Not That There's Much Wrong With That

Can you hold a press conference to denounce rumors that you are gay without ever saying if you are, or are not, gay? Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.) just did.

Foley is running for Senate in Florida and blames Democratic rivals for the "revolting and unforgivable" rumors. But Foley refused to answer reporters questions about his sexuality saying, "There are certain things we shouldn't discuss in public."

Which is a fine and very respectable position to take. It just doesn't square with a press conference. After all, when baseball star Mike Piazza spoke to the press about gay rumors, he actually said something: "I'm not gay. I'm heterosexual."

Foley can't have it both ways. Well, unless he's bi.

Comments

[Warren]

I agree with RS, nothing inconsistent with saying 'It's none of your business, which makes my opponents a-holes for talking about it to begin with'

I go with the "consenting adults" rule but complete the metamorphosis: Leaks are nature's floggers

[Warren]

err make that "leeks"
damn spell checker

[joe]

Fuck him. Open season on the Sonderkommando.

[Kevin Carson]

RS:

True enough, he has a right to say what he wants. But we have an equal right not to like it, and to say so.

I am sick and tired of public figures who complain about the lack of privacy, and yet feel driven to give all sorts of nuanced answers to questions on personal matters. How much grief would Slick Willie have been spared if he had consistently, every single time, said "No comment" or "None of your business" to every question on pot or adultery. Instead, he changed his story every week, like Shrub did on the cocaine issue. I suspect it is the New Age extrovert in him that cannot restrain himself from "sharing" with us.

If one politician had the steel in his spine to simply refuse to answer such questions, ever, the press would get tired of getting the "no comment" reply and move on to something else.

[Brad S]

I rarely agree with politicians these days, it seems. But I happen to agree 100% with Foley. I personally don't care if you're straight, gay, bi, or whatever. That's your own private business, and frankly, I just don't want to see it or know about it in public.

[David]

There are, of course, no open questions here. No male who is "accused" of being homosexual, and is, in fact, heterosexual, needs to dance around the subject. As Mike Piazza demonstrates, it isn't that hard to say, "I am heterosexual." Very few heterosexual men of my acquaintance are shy about claiming their heterosexuality. At any opportunity.

Unless, of course, you're a Republican and could very well be caught lying if you said something like that.

[RS]

David,
If one of your friends says "I'm heterosexual," no one is going to follow him 24/7 and look into his past to find out if he had any h.s. encounters. How the hell do you know if the heteros of your acquaintance have ever experimented or even have a secret life. You don't and it's none of your business.

[David]

To the extent they have a "secret life" (what a quaint phrase), of course it's none of my business. But for pretty much everyone, their sexual orientation (as opposed to their sexual practices) is a public matter. There are few heterosexuals who don't know that. Lordy lord, a marriage ceremony is the most public statement of a person's sexual orienttaion I can think of, proudly shouting to all the world, "I'm Heterosexual!" And there's not a thing in the world wrong with that. No one asks, and no one should, what they heck those happy heteros do in their bedroom, which is the "private" part of their sexual orientation.

Gays, up until now, have been expected to hide both their sexual activities AND their sexual orientation. That's just plain weird, and the disjunction makes a lot of us nuts. If heterosexuals can announce their sexual orientation every day (discussions of their spouses, grandchildren, etc.) while maintaining privacy about their actual sexual activities, why aren't gays entitled to the same -- i.e., being able to discuss their sexual orientation, while being granted respect for the privacy of their sexual activities behind closed doors?

Foley is caught in the 1950s problem -- he's trying to be coy about not being heterosexual, and people are supposed to pretend that this is about "privacy." It's not, and never has been. Worse is that it appears he has a long term partner he's forcing himself to keep under wraps. So it's not just one person who suffers from this fake privacy, it's two.

Whatever it is Foley and his partner do behind closed doors is certainly privacy, and I want no part of that. But to claim that he can invoke "privacy" to protect the broader category of sexual orientation is something no heterosexual would ever think of, and rightly so. That's a rule we invented strictly for gays, and it's one which deserves to be discarded in the scrapheap of history.

