Friday, October 06, 2006
FOLEY, FOLEY, FOLEY.......
Follows are two articles about Congressman Mark Foley's e-mail exchanges with underaged Congressional pages. Read both of these and comment on each's rhetorical strategies, style, persona, etc.
The actual messages are at the bottom of this post. They are pretty explicit, so brace yourselves. If you do not wish to read them, you are not required to do so. However, at the very least, a glance will likely be helpful so that you can know exactly what all the hullaballoo is about.
WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?
by Ann Coulter
October 4, 2006
At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.
Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)
In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."
When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds — not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men — defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")
Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."
Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.
No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.
But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager — oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy — and a credit check, too!
When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.
But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.
On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"
Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."
We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.
Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.
COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
AND THEN . . .
How the Republican Party is Like the Catholic Church
Mark Foley and the GOP.
Closet Cases
by Andrew Sullivan
Post date 10.05.06 | Issue date 10.16.06
The most infuriating aspect of the Mark Foley fiasco is that we're still unclear on what exactly it is we're infuriated about. This was not pedophilia: The pages involved were all above the legal age of consent in Washington, D.C. It wasn't exactly pederasty either, given that we have no evidence (at least not yet) of any actual sexual contact between two live human beings. Sexual harassment? It doesn't appear that, at the time of the now-infamous instant messages, the pages were in Foley's employ. The best phrase I have been able to come up with for Foley's transgression is "virtual pederasty," with a large dose of extremely creepy and abusive behavior toward younger, vulnerable people whose trust he clearly betrayed.
Gay men, of course, went into a defensive crouch. Like Jews watching the Abramoff scandal, we winced at what we knew would be a collective blame-game. It always happens. There is no connection between homosexuality and an attraction to teenage boys--or at least, no more than there is between male heterosexuality and an attraction to teenage girls. But we know that, whenever a gay man is discovered in any relationship with a much younger man, the old pedophile smear will emerge, as, of course, it did in this case. This was not, in other words, "good for the gays."
Some comforted themselves with the thought that it wasn't good for the Republicans either. And there is some comfort there--purely on the hypocrisy front. The fact that, at the moment, it appears that the only law Foley may have broken was one he himself had helped pass is especially poignant. (The pages involved were of legal age according to the District of Columbia, but minors by the standard of an online predation law Foley championed.) There was even a video clip of Foley grandstanding with "America's Most Wanted." "If I were one of these sickos," he told the world, "I'd be nervous." Clearly not nervous enough.
Is it possible to feel sympathy for him? I guess I felt a twinge of it, as I feel when any gay man is subjected to public scorn and anger. And I do not want to doubt that he may have been molested himself as a teen; or that he might have an addiction problem; or that he has a psyche damaged by decades of internalized homophobia. What is the closet, after all, if it isn't the steadily crumbling facade of internal psychic damage?
But, in the end, none of this matters. Foley is entitled to his weaknesses and his pathologies. He is not entitled to drag young people in his care into them. If you read the extended instant-message trails--and I don't recommend it--you see that some of the teenagers he corresponded with also appear confused about their sexual orientation. Illustration by David Cowles Some continued the online chats past the gross-out moment and past obvious red flags. We should not condescend to male teenagers with roaring hormones. They know what they're doing, and yet, they don't know what they're doing. Some may even have been gay themselves, and curious about the world of online sex.
But that is not a mitigating factor. The role of older gay men toward teenage gay men should be to protect them, not to prey on them. Late adolescence and early adulthood are often difficult times for homosexuals, as they have to adopt a public and adult persona they may have a hard time coming to terms with in private or alone. The worst thing one can do to them at such an impressionable age, I think, is to initiate them into the cycle of shame and denial that comes with the closet. And that is what Foley did. He entangled the next generation in the pathology of his own.
He may, paradoxically, even have been generous and kind to the pages in other contexts. Several accounts actually speak well of his interaction with the post-pubescent serfs who work on the Hill. He didn't treat them with contempt or condescension, as others did. He took an interest in them, befriended them, and helped them in their careers. And we need not ascribe all of this to murky motives. Like other gay men existing in deeply homophobic institutions (Catholic priests, for example), Foley may have compartmentalized his life in ways that made him a good person in one box and an abuser in another. This is not an excuse for his behavior. But it does help explain the genuinely good feelings Foley seems to have inspired in many of his peers; the loyalty some of his protégés felt; and the stark discrepancy between that and his predatory behavior toward youngsters in his care. This, at least, strikes me as just as plausible an explanation for the contrast as too much scotch.
