Bill Maher Joins the Blame the Victim Crowd

I cannot believe what I just heard Bill Maher, supposed liberal, say to Wolfie on the Foley matter - he essentially blamed the pages here for leading Foley on.  It's absolutely unbelievable to me that ANYONE could say "the power was with the kids" here.  Absolutely stunning.  More below the fold

Maher clearly didn't much want to talk about the Foley matter - appropriately, he wanted to talk about Iraq, which is fine.  But when pushed into talking about "La Cage aux Foley", as FDL calls it, Maher blamed it all on our sexually repressed society, and the pressure on Foley to stay in the closet instead of being out.  Here, I started screaming at the TV set - closeted gays do NOT just automatically become predators!  But that's what he was implying.  THEN, he essentially parroted the right wingers' line - Drudge's line, to be precise - that "the kids have the power over the congressman in this situation" when they received these e-mails.  He said "kids aren't innocent these days - they were flirting with him!"  as if that excuses everything.  The harshest words he would apply to Foley were "creepy".  I'm beginning to think that's equally applicable to Maher.

I don't know if people who haven't worked on the Hill can fully appreciate the power any Member of Congress has over any staff person, and most of all over pages who have no real "bosses" to give them clout.  These young men, some of whom are speaking out now and were just on CNN, were in NO position as 17 and 16 year olds to go blabbing about a congressman - OF the party in POWER, that's important to remember - coming on to them.  I had male congressmen come on to me when I worked there and while I was in my 30's, I didn't feel comfortable about even talking about it - I just tried to avoid them.  

Maher is a fool, this confirms it for me.

•  Creepy is the only word I ever think of....

  when I see Maher.  Do not understand his popularity.

  by joesig on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 02:57:21 PM PDT

  •  BILL WANTS TO PRESERVE HIS "RIGHT" TO HIT ON TEEN

    And Bill would like to imagine teen girls hitting on creepy 50 him.

    Or pretend that when he hits on the underage, they actually desire a pasty fifty-year-old "libertarian" out for himself, only.

    OKay the gender may be different, but when it comes to sex for Bill, well, it's always about Bill cumming.

    by judybrowni on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:52:49 PM PDT

    •  You Really Think

      he doesn't have young people hanging around him all the time? He's famous, he's rich. Get real.

      I agree with you 100% that it's creepy and sick, but money and fame still gets the chicks (or guys, whatever). And yes, they are often quite young. We really are naive around here sometimes.

      by FLDemJax on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 05:01:23 PM PDT

      •  I've been part of that particular Hollywood scene

        Actresses in their twenties, yup, galore.

        But underage 15, 16 year olds, might be attracted to the fame, but not to the pasty old guy himself.

        Unless, of course, they were molested by their fathers, and then all bets are off.

        by judybrowni on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 07:17:41 PM PDT

        •  At My Age

          it starts getting a little tough to put an age on anyone under 30, so I don't try!

          by FLDemJax on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 02:26:58 PM PDT

•  Pretty disappointing

  I usually like Maher's opinions. This one is like blaming a 14-year-old for being raped because she wore a short skirt or a tight blouse. Inexcusable.

  by terryamil on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 02:58:10 PM PDT

  •  Exactly - oh, and tips?

    My thoughts exactly - he was completely wrong on this issue, in my view.

    And- tips anyone? Thenkyouverymuch.

    by geordie on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:00:37 PM PDT

    •  Are you sure???

      I've always loved him.  I'm sick.  What an ass.

      by cowgirl on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:09:02 PM PDT

      •  Yep, I'm sure

        I don't have a transcript, but I typed this in virtually real time (no pun intended) and I'm absolutely sure I got it down correctly.  But of course if I made a mistake, I'll correct it.

        by geordie on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:16:04 PM PDT

        •  geordie is correct. Maher did say those things

          I heard him too.  He can be funny sometimes,
          but he's struck me more than once as a misogynistic
          egomaniac who lacks the ability to feel empathy.

          by Cassandra77 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:54:28 PM PDT

          •  Maher did say those things

            I used to watch Bill Maher right after ABC's "Night-Line" everynight for a few years before he got canceled for what he said about 9/11 (after I got pissed at Jay Leno cuz Leno wouldn't quit bashing Clinton night after night even after Bush got elected.) Anyway Bill Maher always stressed he wasn't a Liberal and said many times he didn't like either the Republicans or the Democrats. One thing he used to repeat all the time that made me wince when talking about illegal immigration was, "Americans are lazy! They don't want to work!". They do want to work, they just don't want to work for sub-standard wages. It's another example of his "Blaming the victim".

