Foley: I’m not a pedophile because the pages were almost 18.
Foley: I’m not a pedophile because the pages were almost 18.
Today, former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) finally broke his two-year silence after the revelations about his lurid IM conversations with congressional pages. Foley conceded that his behavior was “extraordinarily stupid,” but throughout the AP interview, he stayed on the defensive:
– Says he’s not a pedophile: “The work I was doing was involving young children … You know, you hear the term ‘pedophile.’ That is prepubescent,” Foley said, noting a “huge difference” from lurid chats with teens on the brink of adulthood.
– The children didn’t say no: “There was never anywhere in those conversations where someone said, “Stop,” or “I’m not enjoying this,” or “This is inappropriate,” he said.
It was a “momentary lapse of judgment,” Foley claimed. But he “carried on the computer conversations for months, asking about masturbation, sex, and other details,” the AP notes.
UPDATE: Watch part an interview with a West Palm Beach television station:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Technically, he’s correct.
The proper term is “ephebophile.”
oh, and “First?”
November 12th, 2008 at 12:40 pmdisgusting
November 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pmFoley is disgusting. He knew he was doing wrong, and did it anyway. If he wants a relationship with a man, then that is what he should do. Fine with me, but do not involve people who are underage, they are called children.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pmAnd another bites the dust…
Just another nail in the coffin…
Another brick in the wall…
One more stone in the basket…
And little more proof that the GOOP isn’t fit to lead pigs to the trough…
Not to demean swine…
November 12th, 2008 at 12:43 pmin the meantime michael reagan,
son of ronald reagan (he never fails
to remind people of this) has a plan
to go after dems on sex.
*
the irony of it all.
*
November 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pmWhy don’t have have a seat right over there?
November 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pmFoley is technically correct in that pedophilia is the sexual obsession with pre-pubescent children, and apparently all his leering targets were past the age of puberty (although still minors).
This doesn’t reduce the ick factor, though. Even though these young men weren’t pre-pubescent, they weren’t adults, and their minority should have been respected by Foley.
Furthermore, there seems to be something very disturbing about a grown man who can’t find anyone his own age to play with. And the fact that the kids didn’t say “no” isn’t a defense.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pmHoly Moly, is there some big secret prize out there for the Repuglican who says the stupidest thing wins?
November 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pmAre you f’ing kidding me, TP? You put the word “pedofile” (can’t spell it correctly or else moderated!) in the title of the piece! What I tried to say was:
The children didn’t say no: “There was never anywhere in those conversations where someone said, “Stop,” or “I’m not enjoying this,” or “This is inappropriate,” he said.
Spoken like a true ped_ophile.
PEACE
November 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pmWhy don’t you have a seat right over there…
November 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pmWe’ll be right back with “To Catch a Predator” with Chris Hansen.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pmThats kind of like a murderer saying I’m not a murderer, when I shot the guy he was almost dead already from the beating he took from my partner.
Almost doesn’t mean is Foley, you sick little perverted repiglican phuck!
November 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pmMonika was in her 20’s lest we forget the outrage.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:52 pmIs it just me, or does Foley bear an uncanny resemblance to the character of Mr. Humphries, the very gay sales clerk on the British sitcom Are You Being Served?
November 12th, 2008 at 12:52 pmAnother closeted republican freak
November 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pmI’m horny for politics.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pmMy daughter is a student council/leadership geek, the kind of kid who wants to be a page when she’s older. Our congresswoman has already offered her a spot. Unfortunately thanks to Foley her dad has already said no.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pmIt’s the hypocrisy assh0le! Red-state (no longer..woohoo)conservative politicians rail against gays, and here we have a guy that was preying upon young kids that obviously held him in very high regard.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pmOK, so he’s technically correct that he’s not a paedophile. He is, however, an ephebophile. Furthermore, he conducted himself in an appalling manner, getting into some pretty disgusting chat with minors.
Foley’s problem is really with himself. He is a self-hating homophobe who isn’t “man” enough to come out of the closet and seek a relationship with another man closer to his own age. I also want to point out the hypocrisy that he exhibited by being secretly gay but supporting heinous anti-gay legislation.
Foley is a traitor to himself, other gay men and most of all to the boys who trusted him. For that there can be no forgiveness.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pmLungman424 Says:
Holy Moly, is there some big secret prize out there for the Repuglican who says the stupidest thing wins?
