With the exception of statutory rape, which is also hazy considering that the age of consent regarding sex differs from state to state, how is this as bad or even worse than Sanford? Did Studds run his political career heavily centered around the basis of Christian & Family Values? Did he publicly denounce and vote against measures to help progress Gay Rights, which in this case would probably circulate around the AIDS crisis and spreading awareness? You'll have to let me know because in 1983, I was only 10 years old and was only interested in Saturday Morning Cartoons like the Smurfs. And professional wrestling, but I digress. :biggrin:
Age Of Consensual Sex | LIVESTRONG.COM
So a politician having sexual relations with an underage/minor in the employ of the government, even if that person is above the age of consent, is somehow not worse than just having a regular old affair?
Essentially it is open season on all minors for politicians as long as they are the age of consent?
What Sanford did was commit an act that was unsavory, hurtful & hypocritical, if he ever supported marital fidelity, but did not border on illegality of either age or employment related nature.
having sex with a minor employed by congress, whether that minor is male or female is just a tad worse, no matter a republican or democrat
This is a guy that pushed heavily against child pornography and sexual offenses while in office. He was the Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, advocated abstinence for children, introduced bills through congress for stricter sex offender laws and others such as the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act (2002), and even pushed for a nudist resort in Florida to be investigated after it was found that they had a program for teenagers.
A perfect model politician who wanted to be painted as the image of the strong politician who was looking out for the best interest of children. So, we can only imagine the shock when it was exposed he sent fifteen sexually explicit e-mails to a 16 year old boy.
didn't you just excuse having sexual relations as somehow not bad or worse than Sanford because someone was the age of consent yet still a minor in the case of Studds?
Foley deserved to have to resign. His behavior was reprehensible. However there was no physical contact & indeed, Studds' behavior was worse. Sanford's behavior was worse too.
Studds had sex with his page, Foley, for his lechery, did not. Stanford had a physical affair, Foley did not.
And as of late, I don't think Dennis Hastert has been exposed for sexual misconduct of any kind. I could understand the outrage if he was found to be cheating on his wife or fooling around with barely legals.
Hastert, asshole that he is, still did not tolerate it, which goes back to what i was saying about this behavior being condoned by republicans either in leadership or voters as being false.
and as i said, Studds comes out the worst, though Foley & Sanford hardly wrapped themselves in glory.
I will say, both Foley & Stanford expressed regret & contrition while Studds did not.
when people screw up royally, contrition & regret should can usually be seen in the perpetrator if one is to believe that they know they made a serious error.
Foley knew he screwed up massively cybering with a 16 year old boy. Sanford knew he screwed up massively with a young mistress. Studds does not seem to think he screwed up at all having an affair with a 16-17 year old boy & proved it by shunning any type of regret not to mention insulting congress, who felt he might want to accept just a bit of responsibility for extremely bad judgment
And here is where I bring up the issue of individuality on both of these cases. Again, I'm not trying to look at this as a Democrat/Republican issue and I invite you, for once, to also try to do the same. You're the one who considers himself an Independent on this board, so how come it's the "dirty lib" that's willing to do this?
Did Studds run a political career against gays & lesbians, AND was it actually statutory rape considering the age of consent? Don't forget the link I posted earlier on the subject. Whereas Mark Foley actually portrayed himself to the public as the superhero against sexual deviancy towards minors. Then it was exposed that he was soliciting sex with a 16 year old.
Nowhere have i said it is the "dirty lib" willing to do this. i have castigated all of them. the difference, is that in those 3 cases, Sanford, Studds & Foley, not one of them did anything illegal (technically) by the age of consent.
Studds & Foley came close to breaking the law. BOth of their behaviors were extremely questionable
*HOWEVER* you are castigating Foley, because he was an ardent supporter of legislation that supported protection for children. But you have defended Studds because his page was 16-17 as being age of consent, while castigating Foley for his who was 16.
If He is above the age of consent, than Foley has not done anything wrong, or even hypocritical, according to your reasons for not castigating Studds based on the age of consent.
cannot be both ways.
the boys were the same age.
they were both minors.
they were both above the age of consent
only 1 had sex with 1 of the boys or even any physical contact (Studds)
the issue is not that Studds was gay, or how he ran his campaigns or his policy.
the issue is the age.
the fact is, though both were above the age of consent (*BARELY*) both were minors.
Of course, if he wasn't guilty of any crime he could have stayed in office and fought despite what the opposition said about him. But he chose to resign because he knew his reputation was exposed.
Just because you are not guilty of a crime, does not mean you can stay in office. You can be removed from office, asked forcibly to resign, ruined to the point you must resign etc.
He was not guilty of a crime Any more than Studds was, but both were *EXTREMELY* close to a crime of a statutory sexual nature. the diference, hypocrisy aside, is Foley never carried out the physical side. Studds did. What Studds did would still be worse no matter what the gender of the page was, since Studds involved real sex.
saying you are going to screw someone & actually screwing them, no matter how true or hypocritical your views are, are two very different things.
It would be very easy for you to say this if you're only looking at this from a Democrat vs. Republican view. The Dems rallied behind their candidate and saved his career. The Repubs left Mark Foley out to dry.
you have just echoed what i have said about the republicans, for all their flaws, dealing far more forcefully with members of their party on issues of this nature. Whether or not one likes the republicans, or hates them, in the case of Studds, democratic voters returned him to office. republicans did not hang Foley out to dry, they stood on what their alleged principles of "values" are, which whether you agree with their stand or not, you must admit, shows that they do take it seriously and are not hypocritical about it, even if their views are unpalatable.
They were furious over Foley, furious over Craig, they are now furious over Sanford. In each case they either demanded resignation, or made it plainly clear that these folks will suffer in terms of lack of support from the hierarchy & local republican machines.
Well, it is the Republican Party that is usually first to throw out the attacks against Democrats regarding how they have "no morals", or are not "true Christians".
I have not heard the republican party hierarchy ever sanction attacks against the democratic party as having "no morals" or not being "true christians".
Perhaps some individual Republicans do, but for all their intolerance, as i have pointed out above, when the republicans have someone who is embroiled in a scandal of a moral/sexual nature, they are usually extremely active in destroying or forcing out that person, since that person becomes a threat to the perception & beliefs of what the GOP claims to promote.
No matter how much you dislike/disagree with the republicans, you have to give them credit. they may be intolerant & mean & preach values etc. but when one screws up & threatens that image, they do take action & the claws come out to protect the "values" image.
that is my point, while individual republicans may prove to be hypocritical in cases of a sexual nature, the GOP as an institution, is not hypocritical about it & punishes those transgressors one way or another, usually ending a career.