            by William Domingo on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:36:03 PM PDT

•  We get to vote creeps out of office

  How do we get rid of clueless creepy news anchors?

  by lizpolaris on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 02:59:08 PM PDT

  •  Bill Maher

    is most definitely NOT a news anchor.  He is a comedian with a cynical political angle.  Although most of his opinions are couched in funny terms, most of the time he is pretty :common sense:  The fact that he blamed the kid here is out of character, even for him.

    by PsychoSavannah on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:06:48 PM PDT

  •  THAT may, in fact, be the question of the

    freakin' era. If we could solve that little problemo, we might could solve a whole hell (of a lot).

    by Unduna on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:22:30 PM PDT

•  I agree with him

  It's not to say that all closeted gays living straight lives do this, but It may have been a factor.

  On the other hand, if a 13-year-old flirts (and it is normal for them to do  so), it is still up to the adult to place limits. Bill was wrong to blame the kid.

  by coigue on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:00:19 PM PDT

  •  I half agree

    I think all closeted gays living straight Republican lives end up twisted and dangerous, but still that's no excuse. Being Republican IS, after all, a "lifestyle choice" and one that's possible to change. These creeps made their own bed, so to speak, and they merit no sympathy.

    Re the bit about the page-boys being shameless flirts, that again is no excuse, even if it is true (and I'm not so sure it is). Mature adults protect young people; they don't take advantage of their immaturity.

    by matt n nyc on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:36:29 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely

      on all counts.

      The child's behavior is completely irrelevant.

      by coigue on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:07:24 PM PDT

•  I don't believe Maher

  sees himself as a Liberal.

  He's made questionable calls in the past, though he certainly should know better than to mis-route this into homophobia.

  It's a control issue, damn it!

  Boil them all!

  by BoxerRebellion on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:00:29 PM PDT

  •  hes a libertarian

    by Craig Burnham on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:01:01 PM PDT

    •  'Zactly

      Though that's no excuse.

      by BoxerRebellion on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:07:50 PM PDT

    •  He isn't a libertarian...

      ...at all, but he calls himself one.  He isn't a libertarian on any issues but drug policy.

      by Jay Elias on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:27:21 PM PDT

•  Bill Maher

  is a jackass, and someone needs to let him know he's not funny at all.

  And his show sucks quite frankly, cept when Markos is on.

  by Craig Burnham on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:00:46 PM PDT

•  You must have misunderstood.

  Mahrer isn't so stupid...is he?

  by Inland on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:00:47 PM PDT

•  Bill Maher is not a Democrat.

  Why do we keep hailing certain comedians are leaders of progressivism and heroes? Whether it's Jon Stewart or Bill Maher or whoever, they are comdedians with varying opinions. Whenever Jon makes a joke about Democrats, people cry out "He's a closet conservative!!!!" or "He stabbed us in the back!!!" Give me a fucking break. They are comdedians not leaders. They have their own opinions and are not a monolithic group who have to support our cause 100% of the time. In fact Maher's response does not surprise me, he is extremely open minded about such issues and doesn't take anything to do with sex that seriously. So what? It's his opinion, he doesn't have any sway over anyone. He is a comedian with a show who goes on TV from time to time and people know who he is--he is not a Democratic Party mouthpiece. C

  hill out and stop taking comedians so seriously.

  by michael1104 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:01:10 PM PDT

  •  Nobody's taking him too seriously

    Hey, I report, you decide - he was on CNN, after all, and expressed opinions I think were largely bone-headed.  He's adding to the Republican echo chamber on this, and could easily be picked up by Carlson or others as "see, liberals agree with us that this wasn't so bad!".  So I think people needed to be alerted to what he said.

    by geordie on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:04:02 PM PDT

    •  Well

      like I said, it didn't shock me that Maher said this. I think he is a talented comedian, and I love his show and will keep watching--I don't have to agree with him in order to find him funny or like him.

      As for adding to the Republican echo chamber...last time I checked the Republican message wasn't being taken very seriously by the media. I'm actually kind of satisfied with the coverage. There has been very little "equivalency" with Studds or Clinton or whoever else..and the only people bringing that up are Limbaugh types who were gonna do it anyway. It's laughable, and despite the high stupidity of the American people, if there is a scandal as easy to understand it is this, people have kids and they are not stupid. The GOP is toast, no matter what Dobson says or what Maher says. Nobody takes his opinions as the word of God.

      by michael1104 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:08:59 PM PDT

  •  so open minded his brain fell out

    he has always been a juvenile jackass on certain topics.

    by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:29:05 PM PDT

•  Never rely on Maher

  He can be brilliant, and inspiring at times... but he's also a perverse bastard, especially when it comes to sex and relationships.  He seems to have an immature, Hugh Hefner-type mentality.

