My thoughts exactly, Liz. I want to be whatever about other people's sex lives, but just TWO DAYS ago I was going on and on about how completely implausible it was that Weiner would be so stupid as to ... Sigh. As everyone seems to be saying, this is self-destruction laid bare, more than it is about sex or internet curiosity, or whatever. This is not some dude new to the internet poking around and thinking, "My penis should be on Craigslist too! No one will ever find it!" These are the actions of a naughty boy who wants to get spanked. (That's like, all of them.)
That weinerdog page is helpful for me because I could not bear to actually watch the thing. It's too horrible.
It's worth remembering that most politicians are, literally, insane: it takes a special kind of person to sincerely and passionately and obsessively believe that they are called upon to ask hundreds of thousands of people to put them personally into a position of power.
Also, IME, political campaigns are quite remarkably filled with booze and sex. A lot of young people on their own for a discrete period of time doing something very intense creates a particular atmosphere. It may have been exceptional, but the one political campaign I worked on professionally broke up two marriages and there were multiple other liasons. Also my boss (a former senior Ted Kennedy staffer) had about two hours of sobriety a day.
The OP is right on. What annoys me most about the coverage (besides the fact that it's covered at all as important! news!) is that so many of the ledes are "Weiner admits acting like an idiot -- but says he won't resign." As though there's an actual reason for him to resign. FFS.
Weiner: You've apologized. Now STFU about it for good.
I think maybe the key words there are "former senior Ted Kennedy staffer." If my boss weren't at all able to notice if I were drunk because he was drunk, I'd probably drink much more.
believe that they are called upon to ask hundreds of thousands of people to put them personally into a position of power
And to ask thousands of people to send them buckets and buckets of money. The actual work of being a candidate seems utterly horrible to me.
If you get your thrills by taking insane risks, you should try extreme ironing or something that doesn't harm anybody else. Because I refuse to believe that this kind of behaviour is motivated by anything else. Nobody could believe it was funny or sexy or even particularly aggressive except in a boring, "Yeah, yeah" sort of way. It's got to be about wanting to get caught, or nearly get caught, for the adrenaline.
Fuck him. Fuck politicians generally. They're mutants.
Being a politician requires a high degree of moral flexibility, too, I suppose. Almost none of them seem to have any ideological positions they aren't prepared to sell out as soon as someone with more power and money tells them too.
The politicians might act like idiots, but at least there's still judicial dignity.
I guess we can't even trust Jon Stewart to correctly eyeball penis sizes. What is the world coming to?
David Vitter didn't resign, and he was an actual client of actual prostitutes, which is actually illegal. Weiner tweeted some people flirty pictures, and people are making that sound like the same thing. I don't want to defend him right now, because he is giving Breitbart a reason to go on living, and for that, I'm angry. But resign?
It's rather funny how, to the media and to anti-sex right-wingers, all sex scandals are basically equal, and they're all easy to identify because someone did something that was somehow not entirely 100% normal-repressed-hetero. Being openly gay is the same as talking on the phone is the same as blowing guys for meth in a junkyard while wearing diapers. It's all the same; it's all Not Normal.
13: But, on LB's point about teh stupid, prostitutes is actually smarter than emailing your crotch to the world since prostitutes generally don't want things public either.
It has been downhill for him ever since he came in third in the Unfogged contest.
14 s/b "seeing prostitutes" because that way I can pretend I got subject/verb agreement right.
14. Also seeing prostitutes is a way to have sex, after a fashion, which is a biggish deal. Mailing pictures of your knob to the world is probably a good way never to have sex again. I'm sorry to repeat myself. I can't see this being about oxytocin, it's about adrenaline.
To 9: You might be right, but it's hard for me to imagine wanting to get caught as good enough motivation. I dunno. Maybe once you're in politics and you start to see what people get away with, it becomes thrilling to also be getting away with ridiculous stunts. Hate to be the guy with the least salacious cover-ups! What a square that guy is!
Or, maybe something about the personality type that succeeds in politics is the ability to make the thing you're working on the most important thing in the world, consequences and context and rationality be damned, and then the ability to totally drop that thing when the winds change? Yeah probably I'm just also trying to say "literally insane" .
Mailing pictures of your knob to the world is probably a good way never to have sex again.
That depends on proper lighting and the knob in question.
Whether expressed sexually or not, I suggest that we probably don't want politicians with unusually acute risk appetites.
I'm getting a bit conspiracy-minded about this. It sure is funny that the ONE GUY making noise about Clarence Thomas' blatant corruption JUST HAPPENS to have a humiliating, shady, stupid personal habit. And that his infamous picture was sent on the SAME DAY as Thomas correcting lies in his financial disclosure forms regarding his wife's income from fighting a law he will probably rule on. Since he's already said he won't recuse himself, despite the obvious conflict of interest. Conservatives apparently have no problem with that kind of thing. And that Breitbart's mysterious, anonymous source apparently knew about this and was harrassing women on Twitter for WEEKS in advance before the story broke. Obviously, they chose when and how to break the story to either distract attention from Thomas or punish Weiner for going after him.
OK, obviously that's not the case. Weiner fucked up. If the timing is unfortunately coincidental, well, he has apparently been doing the sexting thing routinely for years. Maybe for him it's a way to, ugh, blow off steam, as from a particularly stressful day going after Thomas. There was apparently evidence of it - which is inevitable, as the original post says - that didn't rise to the level of this tweet, so people would have known about it before the story "really" broke. And the media's salacious, superficial culture is the fault of no one directly involved with this. And it's not like sleazy Republican tricks would have got too much attention anyway.
It's an appealing background for a conspiracy theory, but given the full confession, the only workable conspiracy would be that someone convinced him that unless he publicly humiliated himself, they'd kill him/his family/this adorable puppy. And that does seem implausible.
I love that Breitbart has a steamy pic that he's holding in reserve. The guy is shameless.
