Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.motss
Subject: Re: New Rightist Reaganite trounced in Massachusetts
Message-ID: <1145@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 13:39:12 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1145
Posted: Thu Nov 15 13:39:12 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Nov-84 01:53:52 EST
References: <367@ptsfa.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 46

Thanks for the info on the age of the page, Rob.  I'd guessed he was
"of age", but wasn't sure.  Which makes the "Studds affair" (the media
event) about Studds' affair even more interesting as one more case
study in distortion, hysteria & vengeance by public institutions when
energized by homophobia, this time involving Congress & the liberal 
press (including the hypocritical Boston Globe: a few days ago, colum-
nist Ian Menzies tried ONCE AGAIN to fan the flames a la "Well (harumph!),
he DID manage reelection....but MAYBE he won't run/win in '86!").

The basis for indignation against Studds' affair is now really very narrow,
even trite:  it's not only reduced to a mere peccadillo, but can only
involve issues of occupational propriety:  subordinates & bosses should
not mix sex with work on the job, etc.

According to all the page has said, the affair was entirely voluntary,
mutually desired & satisfying & free of regret.  It occurred 11 years
ago.  The recent issue of sexual exploitation on the job could only
be applied retroactively, & appears to have little if any relevance.

But did the sex MIX with work?  It's perfectly clear that laws cannot
outlaw erotic relationships between "consenting adults" in private
life, away from work (the US isn't the USSR) without violating basic
constitutional & common law provisions.

If Studds' affair occurred reasonably removed from the "workplace",
& it seemed pretty discreet, the only possible objection I can see
is that Studds merely had bad luck: he failed to quash the disclosure.
But given the fact that gossip, eavesdropping & polite blackmail are
favorite pastimes of DC society, Studds would probably have needed the
leverage of a J. Edgar Hoover to squelch it once admitted.

Anyone who's familiar with DC life knows how widespread & common many
"vices" such as boozing, whoring, snorting, etc. are among civil ser-
vants: it's a longstanding tradition amid the stress & strain of offi-
cial life.  If all who indulged were purged, we'd cease to have a fede-
ral gov't (do I hear libertarians cheering?).  It's obviously not even 
improper, unless you're "caught", which usually means some unscrupulous 
sleaze seeks to advance his career by "exposing" the Honorable So-&-So.

The legal & ethical issues of the "Studds Affair" are thus easy to define
& settle (& eliminate?) by resorting to easily obtained public information.
The moralistic inflation that created the scandal reveals how much homo-
phobia STILL distorts basic perceptions even among the well-informed.

						Cheers,
						Ron Rizzo