I want to agree with Dan Savage here about Anthony Weiner.
Even if you find Weiner’s behavior disgusting, even if you’re mystified by Huma Abedin’s stand-by-her-mannishness (hey, maybe they have an agreement, people? Maybe she’s enjoys getting her virtual freak on too?), won’t you please think of the children? Think of your own children. I promise you, moms and dads of America, your kid is online right now sexting up a storm, swapping dick pics and boob shots, flirting with classmates, cranking up their BFs and GFs before school, during school, after school, etc., and all of their flirty chats, texts, IMs, and pics are going to wind up stored somewhere. Kids today: each and every one of them is creating a smutty digital trail that could be used against them one day—unless we defuse these ticking dick pic time bombs now.
That’s fine as far as it goes. However, I don’t think that Weiner’s penis is the one you want to hang your dick pic hat on.* The norms around these things are still evolving with the technology. They have new risks (like perminance) and new benefits (hotness, you’re not going to get a disease or preggers no matter how reckless you are with the pictures or texts you send). Still, those of us who want the rules to evolve into a reasonable direction should be defenders of consent and of honesty, and it’s tough to say Weiner lived up to either of those.
When the scandal first broke, what turned me from it’s none of my business to he should go was the fact that the pictures weren’t consensual (NY Times link).
“It didn’t make any sense,” Ms. Cordova, a 21-year-old college student in northwestern Washington State, said in her first extensive interview since Mr. Weiner confessed in a news conference Monday to sending her the photo. “I figured it must have been a fake.”
Ms. Cordova’s experience with Mr. Weiner appears to fit a pattern: in rapid and reckless fashion, he sought to transform informal online conversations about politics and partisanship into sexually charged exchanges, at times laced with racy language and explicit images.
Ms. Cordova, who had traded messages with Mr. Weiner, a New York Democrat, about their shared concern over his conservative critics, said she had never sent him anything provocative. Asked if she was taken aback by his decision to send the photo, she responded, “Oh gosh, yes.”
Surely those of us who think that sending pictures of your penis, or boobs, or whatever to strangers isn’t inherently immoral should be the ones who are strongest in trying to defend people’s right to not get unwanted pictures. Consent still ought to matter in our digital age.
Now, there has been no indication that his post-Congressional sending pictures was anything other than consensual. Maybe he has learned that lesson (I haven’t seen any evidence that he has discussed a lack of consent as a problem). If it’s intentional or not, it’s a step in the right direction. Still, he clearly lied to at least one of the women, promising to leave his wife for her (all of the articles I can find that I’d want to block quote use her name, even though she wants to stay anonymous so no link, I’m afraid; any comments with links to articles that name women who wish to stay anonymous will be deleted). That’s more forgivable, but it still seems creepy to me. I don’t think those of us defending the morality of sending pictures to people who want them should also feel an obligation to say lying to get pictures is no big deal.
And finally, there is the cheating aspect. Maybe Dan Savage is absolutely right, and Weiner’s wife, doesn’t mind or is in favor of it. But publicly, their stance is that she’s against it. And for the discussion of the ethics of sending pictures, I think we can say it’s wrong to go outside of the agreed upon boundaries of a relationship. We can do that even when we’re defending people’s right to define their relationships however they want. And look, I’m not going to judge their marriage from the outside: the fact that they have both decided to stay together, is enough, and frankly that part is still none of my business. We say that isn’t a deal breaker for electing people, and more generally that people probably shouldn’t be fired over it, but we can still say it’s not OK.
As I say, I agree with a lot of what Dan Savage says here. I just don’t think defending people’s right to send raunchy pictures means we have to defend Anthony Weiner in this case.
* That could be phrased better, but sometimes you can’t edit out accidental genius.
We lawyers love dumbasses who store smutty pix on the innertubes! The only thing better than a client with blackmail material on your opponent is an opponent with blackmail material on your client! Fee heaven!!!
You stupid humans think you’re hot stuff, but believe me you’re nothing to look at. From a rabbit’s perspective, once you’ve seen one crotch you’ve seen ’em all. You’d be amazed if I told you how many of you stupid humans don’t wear underwear. Do you really think rabbits and other small creatures want to see your butts? Yewwwww.
Philosophers worry about consent. Pragmatists worry about subpoenas.
This shows why you need Me.
If I had wanted to make a law against flashing, I would have put it in the ten (or 13) commandments.
