Double Standard?

October 2, 2006 12:45 PM

2002 article relevant today The double standard: recent sex abuse scandals have given new life to the old canard that all gay men are out to seduce teenage boys. There's even a word for it: phebophilia. But RICHARD GOLDSTEIN points out that straight guys' eroticizing of teenagers is a mainstay of pop culture. So why is it a disease when gay guys do the same thing?
posted by halekon (39 comments total)

I DON'T KNOW
posted by keswick at 12:47 PM on October 2, 2006

Because young chicks are HAWT. Have you seen that Emma Watson? She has an ass like a 10 year old boy. RAWR.
posted by dios at 12:58 PM on October 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

Even in this seemingly gay-friendly era, sex between adult men and teenage boys remains a taboo. It's also a crime if the teen in question is under the age of consent

It's a crime for straight guys, too, dumbass.
posted by jonmc at 12:58 PM on October 2, 2006

It's a disease because being gay is icky (kidding people). I must say though that I do find the idea of a middle aged gay man trying to seduce a teenaged boy more disturbing that a middle aged straight man going after a teen girl. Why? I don't know. Even though I like to think of myself as being pretty open minded about sexuality, sometimes, the way I feel about things runs counter to the way I think about them (if that makes any sense). I guess there are times when it's hard to shake a lifetime's worth of programming.
posted by MikeMc at 12:58 PM on October 2, 2006

Yup, I call bullshit. You're mixing up age-non-specific homophobia with hatred of all sexual predators who act on their fantasies. Men OR women soliciting minors of EITHER sex is illegal, creepy, and broadly loathed in society. Sure, go ahead and pony up a few rare exceptions in the news, but geezers actually hitting on "our daughters" is just as hated as when they're hitting on "our sons."
posted by twsf at 12:59 PM on October 2, 2006

Also, Goldstien has always been a supercilious twit and a horrible writer.
posted by jonmc at 1:01 PM on October 2, 2006

speaking of this, Gingrich should be publicly caned for trying to revive this in his opinion (yesterday, on Fox) that republican leadership did not address Foley's pedophilic emails earlier because doing so would be seen as 'gay bashing'...
posted by troybob at 1:01 PM on October 2, 2006

Because young chicks are HAWT. Have you seen that Emma Watson? She has an ass like a 10 year old boy. RAWR.

*laughs out loud*

*head explodes*

*neck continues to laugh in a grisly pantomime of life*
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:02 PM on October 2, 2006

Maybe it's just more likely to be reported when it's done to males, because teenage girls are more used to this sort of thing?

I seem to remember that insane amounts of money were spent in the 90s to find out if the President had received a blowjob from a grown woman, so what conclusions can be drawn from a single incident?
posted by clevershark at 1:02 PM on October 2, 2006

I think the OP knows the answer to the question he posed and he is just ITCHING to tell us.
posted by keswick at 1:03 PM on October 2, 2006

I concur on the "bullshit". In case you haven't noticed Dateline NBC has pretty much dropped any kind of news gathering or actual reporting to focus almost exclusively on its "To Catch a Predator" series. I think the problem in both instances stems in part from the fact that people still reach sexual maturity as young as 12 years old or so, yet society does not consider them adult until much later.
posted by TedW at 1:05 PM on October 2, 2006

I concur on the "bullshit". In case you haven't noticed Dateline NBC has pretty much dropped any kind of news gathering or actual reporting to focus almost exclusively on its "To Catch a Predator" series. I think the problem in both instances stems in part from the fact that people still reach sexual maturity as young as 12 years old or so, yet society does not consider them adult until much later.
posted by TedW at 1:06 PM on October 2, 2006

I concur on the "bullshit". In case you haven't noticed Dateline NBC has pretty much dropped any kind of news gathering or actual reporting to focus almost exclusively on its "To Catch a Predator" series. I think the problem in both instances stems in part from the fact that people still reach sexual maturity as young as 12 years old or so, yet society does not consider them adult until much later.
posted by TedW at 1:07 PM on October 2, 2006

...geezers actually hitting on "our daughters" is just as hated as when they're hitting on "our sons."

i'll believe this when barney frank can make a cute commercial leering at the in-your-face sexuality of the latest barely-legal teen boy pop idol, as bob dole did with britney spears...
posted by troybob at 1:08 PM on October 2, 2006

troybob: it was pretty creepy when Dole did that ad, too, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't recall Woody Allen being cut any slack for chasing Soo Yi's barely legal tail, straight or not. This seems like a desperate attempt for somebody to find a new flavor of victimization, which is stupid since gayfolk have enough real ones to deal with.
posted by jonmc at 1:33 PM on October 2, 2006

"I must say though that I do find the idea of a middle aged gay man trying to seduce a teenaged boy more disturbing that a middle aged straight man going after a teen girl."

