U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/)
-   -   Weiner-gate! (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/weiner-gate-210906.html)

Irvine511 06-08-2011 04:35 PM


Originally Posted by deep (Post 7232817)

he has a lovely wife, he is supposed to be intelligent, and we all know that twitter and FB are not really anonymous, anything online, even texts can and will live forever. If anyone is sensing some anger or resentment toward him from me, I admit to it.

I see him as being very selfish, exploiting women and as his ex girlfriend says, misogynistic. These are all voluntary choices he made all by himself.

i'd write something, but i'll just repost something because it says it better than i ever could:


8 Jun 2011 04:03 PM
Living And Living Online

Some have argued that Anthony Weiner's mistake was not to realize that what you say or write or send online is not in some super-secret, personal dimension where the rest of the world cannot tread - but totally, irrevocably public. His delusionary sense of security and privacy came, in part, I think from the context - you're often online in a private space and tend to regard emails or tweets like a phone call. But, of course, emails are not phone-calls or even letters. Everything has a record, especially digital photographs, and can be dispersed immediately to all four corners of the earth. (Ask yourself: would this mean anything if Weiner had merely had unrecorded sex talks with consenting adults over the phone? No: this was all about the power of a dick pic.) And the older you are, the likelier it is you may get tripped up by this, because the less likely you will be to have learned these disasters in adolescence.

We have discovered a new way of living socially, and we haven't quite figured out how to square it with our other lives. Jonathan Franzen wrote an exquisite piece about this a week or so ago. Money quote:


A related phenomenon is the transformation, courtesy of Facebook, of the verb “to like” from a state of mind to an action that you perform with your computer mouse, from a feeling to an assertion of consumer choice. And liking, in general, is commercial culture’s substitute for loving. The striking thing about all consumer products — and none more so than electronic devices and applications — is that they’re designed to be immensely likable. This is, in fact, the definition of a consumer product, in contrast to the product that is simply itself and whose makers aren’t fixated on your liking it. (I’m thinking here of jet engines, laboratory equipment, serious art and literature.)
But if you consider this in human terms, and you imagine a person defined by a desperation to be liked, what do you see? You see a person without integrity, without a center. In more pathological cases, you see a narcissist — a person who can’t tolerate the tarnishing of his or her self-image that not being liked represents, and who therefore either withdraws from human contact or goes to extreme, integrity-sacrificing lengths to be likable.

Hence Palin's obsessive corralling of fans to pad her Facebook stats or swarm Wikipedia to conform reality to her insanity. And I don't honestly believe that if Weiner were chatting up an admirer in a bar, he would have whipped out his impressive, briefed bulge or exposed his ripped, manly pecs (are you not, by the way, impressed by how in shape these congressmen are?).

In online sex chat, you can disaggregate yourself, figuratively dismember yourself, become a body without a head (or a mind), be a pair of strained underpants, or actually send a picture of your own Favre in seconds. You can become porn. You can enjoy many of the best parts of sex without any complicating emotion or relationship or accountability. And you will not get an STD.

This is not real life. And you are not, in this interaction, a real or rounded person. You are a sexual avatar of sorts. You are your pecs; or your dick. Love is not the object here; "like" is.

The online world creates an outlet for the feelings that sexual adultery or sexual adventure create - but without actual sex, without actual intimacy, without our actual full selves. For gay men, it's win-win - a harmless online playground where you flirt the hours away and never really get your feelings hurt and remain, as they say in the brutal jungle of online sex, "disease-free". For straight men, it's tougher to find willing partners who don't think you're creepy (most men and women are just wired differently in sexual matters), but still win-win until wives or girlfriends find out, and they do not see the virtual/real distinction. But, to my mind, the appeal of anonymity and of losing oneself in a virtual sexual encounter is so powerful and easily available it will never cease being popular. It's as irresistible a mindless outlet as bad television or Angry Birds - and much more interactive and addictive. You can even send pictures of people other than yourself and pretend to be utterly other. Does that make it better or worse? Discuss ...

All I can say is that we're adjustng, slowly, and Weiner was a victim of this shift. Maybe more married or committed couples would do well to talk about it, set some rules, and make some preparation. Judging by the "shocked! shocked!" responses of some writers like Megan McArdle, there are a lot of conversations still to be had.

