Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Foley Is a Sexual Harasser, Not a Child Molester

By Judith Levine, AlterNet. Posted October 31, 2006.


Does anybody really think the Mark Foley affair is about protecting children?
Advertisement

It's hard not to relish the spectacle of the Republicans hoisted on Mark Foley's quivering petard. But the pleasure wanes as the sanctimony rises -- a chorus of politicians, pundits and reporters all singing the words "child protection."

The GOP knew for years that the six-term Florida congressman was a "funny" with the pages. They said nothing, except for the occasional sotto voce warning to steer clear of the creep. Their first priority was to protect their own asses -- not, as Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi put it, "to protect the children in their trust."

In response, Foley has played his own childhood-innocence card. He claims a priest molested him, propelling him into a life of homosexual pedophilia. At this writing, the congressman has announced he'd reveal the miscreant's name -- "part of the healing process," his lawyer notes, along with Foley's treatment for alcoholism. Hours later, the priest, one Anthony Merciera, came forward, contending he and the boy went skinny-dipping together as "brothers" -- nothing more. Another former altar boy joined in, revealing that he and Foley used to hang out at the apartment of the priest, who let them drink and smoke. The priest admits he might have been disinhibited by alcohol problems of his own ... and the saga continues.

Let us begin by granting the obvious: Like the party to which he belongs, this particular member from Florida is a slime-bucket of obfuscation and hypocrisy. But does anybody really think the Foley affair is about protecting children? Is "child" the correct term for the subspecies of preternaturally ambitious 16- and 17-year-old humans who claw their way to Washington in order to learn how to become Dennis Hastert or Hillary Clinton? who, according to those formerly in their places, also take advantage of their sojourn in our nation's capital to party? Much blame for zapping the meaning from the words "child" and "protection" must be assigned to the likes of the congressional Missing and Exploited Children's caucuses; former House co-chair Mark Foley was one of their most zealous leaders. Over the years, these folks have built a fortress of "child-protective" crime legislation that has steadily increased the age at which a person is legally considered a child -- from 12 to 18, for instance, in child-pornography law. The caucuses have worked with the National Center on Missing and Exploited Children, an organization known for tossing around statistics on "child abductions" that fail to note that almost all the kids who go missing are actually teenage runaways -- or teenage "throwaways," whose parents have kicked them out.

Such advocates also have a penchant for implying, incorrectly, that crimes against children tend to be sexual. As we know well, sex panics are a great way to sell internet censorship, mandatory minima and other politically profitable law-and-order legislation.

A triumphal moment for these tactics, and for Foley himself, came this summer, just months before the emails hit the fan: the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006 greatly expands the federal sex-offender registry and compels states to expand theirs. It also encourages civil commitment with new grants, institutes big, vague new areas of internet surveillance, and hardens the penalties for sex crimes against children to include everything short of extraordinary rendition.

An interesting footnote is the law's name, inscribed "in recognition of John and Revé Walsh on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Adam Walsh's abduction and murder." John Walsh owned a hotel management business in Hollywood, Fla., in 1981 when his 6-year-old son was killed. His PR says the father "turned his grief" into a full-time fight for child victims. A less generous way of putting it is that Walsh made a career by spreading the rumor -- most explicitly in his book Tears of Rage -- that his son's murderer was a pedophile. The crusade spurred the creation of the missing-and-exploited children's center and landed Walsh the job of hosting Fox TV's "America's Most Wanted." From that exalted position, he has cultivated friends in high places, including Mark Foley, to push for tougher sex-offender laws.

There's a little problem, however. According to detectives who worked on the still-unsolved case, there has never been either suspicion or evidence of sex in Adam's murder. But never mind. There is little evidence that most of the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act do anything to protect children, either.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: teens, children, congress, harassment, abuse, foley, scandal

Judith Levine is the author of "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex" and, most recently, "Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
hypocracy
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 31, 2006 2:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is so much hypocracy in DC government that most Congressmembers and Senators should be replaced on that basis alone. If we had a good government in DC we could have real campaign finance reform, free and fair elections, peace and all the other stuff characteristic of a real democracy. Dare to dream and toss out the creepy warmongers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Foley Folly
Posted by: Cousin Jack on Oct 31, 2006 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am curious, as I believe Bill O'Really of FIX NEWS may have been an altar boy. Mabye that explains his anger. Have he and Foley ever spent time together? Oh, Really Bill, just a thought. Some say Bill O" is suffering from latent tendencies. Well, look at the bright side Billy, the left will always support you in that respect, you fake righty you. Foley and his cohorts represent the level of sickness in Politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Foley Folly Posted by: Habaro
Careful, Miss Levine
Posted by: Scott Griffith on Oct 31, 2006 3:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good, counterbalancing stuff, Miss Levine, but you nearly blow it all in your first sentence: a petard is an explosive device, nothing to do with Foley's quivering what-you-may-call it, or anybody else's, just as sexual harassment is not to be confused with child molesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Careful, Miss Levine Posted by: Paul D
» Poetic license Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Careful, Miss Levine Posted by: opeluboy
Whatever you call it, it is wrong.
Posted by: colinmeister on Oct 31, 2006 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mark Foley obviously had a liking for pederasty. What he was engaged in were, to most people, the actions of a low-life pervert. Sexual harassment is an unpleasant practice, but when the person being harassed is a minor, a lot more comes into play.

