Thursday, October 05, 2006
You think that because Studds had a consensual relationship in *1973*, and was censured for it in *1983*, when both he and the page in question declared it was no one's business but their own, and the Democrats didn't despise him for the rest of his congressional career, it's a double standard?
Okay: here's the deal.
First, you have to show that all of Foley's illicit communications were with people who consented to those communications.
Then, if people are still upset at what Foley did, you can claim it's a double standard.
Consent, you pig headed fool. It's not just a word in the dictionary between "confusion" and "contrariness"... it's the entire source of your problems.
Foley was going around, making people uncomfortable because he was engaging in nonconsensual acts with teenagers.
Studds freaked people out because, yes, he was *teh gay*, and had sex with a page, in 1973, when homosexuality was still barely out of the "mental illness" category. But he said it was consensual, the page said it was consensual, and that's all that matters.