"Pedophilia"

Not to get too thick in the weeds of apologetics here, but it's certainly true that use of the term "pedophilia" in the context of the Mark Foley scandal should be resisted. What Foley was up to was sleazy and wrong (and, it seems, possibly illegal) but being attracted to older teens isn't pedophilia. I think the gay angle clouds people's thinking about this.

You'll see on the right a photo of Scarlett Johannssonn in Ghost World. She was born on November 22, 1984 and the film was released in 2001, so it would have been shot was she was sixteen years old. I think it's rather self-evident that to classify anyone who thinks this is a picture of an attractive woman as a pedophile would be to drain the term of any real meaning. One could fairly subject a much older man actively persuing a sexual relationship with a sixteen year-old to all sorts of criticism, but pedophilia isn't a plausible candidate.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, it's possible for something both to be wrong and to not be pedophilia. Lots of things that aren't pedophilia are wrong. I'm trying to defend the English language here, not Foley's conduct.

Comments

This is terrific pedantry, Matt. However, when a party that has prospered by telling us all that we aren't sufficiently concerned about sex in all its horrific manifestations, I'm content to let them suffer the unreasonable consequences. Sowing, reaping, all that business.

Posted by dj moonbat | October 3, 2006 11:51 AM

Stupid textarea fields...lousy for editing:

However, when a party [] has prospered..."

Oh, and of course, Scarlett Johansen (sp?) is totally teh hott. But as any good GOP fearmonger would tell you, that's totally different--there's nothing GAY about it. And again, there's the sowing/reaping business on the wrongness of THAT distinction...

Posted by dj moonbat | October 3, 2006 11:53 AM

Sowing, reaping, all that business.

I'm all for that, but I'd actually like them to do less sowing in the future, not to generate a situation where liberals do more sowing.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 3, 2006 11:54 AM

Thank you Matt. I'm really quite sick of hearing this characterized as pedophilia by people who absolutely should know better. On Kos, a very emotional plea laying out how wrong this is was met by most with a "who cares, it's the best meme for the general public to understand". The original diarist was not just making the point that the terminology is wrong, but that by combining it with the homosexual angle of this particular scandal was doing irreparable harm by feeding the false stereotype of gays trying to recruit children.

Posted by NotInMyName | October 3, 2006 11:56 AM

> but I'd actually like them to do less sowing
> in the future, not to generate a situation
> where liberals do more sowing.

From the party that just declared stopping gay marriage "more important that Iraq"? I wouldn't count on it. Not until they have had a _very_ stiff dose of their own medicine.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | October 3, 2006 11:57 AM

It's like the way "genocide" has been kicked around until its meaning has been worn off. Or "fascist," for that matter. A word should be used according to its meaning, not according to the speaker's need to feel slashing and hard-jawed.

Posted by Kyle | October 3, 2006 12:02 PM

Yglesias is clearly trawling the local high-schools with Hastert and the rest of them.

To get at the issue of pedophilia, it would probably be helpful to see the actual pages, and no one wants to do that to the kids, even if they are Republican kids.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 3, 2006 12:03 PM

DAMN! I've got to watch that movie. And yes, I'm so old that my lusting after a 16/17-year old like her would likely be termed by the Sex Police as "creepy".

I'll add that I agree with Matthew completely. It's not pedophilia, and we ought to quit it with having the Sex Police judge relationships between older and younger persons, so long as the younger persons are at or above the age of consent.

Attack the hypocrisy instead.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 12:03 PM

To get at the issue of pedophilia, it would probably be helpful to see the actual pages, and no one wants to do that to the kids, even if they are Republican kids.

The point is, they're not kids.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 12:04 PM

One quibble: To the misery of teenage girls everywhere and especially my teenage self, teenage boys, on average, are nowhere near as mature as girls. We all sort of know about this on the emotional side, but it's also true on the physical side: A sixteen year old guy is a lot more likely to look like a kid and innapropriate sex object than a sixteen year old girl. Now, the kid Foley was hitting on may have been an early-flowering linebacker, but considering that a disturbing share of Hill geek type boys I know in their twenties still look like 16 year olds, I doubt it. I just don't think the Scarlett Johanson comparison is appropriate, though it is a damn good reason for you to post a hot pic on your blog. (care to post Jason Dohring or Francis Capra in the Veronica Mars post as equal opportunity for female readers?)

But you're right: The pedophile term is clearly incorrect. Pedophiles are people who are turned on by pre-pubescent children, which Ms. Johanson and even most 16 year old boys clearly are not. There is, however, another clinical term for inappropriate sexual attraction to kids who are going through puberty or just barely out of it but still to young be appropriate sex objects--it came up a lot in the context of the Roman Catholic priest scandals a few years ago, because, once again, a large number of those cases weren't actually pedophilia but this other thing involving kids in puberty. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the word.

Posted by flippantangel | October 3, 2006 12:09 PM

Matt, you are correct on the psychological issues. You are wrong on the legal issues.

Posted by Joel | October 3, 2006 12:12 PM

"That's what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, they stay the same age." - Wooderson

They're called jailbait for a reason.

