”That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

The question to me is not necessarily the gender of either of the participants, nor is the issue the propriety of Mr. Foley’s actions. The fact that this was soft-core Internet sex between two males is irrelevant; and it is clear that this was, if not illegal, clearly improper and an abuse of power.

The issue is actually the lack of attention given by the House Republican Leadership, given the fact that (a) there are no secrets in Washington, and (b) this Congressman was so flagrant that the pages themselves were forced to self-police. As the old saying goes, ”Their silence is deafening.”

You want contemptible, Steve? Look in the mirror the next time you write something defending these filthbags.

Although, I also remember some people raking her mother over the coals for some of the stuff, but I recall the very sexy Calvin Klein commercials she did before she was 18.

Paedophilia is only properly applied when the object of the unnatural attraction is a pre-pubescent child.

I think there's a greater societal problem in the in the sexual fixation on young teens. This isn't a new thing. Linda Darnell, the sexy starlet of the 1930's and 1940's appeared in The Mark of Zorro when she was 16. She was still attending mandatory studio high school classes while she was starring as a sexpot in the steamy Forever Amber.

Lana Turner was only 16 when she got her first sexpot role; so was Ava Gardner and Elizabeth Taylor.

You need only open a magazine these days to be deluged with salacious images of very young teens: many of the models these days are 16 are younger. I, personally, find the idea repellent but I've always been more attracted to older women.

Hollywood's image creation isn't limited to young girls, either. Darryl Hickman was only 15 when he appeared in Leave It to Heaven in 1945. I think his role is deliberately sexualized. There are scads of other examples.

BTW the age of consent in Washington, DC is 16.

Sometimes you are contemptible.

It all comes down to values.

If an NHL player hits on an 18 year its entirely unproblemmatic.

If a Congressman or teacher (or President) hits on someone of any age over which they have any form of authority then its an abuse of trust and an abuse of power.

Covering up that abuse of power and trust is itself an abuse of power and trust.

And we tend to be down on folks who abuse our power and trust.

Add in the massive age difference, minor status of the person "hit upon" and most importantly that this was very definitely a cynical attempt at exploitation of that minor and right there you have why it "seems wrong".

"cos it damn well IS.

Regards, C

Sure it would; we're arguing that the use would be incorrect.

It probably says something good about our society that we *don't* have a rich variety of finely-distinguished words for lusting after various younger age groups.

And I still think it's the Internet part that has lots of parents creeped out.

I also think there is a difference between thinking somebody underage is sexy or good looking, and acting on that belief.

I do think one thing that makes this case seem smarmy and wrong is not only the age of the youth involved, but the fact that Foley is a congressman, and the Page was sent there by his parents who trusted the congress to keep him safe-even if there was no possible crime involved, I think most people would see this as wrong.