zedboy's comments:

on Sam Scandal

I've had a lot of thoughts about this today, many of them conflicted, but what it boils down to is this:

Had I been in Sam Adams's place, I can't say I would not have done the same thing, even though I wish I could.

There are several things that led me this conclusion:

1. I think pretty much everyone has done something stupid or irresponsible with regards to sex and relationships. If you deny it, you're probably lying to me or to yourself. The only thing Sam Adams did differently than most of us is be a politician while he was doing it.

2. It is often said that the cover up is worse than the act, and I strongly agree. If he had admitted this last year, I suspect it would have blown over in a few days.

3. He did nothing illegal in having sex. Mind your own business, people.

However:

4. Even in self-styled liberal Portland in 2009, we have tremendous hang-ups about sex, and about gay sex in particular. Adams's particular irresponsibility skirts close to the revolting stereotype of the pedophiliac gay man. (If you think this is not true, browse some of the various discussion news outlets' discussion boards and see what some people are saying.) That fact alone presents a tremendous pressure on him to keep it quiet. That is a pressure that simply would not exist for a straight man in his position, and we all know how many of them have lied about sex.

(As an aside, I think the distinction between an almost 18-year old and a barely 18 year old is a purely legal one, and not one that would be meaningful in any interpersonal relationship except the one under discussion. It most certainly is *not* pedophilia. A 17-year old is a grown man, not a child. Don't do a disservice to the real crime of pedophilia by bandying about such absurdities.)

Primarily for these reasons, I find it difficult to honestly say that, were I Sam Adams, I could have stood up last year when presented with the accusations, and told the truth. Even though I sincerely believe that is the best thing for everyone to do. (See #2.)

There have been several other objections to Adam's behavior, which I feel are worth addressing:

A. It's not about sex, it's about lying.

Yes, he lied. But he lied about something that should never have been asked in the first place. It is quite simply irrelevant to the execution of the office. As long as Mr. Breedlove was not working for Mr. Adams (and he wasn't), there's nothing there that affects his job performance. I'm reminded of the old adage "when someone says it's not about sex, it's about sex".

B. The power differential between the two parties calls into question the notion that the sex was consensual.

There is a kernel of truth here - power differentials are something that we should always be aware of, especially when one wields political power. However, we should also keep in mind that Mr. Breedlove did not work for Mr. Adams. That certainly does not obviate the questions of power, but it does raise the specter of the idea that this was, in fact, consensual sex. I don't believe we have enough information on this front, and must for the time being declare "no data". But so far, to my knowledge, there has been no serious argument that their behavior was not mutually consensual, except for those that think there's no such thing as consent between those with a power differential. Those people, I don't think are worth spending time arguing with.

C. Adams has set gay rights back twenty years.

I can only say this: welcome to the mainstream. This straight person, for one, is glad to have you along. With gay marriage (once we finally get it in Oregon) you get divorces, and with gay politicians you get sex scandals. If I have to choose between a society with a gay politician's sex scandal or one where openly gay people are not able to be elected, I'll take the former in a heart beat.


posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context



Become a sponsor