Does anyone have the details on Gary Studds?

[last1standing]

I've googled him and have come up with some vague commentaries that run the gambit of calling him a pedophile to claiming the affair was a consentual one between two adults. Also, they either say it was the one affair or that Stubbs was a sexual predator who went after several pages.

Does anyone know the truth of it all?

[tridim]

1. All I know is that whatever happened, happend 24 years ago

It's a non-issue relative to what's happening to the GOP today.

[last1standing]

3. Agree 100 percent. I'm just trying to find out what happened.

One inappropriate action doesn't lessen the severity of another. Also, what I did find is that the Stubbs incedent took place in 1973 and was dug up again 11 years later for the reprimand. Apparently both Stubbs and the former page held a press conference afterward stating that it was a consentual affair and that they were over the age of consent at the time. That's why I want to know what happened. How could congress reprimand, and eventually censure, him if it wasn't illegal?

[DoctorMyEyes]

7. actually more like 33 years ago

The affair was in 1973 wasn't it? It just wasn't part of any big ta-do until a republican got in trouble with a page in the 80s and they had a big "Democrats do it to!" fit, and drug up what was already a 10 year old incident.

Funny, how they're stuck going all the way back to an affair from the early 70s to make it look like there are freaks on both sides of the aisle. I think they got all the mileage they're entitled to out of Studds incident. It's not a perpetual "get out of going down alone" card.

[tridim]

9. Whoa.. I just saw '83' this morning.

I'll have to retrace my steps to find out where I saw that. Seems like someone is attempting to muddy the waters.

[DoctorMyEyes]

12. 83 was when he was censured - 73 was the affair

It was ten years old when he had to stand for censure, next to a republican, in 1983.

Here's a link to an old cached article about it:

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:UrvScOC9QksJ:365gay.com/lifestylechannel/intime/months/07-july/Studds.htm+gerry+studds&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a">link

[TwentyFive]

2. Studds committed no crimes.

What he did was maybe unseemly, but definitely not illegal.

He was in his 30's at the time, and was reelected several times in his district. It might have not been a page either...possibly an intern, and definitely over the age of consent. Also, this involved one guy, and it was more of a ongoing dating relationship type thing.

TOTALLY different from a serial sex predator, preying on several different young boys.

[last1standing]

4. Do you have any links to that info?

I'd really like to check them out.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. From the Wikipedia article mentioned in post #5

Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page. The relationship was consensual, but violated age of consent laws and presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.

During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay."

As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.

[shadow 99]

8. and the citizens of MA re-elected him (studds) until he retired NT

[last1standing]

13. Thanks for posting that.

I had read it already and was looking to see if there was anything out there with more detail, but the Wiki page is the best I've seen so far.

My question after reading that is was the page under the age of consent like Wiki says or above it as both Studds and the page stated?

[TwentyFive]

14. Oops, my error. Thanks for the corrected info.

So much has changed since 1973! Is it really fair to even begin this comparison?

Everything was so MALE DOMINATED back then. Sex in the workplace was routinely winked at...swept under the rug. It's like saying Thomas Jefferson was evil because he owned slaves. Maybe so, but we should make allowances for the time these people lived in.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Isn't his first name Gerry?

Link to his <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds|Wikipedia article>.

[rsr1771]

10. Studds did same thing

Unless you are just a partisan, it's impossible to defend what Studds did. Didn't he do exactly what Foley did? He had consensual sex with a page, who was 17 years old. Isn't that That's under the age of consent in many states. I am shocked he managed to keep his job back then.

[last1standing]

15. I am a partisan, but I'm not defending anyone here.

I'm trying to get some answers. Thanks for playing, though.

[DoctorMyEyes]

16. He managed to "keep his job"

Because he was honest about his sexuality, was not a hypocrite, had not made a habit of trolling the page classes for pickups, and it didn't hurt any that the page in question stood alongside him as a 27 year old man and defended Studds. There was only a 10 year or less difference in the pages age and Studds.

It's a bit different than a creepy closeted hypocritical fifty-something year old man making pages uncomfortable year after year with lewd and suggestive emails and God knows what else at this point.

[rsr1771]

18. So if Foley...

So if Foley managed to get the kids he was trying to pick up to say nice things about him, it would be ok?! I don't care if the 17 year old kid said nice things about Studds or not.

The point is that members of Congress cannot be having "consensual" relationships with Pages. Plus, having sex with a 17 year old is illegal. Why waste your time defending a slime ball like Studds when all it does is distract from the real issue- which is, the perverted acttions of Mark Foley?

[DoctorMyEyes]

19. Why waste your time condemning a 33 year old affair?

I didn't say the 17 year old kid said nice things about him - I said the TWENTY-SEVEN year old man stood up publicly by Studds side and said that it was consensual and no one elses business.

I'm not condoning ANYONE having sex with a young person in such a subordinate relationship as a congressman and a page. I'm also not the one comparing apples and oranges and declaring them the same thing.

Or do you honestly think that Studds was a sexual predator?

[rsr1771]

20. was he a predator?

I don't know if I would use that word. But I would say he's a disgrace and had sex with an underage boy or teen or kid or whatever. I see little difference between Studds and Foley.

[sandnsea]

21. Was Daniel Crane?

Or do you even know who he is?

[rsr1771]

22. isn't he?

yeah he's the other guy who got caught having sex with pages around the same time Studds did. Another pervert who should have been thrown out of office at the time.

[sandnsea]

23. No, one page

The both of them, one page. Crane was married with kids, and having a fling with a 17 year old girl. Studds had a long term relationship with the page in question. I would prefer adults leave kids alone altogether, but at the time there weren't sexual harrassment laws and we didn't do a good job protecting kids from molesters AT ALL. That's why John Walsh's work will always be commendable, despite his lapse of judgment on other issues. Neither of them were preying on pages for years running, and not caring whether they were under age or not.

[TwentyFive]

17. It was 1973. Laws and attitudes were way different back then.

In 1973, cops rountinely let drunk drivers off with a ticket...often letting them drive home. Times have changed.

[enough already]

24. This is about scumbag repukes

Studds did nothing wrong.

[Warpy]

11. He had some sort of relationship with a page

that was discovered some years after the fact. The page was 17 at the time of the affair and was reluctant to testify, had only good things to say about Studds. The page was 21 when the scandal broke.

The whole thing was weird. I don't recall ever reading about just who came forward with the information, but the why is obvious.

Studds admitted it and was censured.

I was in his district at the time and remember people being torn between being disgusted that he'd been so stupid and admiration for the work he'd been doing to protect wetlands, a big deal to those of us who were living on Cape Cod. We already knew Studds was gay. The page he had the affair with was over the age of consent and apparently did consent, enthusiastically. It was inappropriate to most of us, but no more a hanging offense than Clinton's affair with an overheated groupie was.

We might feel a bit differently today, but times and outlooks have changed.

On Edit: forgot the name of the other Representative censured on the same day for an affair with a female page. His name was Dan Crane.