Really? I pretty much feel exactly the opposite.
posted by muddgirl at 1:34 PM on October 2, 2006

And by that I meant to imply "Yay feelings!"
posted by muddgirl at 1:36 PM on October 2, 2006

It's still seen as a disease in large part because of powerful and visible closetcases like Foley--they perpetuate the anti-gay attitudes that already exist, by hiding and making it seem like being gay is something bad that needs to be hidden. He's a chickenhawk--he's not the only one by any means.

He abused his position of power to get young guys, like straight congressmen have always done too. The covering up---Foley hiding his orientation, the other Congressmen who also covered all this up, the media for never outing him even tho for years and years there was talk--all that perpetuates the idea that being gay is bad and "a disease".
posted by amberglow at 1:42 PM on October 2, 2006

I think the problem in both instances stems in part from the fact that people still reach sexual maturity as young as 12 years old or so, yet society does not consider them adult until much later.

We don't consider anyone an adult until they're able to single post.
posted by Gankmore at 1:45 PM on October 2, 2006

Something posted in the Foley thread: The Closet:-- ...the news about Mark Foley has a kind of grim inevitability to it. I don't know Foley, although, like any other gay man in D.C., I was told he was gay, closeted, afraid and therefore also screwed up. What the closet does to people - the hypocrisies it fosters, the pathologies it breeds - is brutal. There are many still-closeted gay men in D.C., many of them working for a Republican party that has sadly deeply hostile to gay dignity. How they live with themselves I do not fully understand. ...

What I do know is that the closet corrupts. The lies it requires and the compartmentalization it demands can lead people to places they never truly wanted to go, and for which they have to take ultimate responsibility. From what I've read, Foley is another example of this destructive and self-destructive pattern ...
posted by amberglow at 1:47 PM on October 2, 2006

i call bullshit too ... a lot of times when some man is caught messing with a 12 -16 year old girl, the comment made is "he's a sick puppy"

also, you might remember the fits that some people had over abercrombie and fitch's catalog a while back ...
posted by pyramid termite at 1:53 PM on October 2, 2006

I think the OP knows the answer to the question he posed and he is just ITCHING to tell us.
posted by keswick

He certainly does like to make posts about teh sex0rz.
posted by ninjew at 1:56 PM on October 2, 2006

Why do you shout RICHARD GOLDSTEIN? I am quite puzzled by that.

If you have posted this because of the Foley case, you're sadly confused.

At least as far as I know, the big deal isn't that this fifty year-old man was lusting after a sixteen year-old boy. It's that this fifty year-old man was lusting after a sixteen year-old boy.

IMO you need to deal with your own issues, halekon. Society's upset with Foley is appropriate and positive.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:58 PM on October 2, 2006

Could the people who are still participating in the Foley thread keep that stuff in that thread? Do you really need to bring it in here too? I'm pretty sure that if people wanted to talk about him, they could go to that thread.
posted by dios at 2:00 PM on October 2, 2006

Someone delete this crap, please?
posted by mds35 at 2:04 PM on October 2, 2006

Could the people who are still participating in the Foley thread keep that stuff in that thread? Do you really need to bring it in here too? I'm pretty sure that if people wanted to talk about him, they could go to that thread.

Wait, I thought this was a Foley thread. Wasn't the headline a reference to Foley?
posted by Gankmore at 2:07 PM on October 2, 2006

thanks for your editorial concern, dios, but this post is a commentary ('relevant today') on the foley case, so it is appropriate to bring it up here...

of course, you're not simply trying to throw out a technicality to keep people from talking about what you don't want talked about...that would be so unlike you...

...i mean, it's like you're saying that if the topic were 'sex with interns' you wouldn't be the first to drag clinton into it...
posted by troybob at 2:10 PM on October 2, 2006

...i mean, it's like you're saying that if the topic were 'sex with interns' you wouldn't be the first to drag clinton into it...

Well, Clinton did have sex with an intern.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:13 PM on October 2, 2006

"Because young chicks are HAWT. Have you seen that Emma Watson? She has an ass like a 10 year old boy. RAWR"

Also known as "boyscout hips".
posted by hatchetjack at 2:15 PM on October 2, 2006

The Family Research Council said this today about Foley:

Washington, D.C. - In response to the events surrounding the resignation of Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"We are all shocked by this spectacle of aberrant sexual behavior, but we shouldn't be. This is the end result of a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity. When a 16-year-old boy is not safe from sexual solicitation from an elected representative of the people, we should question the moral direction of our nation. If our children aren't safe in the halls of Congress, where are they safe? Maybe it's time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness?

