> Bright's point is that it's mistaken to infantilize teenagers. I
> think that's important because wanting to act as if teenagers are
> strangers to sex is one of the many fucked up ideas about sexuality
> that hold sway in the U.S.
Agreed. I've been struck by the fact that nobody is calling for the abolition of this preposterous institution (the "pages", I mean, not chicken-hawkery, which has respectable and even Classical antecedents). If people really don't approve of repellent old trolls slobbering over America's clean-cut youth, then why on earth do we maintain this ridiculous pseudo-royal cadre of "pages" (just think of the name!) within slobbering distance of some of the nastiest old trolls on earth? I fear there is a certain dividedness of mind in our national character on these matters.
My own view is that it's purely a matter of fiscal responsibility: I think congressmen should have to find and pay their own rent boys, just like regular Amurricans, rather than having them laid on courtesy of the taxpayers. Also, in my limited experience, serving as a page has a bad effect on the page's own character -- I even wrote a blog post about it:
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2006/10/jupiter_and_ganymede.html
--
Michael J. Smith
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org