  Maher also made a big deal not all that long ago about how Iraq was going well, and gave Bush mad props for it... until it was too obvious that everything was going to hell.  Then he took the other side.

  Smart guy.  Funny guy.  Occasionally brilliant guy.  But also VERY inconsistent, and a little bit juvenile (even for a comedian!).  

  And in my humble humble, Maher's a little TOO impressed with himself as a (yawn) "Liberterian."  Like just about everyone else who is enamored of that label, especially when describing themselves.  

  by chumley on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:01:33 PM PDT

•  Yeah it's ridiculous

  If you're a 16 or 17 year old boy and you become a page, the likelihood is that you are starstruck by politicians and very politically motivated/involved.  The idea that a congressman from your party wants to talk to you or take you for ice cream or take you to dinner has to be incredible.  This guy who you watched on tv and thought was amazing wants to talk to you!  This is why Mark Foley was able to take advantage of these pages.  They're 16 and 17 year old males, what are they supposed to do.  If someone like that wants to have sex with you, you might feel obligated to have sex even if you don't really want to.  

  by SoCalLiberal on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:01:35 PM PDT

•  Maher's only true love is Maher

  This guy is so full of himself he needs his own political party... just for him.

  Maybe him and Lieberman.

  by Fishgrease on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:01:58 PM PDT

  •  That reminds me of a line from Dennis Miller ...

    on "Weekend Update" on SNL. You know, back when he was funny:

    The NBC "Today Show" and Olympic host Bryant Gumbel's ego applied for statehood today. If granted, it would become our nation's fifty-first state, and ninth largest.

    These days, you could substitute Maher or even Miller for Gumbel's name.

    by Glinda on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:09:23 PM PDT

•  Um.

  I could be wrong, but Maher has a very dry wit and it sounds a bit like he was parroting the right wing talking points in an effort to show how absurd they are.  I saw him do that on Scarborough and because he isn't on his comedy show it comes across differently in a serious talk show format.  Scarborough asked him if he was serious about whatever he said that piqued my interest and Maher made a face and said, "Of course not!"  I think he isn't really aware at just how dry his wit is in that setting.

  Could be wrong, but that is my guess - I did not see it.  Wish I had.

  by inclusiveheart on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:02:40 PM PDT

  •  I hope you're right.

    Otherwise that was a pretty scary fucking thing to read.

    by dov12348 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:05:02 PM PDT

  •  Nope

    This was absolutely his opinion - I think I can tell sarcasm from the real thing, and this was his opinion.  If it were satire, he wouldn't have stressed the evils of our sexually repressed society that condemns gays living openly in relationships, which he said would have been Foley's situation if were allowed to be openly gay.  He represented open vs closet as a reason for the predatory behavior, and that wasn't satire - that was him.

    by geordie on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:06:32 PM PDT

    •  Well here is the thing that I think is germain

      here.  I have gay friends, grew up in San Francisco in a gay culture and always thought it was a normal life.  I know that I know the difference between a gay person and a child predator and I can make that distinction in part because I know gay people are basically the same as as heterosexual people except for sexual preference.  Because I don't believe that being gay is an aborent behavior or "different" in the first place (unlike Tony Perkins and Pat Buchanan), I am able to distinguish between gay people and predators (again unlike Perkins and Buchanan).  People like Perkins and Buchanan essentially believe that just being gay puts people on a par with child predators - to them they are the same thing.  Is it possible that Maher was expressing what I just had a hard time writing (and still may have failed to properly express) poorly.  Because I do believe that this repression thing creates huge problems for both gay and straight people, and one of those problems is that because of the bigotry leveled at the gay community a lot of people just don't understand that gay people are exactly like straight people in every way except in who they choose to kiss.

      by inclusiveheart on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:45:58 PM PDT

•  Gee..I used to think Maher was smart. (nt)

  by dov12348 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:03:23 PM PDT

•  Sadly, you'll here this line from the left too

  Predators and abusive personalities exist on both sides of the divide.

  by northcountry on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:03:26 PM PDT

•  It would seem Maher has his own peculiar tastes

  And I'm sure this is part and parcel of the same rationalizions he uses to lull his conscience.

  by Glinda on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:03:26 PM PDT

•  But there IS a difference between a boy...