Living And Living Online - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast

deep 06-08-2011 04:48 PM

as you have previously posted

he is toast because he went on national TV and bald face lied for a week.

made up stories, pointed the fingers at other people and said he hired an investigator. he got indignant with reporters when they wanted some clarifications at a press conference he called. no integrity, no credibility.

as for Andrews fluff piece, he misses the point. we should all learn what Farve learned. you really should not be posting or texting your junk;.

corianderstem 06-08-2011 04:50 PM

Especially if the woman on the receiving end did not request it (isn't that what the woman said? that's the last I heard, that it was 'unsolicited').

I don't care how hot you think you are, women should not have to be faced with genital surprises when they log into whatever accounts or check their phones.

BVS 06-08-2011 04:53 PM


Originally Posted by corianderstem (Post 7232851)
I don't care how hot you think you are, women should not have to be faced with genital surprises when they log into whatever accounts or check their phones.

Quote of the day :lmao:

corianderstem 06-08-2011 04:55 PM

I mean, I guess people interpret "online flirtation" differently, but if I'm flirting with you, in person or online, you can't just whip it out, in person or online.

That's not cool.

At least give a heads up.

"Hey, I have something for you. Want to see it? <winky winky>"

and the woman could be into it "Totally, text me your junk, yo." and follow up with "MY BOOBZ, LET ME SHOW U THEMS."

or she has the chance to say "You know, I really don't want your penis on my phone, so let's just call it a day."

No one wants surprise penis.

nathan1977 06-08-2011 05:22 PM


Originally Posted by corianderstem (Post 7232858)
No one wants surprise penis.

Sorry. THIS is the quote of the day.

BoMac 06-08-2011 05:24 PM


Originally Posted by corianderstem (Post 7232858)
No one wants a surprise penis.

Indeed. Imagine the reaction from those poor people at Google.

Penis prank captured on satellite image - National - NZ Herald News

Irvine511 06-08-2011 05:30 PM


Originally Posted by corianderstem (Post 7232858)

No one wants surprise penis.

my understanding is that none of this was a surprise. he wasn't like, "OMG i'm a Congressman here'smypenis!" at least i think?

it seems like there was mutual flirtation and admiration going on, and many of these women were sexting back just as much. i'm sure his power is part of the aphrodisiac, but so is a big fat ... wallet.

i'll also restate, before i sign off for the day, that the lying/cover up is one thing. what he was actually doing is ... really not all that interesting and i find many of us, as we publish the lurid details and hold cock pics hostage dangling them as blackmail, are doing something that's of no more dubious morality than what Mr. Weiner did.

corianderstem 06-08-2011 05:36 PM

I was just going off the bit I'd heard about the woman saying it had been unsolicited. I know he wasn't just sending random junk shots to women online.

I also really just wanted to use the phrase "surprise penis."

I don't particularly care if he's a cheating jerk, I kind of assume a lot of politicians or people in power are. I assume a lot of them are liars, too, because most people are going to try and cover their asses rather than step up and admit wrongdoing right off the bat. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about whether or not he should resign.

I just think in 2011, with stories of Brett Favre and his unsolicited surprise penis, and stories of teenagers sexting someone and having it being passed around to the entire school ... just the general sense of lack of privacy with social media, that someone in a position of power would be dumb enough to do it.

Go cheat. Go find yourself a nice call girl. Have a good time, use a condom, bon voyage. But to send someone an explicit picture and not stop to consider that someone else might get a hold of it? Or that the recipient might not turn it around and use it against you? What an idiot.

Yeah, caught in the shifting world of social media and privacy expectations. I get that. But in this case, I don't think it excuses it. I don't think that there's a comparison between this and my grandmother not being able to program her VCR. My grandmother isn't running for public office in the very media-savvy world of 2011. And hey, I say all sorts of bonehead stuff on the internet as well. But I'm sure not running for public office, either.

It was just a plain old bonehead move.