An adult who is sexually harassed has the option to quit her (Or his) job, hopefully after finding another one, but these pages really don't have that choice. I look upon Mark Foley in a similar way to the way I would look at a schoolmaster who had contact similar to those between Mark Foley and the pages with his students.

The point about runaway teens being subject to sex abuse is hardly supprising. A runaway teen probably has no job and no money, making him an easy target for an adult with money, food, and shelter to provide in exchange for sexual favours. This is more of a sleazy form of prostitution than anything else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hoisted by your own petard
Posted by: karyse on Oct 31, 2006 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This means (basically) getting caught in a trap of your own making. A petard was a device use to raise an explosive to a level above you -- hence, hoisted. But if you used it incorrectly a user might injure himself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets be clear...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 31, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... Foley watched these CHILDREN until they were of legal age. Only then did he make any advances or do anything that would, had they been underage, be illegal. He is a child predator of a sort, but he is an undeniable sexual predator.

While he may not have broken any laws (may have, may not have), his behavior is still reprehensible, predatory, and utterly unacceptable. He was in a position of power and was preying on those in a more vulnerable position.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the alcoholism defense
Posted by: lawstudent08 on Oct 31, 2006 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both Foley and his former priest who molested him are blaming alcoholism or problem drinking for sexual harassment and child molestation. Why? How does alcohol dependency = sexual predator? What a horribly misleading escape from personal responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe yes, maybe no...
Posted by: BeeGee on Oct 31, 2006 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of this article makes an unequivocal statement. How does the author know it's true? We might say the evidence suggests it's true. But we can't definitively state that Foley is not a child molester -- nor that anyone but ourself or someone we witness is or is not, for that matter. There are too many private moments in a life when a person can do something that never comes to light. "Where there's smoke, there's fire," suggests the possibility of child molestation. In Foley's case, someone might know the definitive answer but the author and I don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» absolutely correct. Posted by: sln70
» RE: Maybe yes, maybe no... Posted by: yesman
Teenage Throwaways
Posted by: thirdmg on Oct 31, 2006 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article: "...almost all the kids who go missing are actually teenage runaways -- or teenage 'throwaways' whose parents have kicked them out."

Ironically, a disproportionate number of those throwaways - as many as 26%, according to one study - were thrown out of their homes because of their sexual orientation. It seems that in too many cases, our nation's concerns for protecting youth do not include caring for gay youth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow
Posted by: kenhymes on Oct 31, 2006 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guess the writer can't remember what it was like to be 16 or 17 years old... or maybe she was totally together, empowered, able to tell the difference between sex and love, intimacy and power games?

Legally, whether we agree on this or not, it's child molestation, not sexual harassment. And there also seems to be an odd taste of blaming the victim in the article. Whether the teenage pages were ambitious or not doesn't change Foley's (and by extension the House leadership's in overseeing the program) responsibility for what happened. He's the adult.

Now, there's a whole other discussion to be had about the twisted way we market products using the physical beauty of children, worship youth and sexuality as the ultimate personal attributes, and then cover our faces in shock when this adds fuel to the unwholesome flame of pedophilia that is lurking everywhere in our country.

And there is a lot that is unproductive and potentially regressive in the way homosexuality is being conflated with pedophilia, and the way assumptions that victims become predators are being reinforced. But the specific bottom line in this case is the same. Foley was of age, the pages were not, sexual contact is illegal, inappropriate, and his fault, not theirs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow Posted by: meganita
» Underaged? Posted by: BillC
» RE: Wow Posted by: radagast_23
» RE: Wow Posted by: Bakari
» RE: Wrong Posted by: oregoncharles
Most people are unaware
Posted by: lb on Oct 31, 2006 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of the ramifications of the Adam Walsh Act. If a 15 year old boy is sexually active with his 15 year old girlfriend, he is breaking the law. Her parents can bring charges and if he is convicted, he is an identified sexual predator. Should a teenager's life be ruined because of normal sexual activity? I don't think so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Most people are unaware Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Most people are unaware Posted by: rabidLibrarian
Adolescent or Child?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Oct 31, 2006 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Foley's offense was the abuse of trust and power. That's a very grave offense, especially in a "leader." So make no mistake: his fall was entirely appropriate, regardless of the legalities.