  ...and a teenager.

  First there is a legal difference, as seen in legal age of consent.

  And there is also a "yech" difference. The ancient Athenians thought teenage boys were sexy (probably because they resembled girls, which allowed straight men to do the admiring), but sex with pre-pubescents (according to Demosthenes) warranted execution.

  I don't think Maher was excusing anyone, but was putting it in that perspective.

  by daulton on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:06:46 PM PDT

  •  Oh, I agree

    I've said all along this is not classic "pedophilia" - but Maher went much further than that when he said 'the power was with the kids over the congressman' here.  That's just flat-out ridiculous - and that's really why I did the diary, to make my last point up there about the power differential.  I worked up there for years, in a position of some authority, and if I could feel intimidated by a Congressman's advances when I was an adult in my 30's, with a relatively powerful boss to protect me, I can only imagine how reluctant a 17 year old boy would be to report this.  Maher doesn't get that power differential, and that's part of what so offended me about his comments.

    by geordie on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:20:12 PM PDT

    •  True. Maher's "power" comment was goofy. n/t

      by daulton on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:42:58 PM PDT

    •  It is a weird comment

      but at the same time, I'm a little tired of the incredibly righteous indignation going on here about pedophilia and how Foley is a child molester.

      What he did was utterly inappropriate. But it was very different from, say, molesting a 6 year old. 16 year olds are rarely innocent and naive, and most are fully capable of understanding consent, many are themselves having sex (and more often than you'd think probably with people significantly older than them -- I had sex with somebody much older when I was 16, it didn't damage me, I knew exactly what I was doing, I view it as one in a series of experiments I conducted at that age. It's really not a big damned deal.).

      Now, the fact that he was in a position of so much power over them takes this a little beyond "dirty old man" and into "completely beyond the damned pale", but at the same time, I'm personally getting more than a little sick of the hysteria over the whole damned thing.

      Disagree, troll rate, I don't fucking care. I'm tired of us treating this as The Most Heinous Crime Ever. For one, it minimizes the seriousness of actual pedophilia, and for two, it's just fucking silly. Yeah, he should lose his job. Yeah, I'm pissed that people covered it up. But for dog's sake, the media freak-out is probably fucking these kids up more than the goddamned sex did.

      Sorry for the rant -- I try to keep my mouth shut and move on, but it's been days of nonstop Foley hysteria, and I've just read more hyperbole than I can take today.

      by Spit on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 05:05:42 PM PDT

      •  thanks for your honesty

        it's refreshing.

        ```
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 06:34:26 PM PDT

  •  in ancient times people lived

    to the ripe old age of 40.  This is not then.... and even then the practice was not universally  approved of.

    by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:33:24 PM PDT

•  I canceled HBO since Mahr

  tanked this season.

  by mattes on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:08:23 PM PDT

  •  yeah

    yeah his show has been pretty piss poor this year.

    by pissedpatriot on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:12:41 PM PDT

    •  Spending too much time with coulter.

      by mattes on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 06:01:24 PM PDT

•  Oh, Quit Pissing Yourselves

  Yes 16 year olds have sex. (If you didn't, I'm sorry). They are sexual beings who can be in control of their sexual behavior. Yes a power dynamic exist here. It's seems to be some false outrage.

  Maher isn't a deviant he is just pointed out that it is not as clear cut as folks are portraying. And if you think this is equal to blaming a 14 year old for rape than you are just plain retarded.

  by sacca28 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:08:48 PM PDT

  •  And you don't know what the fuck

    you're talking about.  Clearly you've never been a position of authority over young people - I have - and you've never worked on the Hill - I have.  These kids were in NO position to tell on Foley, even if they were able to discourage his advances on an individual basis.  It's all about the power and it rested with Foley, not them.

    by geordie on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:22:37 PM PDT

  •  Male Teenagers Have Sex, But

    being pressured to provide sexual excitement for an older male is a manipulation; actually participating in his fantasy is a violation of the boy.

    Any time a person in a position of authority and power, even someone admirable, forces a person who has less experience, protection, or power themselves to do something to provide sexual gratification, it's a rape.  Period. End of story.

    I admit, I was two degrees away from  Troll-rating you, but I'll let you have your say.

    by Jemand von Niemand on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:28:11 PM PDT

  •  Right. Sorry Old Buddy,

    But you win the coveted "wanker" award.