Posted by daveNYC | October 3, 2006 12:15 PM

Well, the "pedantry" Matthew is indulging himself in is one of the charming things that separates the party of complexity and nuance ('liberals') from the party of bold primary colors ('conservatives'). As if Bill Clinton would be extended the same courtesy by rightwing bloggers in a similar case.

Posted by Brian | October 3, 2006 12:16 PM

You are wrong on the legal issues.

Are you sure? My understanding is that there are some states in which age of consent laws apply only for females (the purported purpose being originally protection of their fathers' property, later adjusted to preventing teen pregnancy, but never particularly having all that much to do with protecting the kids themselves). Although I don't know where this is the case or if it still is anywhere.

Posted by flippantangel | October 3, 2006 12:17 PM

What Foley is accused of isn't simply sitting around being attracted to teenagers, though. He's accused of actual predatory conduct.

The case against the word "pedophilia" is that it doesn't go far enough.

Posted by Steve | October 3, 2006 12:17 PM

I'm with you on this. It might seem helpful in the short run to use the word 'pedophile,' but it really confuses the issue.

If Foley had been harrassing 16-year-old girls, I doubt anybody would be using the term.

Posted by Misplaced Patriot | October 3, 2006 12:18 PM

What Foley is accused of isn't simply sitting around being attracted to teenagers, though. He's accused of actual predatory conduct.

How do you figure? He was pursuing a relationship with a person who was above the age of consent. How is that "predatory"?

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 12:20 PM

It was clearly a case of pageophilia.

Posted by Jon H | October 3, 2006 12:24 PM

Just for your edification - in doing a little research, I ran across this term that seems a better fit for Foley's prediliction: The term ephebophilia, derived from the Greek word for "youth," is sometimes used to describe sexual interest in young people in the first stages of puberty.

Exactly what limits (regarding age), if any, that Foley placed on his deviant behavior remains to be seen. Regardless, the Christian right SHOULD be outraged in ANY case because sex outside of the marriage relationship is considered a SIN! Of course, it's also ILLEGAL in most places, but even if the age of consent is 16 in Virginia, the laws against internet predators that Foley helped pass make it illegal to solicit anyone under the age of 18. He SHOULD be "toast" - legally, morally, religiously, etc., etc. - unless, or course you're Matt Drudge or Tony Perkins!

Posted by randron | October 3, 2006 12:25 PM

There is, however, another clinical term for inappropriate sexual attraction to kids who are going through puberty or just barely out of it but still to young be appropriate sex objects--it came up a lot in the context of the Roman Catholic priest scandals a few years ago, because, once again, a large number of those cases weren't actually pedophilia but this other thing involving kids in puberty. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the word.

Flippantangel: is it "ephebophilia"? I'm not going to google that at work.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 12:25 PM

Isn't 'pederasty' also applicable to post-pubescent youths?

Posted by LizardBreath | October 3, 2006 12:27 PM

If Nancy Pelosi wanted to put the moves on Scarlett I don't care what they called it just sign me up for pay-per-view. Then I'd move to California just to vote for her!

Posted by steve duncan | October 3, 2006 12:28 PM

Matt,

until you lower the law to considering a minor to be 15 or younger, 16 is a big no-no. Especially with staff, especially if your in the values party of congress, amd even more epsecially if you are leading the fight to keep kids safe.

pedophilia stands as the appropriate word here.

Speeding is Speeding is Speeding. The lines are there for a reason.

Posted by patience | October 3, 2006 12:30 PM

Well, the "pedantry" Matthew is indulging himself in is one of the charming things that separates the party of complexity and nuance ('liberals') from the party of bold primary colors ('conservatives'). As if Bill Clinton would be extended the same courtesy by rightwing bloggers in a similar case.

Indeed. I'll be more than happy to help set people straight on the concept of pedophilia once we've extracted our pound of flesh, and not a moment sooner. It's not necessary that nuanced folks argue that Foley's behavior is pedophilic, but they really ought to STFU while 'wingers insist that it is. The 'winger anti-sex ideology will do the work if we let it.

Posted by dj moonbat | October 3, 2006 12:31 PM

Patience, if 16 is the age of consent, that doesn't mean that 16 is illegal; it means 16 is OK.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 12:33 PM

Okay then, so let's find an alternative. How about "pervert"?

Posted by JP | October 3, 2006 12:39 PM

Pedophilia: People with pedophilia have fantasies, urges or behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). Pedophilic behavior includes undressing the child, encouraging the child to watch the abuser masturbate, touching or fondling the child's genitals and forcefully performing sexual acts on the child. Some pedophiles are sexually attracted to children only (exclusive pedophiles) and are not attracted to adults at all. Some pedophiles limit their activity to their own children or close relatives (incest), while others victimize other children. Predatory pedophiles may use force or threaten their victims if they disclose the abuse. Health care providers are legally bound to report such abuse of minors.

