Posted on 10/11/2006 11:02:23 PM PDT by neverdem
This is a tale of two predators. The first is a congressman who befriended teenage pages. He sent them cajoling instant messages asking them to describe their sexual habits, so he could get his jollies.
The second is a secretary, who invited a 13-year-old girl from her neighborhood into her car and kissed her. Then she invited the girl up to her apartment, gave her some vodka, took off her underwear and gave her a satin teddy to wear.
Then she had sex with the girl, which was interrupted when the girl’s mother called. Then she made the girl masturbate in front of her and taught her some new techniques.
The first predator, of course, is Mark Foley, the Florida congressman. The second predator is a character in Eve Ensler’s play, “The Vagina Monologues.”
Foley is now universally reviled. But the Ensler play, which depicts the secretary’s affair with the 13-year-old as a glorious awakening, is revered. In the original version of the play, the underage girl declares, “I say, if it was a rape, it was a good rape, then, a rape that turned my (vagina) into a kind of heaven.”
When I saw Ensler perform the play several years ago in New York, everyone roared in approval. Ensler has since changed the girl’s age to 16 — the age of Foley’s pages — and audiences still embrace the play and that scene at colleges and in theaters around the world.
But why is one sexual predator despised and the other celebrated?
The first and obvious reason is that male predators are more disturbing than female predators. But the second and more important reason is that they exist in different moral universes.
Ensler’s audiences are reacting to the exuberant voice of the young girl, who narrates the scene.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
It's all jokes to these people. Nothing matters anymore; the only morality is the morality of which side of the political fence you're on. Some "sinful behavior" is approved because it is empowering in its degradation, while the same behavior by someone who is perceived rightly or wrongly as having the wrong amount in the bank or the wrong opinion on abortion is seen as the ONLY reason for capital punishment.
Moral judgments are put on hold these days until the political positions of the players are known; THEN "being judgmental" is just fine.
If ye itch, should ye not scratch?
Exactly!
I've seen this kind of comment on FR too often in these past few days. There are two things wrong with it.
The first is that we are more than 20 years removed from the Gerry Studds incident, and I doubt ANY politician would get away with something like that now. Look at what happened to Bubba 10 years later. He tried to cover up something far less vile than what Studds did, and the end of his presidency was a complete ruin. Now it's even ten years later, and no matter how you slice it, Foley is a hideous creep who shames the Republican party and the House of Representatives. The public won't tolerate that any more. McGreevey in NJ is a perfect example. He's a rat, and not only did he have to resign, but a senator who should be safe in his blue state is likely to lose as part of the fallout.
The other major problem is that for decades now, the Republicans have made a name for themselves as the party of family values, morals, and clean living. It's good for a few percentage points in every race, and everyone knows it. When someone is caught breaking that, though, watch out. Nobody has further to fall than someone who has reached the top.
Lastly... this guy is scum. Why try to justify or defend him? *If* you succeed in making people accept or ignore what he did, all you have really accomplished is lose those few percentage points. The only way to deal with this is to cast him out.
Look at the Democrats' tactics this election. They don't have a strategy or a platform. They just find individuals who have done something wrong, broken the Republican code somehow, and drag that individual down. It has happened over and over... everyone in Ohio, DeLay, possibly Santorum and Burns, now Foley. Put forth candidates that can't be dragged down like that and they will win.
As for the Vagina Monologues, I have no idea. I've never seen it and I never plan to. My guess is it is received much better by the loony left than it is by moderates or conservatives. Your statement that it is viewed as "empowering" is probably true; the only problem is the people who think that can't tell the difference between degrading and empowering. 13 year olds having sex at all, let alone with an adult woman? You're empowered! Give me a break.
It what naturally follows when there "is no God" which is precisely what the Bible says will happen. Imagine that.
It IS what....
And I've seen THIS kind of comment on FR too often the past few weeks. What's wrong with it is I'm doing no such thing--why do you have the need to get on your moral high horse and accuse me of such?