"Both political parties need to be more serious about protecting children from sexual predators. We need public policy in our country that protects marriage, respects parental authority and aggressively polices boundaries around our children."

-- It's a startling proclamation about the health of the Religious Right when even Tony Perkins isn't able to even muster the courage to address the elephant in the room.
posted by parmanparman at 2:25 PM on October 2, 2006

Well, Clinton did have sex with an intern.

Technically, not "sex". Remember?

Don't we all love technicalities? They are what's really important in life.

I'm not surprised at the Perkins quote. Everything wrong with Bush is really Clinton's fault and pervy kid-chasing Republicans are the victims of liberal sexual politics. Idiots.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:33 PM on October 2, 2006

I may be opening myself to some hate here, but I've always been under the impression that in young gays and lesbians often intentionally get into relationships with a partner who is significantly older (sometimes called "gay uncles"). This happened with a number of gay kids I knew when I was a teen - it wasn't considered icky, the boys got introduced and chaperoned in the local queer community and the older men got teh hawt boi. It wasn't predation either. Often it was instigated by the younger party.

I'm not LGBT myself though - any out MeFi's care to comment?
posted by lekvar at 2:37 PM on October 2, 2006

When a 16-year-old boy is not safe from sexual solicitation from an elected representative of the people, we should question the moral direction of our nation.

It would be more useful to question the elected representative involved...but that's just my opinion. So much for the politics of personal responsibility.

I like how the 'protects marriage' thing gets thrown in as well. These are the unchallenged keywords of the effort against gay marriage, and their inclusion here (having no other relevance to the foley case) clearly demonstrates the effort to continue to link homosexuality and pedophilia.
posted by troybob at 2:39 PM on October 2, 2006

> But RICHARD GOLDSTEIN points out that straight guys' eroticizing of teenagers
> is a mainstay of pop culture.

Foley didn't just eroticize teenagers, he came on to one. Several.


> When a 16-year-old boy is not safe from sexual solicitation from an elected representative of the people,
> we should question the moral direction of our nation. If our children aren't safe in the halls of Congress,
> where are they safe? Maybe it's time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness?

A-fuckin-men! You can all, every one of you, just put your nasty inclinations right back in the closet where they belong. Whatever these inclinations may be--male, female, chicken livers, whatever--nobody else should have to know about them.
posted by jfuller at 2:42 PM on October 2, 2006

I think that people in general in the US do have more of a problem with an older man hitting on a 16 year old male than with a 16 year old female. I believe that the reason for this is that people believe that the female is destined to be with men and the older men are just pushing her too quickly. I think that people feel that being gay is, in part, a choice, and that the 16 year old is not just being pushed: he is being changed. He is being turned gay. I think it is an interesting distinction that people make.

I am a bit surprised by the prevailing opinion on here that society views the gender of the young person as irrelevant. I think that mefites would find that if we talk to non-mefites (the cliched "Joe Sixpacks", if you will), then we would discover a strong difference in reaction.
posted by flarbuse at 2:42 PM on October 2, 2006

IMO you need to deal with your own issues, halekon. Society's upset with Foley is appropriate and positive.

thank the lord for the sanctimonious wagging finger brigade.
posted by dydecker at 2:42 PM on October 2, 2006

RICHARD GOLDSTEIN points out that straight guys' eroticizing of teenagers is a mainstay of pop culture.

I wonder where he got that idea. The Beatles? (especially Ringo) Kiss? The Rolling Stones? Chuck Berry? Numerous other jailbait songs? If lusting after teenage girls is now a crime, then we'd have to jail almost everybody in the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame.
posted by jonp72 at 2:43 PM on October 2, 2006

we gotta legalize gay marriage. if jerry lee lewis got to bang his 13 year old cousin just 'cause they got married let gays do the same thing. problem solved.
posted by snofoam at 2:45 PM on October 2, 2006

lekvar, some gay boys and girls simply like people a little or a lot older than them. Same as some straight kids do--it's just less stigmatized in the gay community, especially at the younger peer group. In terms of gay men at least, few eyebrows are raised when a boy says "Oh yeah, I like that 40yo guy over there." If a 17 year old hetero boy, however, were to talk about that 40yo woman over there (MILFs are a new devlopment in this arena), he'd be subject to censure from his peers.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:46 PM on October 2, 2006