Weiner was obviously into some sort of phone/cyber sex thing and got sloppy (even sloppier than engaging in it in the first place). This illustrates my second rule of doing something bad*: admit you are doing something bad and take precautions. It's the self deception people engage in that gets them caught - acting like they are not taking huge risks in order to convince themselves they are safe. If Weiner had used a separate private Twitter account, or had kept his dick pic related program activities to anonymous accounts (email, AIM, Skype, etc.) used only for that purpose he'd be fine, but that would require admitting to himself that he's doing something risky and possibly unethical.
*The first rule: Don't do something bad.
24: If your self-deception is about the level of risk, taking precautions will never occur to you.
[U]nless he publicly humiliated himself, they'd kill him/his family/this adorable puppy.
It would have to be a very exceptional member of Congress to be worth more than a puppy. Maybe Abraham Lincoln.
Is that a puppy in your boxer-briefs or are you just happy to see the bike lanes closed?
If Weiner had used a separate private Twitter account, or had kept his dick pic related program activities to anonymous accounts (email, AIM, Skype, etc.) used only for that purpose he'd be fine, but that would require admitting to himself that he's doing something risky and possibly unethical.
Well, right. It wouldn't be zero risk, but if he had separate accounts and kept his real name off them and his face out of the pictures, he would have to have been exposed by one of his partners and all she'd have would be her word that it was him.
If he'd kept his real name off of them, would the women have paid any attention to him?
I assume that being a member of Congress is a good way to convince women to talk to you and that claiming to be a member of Congress while using a pseud would be very unconvincing.
Yeah, but he could have made contact enough that sexting would have been 'appropriate' under his real name, but saved everything lewd for the private accounts.
Whether expressed sexually or not, I suggest that we probably don't want politicians with unusually acute risk appetites.
see 5.1
Politicians are defined by their unusual appetite for risk. It is surprising more don't have gambling problems.
25: I think the self deception about the badness is related to that about the risk. If you really analyze the consequences of getting caught you realize that you have to take even the slightest amount of risk very seriously. The anti-hedonic expectation value is risk*penalty, and the penalty seems pretty severe in this case. The nekkid pictures will eventually come out and he'll be know forever by them.
I'm more careful in how I think about risks than most I guess, so maybe this is just the usual lousy thinking about probability that afflicts everyone.
I assume that being a member of Congress is a good way to convince women to talk to you....
[Takes notes.]
I seem to recall a . . . not a scandal, but an occasion for mockery at Weiner's expense 10 or so years ago. He was overheard (and recognized) chatting up a woman in bar. He was unmarried so no big there, but he was lying his ass off about who he was and what he did. Am I imagining this? Too good to Google, I fear.
I wonder if anyone's ever done any research on how different forms of government affect the personalities of people who obtain high office. I'm not even sure what discipline that would be, but it's an interesting question. Our system seems to select charmingly extroverted sociopaths, but I don't know if that's a characteristic of people who seek power generally, or just of people who have to spend their lives fundraising.
Politicians like to take risks? Then why do they always seem so terrified of pissing off their wealthy supporters?
Opening a pseudonymous twitter account and sending shots of your goods is not an effective way of getting laid. So I've heard.
34: In general, I think people are very bad with probabilities. The odds of getting caught are small for each occasion and people tend to set small probabilities to zero and ignore cumulative odds. I should probably find a source for that, but I think it is a real psychological trait.
37 -- I'd guess that the old line political machines produced saner politicians, since you had to put in your time and the bosses could exercise some quality control. But that may just be nostalgic fantasy.
39: [Writing.] Not ... a ... good way ... This is pure gold!
I dunno. It's got to work for some people. Unless all the CL posters are just doing it because they fantasize about someone seeing their dick, at least some non-zero number of women see a disembodied dick pic and read "hey bitch it's 3am cum over an suck this now. hit me on my cell" and say, "How tantalizing! I am definitely not going to get beheaded and thrown in a dumpster!"
40: I should really find a cite for when that comes up too, but yeah, you're right. (Maybe Kahneman worked on it?)
This whole thing is weirdly depressing to me. I get that Weiner was stupid for taking the risk but the fact that the whole stupid situation has led lots of people (oh I'm mostly just looking at nonsense like facebook) who ordinarily wouldn't give a damn to express very conservative-feeling condemnations out of pragmatism gets me down.
Also, not exactly having my most articulate day ever.
Bleh.
I am definitely not going to get beheaded and thrown in a dumpster!
Recycling rules.
41: The next one I send you will be better.
45: Persistence is not evidence of success.
36
I seem to recall a . . . not a scandal, but an occasion for mockery at Weiner's expense 10 or so years ago. He was overheard (and recognized) chatting up a woman in bar. He was unmarried so no big there, but he was lying his ass off about who he was and what he did. Am I imagining this? Too good to Google, I fear.
Perhaps you are thinking of this .
Maybe politicians think they can get away with illicit sexual activities, because most of them do. We only find out when one gets caught.
But maybe just making the attempt is what is so titillating.
I recently heard probably the oddest family-pervert story I've ever heard about someone I actually know, whose cousin (45 years old) called grandma (85) and propositioned her (I have always loved you and wanted your body let's be together now), and there was much discussion about whether he hoped grandma would have sex with him, or whether performing the phone call was what got him off. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, and that it is the attempt at getting laid that is all many men want out of propositioning/flirting/bad-behavior situations.
I generally assume that any guy without some sort of similar skeleton in his closet is an outlier, and I don't expect politicians to behave much differently from professional athletes or touring musicians. As Chris Rock says, "Men are as faithful as their options," and celebrities of any stripe have a lot of options in our starfucking culture. Even imprisoned serial killers get groupies.
Aside from the inherent humor of watching somebody (metaphorically) walk face-first into a glass door--and in this case, the bottomless well of juicy dick puns--I only care about it to the extent that the wandering johnson is attached to anybody who beats the family values and morality drum (and assuming everybody involved is a consenting adult). E.g., I wouldn't care where Newt Gingrich sticks his Newtlet or under what circumstances if he hadn't spent his entire career vilifying all Democrats as moral degenerates.
there was much discussion about whether he hoped grandma would have sex with him
At least Thanksgiving dinner wasn't dull that year.