This activity constitutes rape and is a felony offense punishable by imprisonment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Above extracted from MedicineNet.com. The definitions at this site are arrived at by consulting a wide range of experts and physicians in the particular field being discussed.

Posted by steve duncan | October 3, 2006 12:41 PM

flippantangel: Pederasty?

Al: what's our current line on Monica Lewinsky?

Posted by Chris Conway | October 3, 2006 12:44 PM

Al, if your high-school-aged son or daughter got similar messages from a middle-aged man (in a position of authority, natch), I'm sure we'd be hearing a similarly subtle legal argument.

Pedophilia? No. Predatory? Yes. "Sick sick sick"? Oh hell, yeah.

Posted by Chris Conway | October 3, 2006 12:49 PM

Re: A sixteen year old guy is a lot more likely to look like a kid and innapropriate sex object than a sixteen year old girl.

On the appearance side this may be an artifact of style and fashion. Women's fashion and grooming embraces the explicitly sexual and alluring for adult (and near-adult) females in a way that men's clothing simply does not, except at the more extreme and outre ends of the gay subculture's garb. There's really not a lot of diference between men's clothing and boy's clothing and where male youths do dress to shock the image they go after is not one to entice, but one to intimidate (e.g., the Goth and Gangsta looks).

Posted by Jon | October 3, 2006 12:51 PM

I've been hearing for five years from Republicans that I'm a amoral terror-loving treasonist and now I'm supposed to give a good God damn whether Mark Foley is being unfairly and inaccurately labeled a pedophile? Cry me a river. If Foley doesn't like being called a pedophile he shouldn't have tried to fuck those juveniles.

On the other hand, let's do have the discussion over whether or not this was really pedophilia. Let's have it on TV, and let's discuss it from now until Election Day. Foley is a pedophile or technically not a pedophile? Now that's what I call a frame!

Posted by matthew | October 3, 2006 12:51 PM

I'm just a few years younger than Foley and from my perspective pedophelia is not too strong a term for what he did. He was more than attracted to a sixteen-year-old; he acted on that attraction. It's one thing for somebody in his twenties to act on such an attraction but it's a whole different ball game for somebody in his fifties to do so.

Also, In addition to being creepy and possibly illegal, in anyplace except the White House or the Congress, which are exempt from such statutes, it would, because of the power differential and the pervasiveness of Foley's acts, be sexual harassment. Even aside from that, it would, for the same reasons, be morally wrong.

Posted by Stephen Green | October 3, 2006 12:52 PM

How do you figure? He was pursuing a relationship with a person who was above the age of consent. How is that "predatory"?

Remember, friends, it's liberals who are supposedly out of step with the average American. Conservatives like Al have their fingers right on the pulse.

Posted by Steve | October 3, 2006 12:54 PM

Al: what's our current line on Monica Lewinsky?

My line on Clinton and Lewinsky is now, and always has been, that the relationship is none of my business and was none of Ken Starr's business. (Nevertheless, the fact that it was none of Ken Starr's business didn't give Clinton the right to lie under oath.)

And my line is that I see absolutely no difference between what Clinton did and what Foley did, other than the fact that Clinton actually had sex and Foley didn't.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 12:55 PM

Pederasty is a reasonable expression, though old fashioned. Here's a modern, slangy alternative, as defined by Wikipedia:

As an idiom within and referencing the LGBT community, chicken hawk (also called chicken hunter, chicken queen or coke-roller) is gay slang used in referring to an older gay man who seeks out much younger men or boys for sex (See pederasty and Homosexual recruitment).

Posted by RSA | October 3, 2006 12:58 PM

Regarding the "person with authority" issue: what authority did Foley have over any of the people he contacted? I thought they were former pages, and even if they were current (at the time of contact) pages, pages don't work for Foley, right?

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 12:58 PM

As an idiom within and referencing the LGBT community, chicken hawk

I wonder if there's any correlation between people who are "chicken hawks" under that definition and people who are "chicken hawks" in the "I'm willing to send kids to die in Iraq even as I'm not willing to go myself" or similar senses?

Posted by DAS | October 3, 2006 1:07 PM

Whether pedophilia or not legally, children reach an age of responsibility or awareness at some point. To use one identifier to lump adult contact with a 16 year old and with a 6 year old is to understate the horror of the latter. Use of a more horrifying, but not exactly appropriate, word is a tactic of the Right and perhaps we need to use their tactics if our objective is entirely political. Perhaps not. From my point of view, if a page is able to live away from home and have responsibility at age 16, he is not the victim of pedophilia. He is a victim of many other things, not the least of which is sexual harassment by someone in a position of power.

Posted by Mudge | October 3, 2006 1:07 PM

I guess it's too bad for Foley that the legislation he sponsored didn't bother, as far as I know, with the same semantic nuances that MY points out. I mean, yeah, OK, I'll knock off using the word "pedophile" -- now. Now that the word's been pretty solidly planted in heads from one coast to the other.

