It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pedophiles in Washington -- More Information Surfacing, and Old Discussions

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Here's a great page full of newspaper stories about the Republican homosexual prostitution scandal over the years. It's a fascinating read and the more articles I read, the more I'm becoming convinced that as SO said, Foley is the "top" of the iceberg.

The Sexual Compromise at the Capitol Data Dump




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKMDC1
Here's a great page full of newspaper stories about the Republican homosexual prostitution scandal over the years. It's a fascinating read and the more articles I read, the more I'm becoming convinced that as SO said, Foley is the "top" of the iceberg.

The Sexual Compromise at the Capitol Data Dump



wow

Good link.


Stories published in the Washington times, Charleston Gazette.

And the results of the investigation never were made public, huh?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Parts of it are being legalized!!! View more in this thread here!!

Foley story -- Watch the monkey



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
marg asked an interesting question earlier, something like

What are they really trying to hide, if they're letting this come out?

I'm stumped. Anyone have any ideas?




One thing that does come to mind - sex with children is part of some forms of ritual magic - and Washington's hallowed halls are full of power-mongers associated with secret cults....




.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
As odious as Foley's behavior was, it is not, as yet, a case of pedophelia.

www.psychiatryonline.com...

History and research has shown that attraction to adolescents is pretty normal, if not perfectly normal. However, society has ruled that such behavior is unacceptable for a variety of reasons.

It might seem like a meaningless distinction, but using the correct terminology eliminates confusion between a disorder and a lack of scruples and appropriate boundaries.

Mark Foley, besides grossing out a few boys, really broke the trust of the boys and families who were entrusted to his care and of the American public.

The courts will decide whether or not he has broken the law. For the time-being, however, his removal from the Congress is sufficient.

www.house.gov...

[edit on 2006/10/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
marg asked an interesting question earlier, something like

What are they really trying to hide, if they're letting this come out?

I'm stumped. Anyone have any ideas?


I am still trying to figure out what is behind all these news now, if somebody has know all this information for a while they are as guilty as the guilty person that committed them.

I will like to know who are the people that had the information this long an allowed this to happen for so long, waiting for the right moment to cash out on it.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

Well I'd say there are a few things contributing to the current problem (which is not really anything new, but open discussion of it is).

1) The changing definition of "childhood" - up until about a hundred years ago or so, teens past puberty were not considered "children" but "young adults". The idea that teens are children is a relatively new phenomenon, triggered by the need for workers in a technological society to have an extended formal secondary education.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, once a person hit 13 or so, they were considered to be young adults, and expected to start working out in the fields in rural areas, or taking up an apprenticeship in urban ones. 16 all the way down to 12 or 13 was seen as a "marriagable age". That most people don't seem to remember this anymore is a function of:

2) The growth of the mass media. The media we know today is, again, a recent phenomenon. TV has been around since the 1950's, radio since the 1920's. Newspapers have been around for a while, but mass circulation of periodicals like we know today again only dates to the mid 1800's - before that they were a luxury enjoyed mainly by the elites. The mass media has shaped the public consciousness to such an extent that we have trouble understanding what life for most people was like beore it appeared on the scene. We imagine that social mores were something like the ones we have today, but in fact they were very, very different (see item 1).

Radio and television, the first true "mass" media, only came on the scene much more recently, and started changing the mental landscape of society. Before the mass media, there were in effect two moralities, one that people professed publicly, and one that they actually lived by. IE harmless variations like homosexuality were just as common as today, simply not discussed. A harmful variation: the sexual abuse of children (by which I mean prepubescents) was probably far more common than it is today, precisely because it was not publicly discussed, and the perpetrators could get away with it more easily - this was true probably up until the late 70's/early 80's.

The presence of a mass media, whose economic imperatives determine a need to continually shock, changed all this. Taboo subjects started coming out into the open, especially after the initial furor over:

3) The birth control pill. For the first time, a widespread, reliable method of contraception came on the scene. This triggered what we now call the Sexual Revolution (which had really been brewing since the 1890's, but exploded in the 1960's) - as heterosexual intercourse no longer necessarily led to pregnancy, a lot of the old social structures surrounding sexuality no longer served a useful purpose, and started falling apart. With the increasing frankness over sexuality, scientists began looking at sexual behavior more carefully and the public began discussing their findings including:

4) The recognition of pedophilia as a psychological disorder. Pedophilia, is defined by psychologists as a sexual interest in preadolescent children, has made it's way into the public discourse. Unfortunately the meaning of the term has become distorted as it's done so, due largely to point #1.