[Andrew Lynch]

David, I'm confused. Are you advocating compulsory disclosure?

Not sure I buy the wedding analogy, although it's clever. I think you've reduced an ancient ceremony, rooted in religious, cultural, and even socially political concrete, to a cheerleading event for heterosexuality.

Actions speak louder than words. I don't run around yelling that I am a Libertarian. Because of my views of the world, people just get it. And I assume that because of the humans I'm attracted to, people just get that I'm gay.

Did you conclude that Foley is either a coward, a deceiver, or both? I wasn't sure. I don't have any problem scorning him for his antiquated obliqueness.

[RS]

David - you seem to be trapped in some cliched world of codes and signifiers from Hollywood. Sexuality just isn't that clear cut for all people as you would like to believe. If a guy's happily married to a woman but every once in a while likes to suck a male dick or have his dick sucked by a male - I'm trying not to be too "quaint" for you - does that mean he's supposed to make a public announcement that he's gay? Or a "gay" guy who occasionally likes to pop a female, should he declare to the world at large that he's heterosexual? People choose the sexual lives they want to lead and no, it isn't any of your goddamn business. Can you imagine someone declaring, well my sexual orientation is towards men, but I happen to be in love with a woman or vice versa? Look, those public marriages are great for business but they really amount to nothing as far as revealing anything about a person's sexual orientation or much else. Frpm my experience, I'd say you're pretty naive about what these extravagant ceremonies have to do with sexual orientation or anything else in many cases.

The point is, if a politician says "I'm homosexual" and then evidence is scraped up revealing he slept with a woman, he'll be portrayed as a liar. Is he? I don't know and I don't care.

[david f]

as long it's not torrid affairs with trees, rutabega, etc. who cares?

and remember what mr henry rollins notes about bisexuals: every bar is like a supermarket. there's an opportunity lurking 'round each and every corner!

but if the r. santorum crowd wins, mark foley will be sent to pasture, doing dinner theater in des moins... hopefully santorum's side will lose.

drf

[RS]

Don't see how this doesn't square with a press conference. Dems are spreading rumors about his sexuality and trying to use it against him. He has every right to denounce this tactic and every right to refuse to discuss his sexual choices whatever his reasons. Maybe he is bi as you joke and doesn't even know himself what lifestyle he will eventually choose or doesn't want those he chooses to be involved with to know about. Seems pretty legit to say it's a pathetic tactic and the truth or falsehood of the rumors is none of anyone's business.

[david f]

but note that both sides use the "gay card" to go after opponents.

it's inappropriate, and it's something for florida voters to note...

drf

[thoreau]

>

Good luck. Florida voters can't even note their choice on the ballot, how will they ever note subtle points of strategy? 😉

[twistedmerkin]

David, what do you have against rutabega lovin'? I mean, as long as the rutabega doesn't say no...

[Anonymous]

rutabagas? that's disgusting. Now as for certain bonsais....

[david f]

hey twisted m!

it's just that rutabegas never call you back. they only send carnations, and shun all things leather...

bonsai -- wow. i guess trimming them into various shapes... (wait a sec. this is deteriorating into Sara's posting from yesterday! excellent!)

drf

[Billy Beck]

Early in his career, LBJ was strapped to a very tight election race. Looking for an angle, he came up with the idea that his opponent had carnal knowledge of barnyard animals. His staff were horrified.

"Lyndon!... we can't get away with calling him a pig-fucker."

"Maybe not," he schemed, "But we can sure as hell make the sonofabitch deny it."

[Santorini]

"If heterosexuals can announce their sexual orientation every day (discussions of their spouses, grandchildren, etc.) while maintaining privacy about their actual sexual activities, why aren't gays entitled to the same -- i.e., being able to discuss their sexual orientation every day (discussions of their spouses, grandchildren, etc.) -- Ooops!

Well, maybe therein lies the answer. I guess nature just won't cooperate.

Sorry.

[Jack]

The possibility that Foley is gay would probably help explain his shrieking "anti-sex" positions on a variety of issues. It would make for a classic example of the hypocritical inquistor.