In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

That Consent Thing

zuzu

I’m sure you’ve all heard by now that Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, has resigned amid revelations that he sent inappropriate and sexually-charged emails to former Congressional pages. It turns out that Republicans in Congress knew about at least some of these emails since 2005 yet let Foley keep his position as head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, and that pages received warnings about Foley from Republican staffers as early as 2001 (Think Progress has a timeline).

Hm. Sounds a bit like the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, doesn’t it? And just like with the church, while the underlying behavior was bad enough, the coverup makes it worse. People who were not only in a position to do something to protect the pages, but who were duty-bound to do so, looked the other way because they were more interested in protecting their own interests and the interests of the institution. Unlike Bernard Cardinal Law, though, Dennis Hastert (who was a high-school teacher and coach, for Pete’s sake) can’t be shipped off to Rome to avoid paying the consequences of the coverup.

The Democrats are making hay with this, of course, and as they should. Knowing about this kind of behavior and covering up for it (while at the same time accusing Democrats of being soft on child predators) are signs that the leadership of the Republican Party cannot be trusted to be in charge of the legislative agenda. Terrance has some thoughts about how the GOP’s political culture, which forced Foley to stay in the closet, might have had something to do with this.

So, we come to consent. At least some of the former pages on the receiving end of the “overfriendly” emails and sexually-explicit IMs from Foley did not consent to sexually explicit communications with him. Even if they had consented, the fact that many of the recipients were under 18 means that the emails may have violated federal child-endangerment and obscenity laws, even if they were above the age of consent in their home states.

And, of course, we have the people in thrall to the Clenis, who are a little unclear on the concept of consent:

He was an adult in a position of power, no matter that his emails (non-sexual) or recently revealed IM’s from 2003 (sexually explicit) appear to be legal as the age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16.

You see, my objection to the consensual affair of Billy Jeff and Monica was the power differential. Just as it is in this case.

I’m being ethically consistent. It’s why I support parental consent laws no matter how many times I’m told that I should “just get over” the fact that teens will have sex.

So count me as among the crowd that, while applauding Foley’s being run out of DC on a rail, I’m finding the manufactured rage from the “it was just about a bj, you prudes, it was just sex” crew emanating more than just a whiff or two of rank hypocrisy.

Oh, Darleen. Such confusion.

Darleen uses, and confuses, several different kinds of consent here. First, the age of consent: Granted, this one is a little tricky because of the differing state and federal laws governing this situation, but suffice to say, she doesn’t seem to have a really good grasp of this concept. Just because someone is able, by law, to consent to sex doesn’t mean that they have consented to sex on any given occasion.

Second, she draws a parallel between the consensual, in-person affair between two legal adults and the one-sided pursuit of a teenager over the internet by a sexual predator simply because both involve a power differential. That, simply speaking, is bullshit. The power differential between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did not turn a consensual affair into rape; it did not remove her agency or autonomy. It introduced all kinds of ethical problems into the relationship, but it didn’t remove the ability of an adult woman to engage in consensual sex.

By contrast, to the extent the pages who received the IMs and emails from Foley did not consent to sexual communications or a sexual relationship with him, it is the lack of consent, not the power differential, that is the problem here. The power differential doesn’t create the problem, but it does make it worse.

I don’t even know why Darleen mentions parental consent laws for abortions in this context, unless she’s under the delusion that they allow parents to consent to their kids’ having sex or something.

Finally, because Darleen is unable to understand how consent works, she can’t see that people who objected to the partisan pantysniffing witch hunt of Ken Starr et al. re an ethically problematic yet fully consensual affair that had nothing to do with governing the country can still be genuinely outraged that the Republicans have covered up for a sexual predator among their ranks who’s viewed the page pool as his dating pool. See how that works?

21 thoughts on That Consent Thing

  1. I was watching CNN this afternoon and one of the talking heads (I don’t remember which one, just some guy) made that same analogy. He basically said that people (read: Republicans) should understand what was going on here because they impeached Clinton for doing the same thing. The husband was home for lunch and we both just about lost it. Because while the whole Monica thing was sleazy and inappropriate of Clinton, there is the whole matter of them being consenting adults, which is not present in this particular bit of slime.

  3. I don’t see consent as being the main issue here, since in many states a 16 year old can legally consent. What makes the difference here for me is that Foley’s advances were clearly unwelcome. Both Foley and Clinton abused their power and engaged in inappropriate activities with subordinates, there’s no denying that. But while Monica was obviously receptive to the advances, Foley’s subjects were not. Clinton had an inappropriate relationship, but Foley engaged in outright harassment. Is he a sexual predator? I’m not sure. Definitely a creep, and someone who does not belong in a position of power or public office. But to me, this is a very clear-cut case of sexual harassment from a guy who likes them young, but is hardly a pedophile or public menace. He should be puinished, then come out of the closet and live his life in the open.