    Your comment is at best ill-informed, at at worst, inflammatory.

    Do some reading -- better yet, have a log, infomative talk with a rape victim.

    by Jemand von Niemand on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:35:07 PM PDT

    •  Oh two degrees

      Oh lord, help us if another opinion is expressed. You folks are pretty funny. Can I have the "wanker" award inscribed?

      by sacca28 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:03:25 PM PDT

  •  ever had a 16 year old child? Nope?

    Yes, they have sex and if they are going to  have sex it should be with other 16 year olds, not with 50 year old men who manipulate them with gifts, dinner, booze and attention.

    by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:38:19 PM PDT

    •  not powerful, well connected men

      who may be able to advance the political and educational aspirations of the teenagers.

      ```
      peace
      
      

      by peace voter on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 06:40:04 PM PDT

•  Plain English

  This seems to be something that has not been iterated plainly enough.  So I will give it a go for the Mahers of the world:

  If a 16 year old comes up to ANY adult (now this is where the argument becomes complicated; personally I hold that 20 is too old and 19 is pushing it.  I hold this mainly because the developmental gap between 16 and 20 is HUGE; carrying on...) and explains he or she wants to have sex with that adult--or more "insidiously" attempts to "seduce" the adult through less forthright means--the onus is not on the 16 year old in this encounter.  It is the RESPONSBILITY of ANY adult in such a situation to abstain and, furthermore, explain to the 16 year old why he or she is making a grave, grave mistake.

  The actions of any child in a case or situation of pedophilia are irrelevant.  It is the moral and legal obligation of the ADULT to terminate the situation.  So I don't care if pages were flirting with the fellow; I don't care if they walked in naked, erect with a permission slip from their parents and rubbers and lube: the responsibility is on the adult to know what is right or wrong in the situation and to not use a child's naivete, hormonal-overdrive or any other semantic absolution to act out a damaging fantasy.

  That Republicans and schmucks cannot see this simple truth in a pedophile situation really does strike at the heart of the moral sickness in this country.  Just as it was said that fascism would come to America wrapped in flag, so moral bankruptcy has arrived with Religiosity highbeams flaming and a deluded libertarianism driving.

  by electricgrendel on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:09:12 PM PDT

  •  Question

    So should a 16 year old be able to abort?

    by sacca28 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:20:28 PM PDT

    •  Yes.

      The fundamental questions of both privacy and body ownership that would seem to intersect in my above post and any conversation regarding abortion, however, is a conflation of many different facts.

      First and foremost, abortion is at times a life preserving measure.  Given that you did not qualify the use of abortion, then I will say that in a case regarding the health of a woman then the answer is an unequivocable yes.

      In all other instances, I also say--unequivocably--yes.  The body ownership at play in abortion, however, is expressed after the fact of impregnation.  It is a decision that takes into account one and only one person: the pregnant 16 year old.  There is no other person who should have a say regarding how a 16 year old makes decisions regarding her health and her body: in this instance.

      Sex, as you are probably well aware, is not a singular decision regarding the use and ownership of a 16 year old's body.  Also, I did not previously say that a 16 year old could not make the decision to have sex with an older person.  What I said is that that decision is irrelevant: it is up to adults to know when to draw a line.

      So, in answer to your question: 16 year olds should be allowed to abort in cases of unwanted pregnancy.  This stance does not at all pre-empt or disrupt the above explanation of how a 16 year old's decision to use his or her body sexually with an older person is an irrelevant decision because it is the legal and moral responsibility of that older person to say no.

      by electricgrendel on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:31:06 PM PDT

      •  We Agree

        At least on the legal responsibility. The moral responsibility I find another matter. My partner started me reading "the history of sexuality" by Michel Foucault and it raises interesting idea regarding child sexuality.

        While I find myself wrapped in the same convention of everyone else, I am not offended by those conventions being challenged. In fact, I believe they should. I don't know if they will hold up or not, however they are not sacred. If fact, the sacrednes of children is a relatively new idea.

        I think Maher's objection is appropriate. He doesn't need to preach my gospel. I think he is trying to challenge and thinking people should welcome the conversation. You can recoil at the act I suppose, but please don't respond to the debate in kind.

        by sacca28 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:54:56 PM PDT

        •  Recoiling

          I think that recoil is an interesting verb given the automatic nature of its meaning.  I also find interesting that you read into my response that I was recoiling and not expounding.