November 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pm“““““““““““““““““““““““““
Heh…George W. Bush is the undisputed champion, gold medal winner of saying the stupidest things but it does seem like a lot of republicans are fighting for the silver medal.
*speechless*
November 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pmWhere are the good christains on this. Surely they are as appalled as us heathens by this kind of behavior. Where’s the outrage?
November 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm.
Well,
Parse it he wishes, the law still delineates between a 17y.o. and an 18yo…
… One an adult, the other a minor.
,
November 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pmThe “prize” for any bad actions should be no media coverage at all.
No forum for the Tom Delay, Foley, Rush, or any of these “folks”.
Any outlet gives them a mic, we have clear evidence of yellow journalism and they get boycotted.
It’s time to cast our economic vote carefully and wisely.
Talk about your value-add proposition…
November 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pmWhy hasn’t he had a visit from one of the boy fathers? I know if it was my son this sob wouldn’t be walking without pain.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pmThe fact that Foley and Haggart are now both coming out of the woodwork kind of concerns me.
But he’s got a point. There’s a difference between jailbait and loli’s, and treating them as exactly the same situation is nonsensical. That said, Foley is a horrible person for a great number of reasons.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pmMax-1 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Well,
Parse it he wishes, the law still delineates between a 17y.o. and an 18yo…
… One an adult, the other a minor.
Yes, unlike most Republicans, what he did was not illegal. It was just perverse and really creepy.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
——————————————————————————–
Who is the singular central character for the downfall of the GOPigs?
a. Tom “bug killer” Delay
b. Newt
c. dubyah
d. Drugbaugh
e. KKKarl Rove
f. other
f. Katrina
November 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pmWow, talk about rationalizations. I am so glad this guy is out of office. On the other hand, is anyone keeping an eye on him?
November 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pmThe man is still DISGUSTING.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
This doesn’t reduce the ick factor, though. Even though these young men weren’t pre-pubescent, they weren’t adults, and their minority should have been respected by Foley.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
_______
Even if they were over 18, it’s still icky just due to the working relationship.
Pages are like sub-interns, staffing a very exclusive club of very-pampered Congressmembers. Most of them probably view their jobs as the first step in a career in government, and they’re going to want to make an impression with anyone who can help them get a few more toes in the door. And if one of these pages starts getting instant messages from one of these members, he/she is going to jump at the chance to brownnose a bit with someone who can help them. So much so that the page might overlook some really sleazy things the Congressmember is saying.
It’d be like a basic cable news pundit making lurid statements to a college-age intern. It’s not just about age or pedophilia or ephebophilia, it’s about power.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pmTypical Repuke, “I’m not to blame” mentality.
Just how many hidden in the closet of this type of Repuke are out there?
Alot….repressed sexual urges of the conservative mentality causes this kind of thing.
The list of Repukian perverts is too long to bother to list here.
Short list of perverts -
RaptureReady
How’s that Phuckabee presidency working for you, psycho.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pmmonika was in her 20’s
November 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pmHe should have been sued for sexual harassment shouldn’t he.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pmI guess I, too, am a terrible person, since I–already in my 60s–would LOVE to have just one more lover in her 20s…just one more…juicy, firm flesh, energetic, curious…yummmmmm…
Yeah, I’m a BAAAAAADDDD person…
November 12th, 2008 at 1:16 pmYeah, Mark Foley – way to take personal responsibility: “they were *almost* men!!”
Perverted freak. Jebus.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pmThese kids were 16 & 17. You shouldn’t be surprised if thier dad wanted to kick your ass for it.
monika was in her 20’s and I’m sure you remember the outrage over her age.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:20 pmFred, get censorious much?
These kids were 16 & 17. You shouldn’t be surprised if thier dad wanted to kick your ass for it.
monika was in her 20’s and I’m sure you remember the outrage over her age.
or is it envy?
who said anything about teenagers?
monica had her presidential kneepads when she left seattle. she knew what she was doing, and offered.
How much younger is “too much?” Cindy McCain was born in ‘54, when he was already an 18-year-old cockhound.
Lots of old men sport MUCH younger trophy wives/lovers…
As do lots of older women sport boy-toys…
Seems to me the people mostly objecting are the ones n ot getting any…
November 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pmThe age of consent in D.C. is 16.