David "Diaper John" Vitter was extremely vocal about Clinton, for example.
The thing that still baffles me is the body text in the first paragraph. Why does the end of the repeating sentence go five characters to the right of the beginning (down two lines) for the first six repetitions (not counting the author indent), then line up perfectly for the next seven?
1
... but just TWO DAYS ago I was going on and on about how completely implausible it was that Weiner would be so stupid as to ... ...
But if it was some random Republican Congressman I expect you (and LB) wouldn't have found the story so implausible. Partisan politics makes people gullible.
47:
What sort of consevative reactions? That obviously he's the most horrible person ever, rather than just somewhat horrible? Yes of course we can all think of much shittier behavior engaged in by politicians and others, but it's still shitty.
I find myself somewhat tepidly in the "yes, he should resign" camp, because seeking out every oportunity to lie to the public for no damn good reason for a week (and not even particularly effective lying; lying filled with bizarre hedges which were themselve also technically lies, rather than technically true) is obnoxious and disgraceful enough that the classy thing to do is leave public office. He's not irreplaceable. The fact that other sleezeballs didn't have enough of a sense of shame to resign doesn't mean they shouldn't have and doesn't have anything to do with whether this guy should. We shouldn't legally force him to resign (because, not really job related), but he should go.
40: I remember this too. Small probabilities get treated as zero and large ones as certainties. I don't think it was a Kahneman/Tversky thing, though. I think I'd have remembered that since they were the guys who first got me hooked on cognitive psychology.
58: That bothered me too, but now when I load it it's perfect.
54.last is also informed by being a college instructor. Students can be obviously really turned on by a prof as long as that prof is inaccessible. I've been panted over during the semester, but the instant it's over, it's not like anyone is all "I really want to make this happen." And I felt the same way about my profs: hot until there is a possibility of it actually happening. But this always struck me as something really infantile about sexuality that people who grow up should eventually get over. I don't enjoy being attracted to people I can't possibly have sex with. Not fun!
I kept trying to articulate a bunch of things that I think are said better than I was going to say them in comment 55.
58: There's an indent on the right.
60: Eh. For something that's really not any of the public's business, which a politician's consensual sex life isn't, I can't really count lying about it as a separate offense.
59: Nope! I would feel the same about anyone extremely well-versed in social media. I fully believe, with everyone, that Weiner, along with every other elected official, is a risk-seeking pervert with pictures of his penis that he maybe even sends to people. But I didn't believe he would accidentally Tweet them @ someone. I am a pervert and I don't accidentally send porn to people over Facebook.
I generally assume that any guy without some sort of similar skeleton in his closet is an outlier
I'm an outlier then. I've behaved extremely badly on many occasions, but I've never sent a picture of my genitals to anybody.
I don't care to belong to any club that will have my member.
I only care about it to the extent that the wandering johnson is attached to anybody who beats the family values and morality drum (and assuming everybody involved is a consenting adult).
This is an attractive line of reasoning to me as well, but I wonder whether I ought to be so sure. One could argue that almost any professional politician (in the United States, at least) beats the family values and morality drum pretty hard by, e.g., rolling out his or her (but, you know, come on) spouse and offspring for whistlestops and rubber-chicken fundraising dinners, gleefully exploiting the moral failings and hypocrisies of his or her adversaries, talking about hardworking middle-class families who deserve a fair chance, Mr. President, etc., etc. I think I've commented before that the mass media have inflated hypocrisy into the key to all mythologies sins, and I'd prefer not to fall into that particular rut, but I don't think it's quite true that tough-talking congresspeople from urban districts in the Northeast are free of moral pretensions, including implicit ones that are not consistent with sexting strangers while the old ball-and-chain is out of town.
If there were no "posted by lizardbreath" indent, the text would line up straight away. It takes that many lines for the effect of the indent to shunted out of the pattern. (If you notice the start of the sentence it falls down the paragraph in a clean diagonal: to put a mathematical thing in poorly remembered mathematical terms in front of a bunch of real actual professional mathematicians, isn't it a group theory thing, to do with the respective factors of the number of characters in the full-width post, in the sentence, and in the indent....?)
I will confess that I don't even know how you post or send pictures on Twitter. I thought (and as far as I can tell, the user interface is set up to make it look this way) that 140 characters of plain text is all you get?
I've behaved extremely badly on many occasions
I was speaking broadly, not specifically of photographing your wrinkly bits.
The new iOS twitter integration feature should make it much easier to post twitter pictures from your phone. No word yet on whether they're calling it WienerMobile.
There's a twitterphone feature a bit like flickr and such, called yfrog: you an upload pictures and it gives you a nice little tinyurl to send them.* But they're always at least one click awaym, as far as I know.
*Or ditto flickr or tumblr: you get a tinyurl generated for you, or that you generate yourself.
No one tell Dsquared how to post pics, or it's going to be the Cockpocalypse.
WienerMobile
They'd probably need to call it WeinerMobile to avoid trademark issues.
77: There was a feature in yfrog (twitpic seems to be a more reliable alternative) where if you sent the picture with a "code" affixed to the e-mail address it automatically tweeted the url. An interesting sidelight (and something that made me think he was a victim) is that they took that service offline after people attempting to exonerate Weiner showed how easy it was to hack it.
I don't really buy this 'only as faithful as his options' bullshit, either.
59: if it was a Republican, James, we'd all be relieved that he was sending them to adult women who weren't actually his employees, rather than, say, Congressional pages.
||
Also, since tierce is here, we [London or London-accessible people] should go for a pint at some point, again.
>
I should be clear that the "little bit horrible" that I endorse is him sneaking around on his wife, not penis picture mailing (which, is of course to be celebrated if the person receiving said picture will be pleased or amused by it, and deprecated if it consitituted unwanted harassment). It's not a public crime, but I'm still gonna judge him for it.