Posted by sglover | October 3, 2006 1:13 PM

C'mon Matt, do the math. If he's hitting on the 16-year old boys with whom he works everyday, he's probably not asking for birth certificates and drivers licenses when he's trolling on the net for action. And the Scarlett J. example is irrelevant. The fact that she was attractive six years ago, and obviously has remained such after she became a public figure, doesn't mean anything in the context of whether it was appropriate (or legal) for Foley to be hitting on teenage boys today.

Posted by Steve Smith | October 3, 2006 1:18 PM

Al, I'm operating on the assumption that a member of the House leadership could make life difficult for a page, if he so wanted, and that a former page might aspire to someday be a Congressional intern, aide, or political operative.

But you're right. It's not creepy or sleazy at all.

Anyway, I guess I'm feeding the troll. Is this the same (infinite set of) Al(s) that's been trolling Kevin Drum since time immemorial?

Posted by Chris Conway | October 3, 2006 1:19 PM

Sexual fantasies about a sexually mature individual -- like the Scarlett Johansson photograh -- is perverted? In what universe? "Pedophilia" to have any meaning, has to be about sexual fantasies and acts regarding pre-pubescent and pubescent individuals.

There's certainly reason to distrust the judgment of some young individuals (post-pubescent to ???) regarding sexual conduct, but that's a whole other kettle of fish than perversion. One of our paradigms of sexual intelligence -- Romeo and Juliet -- speaks through the persona of a 13 year old. Mary, Jesus's mother, has tradtionally been understood to have been 13. Etc.

That we've expanded the infantilization of adolescents to the age of 16, 17, and 18 speaks to the expansion of societal infantilization in general. Modern capitalist society dreams of the infinite world enough and time of the Marvell poem and so promotes endless adolescence. There's real perversion in that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 3, 2006 1:23 PM

I think it would be helpful in deciding what to label Foley (besides goddam closet case) in knowing where his other sexual interests lay. There's a wide spectrum of ages available on Capitol Hill - was he also flirting with staffers in their 30s and 40s and elevator operators in their 60s and the whole Hill was his playground? - or were his activities solely confined to the shallow end of the pool? I think there's quite a difference between a between a standards-lacking complete horn dog and a pedophile/pederast.

Posted by Andy | October 3, 2006 1:25 PM

@Steve Smith

Did you even read the post? Where in the post does Matt say its appropriate for Foley to be hitting on teenagers? He just says its not pedophilia. I guess that is as close as anyone will come to defending Foley, but it's hardly a defense. Maybe that's a new campaign slogan for the Rs 'Iraq is bad, but hey it's not pedophilia!'

Crack

On second thought I was probably wrong about the defense, Drudge already said that those kids were asking for it.

Posted by crack | October 3, 2006 1:26 PM

When the pursuer is over 50 years old.
When the pursuer knows the pursued is 16.
When the pursued is a member of group over whom the pursuer had and obligation in loco parentis.

Pedophilia n.

The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.

...might be a reasonable description.

Posted by milo | October 3, 2006 1:34 PM

Parents who send their 16 year old children to washington to be pages expect that they will not be subject to the sexual advances of those with power over them. It would be like the ghostworld director hitting on the 16 year Scarlett Johannssonn. Not Pedophilia, but not at all unobjectionable.

Actual pedophilia wouldn't be as much of a scandal because it would by necessity been kept secret by Foley and wouldn't have had other congressmen covering up for and betraying the trust of pages and their parents.

Posted by joeo | October 3, 2006 1:39 PM

Mmmmmmm ... Scarlett ...

--Was there supposed to be a post next to that picture? Guess I missed it.

Posted by Anderson | October 3, 2006 1:40 PM

I liked Thora Birch better in Ghost World; I have a brunette with glasses thing. Scarlett got better looking as she got older.

At 50+ it becomes permissable to look again, although always from a safe and ironic distance. Contact is forbidden. The nostalgia and regret makes any romance so pathetic. It is by nature predatory, a vampirism, a desire to suck the youth from the prey. What decent person would want to give a 20 yr old thirty years of experience?

Posted by bob mcmanus | October 3, 2006 1:42 PM

No kidding. The worst is hearing people talk about this guy as a "sexual predator". It's absurd. By that definition, anyone who seduces anyone else is a 'sexual predator'. To me the term always meant violent racists.

It's such a crude attempt by partisans to score as many 'points' off this as they can, just like how republicans talk about anyone who disagrees with them as 'terrorists'.

What foley did is creepy and wrong, but it doesn't rise to the level of 'sexual predator' or 'pedophile'

Posted by A B | October 3, 2006 1:49 PM

It is amazing to me to see so many so-called liberals on the thread turn into the Sex Police. Jeez, when did liberals turn into sexually-repressed conservatives?

Does anyone really think that the reactions here would be even remotely the same if the person hitting on the 16-year old ex-pages was a 26-year old Democrat legislative aide instead of a 56-year old Republican Congressman?