Just because you think the age difference makes his advances “icky” doesn’t make him a criminal.
If he could be charged with anything it might be sexual harassment, or creating a hostile work environment.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pmIf he could be charged with anything it might be sexual harassment, or creating a hostile work environment.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
you got it…it looks like he was probably propositioning those kids, using his position and authority to impose his desires… That’s where the abuse occurs…
November 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pmGeebutz, could this jerk be more disgusting?
November 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pmStatute of limitations on prosecuting this perv?
November 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pm.
So, I watched the update video and still, he’s using his past trauma to excuse his predatory nature to lure, soon to be, young men into sexual dialogue. The law is clear, 17yo ARE minors, no matter what a priest did to you when you were 12yo. However so, this mixing of his past of being abused by a priest is just that, a smoke screen to hide behind, a strawman argument, if you will, that sets into place the unfounded rationale that at some level his predatory nature is not his fault. Then Mr. Foley, was it the priest from your past that was sending lude texts to these minors?
Classic abuser excuses… “It was done to me, too, and that makes it alright, yes?” No Mr. Foley, especially when you accept being in charge of an anti-predatory action group set up and designed to protect “MINORS” from the exact same behavior you engaged in.
.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pmI did, these kids were teenagers unlike monika. That’s the only point I was trying to make.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:37 pmtokin librul Says:
I guess I, too, am a terrible person, since I–already in my 60s–would LOVE to have just one more lover in her 20s
Frankly, yes, you are…anyone who is at age 60 who thinks anyone in their 20’s is a delusional pervert and needs to see a shrink.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pmCorrection
….60 who thinks anyone in their 20’s would want to have sex with them is a delusional pervert and needs to see a shrink.
Sorry doing two things at once here.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:44 pmFred Says:
Why hasn’t he had a visit from one of the boy fathers? I know if it was my son this sob wouldn’t be walking without pain.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Perhaps the boy’s father is more sensitive and tolerant than you, more progressive, and less repressed. You’ll need to find a liberal to list all the other positive qualities that would prevent one from confronting this guy.
bit would go with this reason for not confronting: Capital police are very well armed.
misshusseinmolly Says:
.
.
.
a grown man who can’t find anyone his own age to play with. And the fact that the kids didn’t say “no” isn’t a defense.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
didn’t say “no” isn’t a defense.”
bit agrees. But this is the same defense, in fact, that’s often mentioned on TP regarding homosexuality and same-same gender marriage, so-called.
That defense is if it isn’t harming someone, how is it anyone’s business what two consenting people do in private. That’s the defense this guy is using.
In the area of sexual behavior it appears that if a society isn’t promoting the best – one man one woman in marriage – anything and everything is Ok!
( a la Savage calling San Fran mayor “Any twosome” Newsom)
BTW, when the young man Lawrence King was murdered in CA for “having a crush on his male classmate,” bit posted a link to a study that indicated among young men who came out early, 2/3 of them had had experience with an older male.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pmwho said they’d want me, cully…
I said only that I would love to have one more youthful lover…
Nothing about my having one…
So sioux me…
One thing, I’m poor…which militates strongly against my achieving it…
But if a young woman were–in the admittedly delusional, odd, extreme off-chance–to take a fancy to me, i wouldn’t refuse
her…
mebbe that’s just me…
November 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pmBit is a hater, a moron, and a fool. Bit should take his hatefilled ignorance fold it till its all corners and deposit it where the sun never shines
November 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pmEverything okay today bit?
November 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pmLike most Republicans, Mark Foley does not take responsibility for his actions. Typical.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pmNo surprise as he continues looking for kids to molest. What’s sad is Family took the money to not charge him for his crimes and now with that and the help of his fellow Law Makers Foley is still looking for kids.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pmSure, and I’m not bald because I can grow a beard.
-AF
November 12th, 2008 at 1:58 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
tokin, you and blt are some sick puppies. Guess you guys think foley’s a really nice guy.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:58 pm“I’m not gay, I just like the way it feels.”
November 12th, 2008 at 2:01 pmThe fact that he says “the children didn’t say no” in itself speaks of how wrong he is.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:03 pmI think you’re right to be concerned, dbadass… bit doesn’t seem his old pedantic, sanctimonious self today.
Maybe it’s just that he has to defend a predatory homosexual because he’s a Republican.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:05 pmInteresting.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:09 pmFoley makes sexual advances with minors, and nothing happens (except for embarrassment).