          The definition of a thinking person is not a person detached to roam a mental sphere without a visceral reaction to what offends that person's sense of propriety.  Being able to face those offenses and understand why it causes you to recoil--even if that understanding reinforces a societal norm--is also a quality of a thinking person.  It is not automatic that one casts all revulsion to the wolves of relativism if one is a thinking person.

          There is a conversation to be had; perhaps it is one at odds with societal norms.  Should those societal norms be punitive (such as sexism and racism) then perhaps it is time for them to change.  The social taboo regarding child sexuality, however, is as much a safeguard as an edict.  Furthermore, I am unsure how one would go about balancing that conversation: would you say that the freedom of adults to have sex with willing 16 year olds counterbalances the furtherance of predatory urges within people interested in the youth of the body as opposed to the consequences of the act?

          Is complete social libertarianism a goal to be striven toward in such instances as this?  I would say, emphatically, no.  Every human system (logical, emotional and otherwise) is completed only by a supplemental.  There is a balance to be had between responsibilities, freedom and consequence.  In my mind a conversation regarding the rights of adults to have sex with willing children is not one worth having, because the injurious consequences possible in such actions far outway any benefits of a pure social libertarian impulse to disregard any and all strictures on bodily freedom.

          Lastly, I would say that the newness of a social convention is not automatically a weakness.  I find this mostly to be the case because we document easily the convention while having no data on the consequences.  We simply do not know the psychological and emotional effects of 14 year old child brides wedded to 50 year old lords in 15th century France.  To question a modern more based on the assertion that a counter-more once existed is a useful exploration as to the history of the modern more, but I hold it to be a weak position in overturning or proving false that modern more.

          Sorry if this ran long; you posed some interesting points and I felt that brevity would be a disservice. :)

          by electricgrendel on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:19:03 PM PDT

          •  Well Put

            Actually I loved your response, even if it included the smallest dig.

            "In my mind a conversation regarding the rights of adults to have sex with willing children is not one worth having" The conversation could be regarding the rights of children to have sex with willing adults.

            While the merits of psychology belong in a different debate, I agree that the effects of these relationships is difficult to measure against a nonexistent standard of wellness.

            To your credit you have found the conversation about the conversation worth having. I will take what I can get.

            by sacca28 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:40:25 PM PDT

  •  Gimme a fucking break

    I think that 50 is just disgusting to me. However, I had a very wonderful relationship with another guy that started when I was 16 and he was 26. It lasted for many years and only ended when he died in a car accident. Even if it was just a one night stand, I'd still feel the same way.

    I think the moral panic coming from the American left is getting out of hand. Ask Europeans what they think and I think you might be rather shocked. People over there have cast off the shackles of sexual repression (excluding the former soviet bloc, which still has some catching up to do). The idea that I could not think for myself at age 16 is preposterous. I assure you, I was quite capable.

    by dragon695 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 05:55:36 PM PDT

    •  That's not the point

      The situation you describe is not what this situation is about.  Gerry Studds was a Dem Congressman who had a consensual relationship with a page that lasted for several years, I think, but began when the kid was 17 - but it was not this kind of predatory one-sided pursuit.  He was censured, but not expelled from Congress, and was re-elected several times before retiring in the early 90's some time.  That's NOT the kind of thing I'm talking about, or what appears to be the case here.

      What we have here is really more like sexual harrassment, with the added element of the pages being under 18 - they may have been mature, they may not have been, I don't know, but they were minors under the law.  The overriding issue is the power imbalance - they were not in a position to tell Foley to fuck off, they were being intimidated, whether they were gay or straight.  It's about the power, not the sex.

      by geordie on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 07:22:52 PM PDT

•  Burqas for the Pages

  Maybe the wingnuts could institute a policy requiring male pages to wear a burqa since the male adult congressmen can't control his own impulses

  by xy109e3 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:10:49 PM PDT

•  So is Maher saying he's tempted?

  And it's only the fact that no teenage boys have approached him that has kept him sane?

  What a jackass.

  by TeresaInSammamishWA on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:10:53 PM PDT

•  Well, Bill is a freak anyway...

  This is the same man who dated/porked Coulter, who got engaged/disengaged to a video 'ho earlier this year, remember?  It was the chick who wrote the book about all the rappers she'd sexed up -- the same one who is being accused of luring bobby away from Whitney, the same chick who says Bill is the love of her life.

  Yeah, I quote him sometimes though I do recall him saying that he isn't a Democrat.  Personally, I believe few people are "liberal" in the strictest sense of the word (ditto "conservative"), so I ain't mad at him.  Plus, he's a comic; he ain't in no position to change the world, except momentarily with a smile.