  6. My (perhaps overly) snarky comment was directed at Sailorman. Sorry, but I always find it annoying when people ask questions that can be clearly answered by reading the post and the links.

  7. I don’t see consent as being the main issue here, since in many states a 16 year old can legally consent. What makes the difference here for me is that Foley’s advances were clearly unwelcome.

    There’s no effective difference between an advance being unwelcome and not consenting to the type of communication here. Again, just because someone can consent doesn’t mean that they have.

    In any event, whether or not the advances were welcome doesn’t bear on the criminality of the solicitations under a law that Foley himself helped write, among other statutes. Glenn Greenwald has a good analysis. He also points out that Foley would have been in the clear, legally at least, had he pursued the pages in person because they were all over the age of consent in DC. Because the laws regarding solicitation of children use 18 as a cutoff age rather than local age-of-consent cutoffs, behavior that would be legal in person runs afoul of the law when it’s done over the internet.

  8. Power differentials of the type that existed b/t Clinton and Lewinski also muddy the consent waters. It might be clay rather than silt, but it’s still mud.

  9. rr: sorry. I had already–for example–read the NY Times article, before I even came here, and had read lots of other pieces on it on various blogs. I was hoping not to have to read even more to find out that particular bit of info. It’s so “obvious” as not to get mentioned, it seems.

    Did he send emails to pages who no longer worked for him (“former pages”)? Or did he send emails to pages who worked for him at the time, but who are no longer pages now (“former pages”)?

    The latter is much worse than the former. But both are bad.

  10. Sailorman, sorry for the snark, but I assumed you hadn’t read the articles, because the articles I’ve read indicate that he was a former page for another representative, not Foley (Rodney Alexander). The boy was creeped out by the emails and his parents contacted Alexander. From what I can tell from reports, Foley also exchanged emails and IMs with both current and former pages — that all came out after the first boy came forward.

  11. Frumious said:

    Power differentials of the type that existed b/t Clinton and Lewinski also muddy the consent waters. It might be clay rather than silt, but it’s still mud.

    Mr. Foley presented himself as a jovial mentor, interested in the well-being and (ew) development of these young men. President Clinton apparently approached Ms. Lewinsky on as close to a peer level as he could manage, given the inappropriate power differential to which you’re referring. Were they both inappropriate? Of course. But in my judgment, Mr. Foley’s abuse of power is more grievous than President Clinton’s was.

  12. I think the legal consent issue isn’t terribly hard to get. The DOJ announcing an investigation implies the federal standard applies. I don’t know the consent laws in every state, but I know in most states this would be illegal. Most states have consent laws that allow for sex with 15-16 year olds only if the older partner is within 4-6 years of the age of the minor involved. Trying to compare this to any of the BS Debbie listed is just ridiculous.

  13. Is he a sexual predator? I’m not sure. Definitely a creep, and someone who does not belong in a position of power or public office. But to me, this is a very clear-cut case of sexual harassment from a guy who likes them young, but is hardly a pedophile or public menace.

    I’m not too comfortable with the “sexual predator” label either. But our age of consent is 14, so maybe it’s a cultural thing.

    I’ve seen no evidence of harassment. If he had continued sending e-mails after the recipient had complained, then I’d agree (perhaps that happened and I’m unaware). I read some of the IM’s, and I didn’t see anything that would lead me to believe they were unwanted or harassing.

    His hypocritical opposition to gay marriage is why I’d throw him out of office.

    Because the laws regarding solicitation of children use 18 as a cutoff age rather than local age-of-consent cutoffs, behavior that would be legal in person runs afoul of the law when it’s done over the internet.

    That makes no sense to me. Any idea why that’s the law?

  14. oh Gawd, before I even scrolled down to the name. ayiyiyiyi.

    yeah, see, the -other- problem with the whole “parental consent” thing is, a lot of the time? The evil awful adult sexually abusing the minor? IS the parent.

    and it does all kind of tie back to this notion of “child as property,” I’m afraid. Sorry, wacky conservatives. You, too. You’re implicated here, too.