His excuse? They were ALMOST of age.
This, my friends, is disgusting.
Let’s play devils advocate for one stinking moment.
What if it had been a Dem congressman making lurid, graphic advances towards an underage female or females?
Why, the right would demand nothing short of a public lynching.
Which brings up a second point. Did he have sex with these minors? And if so, would he be punished to the full extent of the law, like the 17 year old black teen aged male from Georgia who is serving a hard sentence of 10-12 years (I think) for performing oral sex on a 15 year girl, ONE TIME???
I’m not surprised 17 year old boys would engage in immature sexual texting, geez, what 17 year old isnt a bit obsessed with sex? But Foley should have known better. “Technically” the pages were “practically men” but I’d say Foley is “technically” a PATHETIC OLD LOSER.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:09 pmThis fool acts as if someone is supposed to feel sorry for him or let him off the hook! This wasn’t a ‘momentary lack of judgement’ – this was just sick pedophilia! Foley’s no better than other predators using the internet to lure minors. I just want to know why he’s not in jail?!
November 12th, 2008 at 2:11 pmWell, bit isn’t actually defending the Republican pedofile. He just thinks that we should be more “sensitive and tolerant” toward Republican pedofiles.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:13 pmshoeless Says:
Well, bit isn’t actually defending the Republican pedofile. He just thinks that we should be more “sensitive and tolerant” toward Republican pedofiles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And hate gay people more
November 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pmPoint taken, shoeless.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:19 pmSo his homosexuality was fine. And the only problem was a technical definition since the kids were almost 18.
Clinton was with a woman and she was of age.
Both were misusing their position of authority on the podium of the US Govt.
So shouldn’t the repubs at least admit that Clinton was more acceptable ?
November 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pmBitnit says:BTW, when the young man Lawrence King was murdered in CA for “having a crush on his male classmate,” bit posted a link to a study that indicated among young men who came out early, 2/3 of them had had experience with an older male
Bitty, you are a closet case aren’t you? It’s ok, you can come out here, just leave the third person nitwit behind
November 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pmI still think that man should be talking from a jail cell right now
November 12th, 2008 at 2:31 pmshoeless Says:
Well, bit isn’t actually defending the Republican pedofile. He just thinks that we should be more “sensitive and tolerant” toward Republican pedofiles.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Get it right. bit was suggesting that the father, or fathers, or the boy, or boys, involved were more tolerant and sensitive that Fred.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:00 pmIs there a person on here who, if approached sexually by a desirable young person of compatible lusts and inclinations, and being otherwise not ‘engaged’ or pledged, would refuse the advance?
really?
November 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pmFoley is a disgusting pig who deserves to be strung up by his cajones.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:02 pmi would add, “a desirable young person of compatible lusts and inclinations”, having reached the legal age to consent to engage in such activity…
November 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pm“cajones” isn’t the word you think it is…
properly, it might mean something like “lockers” or “trunks” or “big boxes”…
“cojones” is the word you want…’testicles’
November 12th, 2008 at 3:09 pm…so you see, Foley is the *real* victim here!
November 12th, 2008 at 3:12 pmThere’s no hate in suggesting that a young man is “made” a homosexual by contact with an older homosexual. That was the purpose of noting there was a study that said 2/3 of young men who come out at an early age have had an experience with an older homosexual.
It’s a study. It’s only good until there’s a better one.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pmFor the record – pixelated of course, bit was a page, but he doesn’t remember being gay as fashionable at that time.
In fact “gay” wasn’t the word(s) used at that time to describe that life choice.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pmbitblt Says:
There’s no hate in suggesting that a young man is “made” a homosexual by contact with an older homosexual. That was the purpose of noting there was a study that said 2/3 of young men who come out at an early age have had an experience with an older homosexual.
It’s a study. It’s only good until there’s a better one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes there is hate, ignorance, and basic stupidity. You cannot show homosexuals are not intrinsicly so. I know I had no choice in MY sexual orientation why in the world would it be different for homosexuals? I guess you closet cases that had to make that choice might see it differently but I dont know of ANY of my hetero friends who had any choice to make about who they were attracted to. You consistantly biased sources are nothing but a waste of time as is your ignorance and hateful bigotry. Gay people have always been with us they always will be with us. NONE of what they do is any of your business unless you want to join in. Eventually haters like you will lose this argument. Eventually it will be seen as a joke that we ever made this an issue and people like YOU will be the punchline.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:43 pmbitblt Says:
For the record – pixelated of course, bit was a page, but he doesn’t remember being gay as fashionable at that time.