And it points to the obvious conclusion to this tawdry, depressing spectacle. There is something deeply sick about a Republican elite that is comfortable around gay people, dependent on gay people, staffed by gay people--and yet also rests on brutal exploitation of homophobia to win elections at the base. These public homophobes, just like the ones in the Vatican, may even tolerate gay misbehavior more readily than adjusted gay people do. If you treat gay sex in any form as a shameful secret to keep concealed, the line between adult, consensual contact and the sexual exploitation of the young may not seem so stark. That's how someone like Speaker Dennis Hastert could have chosen not to know: He was already choosing not to know Foley was gay. In this way, Hastert is a milquetoast, secular version of Cardinal Bernard Law.
Many in the GOP have overcome this shame. The Log Cabin Republicans, for example, have shown how gay people can operate in conservative politics without having to be embarrassed, screwed up, or pathological. Some Republican senators--John McCain, Gordon Smith, Arlen Specter--seem able to deal with gay people and gay issues forthrightly, even if they do not support full gay equality.
But such honesty is scarce in this White House and this Congress. The miserable example of Mary Cheney, Stepford daughter, shows the full force of this syndrome. It isn't pretty. It depends upon knowing when to be silent, tip-toeing around bigotry, and shilling for people who may be personally accepting but publicly so in debt to the religious right that they cannot even formally speak the word "gay" in public.
It is this deeper, more nuanced hypocrisy that this episode exposes. The closet tolerants--and they include both the president and vice president--exist in a party that has built its electoral machine on systematic intolerance and the fueling of populist fear of homosexuals. This edifice cannot stand indefinitely, and the sudden collapse of Mark Foley's career may be a portent of what is to come. The old manners of GOP Washington are being buffeted by the countervailing currents of gay mainstreaming and political opportunism. At some point, Republicans are going to have to choose between the two.
Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at The New Republic.
READER DISCRETION STRONGLY ADVISED:
Foley's Exchange With Underage Page
BRIAN ROSS AND THE INVESTIGATIVE TEAM
September 29, 2006 — - The following is an instant message exchange a former page says he had with Rep. Foley in 2003. Warning: sexually explicit language, reader discretion is advised.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
Follows are two articles about Congressman Mark Foley's e-mail exchanges with underaged Congressional pages. Read both of these and comment on each's rhetorical strategies, style, persona, etc.
The actual messages are at the bottom of this post. They are pretty explicit, so brace yourselves. If you do not wish to read them, you are not required to do so. However, at the very least, a glance will likely be helpful so that you can know exactly what all the hullaballoo is about.
WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?
by Ann Coulter
October 4, 2006
At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.
Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)
In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."
When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds — not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men — defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")
Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."
Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.
No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.
But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager — oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy — and a credit check, too!
When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.
But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.
On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"
Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."
We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
- Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.
- Priests: No gays!
- Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.
- Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.
- White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.
- Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.
- Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?
This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.
Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.
COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
AND THEN . . .
How the Republican Party is Like the Catholic Church
Mark Foley and the GOP.
Closet Cases
by Andrew Sullivan
Post date 10.05.06 | Issue date 10.16.06
The most infuriating aspect of the Mark Foley fiasco is that we're still unclear on what exactly it is we're infuriated about. This was not pedophilia: The pages involved were all above the legal age of consent in Washington, D.C. It wasn't exactly pederasty either, given that we have no evidence (at least not yet) of any actual sexual contact between two live human beings. Sexual harassment? It doesn't appear that, at the time of the now-infamous instant messages, the pages were in Foley's employ. The best phrase I have been able to come up with for Foley's transgression is "virtual pederasty," with a large dose of extremely creepy and abusive behavior toward younger, vulnerable people whose trust he clearly betrayed.
Gay men, of course, went into a defensive crouch. Like Jews watching the Abramoff scandal, we winced at what we knew would be a collective blame-game. It always happens. There is no connection between homosexuality and an attraction to teenage boys--or at least, no more than there is between male heterosexuality and an attraction to teenage girls. But we know that, whenever a gay man is discovered in any relationship with a much younger man, the old pedophile smear will emerge, as, of course, it did in this case. This was not, in other words, "good for the gays."
Some comforted themselves with the thought that it wasn't good for the Republicans either. And there is some comfort there--purely on the hypocrisy front. The fact that, at the moment, it appears that the only law Foley may have broken was one he himself had helped pass is especially poignant. (The pages involved were of legal age according to the District of Columbia, but minors by the standard of an online predation law Foley championed.) There was even a video clip of Foley grandstanding with "America's Most Wanted." "If I were one of these sickos," he told the world, "I'd be nervous." Clearly not nervous enough.