Also, I'm curious about all those you are excoriating Hastert for not investigating further. Do you really want Republican House Speakers investigating anytime anyone working in Congress makes a pass at another over-the-age-of-consent employee of Congress? Really? I just can't believe that the Sex Police are out in such full force on this one. I expect it from the sexual neanderthals on the right, but not from the supposedly enlightened crowd on the left.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 1:51 PM

It became pedophilia the moment he engaged in a sexually oriented dialogue with the intent of arousal. Oogling a 16 year old isn't pedophilia, it's creepy sure, but not pedophilia. Foley went beyond that and engaged the teen, he didn't make comments from distance.

Predator is the exact word to be used on Foley.

Posted by Fred F. | October 3, 2006 1:55 PM

> Does anyone really think that the reactions
> here would be even remotely the same if the
> person hitting on the 16-year old ex-pages
> was a 26-year old Democrat legislative aide
> instead of a 56-year old Republican Congressman?

1) A congressional aide does not stand in a position of supervision or in loco parentis to a page. A Congressman does.

2) For a 26 y.o. to pursue a 16 y.o. is somewhat poor judgement (and perhaps illegal in some jurisdictions). For a 52 y.o. is a colossal misjudgment and IMHO grossly immoral. There is a bit of a difference in the ages between your two examples. And the Radicals have been exactly the party trumpting the lack of this morality in our society for the last 6 (nay, 26) years.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | October 3, 2006 2:00 PM

Also, I'm curious about all those you are excoriating Hastert for not investigating further.

You went from Pecksniffian humbug to ludicrous with that one: sexually trolling minors over the internet is illegal.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 3, 2006 2:07 PM

We need another word. Not calling it pedophilia leads us right into the conservative's argument that "it's a problem of homosexuality" and gives them another excuse to gay bash.

Of course, we never hear the claim, "it's a problem of heterosexuality" when teachers seduce students of the opposite sex.

Posted by howie | October 3, 2006 2:24 PM

I liked Thora Birch better in Ghost World; I have a brunette with glasses thing. Scarlett got better looking as she got older.

That's funny, I have a blonde, Scandinavian-half-breed thing. I even date one.

Seriously, though, I hope no one is trying to use ephebophilia to mean lusting after fair Scarlett. Ephebos means, essentially, male only. I'm not sure why we need terms for any of this, but it's a clinical age, so in defence of precise usage, I'd point to the appropriate gender non-specific term corophilia. Impeccably Greek, though I don't think in use. Anyway, like Matt, just trying to defend the language.

Posted by Evan McElravy | October 3, 2006 2:39 PM

Crack: Did you even read the post? Where in the post does Matt say its appropriate for Foley to be hitting on teenagers? He just says its not pedophilia. I guess that is as close as anyone will come to defending Foley, but it's hardly a defense. Maybe that's a new campaign slogan for the Rs 'Iraq is bad, but hey it's not pedophilia!'

I don't draw distinctions between hitting on minors (15 and younger) and pedophilia. If you're a middle-aged male whose sexual proclivities focus on children in that age group, you have problems. The fact that the male pages were barely over the age of consent indicates that Foley was on the borderline, at the very least.

Posted by Steve Smith | October 3, 2006 3:05 PM

Don't ever try to use that word "corophilia", MY. Or type very carefully.

Posted by bob mcmanus | October 3, 2006 3:06 PM

The irony of the legal argument is that Foley's infraction has nothing to do with the age of consent for engaging in sex...it is against the law to solicit sex from minors (defined in the act as under the age of 18), and the law was sponsored by Foley. Is it a good law? No, it is a grandstanding law with some bad provisions. But here it is:

http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/library/soma.htm

(7) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF `SPECIFIED OFFENSE AGAINST A MINOR' TO INCLUDE ALL OFFENSES BY CHILD PREDATORS- The term `specified offense against a minor' means an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:

(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving kidnapping.

(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving false imprisonment.

(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.

(D) Use in a sexual performance.

(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.

(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of title 18, United States Code.

(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child pornography.

(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.

(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.

Posted by bemused | October 3, 2006 3:06 PM

The point is, they're not kids

Would you like to explain that to the parents who entrusted them to Congress' care? Now that's something I'd really like to see on TV.

Posted by Lynn | October 3, 2006 3:16 PM

Foley is done. The story now, rightfully, is the cover-up of known inappropriate sexual behavior, legal or otherwise, by the House leadership. Who can say with a straight face that in a just society, Foley should have been free and proud to IM 16 years olds about their orgasms in the middle of House votes? Liberals can call Foley what he is--a degenerate bastard sexual predator, pretty plainly guilty of breaking his own laws; saying that doesn't make us less liberal, it doesn't make us homophobes. I don't even know why we're talking about this angle of the story, except as an excuse to post pictures of Scarlett Johnanson.

Oh, wait, I do know why we're talking about this--goddamn Jonah Goldberg, never too far away from the thoughts of Tapped and its alums (because of his "interesting mind", no doubt.) Jonah, who is trying, in his small way, to use the whole sorry scandal to paint Dems as hypocrites--because as Jonah suggests, a big part of the Dem's natural constituency is the Gay Left, aka dirty old men who cruise teenage street hustlers. Jonah's only musing on the semantics because he's simultaneously dropping a giant load in his pants (live the nickname, nepotism boy!) over what this sick shit is doing to GOP chances in November.