Nonetheless, Judith Levine makes an excellent point, especially since D.C. law puts the age of consent at 16. Adolescents, especially older ones, are not children - something I've insisted on since I was that age (You do remember being 16, don't you?). That's why they get to be pages: they're quite capable of carrying out the job. Try that on your 8-yr-old.

And, perhaps unfortunately, they're frequently sexually active; and even more often, wish they were. Remember, that used to be the usual age of marriage, not so long ago. & still is, all too often. Though not for ambitious kids like the pages.

So the issue is one of giving the young people credit for who they are: not children. & most likely not all that innocent. Which doesn't mean they don't need protection from people with power over them; even more than fully adult employees, they certainly do.

So Foley took immoral advantage of his position, and the Republican leadership protected him instead of the young people placed in their care. The parallel with the priest scandal is almost exact (again, the victims were mostly adolescents), although that one was even worse.

Of course, the real political damage for Republicans comes from the homosexuality angle, because of their dependence on the religious nuts. Plus they are revealed for the slimeballs they are. This is how they are hoist with their own petard (blown into the air by their own land mine), and richly deserved, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Warped Sex Laws
Posted by: gellero on Oct 31, 2006 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The age of consent should be 16 or 15. It's that way in most of the world. I pity the poor kid who was 18 and screwed his 16 year old girlfriend. He is now labeled a 'sex offender'. The Dems are just as much to blame for this as the Republicans. Foley's moral flaw, if there was one, was that he was too much of a coward to come out of the closet. Clinton and Kennedy (all of them!) are ho-dogs. No one here seems to complain about that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Warped Sex Laws Posted by: richviss
And the alternative?
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Nov 1, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pages get to be pages because they want to be, and because they have the family connections to get them there. They likely know, or are groomed to know, who's going to hit on them, why, and what they can do about it.

But this doesn't mean they'll make "mature" decisions. They simply haven't had enough years on earth, nor enough experience in the world, to make anything like a mature decision--unless it's practically by mistake. Their brains aren't even finished yet. That's why they're bad drivers.

If we allow 16-year-olds to swim with the sharks of Washington on an "equal" sexual basis, with no firewalls or bedboards of any kind--because we deem them quite old enough to handle whatever comes their way--I shudder to think of the emotional devastation, the enormous distraction, the utter chaos, that a population of acknowledged sexually active teenagers with political ambitions and unformed characters could wreak in DC. As if it isn't enough of a cheesy soap opera now.

Pregnancies, suicides, broken marriages, triangulations, half a dozen Buttafuocos and Jessica Hahns. Oh yeah, we'll really get some legislating done then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the alternative?
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Nov 1, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pages get to be pages because they want to be, and because they have the family connections to get them there. They likely know, or are groomed to know, who's going to hit on them, why, and what they can do about it.

But this doesn't mean they'll make "mature" decisions. They simply haven't had enough years on earth, nor enough experience in the world, to make anything like a mature decision--unless it's practically by mistake. Their brains aren't even finished yet. That's why they're bad drivers.

If we allow 16-year-olds to swim with the sharks of Washington on an "equal" sexual basis, with no firewalls or bedboards of any kind--because we deem them quite old enough to handle whatever comes their way--I shudder to think of the emotional devastation, the enormous distraction, the utter chaos, that a population of acknowledged sexually active teenagers with political ambitions and unformed characters could wreak in DC. As if it isn't enough of a cheesy soap opera now.

Pregnancies, suicides, broken marriages, triangulations, half a dozen Buttafuocos and Jessica Hahns. Oh yeah, we'll really get some legislating done then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the alternative?
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Nov 1, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pages get to be pages because they want to be, and because they have the family connections to get them there. They likely know, or are groomed to know, who's going to hit on them, why, and what they can do about it.

But this doesn't mean they'll make "mature" decisions. They simply haven't had enough years on earth, nor enough experience in the world, to make anything like a mature decision--unless it's practically by mistake. Their brains aren't even finished yet. That's why they're bad drivers.

If we allow 16-year-olds to swim with the sharks of Washington on an "equal" sexual basis, with no firewalls or bedboards of any kind--because we deem them quite old enough to handle whatever comes their way--I shudder to think of the emotional devastation, the enormous distraction, the utter chaos, that a population of acknowledged sexually active teenagers with political ambitions and unformed characters could wreak in DC. As if it isn't enough of a cheesy soap opera now.

Pregnancies, suicides, broken marriages, triangulations, half a dozen Buttafuocos and Jessica Hahns. Oh yeah, we'll really get some legislating done then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the alternative?
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Nov 1, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pages get to be pages because they want to be, and because they have the family connections to get them there. They likely know, or are groomed to know, who's going to hit on them, why, and what they can do about it.