The thing that pushes this from private lie to public lie for me is the fact that rather than putting out the cover story and moving on, he agreed to every possible interview at which he could lie about it. Beyond the ethical considerations, it does deeply undermine his ability to be taken seriously in the public sphere again. "How seriously can we take your pronouncements about the Thomas's ethics violations when you penis? Your own penis, sir!"
82: I don't either. It's amazing how willing men are to relinquish status as full human beings with choices in order to excuse one another's mistreatment of the women in their lives.
I don't really buy this 'only as faithful as his options' bullshit
It's a punchline to a joke. Of course it isn't universally true, but it wouldn't make an effective punchline if it weren't based on a kernel of truth.
I also don't really believe that women are much more faithful than men, but that's a whole different conversation.
The words mysteriously missing from 84 are "'have admitted to lying about your"
||
83: yes I was thinking along similar lines, ttaM! I am on mag deadline for ten days or so...
>
relinquish status as full human beings with choices
Making bad choices is not the same as not having a choice. Full human beings make bad decisions all the damn time.
87: I don't think so either. But while there is of course a sexist line by men about how all women are nasty sluts, women don't tend to respond to other women in dehumanizing solidarity. "Of course she cheated on him! You know how women are! We're all just bitches in heat!" Nope. Women say sexist things about women, but they mean to exclude themselves when they do it.
91: That's why it's different to say "What do you expect? All men are dogs/pigs" than saying "Men often choose to hurt people they care about."
To be fair, Weiner indirectly hurt a lot of people he probably doesn't care much about.
dehumanizing solidarity
Oh, come on. It isn't solidarity. I just long ago quit caring about other people's sex lives when they don't affect mine and separate that from my evaluation of their job performance.
70, 75: I don't think it's the indent, I think it's justification, actually. It finally reaches a point where it's able to line up five more characters on one line, and that makes it repeat to the same space. There's no example of how it would run if not for the indent.
re: 89
Whenever suits. I'm generally free or can make myself free given a bit of notice. Mondays are out.
I don't think women are any more faithful than men, but I also certainly don't believe that all men would be unfaithful given the opportunity.
Is Weiner a particularly good Congressman? I think of him as more entertaining that the average, which credential has been bolstered. I know he's good at calling out Republican shenanigans. My suspicion is that he's above average, but I don't link him to any particular acts of bravery or accomplishment.
I'm willing to buy that the fact that a superstar athlete or actor or someone like that will get hit on a lot more increases the chances they'll cheat. However, how many men in closed relationships haven't ever been hit on by someone else and turned them down? My guess is not many. In any case, that's not what we're talking about in this case. Weiner went after the women, or at least that's how it seems.
re: 97. Hurrah, will action.
re: 96. I was peering at the screen trying to work out if Unfogged justified has in effect a grid where the letters and spaces always fall in columns, or if they bunch according to some algorithmic bogey. But I realised this was a strange use of my time before I actually got a ruler out.
Wiener resigning is a terrible, terrible idea. A big part of why the Republicans routinely kick the Democrats' asses is that the party is made up of professional hand-wringers. Wiener should get up and say "Yes, I mailed a picture of my junk to this woman. I'll mail you a picture of my junk too. I shouldn't have lied about it because there's nothing wrong with it, unlike the fact that Clarence Thomas has accepted nearly a million dollars of bribes from a right-wing think tank."
However, how many men in closed relationships haven't ever been hit on by someone else and turned them down? My guess is not many.
What does "hit on" mean? I don't think I've ever been hit on, relationship or not.
Or maybe it's happened frequently and if I were a powerful man I would have the self-confidence to realize that women are hitting on me.
80
There was a feature in yfrog (twitpic seems to be a more reliable alternative) where if you sent the picture with a "code" affixed to the e-mail address it automatically tweeted the url. An interesting sidelight (and something that made me think he was a victim) is that they took that service offline after people attempting to exonerate Weiner showed how easy it was to hack it.
It's back online. See here .
We have reactivated the email upload feature after confirming that it has not been compromised in any way. ...
tierce! Where have you been? And re 83, 89 - yeah, I'd be up for that. In theory at least.
I shouldn't have lied about it because there's nothing wrong with it
I am pretty sure there is something wrong with it if you are doing it behind your wife's back. Otherwise I agree with you.
66
Nope! I would feel the same about anyone extremely well-versed in social media. I fully believe, with everyone, that Weiner, along with every other elected official, is a risk-seeking pervert with pictures of his penis that he maybe even sends to people. But I didn't believe he would accidentally Tweet them @ someone. I am a pervert and I don't accidentally send porn to people over Facebook.
Have you ever accidentally sent anything to the wrong address?
98: I have had many opportunities to cheat that I did not take. Most I do not regret, though there were two that would have cratered necrotic relationships that needed to be taken out behind the barn and shot sent to live on a farm in the countryside. I know my ex had lots and lots of opportunities with hot guys that she did not take, and the only one she did take was in the service of nailing shut the coffin on our marriage. I suspect she feels horribly guilty about this, but since she almost certainly doesn't feel guilt about some things where it is appropriate, I'm not going out of my way to tell her I understand completely and do not feel that forgiveness is even an issue.
98, 108: I can't even cheat properly in my dreams. My most common sex dream involves freezing up on the verge of a really hot opportunity because of my marriage.
The funny thing was that it took a couple of years for my dreams to catch up to my second marriage. I wasted a whole lot of opportunities being dream-faithful to my ex-wife.
I've never cheated on anyone, but it hasn't taken any kind of willpower; I'm just too easily overwhelmed by relationship stress to consider it. I've had more than one partner in a short span, but only when everyone knew about each other.
I've been cheated on a lot, but I don't usually think infidelity is the problem. It's possible that some of the people who revealed that they were sleeping with other people were trying to get rid of me without breaking up with me, so my response ("Oh, OK. How's that going?") was not what was wanted.
What does "hit on" mean? I don't think I've ever been hit on, relationship or not.