Of course Mr. Weiner, as a Jew, should perhaps be tied to that higher standard … Jews accept 613 rules rather than 10 (or 13).
Of course. Mr. Weiner has already committed a pretty big violation by marrying a shicksa … a Muslim yet! So far no one has commented on whether they eat pork or whether she is going to the mikva now.
Maybe the press should have the Weiners questioned by an Iman and a frum Rabbi? Does she eat during Ramadan? As a world traveler has she made the hadj? Has he ever taken My name in vain?
Seriously, if I do not care why should you? I especially wonder about those of you who are Christians. Do you really think your God wore a loin cloth on the cross? A lot of the Jesus on the cross carvings I have seen off3end My sens of modesty a lot more than pictures of Anthony’s sex organ.
But, what do I know? Iam just what am.
I have to admit, when I retweeted this earlier, I didn’t realize that the pics were non-consensual. I guess I should pay attention to scandals that I tweet about…
But I honestly don’t give a crap, Weiner probably spiked his career for things other than the terrible things he’s stood for and said. Oh well.
The prudishness of liberals is only outdone by that of the conservatives.
The only important questions arising from all this is whether Anthony Weiner is a self promoting idiot.
I wonder whether why he is not listed in the campaign trips being offered by wealthy Jews ? (below) For that matter what do any of the other candidates have to say about Weiner? Does it matter?
Mounting any defense of Weiner on the basis of his right to share personal information in a consensual manner is as misguided as mounting a defense of (former) Congressman Mel Foley on the basis of Foley’s right to have consensual sex.
It ignores the facts that Weiner became so irresponsible in his behavior that he was unable to separate his private actions from his public actions.
Tweeting incorrectly was what got him into trouble in the first place. The mixture of his personal and public personae is what got a couple of minor girls exposed publicly when Weiner’s lewd behavior was (incorrectly) alleged to have occurred with children as well.
I can’t find the link but one source I read this week stated that the final straw for Obama in remaining silent about Weiner affair in 2011 was that minor children became part of the controversy. The privacy of minor children was violated because of Anthony Weiner, despite the consensual and apparently benign exchanges Weiner had with them.
Weiner’s conduct in and prior to 2011 was indefensible – Obama didn’t defend him, finally. The fact that he continued to engage in the same behavior despite his public shaming and the rebuke from our president should, on its face, disqualify him from holding future office. That there’s even a discussion about whether he deserves to be cut some slack because that behavior may have been consensual is mind-boggling, although certainly entertaining in the way that seeing one’s worst enemy’s car totalled in a non-injurious one-car accident would be entertaining.
Consensual or not, Weiner’s a proven serial liar and is insufficiently in control of his behavior to be trusted as a public servant. Once he steps back from his misplaced desire to once again become a public servant, his personal behavior can be defended as personal and private all he, or anyone else, wants.
As I’ve spent more and more time with people seeking political office, I’ve come to the conclusion that ALL OF THEM are on some level narcissists and should be approached with a great deal of skepticism and some measure of suspicion – even the ones that agree with me.
I sometimes wonder if we shouldn’t fill political offices the way we do juries (or rather summonses for jury duty) – by lottery.
@8 I don’t know about you, but I’m not interested in replacing Patty Murray with Juror B37.
@9
No, I agree, just a thought to provoke conversation. Sort of like imagining what it would be like if Lincoln had just said “ta-ta” to the South.
The way we organize our elections, not unlike how other conglomerations of people work, is that there are some narcissistic/self-promoting/sociopathic/manipulative – take your pick – who see these as opportunities to accrete power to themselves, and who publicly profess allegiance to whatever the mission of that organization is, while really working for their own agenda.
I think a big advancement in our culture will be the formation of organizations with some sort of ‘immune system’ to identify and neutralize such parasitic behavior. Such people – climbing the ladder – are often quite smart/talented, and need to be better contained/directed, and not allowed to subvert the ostensible mission of whatever organization they’re in, but their talents constructively utilized.
Turning elections into lotteries is just one somewhat absurd thought to illustrate how one might short-circuit the tendencies of the narcissistic and self-promoting among us.
@8, @9 I’ve never met Patty Murray personally, but my wife has and came away with the impression that she’s one of the least vain people she’s ever encountered.
@10 “Turning elections into lotteries…”
Seems we’ve pretty well done that. People with the wherewithall to do so buy two-legged tickets generally referred to as “candidates”.