In fact “gay” wasn’t the word(s) used at that time to describe that life choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ist not a choice because you say so you hateful bigot. You cannot prove its a choice I dont know any homosexual or for that matter ANYONE who thought their sexual orientation was a choice. You just WANT it to be a choice so you can feel better about your bigotry. Wishing wont make it so. You are a bigot, a hatefilled bigot. Time to come to grips with that reality
November 12th, 2008 at 3:46 pmtokin librul Says:
Is there a person on here who, if approached sexually by a desirable young person of compatible lusts and inclinations, and being otherwise not ‘engaged’ or pledged, would refuse the advance?
really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes. I got tired and bored with young girls when I was in my late twenties still dating girls in their early twenties the second time I had to explain to one of them that Paul McCartney had been in a band before wings. And these were gorgeous Southern California girls. I found myself contemplating hanging myself 20 minutes into dates. So yeah, I got over it.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:49 pmZooey thinks bitblt is an ignorant fool. In fact, Zooey knows bitblt is a complete idiot.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pmSo these questions come to mind:
Was Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) making a choice, or was he helpless in controlling his behavior?
Were the Representative partners making a choice, or where they also helpless in controlling their behavior?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pmZooey is of the opinion that bitblt has just confirmed her an@lysis.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:01 pmIs bit suggesting that the potetnial outcome of complex biochemically controlled aspect of development is equivalent to self control?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pmbitblt Says:
So these questions come to mind:
Was Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) making a choice, or was he helpless in controlling his behavior?
Were the Representative partners making a choice, or where they also helpless in controlling their behavior?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This question comes to MY mind why is bit so hatefilled and ignorant. Men that are attracted to women sometimes make inappropriate advances toward them. Homosexuality itself is NOT inappropriate just because bit is a hatefilled bigoted moron. So your question just has no relevance whatsoever.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pmdbadass Says:
Is bit suggesting that the potetnial outcome of complex biochemically controlled aspect of development is equivalent to self control?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
No. bit was suggesting that EugeneDebs was suggesting that self control is out the window? …like,… not possible.
Is dbadass suggesting something casual?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:09 pmIs dbadass suggesting something causal or something casual?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pmThat was the purpose of noting there was a study that said 2/3 of young men who come out at an early age have had an experience with an older homosexual.
It’s a study. It’s only good until there’s a better one.
– Yet bit consistently discounts studies which point to a possible biological origin as in the prenatal hormone theory. Is it possible that bit has a predetermined which studies suit bit and which do not?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pmwell the jury seems to be still out. Science tends to be a cautious thing.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:12 pmbitblt Says:
No. bit was suggesting that EugeneDebs was suggesting that self control is out the window? …like,… not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eugene thinks Bit is an ignorant hateful bigot for thinking homosexuals should NOT engage in behavior because BIT thinks it is wrong. Because in his ignorance and bigotry thinks its the same thing as making inapproprate advances to minors. Bit is hatefilled. Bit is ignorant. Bit is a bigot. None of that is likely to change because BIT WONT CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR, that *I* find inappropriate
November 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pmNo. bit was suggesting that EugeneDebs was suggesting that self control is out the window? …like,… not possible.
Apparently this is what EugeneDebs was suggesting.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pmZooey thinks bitblt is too dense to understand that while sexual orientation does not come under the heading of “self control,” predatory behavior does.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:26 pmbitblt Says:
No. bit was suggesting that EugeneDebs was suggesting that self control is out the window? …like,… not possible.