Someone indicating to someone else that they're interested in sex, whether explicitly or not. I can't imagine it hasn't happened to you (or anyone else). I don't exactly have model looks, or wealth or fame or super-charm, and yet...
If there were no "posted by lizardbreath" indent, the text would line up straight away. It takes that many lines for the effect of the indent to shunted out of the pattern.
This can't be the reason. Suppose the indented part were missing, and a sentence-chunk was "acted so stupidly. I will not make guesses about unfolding news stories on" .
I think spacing formatting adheres to inconsistent rules based on aesthetics, and the first time a line ends on "be" you happen to get spacing that is a whole number multiple of the spacing of the row. Prior to that, you had a small remainder.
I think 113 is what I was trying to get at in 96.
I think 113 is what I was trying to get at in 96.
trying to get at in 96. I think 113 is what I was trying
||
Wisconsin Gestapo Arrest Reporters
...linked for the comments, like:
I also didn't mean to imply that leaving [America] was running. *sigh* I've gotta do better.IMO someone that chooses to leave is making a valid choice too.
IMO the only choice that's NOT valid is staying and complying with fascism. Because that choice makes one either an outright fascist or an enabler of one. Although at this point it may be fair I suppose to say that we're all enablers of it.
Like I'm going to give a flying fuck about Weinergate. A commenter in that thread is living out of a car that doesn't run, asking for help from people struggling themselves.
|>
Tweet tweet! I tought I taw a puddy tat!
I'm going to be in England for two weeks starting July 4th. Or the 5th, I guess, is when I arrive. Mostly near Banbury, though I know I'll be in London some. Maybe an excuse to meet up, too? (I will be really amused if I manage to make it to a meet up in a foreign country since I've never made it to one of the Bay Area ones.)
Mostly near Banbury
Very peaceful round there. They made a desolation. Some quite attractive countryside, though.
120: It's where the beau's folks live (well, they live in a village nearby). I'm looking forward to doing not much in a very green place and escaping the heat. (Though so far this summer, England has had sunnier, warmer, and less rainy weather than we have, which is absolutely nutty.)
That's why it's different to say "What do you expect? All men are dogs/pigs" than saying "Men often choose to hurt people they care about."
I'm not really sure where you are going with this one, AWB.
Unlike women, men hurt the women in their lives?
Or men support other men hurting the women in their lives, but women do not?
Sure, women hurt people! Where I'm going with it is that I've never heard a woman say, in response to a story of female infidelity, "What do you expect from us? All women are subhuman sluts who can't help ourselves."
All women are subhuman sluts who can't help ourselves.
Nor have I heard men say that about men. The analogy I'd propose (sorry Ogged) is teen sex. It's generally true that 13-year-olds would be better off not having sex and you can make that argument either on pragmatic or moral grounds. But the reality of the world that we currently (and have always) lived in is that 13-year-olds do have sex. Acknowledging that truth is not encouraging them to have sex nor saying that it's okay because they just can't help themselves; it's acknowledging the completely obvious. The world that we live in is also one in which marital infidelity--of a much higher grade than Weiner's cyberslutting--has ever and always been a constant.
Even if the commentariat here is as pure as the driven snow and has always turned down panky opportunities due to their outstanding moral fiber.
And having thus farted in the elevator, I'm now off to swim a meeting.
123:
Did someone upthread say that?
Some thoughts on this general topic:
It is easy to say you wouldnt cheat when you are not presented with the opportunity. ie the regular guy isnt presented with the same temptation as the NBA guy who is on the road and constantly presented with hot and willing women. Yet, not all NBA guys cheat. There is some free will there.
I find that many people (including women!) do not judge women so severely when they cheat after years of neglect. I do hear "what do you expect?!?!" Of course, that doesnt justify it.
re: 119
Banbury also reasonably handy for Oxford, so if you fancy lunch or an after-work drink one day ...
123
AWB has a point in that some people (men and women) believe (sometimes for on the veldt reasons) that men are naturally more inclined to be promiscuous than women.
Where I'm going with it is that I've never heard a woman say, in response to a story of female infidelity, "What do you expect from us? All women are subhuman sluts who can't help ourselves."
But they should say that, at least some of the time. Or, rather, they should say something less pejorative that implies head-shaking rather than teeth-gnashing condemnation.
I credit the discussion here (particularly some of the older threads with Dr B.) for convincing me that the magnitude of the problem implied by infidelity varies greatly from relationship to relationship.
I am also inclined to believe that a general toning down of the rhetoric around infidelity would be good. I'm much less confident in that judgement, because I know that it often is extremely painful, but that is my inclination.
Wiener should get up and say "Yes, I mailed a picture of my junk to this woman. I'll mail you a picture of my junk too. I shouldn't have lied about it because there's nothing wrong with it, unlike the fact that Clarence Thomas has accepted nearly a million dollars of bribes from a right-wing think tank."
Correct.
I never understand when this stuff is framed as somebody being "stupid". I mean, when it comes to sex does anyone think that there's some elaborate cognitive procedure going on where the person decides yes, OK, this seems like a good idea? It's a form of compulsion, probably exacerbated by stress. It's notorious that the knowing awareness that a sexual act is risky/stupid makes it hotter and more compelling -- so smarter people might be more vulnerable to this kind of thing.
But I guess "stupid" is a shorthand for "in the grip of a compulsion to do silly and embarassing things"...publicizing private compulsive behavior totally destroys the authority necessary for public leadership. Of course the need or that authority is itself the residual of our primitive monkey brains.
Mostly near Banbury
As I learned from Crooked Timber recently, you could go skiing in Milton Keynes.
They meant in the Craigslist sense, Essear. You know how those guys like to roll.
124: You've never head a man say something like "What do you expect? Men are dogs"? I find that hard to believe.
Even if the commentariat here is as pure as the driven snow and has always turned down panky opportunities due to their outstanding moral fiber.
I recall a long and contentious discussion about this very subject, one of the first Unfogged threads that endeared the blog to me.
You've never head a man say something like "What do you expect? Men are dogs"?
