57:42 · answer #8 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good to know your views on this. I'll call your local high schools and warn them that their sophomores may be in danger.
Come on, the guy is in his 50's. I'd accept it if the girl was in her 20's...late 20's but that big of a gap shows there is a problem whether the kid is male or female it's sick.
2006-10-04 10:59:05 · answer #9 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, as the father of a boy and a girl, it doesn't make any difference to me. The kid's gender doesn't really matter; his/her age does.
2006-10-04 10:56:58 · answer #10 · answered by J C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