  15. and yes, you’d think that the “parental consent” wrt abortion is a separate issue from this here; but actually it does make sense that she’s tied them together. This is, I maintain, a big part of why in American-conservative-land there’s such strong emphasis on Hillary was WRONG to suggest “it takes a village to raise a child;” no, it takes a PARENT. Why there’s so much emphasis on parental control, overall. The key word is: CONTROL. They act as though it’s a contest between the evil (liberal-run) Government and/or the corrupt secular perverts it enables and the parents; what never gets considered is whether the “child” (which of course means any age up till the “age of consent,”) has the right to make decisions for herself. Not least, of course, concerning matters sexual; control of the body.

    Sound familiar?

    And understand that this is not by way of excusing adult-minor relationships; I agree that the power imbalance there is a problem in and of itself.

    But all too often that genuine concern (in conservative world) bleeds over into “protect” the “child” from ANYTHING sexual, from ANY autonomy; it can all wait till the “child” reaches the age of official independence (one of the last remaining vestiges of ritual life transitions we have: go take your newly of-age ID and get legally shitfaced), where somehow, the transition from “They know what’s best for you” to “I am an independent adult” is magically completed, via a simple click of the clock.

    Mm.

    Ever read Alice Miller? “Poisonous pedagogy?” What she pins down is I think one of the real roots of the problem here: it is the secret, nastier reason behind all this “focus on the (nuclear) family.” Yes, genuine concern for the welfare of your kid, for some stability in a frighteningly unstable world, fear of uncaring impersonal forces wrenching your family apart, all of that, yes.

    But -also,- there is this transaction that happens in an authoritarian (“patriarchal,” if you like, sure; although here in fact is one of the places where the matriarch actually gets some power, which I suppose is part of the system, yes) set-up, see. It goes something like this:

    “You, as a child, have no power. You will do as you’re told; you will accept whatever indignities are done to you; you will accept the rationale that whatever awful-feeling thing it is is “for your own good,” no matter how much your mind and guts are telling you otherwise.

    The reward is that someday, when you have kids of your own, you can turn around and finally dump all that pent-up anger and frustration and desire for -control,- dammit, on -them.-”

    In short, it’s completely backasswards. But it’s been going on for dog’s years. And it’s huge. Because of course once one has accepted this…worldview, it is far FAR too easy to, without even thinking about it, transfer all that learning about how the Voice of Authority Knows What’s Best For You…like oh say I don’t know a political leader?

    Wasn’t that the big slogan wrt Bush? The Grownups Are Back In Charge? mm, mmm-mmm.

    “No, sweetheart, daddy isn’t mad at -you-; he’s mad at all those evildoers who want to hurt you. He only yells because he cares so much. Just do as you’re told. You’ll understand when you get older. What?! -smack- Don’t you -ever- talk that way about your father again! Go wash your mouth out with soap. Be thankful he works hard and puts food on the table; he doesn’t run off with some floozy like SOME irresponsible “fathers.” -door slam- No, I don’t know where he’s going. It’s not my place to ask. He works hard; he’s entitled. He smells like what when he comes home? All right, that’s quite enough out of you, young lady/man. You know perfectly well he quit drinking years ago. You’re imagining things. One more word out of you and you won’t be able to sit down for a week. Now go to your room.”

  16. p.s. they’re really called “pages?” PAGES?? oh, my. that is classic, isn’t it? plus ca change. droit de signeur. l’etat, c’est moi. hic, hack, hork.

  17. Because the laws regarding solicitation of children use 18 as a cutoff age rather than local age-of-consent cutoffs, behavior that would be legal in person runs afoul of the law when it’s done over the internet.

    That makes no sense to me. Any idea why that’s the law?

    Well, judging from these age of consent charts, though 16 is the age of consent in most states, there appear to be 17 states where the age is 18 at least some of the time (sometimes it’s 16 if the teenager doesn’t complain, and 18 if the teenager does, and sometimes it’s higher for same sex relationships than for opposite sex ones). And even in states where the age of consent is 16 (which is most of them), sex with 16 or 17 year olds, by adults, isn’t fully socially accepted here. A fair number of people think that the age of consent is 18, and in any case many will describe sex with under 18 year olds as predatory, and sex with a minor.

    And it could be that they were thinking of people who either a) are in an area where 18 is the age of consent, and go to the Internet specifically to find someone in a state where the age of consent is lower, or b) approach, via the Internet, someone who’s underage in the area where he or she lives, but want to defend themselves based on their own state’s lower age of consent. Note that we also have a law that says that if you go abroad to use the 14-year-old prostitutes in some other country, and they’re of legal age there, you’re still prosecutable for child molesting when you come back home.

    Of course, if people like this guy were the ones who actually wrote the Internet solicitation law….

    My own state, FWIW, has an age of consent of 18.