Is it possible to feel sympathy for him? I guess I felt a twinge of it, as I feel when any gay man is subjected to public scorn and anger. And I do not want to doubt that he may have been molested himself as a teen; or that he might have an addiction problem; or that he has a psyche damaged by decades of internalized homophobia. What is the closet, after all, if it isn't the steadily crumbling facade of internal psychic damage?
But, in the end, none of this matters. Foley is entitled to his weaknesses and his pathologies. He is not entitled to drag young people in his care into them. If you read the extended instant-message trails--and I don't recommend it--you see that some of the teenagers he corresponded with also appear confused about their sexual orientation. Illustration by David Cowles Some continued the online chats past the gross-out moment and past obvious red flags. We should not condescend to male teenagers with roaring hormones. They know what they're doing, and yet, they don't know what they're doing. Some may even have been gay themselves, and curious about the world of online sex.
But that is not a mitigating factor. The role of older gay men toward teenage gay men should be to protect them, not to prey on them. Late adolescence and early adulthood are often difficult times for homosexuals, as they have to adopt a public and adult persona they may have a hard time coming to terms with in private or alone. The worst thing one can do to them at such an impressionable age, I think, is to initiate them into the cycle of shame and denial that comes with the closet. And that is what Foley did. He entangled the next generation in the pathology of his own.
He may, paradoxically, even have been generous and kind to the pages in other contexts. Several accounts actually speak well of his interaction with the post-pubescent serfs who work on the Hill. He didn't treat them with contempt or condescension, as others did. He took an interest in them, befriended them, and helped them in their careers. And we need not ascribe all of this to murky motives. Like other gay men existing in deeply homophobic institutions (Catholic priests, for example), Foley may have compartmentalized his life in ways that made him a good person in one box and an abuser in another. This is not an excuse for his behavior. But it does help explain the genuinely good feelings Foley seems to have inspired in many of his peers; the loyalty some of his protégés felt; and the stark discrepancy between that and his predatory behavior toward youngsters in his care. This, at least, strikes me as just as plausible an explanation for the contrast as too much scotch.
And it points to the obvious conclusion to this tawdry, depressing spectacle. There is something deeply sick about a Republican elite that is comfortable around gay people, dependent on gay people, staffed by gay people--and yet also rests on brutal exploitation of homophobia to win elections at the base. These public homophobes, just like the ones in the Vatican, may even tolerate gay misbehavior more readily than adjusted gay people do. If you treat gay sex in any form as a shameful secret to keep concealed, the line between adult, consensual contact and the sexual exploitation of the young may not seem so stark. That's how someone like Speaker Dennis Hastert could have chosen not to know: He was already choosing not to know Foley was gay. In this way, Hastert is a milquetoast, secular version of Cardinal Bernard Law.
Many in the GOP have overcome this shame. The Log Cabin Republicans, for example, have shown how gay people can operate in conservative politics without having to be embarrassed, screwed up, or pathological. Some Republican senators--John McCain, Gordon Smith, Arlen Specter--seem able to deal with gay people and gay issues forthrightly, even if they do not support full gay equality.
But such honesty is scarce in this White House and this Congress. The miserable example of Mary Cheney, Stepford daughter, shows the full force of this syndrome. It isn't pretty. It depends upon knowing when to be silent, tip-toeing around bigotry, and shilling for people who may be personally accepting but publicly so in debt to the religious right that they cannot even formally speak the word "gay" in public.
It is this deeper, more nuanced hypocrisy that this episode exposes. The closet tolerants--and they include both the president and vice president--exist in a party that has built its electoral machine on systematic intolerance and the fueling of populist fear of homosexuals. This edifice cannot stand indefinitely, and the sudden collapse of Mark Foley's career may be a portent of what is to come. The old manners of GOP Washington are being buffeted by the countervailing currents of gay mainstreaming and political opportunism. At some point, Republicans are going to have to choose between the two.
Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at The New Republic.
READER DISCRETION STRONGLY ADVISED:
Foley's Exchange With Underage Page
BRIAN ROSS AND THE INVESTIGATIVE TEAM
September 29, 2006 — - The following is an instant message exchange a former page says he had with Rep. Foley in 2003. Warning: sexually explicit language, reader discretion is advised.