What was a very specific disorder with very specific traits has come to be defined as any sexual interest in perople regarded as "too young" - the definition of which depends entirely on where you are and who you talk to. Concurrently, people who in reality simply are irresponsible and looking for easy targets have come to see themselves as not people making ethically wrong choices, but as victims of a pathology who "cannot help themselves" - thus easing the guilt that might otherwise stop them from acting on their desires. And those desires are stoked by another trend:

5) The rise of the teen sex symbol. Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, etc... It's noteworthy that both of these popular sex symbols rose to fame in their teens. There are male equivalents - Leonardo Dicaprio was one, Aaron Carter, the New Kids On The Block, etc etc... the emphasis on youthful beauty has become more prevalent in our society at the same time as we're redefining "childhood" later and later. Naturally leading to a very confused attitude towards teen sexuality - it's the thing everyone is trained to want, and the desire everyone is trained to despise at the same time.

It's a means of social control.

As for SO's original point, I dont think we're talking about anything new. The powerful have always sought to indulge in the very behaviors they publicly campaign against. And they've always used their power to get access to exotic and forbidden sexual acts. This kind of thing goes back to Emperor Tiberius and no doubt long before written history.

And it's no coincidence that Tom Foley publicly protrayed himself as a crusader against the sexual abuse of kids - it was to protect himself from public exposure. To point suspicion away from himself.


[edit on 10/3/06 by xmotex]


I am concerned about the latest news related to pedophilia.
This is what is currently in the TV news:
- Child Porn Charges Against John Mark Karr are dismissed.
- Florida congressman Mark Foley (charges pending... maybe)
- Amish school shooter,Charles Carl Roberts had history of molestation.
- Colorado school shooter Duane Morrison, sexually assaulted the girls he held hostage.

To Catch A Predator with Chris Hanson: I watch this show often and I'm starting to see a pattern showing that a lot of the men featured appear to be very normal, average men. Tonite, Chris Hanson talks about the Mark Foley issue. The increased attention on this subject has me wondering if there is some new propaganda aimed at convincing the public that pedophilia is acceptable.

I saw an episode of Law and Order: SVU where the topic was about a child sex predator who firmly believed that this was nothing more than a "sexual preference" as opposed to deviant behavior.

After reading the post by xmotex, and taking the above information into account, I'm feeling very strongly that our society is being further brainwashed into viewing pedophilia as acceptable.

Your opinion?



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I'm curious how anything I said comes across as indicating "pedophilia is acceptable".

The heart of my argument as it regards the misapplication of the word pedophilia is this:



Concurrently, people who in reality simply are irresponsible and looking for easy targets have come to see themselves as not people making ethically wrong choices, but as victims of a pathology who "cannot help themselves" - thus easing the guilt that might otherwise stop them from acting on their desires.


In other words, the extension of the meaning of the word pedophilia to including teens and young adults lets people think "oh well, I have a condition, I can't help myself" when in reality they're just being irresponsible pigs.

Accepting that being attracted to young adults is relatively normal does not mean it's OK for adults to go around trying to get them into the sack. It might be "normal" for a man to be attracted to a friends wife if she's a real knockout - that doesn't mean it's OK to act on that attraction. See what I'm trying to say?



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I'm curious how anything I said comes across as indicating "pedophilia is acceptable".


I don't think annestacy ment to imply this xmotex.


back to the topic.........


My sources tell me that next week more damaging information will be released that will make the IM messages look like innocent banter.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
What I'm saying is that our government is trying to push us into thinking it's acceptable behavior. The more a topic is covered on television, it seems the more acceptable to society it becomes (divorce, adultery, single parenthood, violence, etc.). I feel that since there is more and more coverage of pedophelia on television (in both the news and TV shows), the public becomes desensitized and more accepting of it.

Your information provides a good informational background of the history of human behavior. If people think that "it was ok in the past for girls to marry at a young age and start a family, then what's wrong with it now?"

In this day and age, young women are encouraged to get an education and have careers of their own. It's not necessary for them to marry young and raise a large family. But since over the years our government has been "dumbing us down" using the news and media, maybe it's possible that they are pushing society in this direction for a reason.

I hope that makes sense.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
OK, guess I misunderstood the post.

Sorry about that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join