It's frustrating for me to see Matt here and Sam at Tapped listen to Jonah's line, rub their chins and find themselves nodding in agreement. Maybe 16 doesn't seem so young when you're a bright 25 year-old wonk bopping around Washington, but hell, I'm 35 and Scarlett sure looks like a kid in that picture to me. I imagine to a 52-year-old, a 16-year-old might as well be in training pants. It's fucked up any way you slice it. Is "pedophile" the incorrect term? Great. Point, Goldberg! But I don't think that will really matter too much in the final score. As Lynn just said, try telling the parents of these pages being hit on by Foley, asked to measure their penises and take off their boxers, that their children are "not kids".

Posted by Cole Moore Odell | October 3, 2006 3:30 PM

scarlett is an early developer....

Posted by razib | October 3, 2006 3:30 PM

Like Johansson is a typical teenager. And like a movie still is a genuine image of what she really looks like.

I'm the parent of a 16-year old. I spend a lot of time with a lot of different kids at school and sports, and I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of teen-aged boys are just that- boys. They are not at their full height, and they are very far from having the musculature of a grown man. Most of them don't shave.

Emotionally, they remain highly dependent on adults in positions of authority. They are impulsive, reckless, and rebellious, but also insecure. They crave approval, and are easily swayed by peer pressure. They are not yet interested in pairing off, preferring to socialize in groups. Very few are "sexually active," - and those that are not virgins do not have a mature sex life.

Take a look at an ordinary 16 year old, Matt. Like this:
http://www.student-management.com/nsmg/uploadedfiles/web-students/6048.jpg

Any grown man hitting on a child who looks like this is a pedophile.

Posted by JR | October 3, 2006 3:36 PM

Did I ever tell you about the time I nailed a 16 year old Urma Thurman?

Posted by lee siegel | October 3, 2006 3:52 PM

Yes, but she was wearing a baseball cap, so you had to kill her.

Posted by Cole Moore Odell | October 3, 2006 3:58 PM

I find Matt's update hilarious. Trying to defend the English language? You butcher it on a daily basis! Is this one of those "you only hurt the ones you love" things?

Posted by dj moonbat | October 3, 2006 4:08 PM

Today's Word: LECHER
I'd call Foley a dirty old man, but he's younger than me.
Okay, he's not a pedophile, so lets just say, "Lech" (rhymes with "Yech".)

Posted by anonymous | October 3, 2006 4:13 PM

"He’s not a pedophile — pedophiles love children..."
Aviva, from Solondz's Palindromes

Posted by GEROPHILE | October 3, 2006 4:16 PM

Re: Scarlett Johannssonn ...

I have a friend who, except for her much darker, typically Nigerian skin color, looks almost exactly like Ms. Johannssonn.

Posted by DAS | October 3, 2006 4:25 PM

Here's what the Dems ought to do for next Sunday's TeeVee gasfests: Get some canny operators (NOT the standard milquetoast dullards or TNR idiot-savant wannabes!) to go up against the usual GOP shills and goad them into describing precisely how, in exacting semantic and legalistic detail, this is not about pedophilia. I want to hear all about how 16 year olds aren't really minors, and how there wasn't any sex per se.

Play it right, and this could be the greatest pigfucker moment since LBJ's Senate days....

Posted by sglover | October 3, 2006 4:30 PM

I have a Nigerian friend too who looks like Scarlett also. Funny thing, my Nigerian friend has $45 million dollars stashed in a safe place in Lagos, but we need money to bribe the officials to get the money back to the US. If anyone can help, please wire me your bank instructions and you can have a cut.

Posted by Vanya | October 3, 2006 4:32 PM

Anybody else find Lost in Translation to be a really creepy movie?

Posted by blah | October 3, 2006 4:35 PM

Anybody else find Lost in Translation to be a really creepy movie?

Well, that's just it: no. Because they keep it from being sexual. Scarlett's character gets jealous, showing that she's starting to feel some confusion, but that's not creepy--the emotions are on her side, not his. (Leaving aside, she's supposed to be 22 or so.)

It's actually a rather sweet, sad movie: older person whose life is stuck & going nowhere meets younger person whose life is stuck and going who-knows-where.

Posted by Anderson | October 3, 2006 4:48 PM

"It's actually a rather sweet, sad movie"

Yeah, it's a tricky line and Murray could have won an oscar. He isn't quite fatherly and not really romantic; but the friendship has just enough of both qualities to help Johansson.

I didn't like LiT;too much a chick fantasy.

Posted by bob mcmanus | October 3, 2006 5:00 PM

The Johansson character in Ghost World is clearly a teenager. If you want to see what she looked like in that movie, go to http://www.mgm.com/ghostworld/ie/index.html and and look at the "photo gallery." You'll see the pic that Matt selected, and you'll see a half a dozen others where it's clear that she is not a grown woman.