  Here's what he said on Larry King Live about Coulter, that crank skank demon seed heifer from the bowels of hell:

  MAHER: People ask me about Ann Coulter constantly and cannot understand how two people who don't agree on everything can be friends. I remind you, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and have children together.

  KING: Why do you like her?

  MAHER: We are kindred spirits in certain ways. One, there are very few people I think, out there speaking out who are not afraid to get booed and we share that. Another one who I would put in that category is Chris Rock. Chris Rock will say things to a black audience that they will boo, but I've never heard anybody else say it like that. And Ann Coulter does the same thing.

  She is not afraid to say something that will make people boo, and we need more of that. People are such panderers. They're such babies about that. They want to reinforce people's prejudices. I certainly don't agree with everything she is, but I admire that. And the older you get, at least for me, the more I adore the quality of acceptance in people. And Ann and I understand that about each other. We have a great time, we're not dating. People want to always put the sex factor in everything. No, it's not about that. It's about acceptance. It's about OK, I don't agree with everything you say, you don't agree with everything I believe, but we accept each other. Isn't that what (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about?

  They're not dating NOW, and maybe weren't at the time of his King interview, but they have dated.

  by 99 Percent Pure on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:17:08 PM PDT

•  After Bill Maher started talking

  right out of the G. W. playbook about "democracy on the march"  following the Iraqi elections, nothing he says would surprize me. This includes his solid support for Israel during the recent conflict with Lebanon.

  I watch Maher's show every week for the guests and do like the "new rules" segment. But as to his own thoughts - he is full of Maher and Macaca!!

  by Templar on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:19:28 PM PDT

•  Hmmm

  now I'm extra glad I cancelled HBO.  

  by johne on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:19:52 PM PDT

  •  Good Thing

    Heaven forbid you hear an opinion or idea that you disagree with. That could actually force some thinking. I think you made the prudent choice?

    by sacca28 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:24:25 PM PDT

    •  oh for crying out loud

      If you couldn't tell, I cancelled it before this news came out.  But, let me get this straight.  You think a 16 year old page leading on a 54 year old congressman is a valid argument in all this?  

      by johne on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:26:45 PM PDT

      •  yes

        by sacca28 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:48:43 PM PDT

  •  Hey! Big Love is a great series. The fact that

    the Mormons were told not to watch it makes me love it even more.

    by Templar on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:51:30 PM PDT

    •  yeah

      It's just my opinion, but I watched the pilot and fell asleep.  The show just seemed to drag.

      by johne on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:05:03 PM PDT

      •  It's really funny to watch one guy trying his...

        damnest to keep three wives happy.  Shit, I've been married over thirty years and haven't figured out how to keep one women happy!

        by Templar on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:14:58 PM PDT

•  When he said he's friends with Ann Coulter

  ... I pretty much flipped the Mute Bill Maher switch in my head.

  I can't recall where I read this (it was in a Sunday SF Chronicle from about two years ago, I think, and did not center on Coulter), but his mild defense of her was unnerving -- the upshot was that she was actually a nice person, very normal when not on camera, etc. [Insert sound of hawking and spitting here]

  What all this tells me is that Maher's concept of a double-standard isn't just flawed, it's missing parts. It doesn't work.  If you flip his comment on Foley inside out, it becomes It's okay for Foley to treat these teenaged boys as sex objects, because they were free to 'just say no' at any time.

  Will I waste my time watching him on cable?

  No.

  Will I write to the cable network and offer my opinion about the inappropriateness of his comment?

  You bet I will.

  by Jemand von Niemand on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:20:19 PM PDT

•  Maher is a pig

  have you ever heard him talk about women?  He's NOT a liberal, he is a libertarian and to him ANYTHING GOES.  He is a very immature, sexist ignorant man who thinks with his "you know what".  How could he possibly understand?  He has never raised kids.  He is probably remembering how much he would have like to have sex at 16, and that is where his understanding of teenage sexuality ends.

  by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:25:16 PM PDT

  •  I don't think raising kids would help his outlook

    by Tirge Caps on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:54:03 PM PDT

    •  probably not

      I guess we should all be grateful he doesn't have any children.  

      by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:00:53 PM PDT

  •  Excuse Me

    May I ask where your understanding of sexuality begins?

    by sacca28 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:56:03 PM PDT

    •  about 15 levels of human inteligence,

      education and understanding above yours and Maher's apparently.  

      by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:59:45 PM PDT

      •  Well Done

        I whither in the light of your intellect.

        by sacca28 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:58:51 PM PDT

        •  Would that that were true

          If so, you might "whither" your way out of here.

          by geordie on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 05:41:04 PM PDT

        •  you were withered

          long before you met my intelect, I'll bet.

          by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 06:52:38 PM PDT

•  ah, bill

  you lost me at hello.

