The language of scandal
Oct. 6th, 2006 02:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mojosmomI've been fascinated to watch how, as the Mark Foley scandal unfolds, language is used to put a spin on the facts, particularly in regard to the attempts to portray Foley as a pedophile. That term has frequently been used to describe him, as the term "underage" is often used to describe the pages to whom he sent those infamous emails and IMs.
The former is clearly wrong. The diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, set forth in DSM-IV-TR, are:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
If anything is clear in this scandal, it is that Foley is attracted to males in mid- to late adolescence, not prepubescent boys.
As to the pages being "underage", well, "underage" in what context? Sixteen is the minimum age for a Congressional page; it is also the age of (sexual) consent in the District of Columbia. So it would have been perfectly legal for Foley to have had a nooner with one of them in his office, as long as he didn't provide him with alcohol.
It's interesting that you rarely hear of a 52-year-old man who likes teen-aged girls described as a pedophile. Fifty-somethings of either sex who come on to 16-year-olds of either sex are (despite the occasional teenager who welcomes such attentions) properly known as creeps. (As a dirty old lady, however, I retain the right to whistle and say, "oh, my!" when the track team runs shirtless down the street.)
The former is clearly wrong. The diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, set forth in DSM-IV-TR, are:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
If anything is clear in this scandal, it is that Foley is attracted to males in mid- to late adolescence, not prepubescent boys.
As to the pages being "underage", well, "underage" in what context? Sixteen is the minimum age for a Congressional page; it is also the age of (sexual) consent in the District of Columbia. So it would have been perfectly legal for Foley to have had a nooner with one of them in his office, as long as he didn't provide him with alcohol.
It's interesting that you rarely hear of a 52-year-old man who likes teen-aged girls described as a pedophile. Fifty-somethings of either sex who come on to 16-year-olds of either sex are (despite the occasional teenager who welcomes such attentions) properly known as creeps. (As a dirty old lady, however, I retain the right to whistle and say, "oh, my!" when the track team runs shirtless down the street.)