But this doesn't mean they'll make "mature" decisions. They simply haven't had enough years on earth, nor enough experience in the world, to make anything like a mature decision--unless it's practically by mistake. Their brains aren't even finished yet. That's why they're bad drivers.

If we allow 16-year-olds to swim with the sharks of Washington on an "equal" sexual basis, with no firewalls or bedboards of any kind--because we deem them quite old enough to handle whatever comes their way--I shudder to think of the emotional devastation, the enormous distraction, the utter chaos, that a population of acknowledged sexually active teenagers with political ambitions and unformed characters could wreak in DC. As if it isn't enough of a cheesy soap opera now.

Pregnancies, suicides, broken marriages, triangulations, half a dozen Buttafuocos and Jessica Hahns. Oh yeah, we'll really get some legislating done then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the alternative?
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Nov 1, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pages get to be pages because they want to be, and because they have the family connections to get them there. They likely know, or are groomed to know, who's going to hit on them, why, and what they can do about it.

But this doesn't mean they'll make "mature" decisions. They simply haven't had enough years on earth, nor enough experience in the world, to make anything like a mature decision--unless it's practically by mistake. Their brains aren't even finished yet. That's why they're bad drivers.

If we allow 16-year-olds to swim with the sharks of Washington on an "equal" sexual basis, with no firewalls or bedboards of any kind--because we deem them quite old enough to handle whatever comes their way--I shudder to think of the emotional devastation, the enormous distraction, the utter chaos, that a population of acknowledged sexually active teenagers with political ambitions and unformed characters could wreak in DC. As if it isn't enough of a cheesy soap opera now.

Pregnancies, suicides, broken marriages, triangulations, half a dozen Buttafuocos and Jessica Hahns. Oh yeah, we'll really get some legislating done then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the alternative?
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Nov 1, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pages get to be pages because they want to be, and because they have the family connections to get them there. They likely know, or are groomed to know, who's going to hit on them, why, and what they can do about it.

But this doesn't mean they'll make "mature" decisions. They simply haven't had enough years on earth, nor enough experience in the world, to make anything like a mature decision--unless it's practically by mistake. Their brains aren't even finished yet. That's why they're bad drivers.

If we allow 16-year-olds to swim with the sharks of Washington on an "equal" sexual basis, with no firewalls or bedboards of any kind--because we deem them quite old enough to handle whatever comes their way--I shudder to think of the emotional devastation, the enormous distraction, the utter chaos, that a population of acknowledged sexually active teenagers with political ambitions and unformed characters could wreak in DC. As if it isn't enough of a cheesy soap opera now.

Pregnancies, suicides, broken marriages, triangulations, half a dozen Buttafuocos and Jessica Hahns. Oh yeah, we'll really get some legislating done then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

abuse of power
Posted by: insulaparadigm on Nov 1, 2006 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
having read one of the Im correspondances I fail to see a real victimization but Foley was up to no good. foley wants the page but the page seems to get off on girls with broken bones in casts. I'm sorry I really found it fairly humerous.
On the other hand I know a different example of a gatekeeper abusing his power. in my city a gay club manager allegedly used his position to allow in teenage boys under 18 - get them drunk - and sometimes take advantage of them. It's a different dynamic but drives home the point that teenagers often get taken advantage of while in effort to gain access to adult society.
I'm glad Foley is gone good riddance - he can detox and
deal with his priest. Pages can witness the molestation of our government by corperations etc. without unwanted sexual advances. Teenagers frontal lobes aren't fully devoloped - they sure ain't kids but they certainly aren't adults either. They want to become adults but shouldn't end up being screwed in order to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He doesn't act like a child molester
Posted by: perri6 on Nov 2, 2006 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Foley the thespian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Child?
Posted by: bigtonio15 on Nov 3, 2006 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All I have to say is that if said 16 year old had committed a crime he would have been charged as an adult. Sometimes children as young as twelve are charged as adults. How can we as a society accept that idea of sentencing a teen to life in prison, but become completely baffled by the thought that a sixteen year old who talks at length over the internet about his masturbatory habits is hardly innocent, or hardly a victim?

I wrote about this on a new blog i sarted
here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Calling Foley a pedophile also plays to homophobia
Posted by: godsbedamned on Nov 4, 2006 8:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for an excellent, insightful article. You mentioned one reason for the glossing of sexual harassment - that, because of sexism, it's simply not taken seriously. And, following this, a "child" hurt by pedophilia is going to be a much more worthy object of sympathy than a female (whether she be a child or not) who experiences sexual harassment (because, just like rape in the rape culture we're living in, a woman is always responsible for the sexual violence she experiences). But, also, framing Foley as a pedophile also fosters and reinforces antihomophobic sentiment, something that liberals and conservatives find palatable. (They don't say explicitly anti-gay things, but they get mileage out of the innuendo that Foley's HOMOSEXUALITY is ultimately the problem, etc.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]