Posted by JR | October 3, 2006 5:00 PM

"There is, however, another clinical term for inappropriate sexual attraction to kids who are going through puberty or just barely out of it but still to young be appropriate sex objects"

A 16 or 17 year old is not just "barely out of puberty". That would be a 13 or 14 year old.

As others have noted, the term you are searching for is Ephebophilia.

Ephebophilia is not an inappropriate sexual attraction, but instead is a totally normal and healthy sexual attraction. Not being sexually attracted to 16 and 17 year olds is a bit odd and difficult to imagine. In other words, almost everyone is an ephebophile.

Even the actual act of engaging in sexual relations with 16 and 17 year olds (which is very different than being sexually attracted to them) remains legal in most states, as well as in most European countries.

Foley's problem has much more to do with abusing a position of trust than anything else. (And given his MO of seemingly waiting until the pages were out of the program, he may be innocent about that as well.) Of course, the politics of Foley-gate are rather separate from the actual justice of what transpired. Politics, rightly, is about appearances and symbolism.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 5:12 PM

note that the latest batch of IMs (see Atrios, for example) shows Foley plying his object of affection with the promise of alcohol. the kid admits he's underage, Foley doesn't care.

this is in the same batch where Foley is having IM-Sex with a teenager while the House is voting on a military appropriations bill.

maybe "pedophile" isn't the legal term for what's going on here, but as the poster above said, if the Republicans would like to argue that, i'd be more than happy to let them. $10 to the first Republican who utters the phrase "that depends what the meaning of 'pedophilia' is".

Posted by cleek | October 3, 2006 5:23 PM

I think "pederasty" is the precisely correct word for what both Foley and Clinton did. Pedophilia has the connotation of a psychological illness that leads to destructive behavior, and I would agree that as the victim approach his or her late teens, a grey area forms.

"Pederasty" has a social and historical connotation -- describing the sense of entitlement on the part of the older, more powerful person, and the relative powerlessness of the younger victim who may be misled into thinking they are getting something out of the relationship. Note that some of the pages who knew Foley described him as a "mentor." Note that Monica Lewinsky, rather touchingly, wanted Clinton to hear her public policy views, and Clinton apparently encouraged her to discuss policy to get sex.

The legal questions surrounding pederasty are somewhat arbitrary. In Foley's case, the fact that his victims were under 18 probably means he can be charged with a crime, whereas Clinton faced no such risk because Lewinsky was past the age of consent.

Thousands of parents send their kids to Washington DC every year to be pages or interns. Are our leaders so far above us now that they think they've earned the right to view these kids as fresh meat, and to view themselves as akin to Roman emperors? Well, to be fair, most don't. But I'm sure Foley and Clinton are part of a much larger cohort, and if this scandal leads to more exposure of it, fine. A real debate on this issue is overdue. Pederasty is not a "private, sexual matter." It's a cultural question. The only reason the young victims like the House pages or Lewinsky would even consider diddling with geezers like Foley or Clinton is because WE, the American people, sent them to Washington and gave them power. Do we, the people, agree that this is an appropriate perk of the power we gave our leaders? Should CEOs and other leaders enjoy the same perks? Should we encourage our own children to put themselves in position to be "mentored" in this fashion? Or do we think this is wrong? And if we do think it's wrong, how do we propose to stop it?

Posted by John S. | October 3, 2006 5:28 PM

Lost in Translation isn't sexual? What movie are you people watching? Of course it was sexual - there's great sexual tension between SJ and BM. The fact that the tension isn't resolved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yikes.

As usual, Petey is exactly right: "Ephebophilia is not an inappropriate sexual attraction, but instead is a totally normal and healthy sexual attraction. Not being sexually attracted to 16 and 17 year olds is a bit odd and difficult to imagine. In other words, almost everyone is an ephebophile."

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 5:32 PM

"I'm the parent of a 16-year old. ... Very few are "sexually active"

You just keep on believing that. All the stats that paint a very different picture must be lying.

"Any grown man hitting on a child who looks like this is a pedophile."

If you follow the Alice in Wonderland philosophy of making words mean only mean what you want them to mean, then sure...

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 5:33 PM

Of course what this scandal is really about is that the Republican leadership was covering for Foley's unsavory behavior. They didn't even let the Democrat on the page board know of the emails. But they did let the Republican in charge of getting Republicans reelected to the House know.

That is prima facie evidence of a cover-up.

And Matthew having the hots for a 16 year old Scarlett in 2001 when he was 20 (Matthew was born 5/18/81 same day as my oldest son) is not particularly creepy.

Posted by epistemology | October 3, 2006 5:44 PM

"I think "pederasty" is the precisely correct word for what both Foley and Clinton did."

This is true only if Monica Lewinsky is secretly an adolescent boy.

The meaning of words is not your private definition of them, but instead, is the commonly accepted definition of them.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 5:48 PM

It's a little creepy that you know Matthew's birthday, though! :-)

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 5:48 PM

Lost in Translation isn't sexual? What movie are you people watching?

What I said was, "They keep it from being sexual." Meaning "the characters." But I suppose "it" = "relationship" could be mistaken for "it" = "the movie," which I didn't mean.