That's a sentiment I usually hear from women, to be perfectly honest. But even still, "men often behave badly" is different than "men can't help themselves".
All the same, I don't think this thread is much enhanced by a debate over whether a pithy line from a comedy routine is literally true in all cases.
Agreeing with Walt and Sir Kraab. Weiner should own it.
I mailed a picture of my junk to this woman. I'll mail you a picture of my junk too. I shouldn't have lied about it because there's nothing wrong with it
Elected officials have to contend with things like how a pretty sizeable chunk of voters do in fact thing it's wrong for a married guy to mail pictures of his wang to other women.
I hope to have sex one day!
Hey, wait. Does masturbating the dog count?
That's why I was reassured when LB and AWB confirmed that his district is full of jaded perverts. I wonder if there isn't a portion of voters who don't have an intrinsic opinion on whether it is wrong, but take their cues from the fact that politicians all cringe and apologize for it. Someone like Barney Frank might be able to break that feedback loop.
'Cause I'm practically the Ron Jeremy of red rocket!
I do it all the time! Ain't this boogie a mess?
140: In a world where David Vitter can be re-elected, color me skeptical of this claim.
In a world where David Vitter can be re-elected
Yes, but that world is Louisiana.
It seems like it would be more obvious to people that he wasn't lying to the country as much as he was lying to his wife.
A lot has been blathered about the power politics -- did Weiner abuse his power to attract impressionable young girls? -- but the fascinating part to me is how much it was flowing in the opposite direction. Based on what the other women who've come forward have said, it sounds basically like Weiner got a thrill from handing out blackmail material to strangers. Kind of a sub thing to do, I think.
Oh, and also, I hate the fact that people keep calling adult women "young girls" because they were involved with an older man.
did Weiner abuse his power to attract impressionable young girls? -- but the fascinating part to me is how much it was flowing in the opposite direction
It all looks consensual to me. Also, while they may or may not be impressionable, these are adult women.
Pre-pwned.
And I didn't mean to suggest that these women were seducing Weiner. It's surprising, though, that he was apparently aggressively passing out pictures that would allow strangers to hurt his marriage and his career.
One more. As we now know, the underpants mis-tweet wouldn't have mattered in the long run; Weiner was a dead man walking already, because one of the women he was "corresponding" with was intending to exploit him; when the right moment came, she sold their private correspondence to the media for thousands of dollars, which must have been a nice cherry on top of the personal destruction of Weiner that she had been seeking.
Now, doesn't this make him a victim? I'm not entirely, um, firm on this point, but all the counterarguments I can think of make me cringe. "He deserved it for his slutty behavior?" No, no, no! "He should have known better?" And? "Nice boys don't do these things."
Actually, this woman was spectacularly lucky that Weiner managed to make himself look like an aggressor; otherwise she probably would have emerged looking worse herself.
Hey, wait. Does masturbating the dog count?
According to whom?
"There are few things more sickening -- or revealing -- to behold than a D.C. sex scandal....Reporters who would never dare challenge powerful political figures who torture, illegally eavesdrop, wage illegal wars or feed at the trough of sleazy legalized bribery suddenly walk upright -- like proud peacocks with their feathers extended -- pretending to be hard-core adversarial journalists as they collectively kick a sexually humiliated figure stripped of all importance. The ritual is as nauseating as it is predictable.
What makes the Anthony Weiner story somewhat unique and thus worth discussing for a moment is that, as Hendrick Hertzberg points out, the pretense of substantive relevance (which, lame though it was in prior scandals, was at least maintained) has been more or less brazenly dispensed with here. This isn't a case of illegal sex activity or gross hypocrisy.... From what is known, none of the women claim harassment and Weiner didn't even have actual sex with any of them. This is just pure mucking around in the private, consensual, unquestionably legal private sexual affairs of someone for partisan gain, voyeuristic fun and the soothing fulfillment of judgmental condemnation. And in that regard, it sets a new standard: the private sexual activities of public figures -- down to the most intimate details -- are now inherently newsworthy, without the need for any pretense of other relevance."
The Pauly bites! The Pauly chews it!
It seems like it would be more obvious to people that he wasn't lying to the country as much as he was lying to his wife.
I'm not morally pure in that last regard either, but if you're just lying to your wife, you generally don't have to schedule a whole big bunch of tv appearances in which to do so.
Elected officials have to contend with things like how a pretty sizeable chunk of voters do in fact thing it's wrong for a married guy to mail pictures of his wang to other women.
Or, to set the hurdle crucially lower, that they'd just rather vote for somebody else next time, given the chance. Which is to say that if you are in Congress and your majority/caucus leader decides to investigate your hobbies, you might want to call Eliot Spitzer about jobhunting.
[I]f you're just lying to your wife, you generally don't have to schedule a whole big bunch of tv appearances in which to do so.
Go big or go home.
156: That's because most people don't have journalists asking them about stuff they've lied to their wives about.
158: or, in this case, probably both.
There was a "familiarity breeding contempt" remark that I intended to include in 157, which escapes me now. Assume it was wry and knowing, with a tone of exacting but humane moralism.
156: if you're just lying to your wife, you generally don't have to schedule a whole big bunch of tv appearances in which to do so.
Indeed. I tend to find that aspect of the matter more cringe-worthy than the actual behavior over which he was lying. And I mean 'cringe-worthy' not in a "You are a bad, bad man!" sense but in a "Jesus, you're embarrassing me on your behalf."
163: Yeah, though at least he didn't drag his wife up to stand beside him during the press conference.
164: I watched the press conference and was grinding my teeth as woman (I imagined she was with Fox) kept shouting "Where is your wife?" as though she hadn't been heard from for a week. I think she was the same woman who was shouting, "They were young enough to be your daughters!" Which isn't even technically a question.
165: I imagine that if I were a woman I'd be grinding my teeth all the time.
I watched the press conference and was grinding my teeth as woman (I imagined she was with Fox) kept shouting "Where is your wife?" as though she hadn't been heard from for a week.
Andrea Peyser, New York Post.