Apparently this is what EugeneDebs was suggesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK bit at this point you are just UNBELIEVABLY STUPID. I made my point perfectly clear. Homosexuals have no NEED to control their behavior because they arent doing anything wrong just because YOU THINK THEY ARE. It is exactly the same thing as YOU not controlling YOUR behavior by not being such an ignorant hatefilled bigot. THOSE are actions you CHOOSE not to change. Maybe because YOU DONT THINK THEY ARE WRONG. I cant dumb it down any further for your substandard brain and your inability to perform higher brain function
November 12th, 2008 at 4:27 pmZooey Says:
Exactly. Bit is too stupid to understand that homosexuality is two consenting adults doing what they want and no one being hurt and predatory behavior has a VICTIM. Therefore the point he THINKS he has doesnt exist
November 12th, 2008 at 4:30 pmYour last remark doesn’t take into account the fact that there are people who leave the homosexual life choice. They make a different choice.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:30 pmI’ve never met one. Obviously bit complex behaviors have multiple origins and my hunch is that these folks are either deeply conflicted by a society which treats them with so little dignity or not truely homosexual in the first place. As a fancier of stats might you offer up some data as the real numbers of converted?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:34 pmbitblt Says:
You keep calling it a choice because you are a hatefilled ignorant bigot. You cannot show its a choice and unless you are a frustrated closet case you have no reason to believe it is a choice other than it is helpful for your bigotry. People have always tried to deny who they are in many arenas and especially this one. Why would they want to expose themselves to the scorn, bigotry and prejudice of morons like YOU. They try to conform to get along. That really means nothing. Keep being ignorant. Keep being a bigot. Keep denying reality. You are a cruel joke and a disgusting bigot.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:34 pmEugene,
I think we should just leave bitblt to his naughty naughty fantasies..
November 12th, 2008 at 4:36 pmdbadass Says:
I’ve never met one. Obviously bit complex behaviors have multiple origins and my hunch is that these folks are either deeply conflicted by a society which treats them with so little dignity or not truely homosexual in the first place. As a fancier of stats might you offer up some data as the real numbers of converted?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Only stat that comes to mind at this point is that the recidivism rate is quite high, like 70%.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:36 pmWhat does that seem to imply to bit?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pmIt implies to bit that the recidivism rate it very high.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pmSo bit is comfortable projecting that gender preference is a choice but uncomfortable pondering why “conversion” seems to be larely bunk?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:49 pmbit is remembering another stat, but could not find the source for this one.
It was a survey that had supposedly been done around the country. In states other than CA, about 6% of school kids in the survey admitted to having had “homosexual feelings.” In CA that number was 18%.
The only confidence bit puts in these numbers is the 3 to 1 ratio.
bit understands that there might be several explanations for this.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pmSo bit is comfortable projecting that gender preference is a choice but uncomfortable pondering why “conversion” seems to be larely bunk?
Believe you’re leading the witness there, counselor.
The fact that the recidivism rate is so high doesn’t mean that the “conversion” therapy is bunk. It is a a discouraging number, bit’s sure.
bit’s comfortable with this APA quote about the cause of said malady.
What causes a person to
have a particular sexual
orientation?
“Most” above would mean more that half, at least 51%, would it not? Which would mean that the some, those who aren’t in the “most” category, would range from 49% down to 1%, and they would have had a sense of choice, correct?
BTW, what would the recidivism rate have to be before dbadass would consider homosexuality a choice?
November 12th, 2008 at 5:18 pm…and the serial killer said that he’s not a murderer because nobody could stop him from showing off his absolute brilliance. Give us a break Mark…
November 12th, 2008 at 5:21 pmGive it up already, stupid troll. It’s impossible to make people more ignorant so, you’ll get no takers here.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:52 pmToken,
You’re cool, I get it. I’m not sure why everyone else is trying so hard to misunderstand you.
And just for general thought, when I was a 17 year old “just starting to get fat” girl with a foxy 34 year old high school band director, I’d have done almost anything he asked. When your hormones are raging and you’re lookin for love, teenagers make stupid choices. That’s why it’s GOT to be the adult’s job to just say NO.
Flame away…
November 12th, 2008 at 6:16 pmDavid
The staggering level of your stupidity is noted. You can return to your bridge now
November 12th, 2008 at 6:21 pmHE IS A LIAR!
November 13th, 2008 at 12:49 amJust like the cold war when everyone who didn’t agree with the U.S. was either a communist or a communist sympathizer. toki This poor crazy guy spent half a decade being tortured because a bunch
of stupid politicians araç sorgulama were sure the NVA
was in bed with the Russians (minimal help) and/or the Chinese (ancient enemy of the vietnamese). ssk sorgulama You would think he would have learned from others’
mistakes. Guess not. Republicans need an enemy. key ödemeleri This
century it apparently will be all Muslims, health all of whom must
be alQaeda operatives.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:57 pm