- Maf54 (7:25:14 PM): hey
- Auto response from Xxxxxxxxx (7:25:14 PM): scrounging for food...brb
- Maf54 (7:25:25 PM): ok
- Maf54 (7:25:35 PM): kep scrounging
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:31:51 PM): boo
- Maf54 (7:32:13 PM): bo dude
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:32:17 PM): lol
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:32:26 PM): whered ya go this afternoon
- Maf54 (7:33:39 PM): i am in pensecola...had to catch a plane
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:33:47 PM): oh well thats fun
- Maf54 (7:34:04 PM): indeed
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:34:14 PM): what are you doing in pensecola
- Maf54 (7:34:21 PM): now in my hotel room
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:34:39 PM): well ..like why did you go there
- Maf54 (7:35:02 PM): for the campaign
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:35:29 PM): have you officialy announced yt
- Maf54 (7:35:45 PM): not yet
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:36:06 PM): cool cool...
- Maf54 (7:37:27 PM): how my favorite young stud doing
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:37:46 PM): tired and sore
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:37:52 PM): i didnt no waltzing could make you sore
- Maf54 (7:38:04 PM): from what
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:38:34 PM): what do you mean from what
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:38:42 PM): from waltzing...im sore from waltzing
- Maf54 (7:39:32 PM): tahts good
- Maf54 (7:39:32 PM): you need a massage
- Maf54 signed off at 7:39:37 PM.
- Maf54 signed on at 7:40:35 PM.
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:40:44 PM): got kicked off?
- Maf54 (7:41:24 PM): must have
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:41:57 PM): ugh tomorrow i have the first day of lacrosse practice
- Maf54 (7:42:27 PM): love to watch that
- Maf54 (7:42:33 PM): those great legs running
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:38 PM): haha...they arent great
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:45 PM): thats why we have conditioning
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:56 PM): 2 days running....3 days lifting
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:11 PM): every week
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:14 PM): until the end of march
- Maf54 (7:43:27 PM): well dont ruin my mental picture
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:32 PM): oh lol...sorry
- Maf54 (7:43:54 PM): nice
- Maf54 (7:43:54 PM): youll be way hot then
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:44:01 PM): haha...hopefully
- Maf54 (7:44:22 PM): better be
- Maf54 (7:46:01 PM): well I better let you go do oyur thing
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:07 PM): oh ok
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:11 PM): have fun campaigning
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:17 PM): or however you spell it
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:18 PM): lol
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:25 PM): ill see ya in a couple of weeks
- Maf54 (7:46:33 PM): did any girl give you a haand job this weekend
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:38 PM): lol no
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:40 PM): im single right now
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:57 PM): my last gf and i broke up a few weeks agi
- Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): are you
- Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): good so your getting horny
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:47:29 PM): lol...a bit
- Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourself
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:04 PM): no
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:16 PM): been too tired and too busy
- Maf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow...
- Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy haha
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:51 PM): haha
- Maf54 (7:50:02 PM): or tired..helps me sleep
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:50:15 PM): thats true
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:50:36 PM): havent been having a problem with sleep though.. i just walk in the door and collapse well at least this weekend
- Maf54 (7:50:56 PM): i am sure
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:50:57 PM): i dont do it very often normally though
- Maf54 (7:51:11 PM): why not
- Maf54 (7:51:22 PM): at your age seems like it would be daily
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:51:57 PM): not me
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:01 PM): im not a horn dog
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:07 PM): maybe 2 or 3 times a week
- Maf54 (7:52:20 PM): thats a good number
- Maf54 (7:52:27 PM): in the shower
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:36 PM): actually usually i dont do it in the shower
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:42 PM): just cause i shower in the morning
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:47 PM): and quickly
- Maf54 (7:52:50 PM): in the bed
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:59 PM): i get up at 530 and am outta the house by 610
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:03 PM): eh ya
- Maf54 (7:53:24 PM): on your back
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:30 PM): no face down
- Maf54 (7:53:32 PM): love details
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:34 PM): lol
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:36 PM): i see that
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:37 PM): lol
- Maf54 (7:53:39 PM): really
- Maf54 (7:53:54 PM): do you really do it face down
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:03 PM): ya
- Maf54 (7:54:13 PM): kneeling
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:31 PM): well i dont use my hand...i use the bed itself
- Maf54 (7:54:31 PM): where do you unload it
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:36 PM): towel
- Maf54 (7:54:43 PM): really
- Maf54 (7:55:02 PM): completely naked?