Considering what an utter disaster Virgin Suicides was, LiT was freakin' brilliant. I await with trepidation the concert pic of Marie Antoinette ...

Posted by Anderson | October 3, 2006 5:48 PM

"They didn't even let the Democrat on the page board know"

Yup. That, I think, is the legitimate scandal.

Of course, politics is a game of symbolism, and scandals that aren't legitimate can still be very real political scandals.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 5:50 PM

It's not much of a stretch to expand the definition of pederasty to include young women, given the fact that in most professions where interns, pages, etc. are recruited, men and women have an approximately equal opportunity to advance -- unlike previous civilizations where those paths were open only to young men. The cultural issue I raised is the same. Is it okay with you for older men (or women) in power to sexually exploit teens and young adults of either sex in exchange for "mentorship?" Is this something they are entitled to? Is this something that the interns should expect, even cultivate? Or should this kind of relationship be sanctioned?

I just thought Matt's question was a really good one, and deserved some thought. If the only question on the table on this forum is "Is (blank) good for the Democrats in '06?" then fine. Of course the Foley affair is good for the Democrats, because Democrats would never, ever do something like this, the public will see that clearly, and will vote the Democrats in.

Posted by John S. | October 3, 2006 6:10 PM

The cultural issue I raised is the same. Is it okay with you for older men (or women) in power to sexually exploit teens and young adults of either sex in exchange for "mentorship?"

Jeebus. I thought we solved this question in 1998.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 6:17 PM

I loved "Lost in Translation". After its opening shot parody of all those Japanses paintings of Mt. Fuji, it could do no wrong.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 3, 2006 6:19 PM

I thought we solved this question in 1998.

We resolved it? Which way?

Posted by John S. | October 3, 2006 6:19 PM

"It's not much of a stretch to expand the definition of pederasty to include young women"

It's also not much of a stretch to expand the definition of "blue" to include green.

"I just thought Matt's question was a really good one"

Then I think you badly misunderstand Matthew's post, which was all about folks using the word "pedophilia" to mean things quite different from the commonly accepted definition of pedophilia.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 6:22 PM

Ephebophilia is not an inappropriate sexual attraction, but instead is a totally normal and healthy sexual attraction. Not being sexually attracted to 16 and 17 year olds is a bit odd and difficult to imagine. In other words, almost everyone is an ephebophile.

Petey, I'll give you that most men straight men are probably sexually attracted to reasonably attractive 16 and 17 year old girls (who often aren't visibly different from adult women--hell, I see 14 year olds on the subway everyday who look more "developed" than I ever will).

BUT if you honestly think more than a few troubled adult women find 16 year old boys attractive (Leave out the 1% of kids who are way ahead on the developmental curve), you either know some screwed up women or are still in thrall to your adolescent fantasies.

Posted by flippantangel | October 3, 2006 6:31 PM

"Considering what an utter disaster Virgin Suicides was..."

But I loved Virgin Suicides :)

It is very important (and pertinent to this thread) to understand that the expression of sexuality in LiT is one-sided, controlled and limited largely by Murray in order to provide Johannson with a learning and growth experience. It is a "safe place" for Johansson to experiment; there is no possibility of actual romance or even misunderstanding.

That is why it is a chick fantasy; most of us men would either mess it up or run away. Murray, in the movie, is an actor and a pro, a husband and a father.

Posted by bob mcmanus | October 3, 2006 6:34 PM

Is it okay with you for older men (or women) in power to sexually exploit teens and young adults of either sex in exchange for "mentorship?" Is this something they are entitled to? Is this something that the interns should expect, even cultivate? Or should this kind of relationship be sanctioned?

Exploiting people over whose jobs/careers you have some kind of influence sexually in return for the promise of career advancement is always wrong. It doesn't matter if the people who are being offered career assistance in return for sex are older or younger than the person offering. And, no, interns should not expect or cultivate such relationships. The expected value of professional harm far outweighs that of the benefits in most cases.

Posted by flippantangel | October 3, 2006 6:54 PM

"BUT if you honestly think more than a few troubled adult women find 16 year old boys attractive..."

I think that the cliche of older males being attracted to younger females, and vice versa, is not without a pretty huge grain of truth. There's a reason this cliche is much more prevalent than the opposite cliche.

And I also agree with you that, especially in the adolescent arena, males tend to lag a bit behind females.

And finally, I'd mention that the correlated factor of lack of sexual experience is more unattractive on males than females.

But all those caveats aside, I do indeed think that more than "a few" adult women find some element of sexual attraction towards a pretty-boy 16 year old male.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 6:57 PM

Who cares whether it's precise or correct or whatever. Do Republicans worry about such things when calling Democrats terrorist appeasers? Hang the pedophile tag around their necks. Make'em deny it. Keep it out there. Fire with fire, just desserts, and all that.

Posted by Paul | October 3, 2006 6:59 PM

Half the screen time in LiT is the camera languidly caressing Scarlett Johannson's curves as she lounges around her hotel room in her underwear. I wish my girlfriends spent as much time