164: Man, she is painful to watch.
That was considerate of Weiner, at least. Was it the Spitzer resignation that represented the crescendo of the collective cry of "Stop making your wife stand next to you while you tell the country that you cheated on her!"? Sanford didn't have his wife standing next to him either, though that may have been her idea.
167: I kind of wish you hadn't told me about that.
168: Maybe the Edwards thing. Elizabeth Edwards made a point of insisting on family privacy, and people were pretty damn respectful of her, possibly realizing that the voyeurism involved in wanting to see the pain and humiliation displayed before them was shameful in its own right.
Breitbart doesn't necessarily get let off the hook in all this. He remains a vulture.
Larry Flynt had better step up his game, because lately Breitbart is eating his lunch.
Sanford didn't have his wife standing next to him either, though that may have been her idea.
Was she the one who wouldn't let Sanford see his children until some unspecified concessions were made? I recall some speculation that she would run for something herself, but that's so common in these situations, post-Hillary, that one could be forgiven for thinking that the best way for a woman to come to prominence is to get cheated on.
167: But who was it that yelled, near the end of the press conference, "were you fully erect?"
173, that was Benjy Bronk from the Howard Stern Show, going a little gonzo as the situation called for.
Breitbart doesn't necessarily get let off the hook in all this.
Oh God, no.
As others have said, Weiner's greatest crime has been allowing Breitbart to appear semi-credible.
176 - As with the kerning thing, it will now take cable networks approximately until the heat death of the universe to realize that he's a lunatic and a fraudster.
133 - dry slope skiing. I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.
Parenthetical meet-up sounds good! Oxford easy for me too.
"were you fully erect?"
Jesus christ. Fully erect in what situation, anyway?
Good grief. How certain members of the press corps are not embarrassed by themselves I don't know.
For what it's worth -- though this may be a Pauline Kael moment on my part -- everyone I've talked to in real life about this grimaces and cringes and says, "God, the poor guy, what a mess, his wife must be appalled, those kinds of activities are kind of private, and god knows a lot of people watch porn, all in the service of a masturbatory aid, pretty much, and while he clearly screwed up, who the fuck is this Breitbart guy?"
Breitbart didn't even sink him, in the end. I think his stunt at the press conference was a desperate attempt to keep himself in the story. Weiner was forced to confess when ABC News got hold of some solid evidence, rather than the strange and obviously incomplete story Breitbart was telling.
Well, my mother thinks he's a pervert for taking pictures of himself at all, but when I offered the reasoning that if he'd kept it private, it really wouldn't be anyone's business, she agreed readily, bringing up "That football coach, the Jets? or the Giants? The one who's a foot fetishist, anyway." Which I had not known about. (And haven't actually googled to figure out if she's talking about something recognizable.)
Which I had not known about.
Clearly you don't spend much time listening to Boston sports radio.
Like, less than twenty seconds ever.
The accidental tweet really is weird, given that the story was about to break anyway. Either screwy coincidence, or he really was doing something that could be described as trying to get caught.
(In further defensiveness, that was part of why I thought it was a hoax -- it made no sense that someone would have known about a scandal about to break given that the scandal seemed to incorporate an unpredictable accident. I didn't properly account for the possibility of coincidence.)
182: Well, my mother thinks he's a pervert for taking pictures of himself at all
Yeah, in the conversations I had today about it (with, admittedly, only two people), there was mention of the kids these days, and how their ways with social media are different, what with the sexting and cell phone cameras and such, but that it's not fundamentally different from how people used to masturbate.
Which was funny, since these people were aged mid-forties, which is Weiner's age. But he twitters, so, you know.
Does all this sound like an extended apologetic for Weiner, per AWB's objection upthread?
or he really was doing something that could be described as trying to get caught.
I don't know what to make of this narrative. I think he fucked up with the mis-tweet, and panicked. The other picture-sharing ... is it inconceivable that he thought he could trust the recipients?
Re: apologetics for Weiner, given that he was well known to be a first class asshole in general, I'm not sure why the fact that he was being an asshole to his wife should make me feel any different about him. In fact, it is less relevant than Weiner being notoriously horrible to his subordinates.
182, 183, 184: I hadn't heard either.
188: I didn't know that he was known for that.
That was easy to find. She does have nice feet.
Can I get some confirmation or feedback from anyone else about Weiner's being known to be a first class asshole in general and to his subordinates?
I'm not sure why I think this would make a difference, but it bothers me a bit. I know that he's known to be a scrappy street-fightin' Queens-style Democrat, and that means he doesn't necessarily pull his punches, but I'd thought that was a good thing. Don't know anything about this asshole behavior.
I don't know anything about Weiner that hasn't been discussed here, but if you'd like a video of a woman sticking her very well groomed feet out of a car window, I can give you a link.
193: Oh, that's okay. I know what that looks like.
You only think you do. These feet practically glow.
video of a woman sticking her very well groomed feet out of a car window
Better than having Waylon Jennings' foot in a cookie jar of formaldehyde.
I'm really okay on this.
Got a video of really attractive male feet?
Got a video of really attractive male feet?
Gimme a few minutes.
185: Either screwy coincidence, or he really was doing something that could be described as trying to get caught.
Yes, the coincidence part is still just not matching with my view of how the world works (and I'm too late to change) and was why I too was shocked when it turned out not be a hoax/setup*. Further to "trying to get caught" one thought I've had is that this may have been the tweeting equivalent of a Freudian/telltale heart slip**--he must have known that the noose was tightening and had a lot of subconscious "don't fuck up the underwear tweets" baggage.
*I'm not quite at Cyrus's 22.1, but I've run through similar scenarios in my head a few times.
**And not necessarily "guilty subconscious" type of stuff, just a cognitive hiccup as in some manifestations of Tourette syndrome where what ultimately gets said or done is exactly what is trying to be repressed. (A phenomenon I am somewhat familiar with.)
182, 189: Weren't there jokes about Rex Ryan in the threads during the playoffs?
196: It's like Red Green, but stripped of Canadian decency.