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:12 PM): well ya
- Maf54 (7:55:21 PM): very nice
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:24 PM): lol
- Maf54 (7:55:51 PM): cute butt bouncing in the air
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:00 PM): haha
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:05 PM): well ive never watched myslef
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:08 PM): but ya i guess
- Maf54 (7:56:18 PM): i am sure not
- Maf54 (7:56:22 PM): hmmm
- Maf54 (7:56:30 PM): great visual
- Maf54 (7:56:39 PM): i may try that
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:43 PM): it works
- Maf54 (7:56:51 PM): hmm
- Maf54 (7:56:57 PM): sound inetersting
- Maf54 (7:57:05 PM): i always use lotion and the hand
- Maf54 (7:57:10 PM): but who knows
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:24 PM): i dont use lotion...takes too much time to clean up
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:37 PM): with a towel you can just wipe off....and go
- Maf54 (7:57:38 PM): lol
- Maf54 (7:57:45 PM): where do you throw the towel
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:48 PM): but you cant work it too hard....or its not good
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:51 PM): in the laundry
- Maf54 (7:58:16 PM): just kinda slow rubbing
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:23 PM): ya....
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:32 PM): or youll rub yourslef raw
- Maf54 (7:58:37 PM): well I have aa totally stiff wood now
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:40 PM): cause the towell isnt very soft
- Maf54 (7:58:44 PM): i bet..taht would hurt
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:50 PM): but you cn find something softer than a towell i guess
- Maf54 (7:58:59 PM): but it must feel great spirting on the towel
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:06 PM): ya
- Maf54 (7:59:29 PM): wow
- Maf54 (7:59:48 PM): is your little guy limp...or growing
- Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:54 PM): eh growing
- Maf54 (8:00:00 PM): hmm
- Maf54 (8:00:12 PM): so you got a stiff one now
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:19 PM): not that fast
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:20 PM): hey
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:32 PM): so you have a fetich
- Maf54 (8:00:32 PM): hey what
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:40 PM): fetish**
- Maf54 (8:00:43 PM): like
- Maf54 (8:00:53 PM): i like steamroom
- Maf54 (8:01:04 PM): whats yours
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:09 PM): its kinda weird
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:14 PM): lol
- Maf54 (8:01:21 PM): i am hard as a rock..so tell me when your reaches rock
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:23 PM): i have a cast fetish
- Maf54 (8:01:27 PM): well tell me
- Maf54 (8:01:32 PM): cast
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:44 PM): ya like...plaster cast
- Maf54 (8:01:49 PM): ok..so what happens
- Maf54 (8:01:58 PM): how does that turn you in
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:02 PM): i dont know
- Xxxxxxxx (8:02:04 PM): it just does
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:08 PM): ive never had one
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:16 PM): but people that have them turn me on
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:27 PM): and if i had one it would probably turn me on
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:29 PM): beats me
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:32 PM): its kinda weird
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:50 PM): but along with that i like the whole catholic girl look....thats our schools uniform
- Maf54 (8:03:02 PM): ha thats wild
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:03:14 PM): ya but now im hard
- Maf54 (8:03:32 PM): me 2
- Maf54 (8:03:42 PM): cast got you going
- Maf54 (8:03:47 PM): what you wearing
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:04 PM): normal clothes
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:09 PM): tshirt and shorts
- Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:35 PM): ya
- Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um
- Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:05:08 PM): haha
- Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake
- Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:06:53 PM): not tonight...dont get to excited
- Maf54 (8:07:12 PM): well your hard
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:07:45 PM): that is true
- Maf54 (8:08:03 PM): and a little horny
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:11 PM): and also tru
- Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): get a ruler and measure it for me
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:38 PM): ive already told you that
- Maf54 (8:08:47 PM): tell me again
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:49 PM): 7 and 1/2
- Maf54 (8:09:04 PM): ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
- Maf54 (8:09:08 PM): beautiful
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:09:38 PM): lol
- Maf54 (8:09:44 PM): thats a great size
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:00 PM): thank you
- Maf54 (8:10:22 PM): still stiff
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:28 PM): ya
- Maf54 (8:10:40 PM): take it out
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:54 PM): brb...my mom is yelling
- Maf54 (8:11:06 PM): ok
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:02 PM): back
- Maf54 (8:14:37 PM): cool hope se didnt see any thing
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:54 PM): no no
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:59 PM): she is computer dumb though
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:15:01 PM): it makes me so mad
- Maf54 (8:15:04 PM): good
- Maf54 (8:15:08 PM): haha
- Maf54 (8:15:11 PM): why
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:15:23 PM): cause she cant do anything
- Maf54 (8:15:31 PM): oh well
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:15:41 PM): she couldnt figure out how to download a file from an email and open it
- Maf54 (8:15:53 PM): haha
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:14 PM): and she only does it like a million times a day
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:16 PM): oh well
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:18 PM): whatever
- Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:53 PM): well i better go finish my hw...i just found out from a friend that i have to finish reading and notating a book for AP english
- Maf54 signed off at 8:17:43 PM.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