  (sorry, i don't think the guy's been funny since he left abc, and this new information is just digusting.)

  by lapolitichick on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 03:29:03 PM PDT

•  Pretentiuos Libertarian

  Maher doesn't want to be called liberal. He's another self-described libertarian who spends most of his time letting everyone that he has no association whatsoever with the Democratic party. Even if a democrat steps up and actually does something good, he craps on them, and the best example of it is Al Gore. Maher can't stand that Gore is the not the same guy he bashed to death during all of the 2000 campaign. I also had a change of heart about Hillary Clinton because of his endless bashing of her. She's become sort of guilty pleasure or me. Bill is smart, funny, and articulate, but so are people like Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, both of whom he loves because they're just like him. They spend all of the regular season criticizing Bush and republicans for what they are doing wrong but during presidential campaigns, when it really matters, they nitpick and degrade the democratic candidate in the most characturized and childish ways possible because they don't want look involved because they are just too cool for the room and too cool to really care.

  I like Maher. I watched his show on Comedy Central when I was a kid. He got me interested in politics. I still watch him and think he's great, but I know what I'm getting, and occasionally, roadside bombs like what he said today are what I have come expect unfortunately. But I have to ask: Does he think that Foley had no choice but to send lewd emails and IMs to kids? It seems to me that if Foley doesn't do that, there is no scandal.

  P.S.: Way back in late '01 or early '02 Bill said that we should invade Iraq.

  by loon with a view on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:01:18 PM PDT

•  LAWRENCE O'DONNELL

  I saw Lawrence O'Donnell of Huffington Post say essentially the same thing on Joe Scarborough the other night. I was DISGUSTED. Lawrence, you're too ignorant to be believed. Bill Maher, same thing.

  As a mental health professional who worked for decades with children and families, this is part of the problem: People who do not see how predators GROOM their victims to be victimized by them. It starts with the friendly overtures, it ends up with children, or underage minors, volunteering to be victimized. Don't believe me? Well, how do predators convince neighborhood children to visit them at their homes in order to be victimized then? Happens all the time.

  These teenagers were GROOMED by Foley over the course of some period of time. O'Donnell and Maher don't comprehend how the systematic seduction works. They see the end result; they blame the victims. The predators GET A PASS thanks to the IGNORANCE of people who SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

  Shame on O'Donnell and Bill Maher. I'm too disgusted for words by both of them. At least Joe Scarborough--who is a weasel in my opinion--understands the imbalance in the relationships and the implied SEDUCTION of children, when he said, "well if he had ever done it to my 15-year-old, I'd beat the hell out of him."

  by SignalSuzie on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:16:48 PM PDT

  •  Question

    So is balance in a relationship a prerequisite for sexual contact?

    by sacca28 on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 04:42:25 PM PDT

    •  someone please troll rate

      this moron.

      by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 06:51:49 PM PDT

      •  I'd Be Happy To Oblige, However

        ...it's plain this person has a curious understanding of the explotition or manipulation of those with less power or status (I'd peg them for a Top, not a Switch, but that's just my opinion). I already t/r'd them, and I think their point of view speaks for itself.

        I personally don't agree with adults having sex with teenaged children; plainly, that person feels comfortable with the idea -- which ignores a great deal about child and adult psychology and sexual development, but we'll let that pass.

        I don't agree with the idea of adults as seductees and teenagers as seducers; that would seem to be more a wishful fantasy, for some, and Lolita's already been written.

        I'm sure they'll find people to agree with them, and their 'separate' (and therefore refined; of finer quality) ideas of gender roles, sexuality or sexual practice, and varieties of experience. I don't believe they should expect to find many, here; there are other websites for that.

        No one here would deny anyone the option to hold their own beliefs about sexuality -- and in case no one noticed, the business with Foley isn't about sex, per se; and it isn't even about consent.

        It's about domination, and exploitation, and ultimately violation -- something that person, for their own reasons, doesn't get.

        by Jemand von Niemand on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 07:49:41 PM PDT

•  Face it, the man went out with Ann Coulter

  I 'spect he's down with all kinds of crazy shit.

  by ripzaw on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 08:03:27 PM PDT