  18. God. Why can’t people keep their damn hands off minors?!? How HARD is that?

    Anyway. Thanks Lynn, that post/comment was very informative.

  19. Pingback: The Debate Link

  20. zuzu

    Actually, I’m not confused about ‘consent’ OR the separate incidents of the emails (to an anonymous16 y/o that were weird but NOT sexual nor actionable) and the IM’s (explicit, consensual and to an Jordan Edmund, 18 year old … )

    The power differential between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did not turn a consensual affair into rape

    Are IM”s to an 18 y/o “rape”?

    it did not remove her agency or autonomy

    Wrong. He was her boss. No matter how “consensual”, their relationship was no different than that of professor/student or officer/enlisted. Don’t they do “sexual harassment seminars” at your place of work?

    Secondly, if a minor is considered legally unable to consent to sex, then why do we carve an exception when it comes to abortion? Pregnancy suddenly confers maturity?

    Age of consent in CA is 18. However, there are subsections to the Penal code in dealing with what is considered illegal sexual contact with a minor (and even non-contact sexual conduct such as internet solicitations and graphics); as justice and common sense would dictate treating the 18 years + one day old having sex with dating partner 17 years + 360 day old VS 25 y/o having sex with 14 y/o. (ironic to note, though, in the second scenario if the 24 y/o is a hot blonde female teacher and the 14 y/o a boy many people see no problem.)

    And what I find most ironic… outside of the newly discovered value of sexual propriety by the usual libertines … is the suggestion that someone should “have known” about Foley (who still hasn’t been found to have done anything illegal) because he is gay..and y’all know that gay men, by default, are not to be trusted around adolescent males. Right?

    But wouldn’t that be the whole rationale of the Boy Scouts in barring gay men as leaders that has had the ACLU and others trying to destroy the organization as “homophobic?”

    :::snort:::

    Foley is creepy, immoral and his reprobate behavior is his own responsibility regardless of his orientation. NOT just because the age differential is so great, or that he used his position to “scout” page ranks to contact later (hmmm… Woody Allen is still making films, isn’t he?)… but because he was in a position of power and he used it to engage in behavior with young people who wouldn’t have given him a second look if he was furniture salesman.

    Foley thought he could act like a sexagenarian rocker diddling with teenaged groupies on the tour bus.

  21. Wrong. He was her boss. No matter how “consensual”, their relationship was no different than that of professor/student or officer/enlisted. Don’t they do “sexual harassment seminars” at your place of work?

    Good lord, I’m wondering what kind of sexual harassment seminars they do at your place of work. You still don’t seem to be getting the whole “unwelcome” part of harassment. When someone makes an advance on the boss, the boss’s advances are not unwelcome. The reason that consensual professor/student and boss/employee relationships are problematic is that the person in the position of authority is in a position to grant favors/privileges or withdraw them — which affects not only the less powerful partner directly but also other people in the workplace/school environment. So if your coworker is fucking the boss, and you’re in competition with that coworker for assignments, you are going to be at a disadvantage.

    However, all of those problems are related to the workplace or school, not to the law. Foley’s IMs and emails may in fact run afoul of certain federal or state laws against soliciting minors over the internet. As I said above, this is an anomaly, since the relationships may very well have been perfectly legal (if not ethical) had they been conducted in person. There is also a question of how welcome his advances were — a question that is not present in the Clinton/Lewinsky relationship.

    And what I find most ironic… outside of the newly discovered value of sexual propriety by the usual libertines … is the suggestion that someone should “have known” about Foley (who still hasn’t been found to have done anything illegal) because he is gay..and y’all know that gay men, by default, are not to be trusted around adolescent males. Right?

    No, someone should have done something because they were told that there was a problem and having been told there was a problem, they were under a duty to do something about it. As early as 1995, pages were being warned about Foley by Republican staffers. So they knew that there was a predator going after pages for 11 years.

    As for your faux surprise that “sexual libertines” would have “newly discovered” sexual “propriety” — just what do you think consent is all about?

    Secondly, if a minor is considered legally unable to consent to sex, then why do we carve an exception when it comes to abortion? Pregnancy suddenly confers maturity?

    Actually, Darleen, parental consent laws for abortion are an anomaly, given that teenagers have long been considered sufficiently mature to make medical decisions related to pregnancy without the consent of their parents — as long as they’re continuing the pregnancy. So pregnancy does, in fact, confer maturity under most state laws, unless the minor wants to end the pregnancy. Then, suddenly, she’s incapable of making her own decisions. C-section, fine; abortion, not.

Comments are currently closed.