Irvine511 06-08-2011 05:47 PM

sheer stupidity aside -- and we all agree on this -- i guess i find this online flirtation/sextation/whatever "better" than Clinton getting a blow job or Spitzer getting a call girl. and if i were one of these guy's wives, i'd much rather he be living out a wild sex life in his head and hand than with random, live people who could be crawling with disease.

when looking at this from a wider lens, i almost think there's a reverse sexism at play here. at least Clinton and Spitzer (and i've lost track of the Republicans there's been so many) went out and laid their ladies! Weiner was just wanking! how pathetic! he didn't even have the decency to actually cheat like a real man! hahahah! his last name is Weiner!

but is being dumb about this reason enough to resign? and does this excuse our behavior? at least you're focusing on the stupidity of putting your junk out there in cyberspace rather than calling him a "scumbag" for flirting with people who were doing exactly the same thing.

i don't know. i'm making a finer point here, i think, and i find this whole thing interesting above and beyond the political aspect of it, the whole "shifting world of social media and privacy expectations." that's what's interesting to me. i can't see him being as effective a leader and it probably would be better if he resigned.

but i think we're all worse off because this happened. and Breitbart is a vengeful dickwad who edited a video to make Shirley Sherrod look like a racist in order to score points. so fuck him, while we're at it.

Headache in a Suitcase 06-08-2011 05:58 PM

We're all making assumptions that his wife didn't know of what was going on in the first place, and that she didn't approve, or even join in.

Stranger things have happened.

I think it's unlikely, but nothing shocks me anymore. Much like I'm not shocked by people claiming moral outrage... and then posting his cock 12 times.

The lying and stupidity of this is enough for me to have serious doubts over ever voting for him if he were to run for mayor, which was assumed. That he plays naughty games online is his own business, and I could honestly care less that he was doing just that.

Diemen 06-08-2011 06:39 PM

I Don’t Care What Photos Anthony Weiner Sends - By David Gelernter - The Corner - National Review Online


Which brings me back to Weiner. Weiner didn’t commit adultery or anything near adultery. He committed tasteless stupidity, and there’s no law against that. When reporters first asked him about the expose reports, he should have said “Butt out.”

The biggest offense in this case is the dirtying of the public airwaves and news-waves with ugly, trivial junk; it’s an offense like the one that used to be popular a generation ago with “urban youths,” who would carry around giant boom boxes and play music (or whatever it was) at deafening volumes.

For my part I couldn’t care less what sort of pictures or messages Weiner has been sending around the Net, and it’s an imposition to be required to care; to be unable to avoid the topic. I find that I have no interest in Congressman Anthony Weiner’s sex life or virtual sex life whatsoever. And I’ve heard enough tearful on-camera contrition to last me the rest of my life. I don’t want to hear Weiner’s apology. It’s got nothing to do with me, tells me nothing I want to know; the cable news media, conservative and liberal, would do the public a favor if they would agreed to a blanket tearful-apologies ban effective this instant. And in the future, let Weiner and everyone else who has done some trivial stupid thing that no one actually gives a damn about keep his apologies to himself.
From the National Review, no less.

canedge 06-08-2011 08:39 PM


Originally Posted by corianderstem (Post 7232858)
you can't just whip it out, in person or online.

That's not cool.

At least give a heads up.

"Hey, I have something for you. Want to see it? <winky winky>"

Sooner or later you have to whip it out. And if you whip it out that is the heads up.

canedge 06-08-2011 08:53 PM

There are many nuances in a seduction that generally favor the woman.
At the whip it out stage the man is faced with two options. Whip it out an reap the benefits or put it back in his pants. If he puts in back in his pants he will be called sissy by the woman but he will hold on to his political career.

If he goes for the gold there is chance he will set up by either text message, photograph, rape allegation whatever. The safe ting for rich and powerful men to do is get a call girl and get a receipt that will hold up in court.

Sad but true.

corianderstem 06-08-2011 08:55 PM


Originally Posted by canedge (Post 7233128)
If he puts in back in his pants he will be called sissy by the woman

.... what?

canedge 06-08-2011 09:21 PM

What I am trying to say that women can turn the tables at any moment in a courtship or online or whatever.

But yet it is up to the man to be the aggressive one. If they cower away the woman will surely gossip to their friends at what a wimp he is.

Generally for men, politics is not personal, for women politics is personal. Thats how they judge a man, whether he has a family, whether he is faithful or not.

Sexual politics is a minefield. I am not going there.

corianderstem 06-08-2011 09:22 PM


canedge 06-08-2011 09:28 PM


Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7232893)
when looking at this from a wider lens, i almost think there's a reverse sexism at play here.

Nothing would make me happier than to see a successful female politician in Washington be taken down by sex scandal and for them to lose so much that they have worked for like so many men before them.

anitram 06-08-2011 09:32 PM


canedge 06-08-2011 09:41 PM

corianderstem, Is that all you have, no worded rebuttal?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com