Oh my Breitbart brings up the Weiner sausage!
Seems Andrew Breitbart first called Weiner to own up to his Weiner. What a jackASS Weiner was and still is!
Wait for it… the unemployed ASSHole will denigrate the facts from Breitbart!
Have Carlos Dimbulb and our goto pet klownservative nincompoop for laughs around here posted anything worth a first glance lately??
Nope..
People can do whatever they damn well want in their private lives no matter how bizarre it is as long as it does not hurt others, IMHO.
But a person desiring a public life had better learn to accommodate public norms.
As Uncle Puddles points out @13, if you don’t your political opponents are going to make hay and you are going to spend too much time defending and explaining why you are entitled to act outside the norm and not enough time accomplishing your public objectives.
@15 I’m surprised Uncle Puddles hasn’t picked up on Filner yet, another Dem pol in sexual trouble.
I’ve been saying for years that Democrats need to behave more like Republicans, but that’s not what I had in mind. I meant copy the GOP’s hardball political tactics, not their sexual perversions.
@13 Brietbart? My goodness, talking with the dead now, are we???
And since 14-year-olds are doing it must be moral and healthy behavior…
Actually, there’s quite a bit of data on the subject of teens and phone and internet use and it doesn’t line up with Dan’s version of reality at all.
Once again, I’m left mystified as to why anyone listens to what Dan Savage says…
@6
There’s nothing “prudish” about objecting to someone sending out nonconsensual photos of their dangly bits.
@16 We’d probably have better government if politicians abandoned political tactics and just stuck with the sexual perversions.
We have lost our sense of propriety. It happened in the 60’s, when we were subjected to hypocrisy by every institution of organized society, and government hypocrisy was forcing young men into uniform and getting them killed.
The reaction to that hypocrisy was to question the idea of propriety and think of things only in terms of rights. Who’s right is it? Does my right trump your right? Policy discussions turned on being able to frame positions in arguments based on rights.
Anyone with a three year old will understand a discussion based solely on rights, because that is all a three year old understands. Maturity is the process of learning how to balance rights and responsibilities.
The ethics balance has two sides: rights and responsibilities. You can not discuss ethics without considering both sides. But the task is harder thees days because our collective grasp of what constitutes a responsibility is rather shaky. People will say things like “It is a matter of fiduciary responsibility to extract profit for the shareholder” as a way of covering for corporate greed.
Our unwillingness to address and assess propriety plays into that. Quite often, when someone stands in the public square (or what passes for it these days) and proclaims that something is proper or not, they are shouted down by people claiming rights of one sort or another.
SImply put, Anthony Wiener has a record of acting in an improper way and should not be in a position of public leadership where we expect people to be have in a proper way.
Sending pictures of genitalia to someone unknown to you in personal life, while it may be within your rights, is an improper act.
What constitutes a proper act? How about this as a starting point for discussion A proper act is something that you can discuss freely with those in your social circle who are in agreement with the purpose of your actions.
And getting back to the original article by Sully, where he says that humans are sexual beings, I would hope that we are more than that. Other wise, we are just dogs with opposable thumbs.
“Once again, I’m left mystified as to why anyone listens to what Dan Savage says…”
Well, I gotta admit, the thought of all those suberbly formed, nubile and laci,.. lasiv.. oh, you know, dirty-minded teens “sexting up a storm, swapping dick pics and boob shots, flirting with classmates, cranking up their BFs and GFs before school, during school, after school, etc” certainly improved my day! And may improve those few moments before I fall asleep at night even further.
“We have lost our sense of propriety. It happened in the 60’s,”
Uh, sorry, hate to burst your Reagenite walks-like-Jane-smells-like-Cheetah-Beatles-are-the-Antichrist bubble, but the evidence is, no pun intended, quite clear.
Ever take a look, a close look at one of those beaded flapper-dresses from the 20’s? Well, apart from the beads, the fabric used was so sheer it did not adequately veil the feminine form, and the dresses ended well short of what, in a family blog, can only be called the patella, if that’s the right word for “knee”.
And if the “Ragtime” music of the 1890’s and early aughts was “shameless music,
that’ll grab your son, and your daughter,
with the arms of a jungle animal instink mass-staria” how much more degrading the music of the “Jazz Age” must have been!
No, Sir or Madam as the case may be, America’s moral tone and sense of propriety disappeared in a melee of bathtub gin to the dissapated beat of the Chaleston.