I am talking exclusively about how this kind of situation is treated by the mainstream media. Why can't you see that? I expressed it simply enough. I defy you to cut and paste where I justified or defended Foley--go ahead.
You can't. Because I didn't.
Discussions of morality are complex. Reducing them as you have is pointless and in fact dangerous. I don't have to say "Foley is scum and I'm glad he quit, and he should be investigated for this" every...single...time to prove my moral bona fides to you, whoever you are. It's like op-ed columns that don't begin with "This is my opinion"--it's a given.
As for the Studds situation, he remained in office for years after he was exposed, so to speak, during the Reagan years--hardly a time of liberal excess. Clinton DID get away with it--what planet are you living on? Where was the resignation? Neither Studds nor Clinton resigned over actual sexual situations--Foley did (PROPERLY I repeat for those who refuse to get it) for TALKING about it.
Disagree with me all you want, but please--disagree with what I wrote, not about things I didn't write so you can show us how wonderful you are.
Well, yeah--that was my point. So what's your problem with it?
I dunno, I think it's more about what Mark Steyn wrote about--it's not just there is no God, it's that there is no ANYTHING, no coherent, cohesive moral framework AT ALL. It speaks to the secularist embrace of the void, that we live and then die and we're dead forever, so just do everything you want. As a non-believer myself, I can tell you one CAN live a moral, ethical life without belief in God (my beliefs are probably similar or even the same as many believers in terms of treatment of others). But you have to believe in something. I don't see any belief in the secularists I encounter other than "be nice to people" which is a childish reduction of a complex world.
I haven't seen anybody present the behavior of tawdry, creepy rats as justification for Foley's bad behavior.
The reason the behavior of Studds and others is presented is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left and the fact that their supposed outrage over the Foley matter is just phony political posturing. If they didn't care about a youth being taken advantage of for homosexual relations in the Studds' case, how do they honestly present a face of moral outrage over mere emails and IM exchanges today? They still, today, defend Clinton's activities in the oval office as "just sex", but mere emails and IMs have sullied these youths beyond repair? Right.
Does this journey involve STD's, abortion clinics, and the inability to maintain a long term relationship in marriage.
I've heard this play mentioned in the press, but had no idea it celebrated pedophile. And then we wonder why we have so many sexually related problems in our modern culture. Amazing how disconnected people can become from rational thought when they are trying to maintain their idolatry at the altar of deceit.
BTW this attitude permeates all of American society now, not just the MSM.
Change itself is accelerating. We are all on steroids taking any and all risks in pursuit of ever diminishing returns.
BUMP
God does hate masturbators. Does He not?
I agree the Democrats have completely and purposely distorted the essence of the Foley scandal. They've presented it as a political misdeed when in fact it is about an adult, one adult, using a position of trust and power to involve a teenager for personal satisfaction. That shame is on Democrats for abandoning children in favor of political posturing.
When it comes to protecting children and women, there is no party, just right and wrong. Foley is gone and steps are being taken so others cannot repeat his foul deeds.
BTT
Of course you realize that history littered with the names of God's who are no longer worship.
When you kill God, He is replaced by another. The God of Abraham, although quite long-lived may someday also be known only to students of history.
and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...I seem to recal a Biblical admonition to accusers concerning, "casting the first stone"...
Alright, you did not try to defend him. What you did say was
moral judgments are put on hold these days until the political positions of the players are known; THEN "being judgmental" is just fine.
You also say
Foley did ... for TALKING about it.
To me, these are attempts to downplay his crimes and deflect the negative attention. The only way to succeed is to give up the moral high ground the Republicans have established.
I'm also saying that these days, even Democrats don't stand this kind of behavior. Give a job to your gay lover? Gone. The rest of the party doesn't receive the widespread negative attention Foley has brought on because they never established they were the party that doesn't do this kind of thing. Even so, the negative attention is part of the reason a liberal senator is losing in a liberal state.
Re: Vagina Monologues: Well, yeah--that was my point. So what's your problem with it?
No problem. I was agreeing with you :P
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.