One could sing a little song about Rex Ryan, to the tune of Homer Simpson's "Max Power."
192 I did a quick google to try to find some of the stuff I've read about that but it all seems to be swamped by coverage of more recent stuff. It amounts to him being a screaming vicious bully to his staff, and them burning out at a very rapid clip.
Having thought about this, I've decided we should all envy the foot fetishists*. It's got to be so much easier than having a relationship with a whole other person.
*unless you are one, of course.
I cried because I did not fetishize feet until I met a man who didn't have any fetishes at all.
So, I know it's been mentioned before, and obviously in the scheme of things, etc, but seriously, that bike lane line of Weiner's was straight dickish.
I agree, and I don't even like riding bikes.
WEINER: You can see a difference in the development in the West Bank with 11 percent year over year growth, with no Israeli occupation there either, with increasing access to checkpoints...
COHEN: No occupation in the West Bank, did I hear you right?
WEINER: Yes.
COHEN: Have you been to the West Bank lately?
WEINER: Yes.
COHEN: You didn't see the IDF there?
WEINER: In Ramallah? No. In Nablus? No. Now can I tell you there might be some people in this room who think Jerusalem is occupied.
COHEN: Well hold on a second there, let's stick to the West Bank. You're saying there is no IDF presence there?
WEINER: Yes.
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/06/weiner-repeatedly-lied-about-israel-and-palestine-does-anyone-care.html?amp
192 -- Emily Rooney, a Boston-area public radio person, talked over the weekend about a nephew who'd worked for Weiner. He told her stories about Weiner being horrible (and offensive) to subordinates. She didn't go into detail, but she said she was completely grossed out. She's not a concern-troll type.
207: I looked into that and it was Schumer whohas been the main guy on that. Weiner apparently said the line about getting rid of them first thing last summer and it only got reported third-hand. He was pressed about it in March or so of this year and has not stuck to that position (although that might make him even more of a dick).
"first it was a joke. but it make the story because we now have open and unnecessary warfare over bike lanes. its a false choice : bike lanes and true civic planning.
211: waffly. Also? Posted on twitter. Mm hm!
Anyhow, I don't really care, and I certainly buy that he was making a joke.
211.first sentence: Christ on a fuck stick I cannot even understand myself.
Schumer has been the primary bike dick, Weiner had the one non-intended-for-the-public line and was wishy-washy on the issue when it came up months later.
Posted on twitter.
Oh. I had missed that.
But, yeah, I'm perfectly willing to concede that Schumer is also an asshole. More than willing, even. Eager.
It is actually Schumer's wife who has been actively part of the movement against a bike lane on Prospect Park West. His response has also been more "nuanced".
When assholes collide in asshole ways: Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) plans to attend a Glenn Beck rally in Jerusalem.
I can't say I know why nosflow has not come forth with representations of really attractive male feet. No doubt a person has to discover such things for him- or herself, in the wild.
218: I will never get the Israel thing. Not to this degree.
Wiener has always sucked on I-P related stuff, but I'm willing to accept that given that he's been excellent on national domestic issues. Plus the guy represents a heavily Jewish South Brooklyn and Queens district. Expecting anything else from that on I-P is unrealistic. Lieberman on the other hand is an all around PoS.
Several different interpretations of "I-Conn" make it the perfect appellation for Lieberman.
The one-two combo of his reprehensible sanctimony during the Clinton?Lewinsky jihad and his uncanny "watch me look like I'm debating Cheney while I actually have his dick in my mouth" act during the 2000 campaign were the perfect lead-in to the next decade of American politics.
Wiener has always sucked
In Soviet Russia...
The Clinton/Lewinsky thing makes sense, from the point of view that I see why Clinton wanted oral sex from Lewinsky. I'm not saying it was a good risk/reward calculation, but I understand the "win" scenario. I don't see why Weiner wanted to send a picture of his penis to a woman he apparently wasn't going to sleep with. That's just strange. Under the best possible outcome, what does he gain? He should resign because I can't understand him.
Well, that was sort of the point of the post -- I can accept that people do want to send pictures of their genitalia to near-strangers, but that it's the sort of primal drive that leads people into obvious bad judgment surprised me.
is it inconceivable that he thought he could trust the recipients?
Not inconceivable at all. I'm also a bit sceptical of the "trying to get caught" explanation. At least as likely (more likely, in my opinion): while he was aware of the risk he was taking (which was part of the thrill), he figured he could handle things, thought he had it all under control. Which was massively stupid of him, of course.
The whole thing is so unforgivably cheesy. There isn't even any grandeur (how the mighty have fallen, and so on) in his downfall. It's just ridiculous and small and pathetic.
It's just ridiculous and small and pathetic.
Now you're just being mean.
That's why I think it must be some kind of fetish or what-have-you. I don't think it's a fetish for riskiness per se; it's clear that he sought out people who he thought he could trust. But then he stretched that trust by giving these women (at least one of whom was definitely acting in bad faith) something that could easily be used to hurt him. I think the thrill must have been in the risk that comes with trusting somebody so completely. Falling backwards into their arms. It packs way more of an emotional punch than does showing someone your package.
Everybody seems to be able to tell immediately that he was, ehm, exposing himself, shall we say tremendously, by sending those pictures. It's impossible to believe he didn't know that too.
In response to Heebie: yes, the indent is a red herring a bit. The pattern isn't stable when the sentence begins at linestart: it needs to move along until it stabilises. Here the stabilisation relates to the happenstance that the full sentence length occupies exactly two lines once a certain compression of the wordspace is reached.
So I guess for me the interesting question is: will ANY sentence pattern eventually stabilise into an exactly repeating low-number pattern of lines?
(Low-number because if there are 80-odd characters in the line it can't force 80-plus different types of possible line-- and obviously since words cluster and don't break randomly at line end it's a lot less than this...)
I have to say that it didn't strike me as a penis so large as to invite sending pictures of it all around.
"Now this is an interesting reference point: a modal penis."
234: When was the last time you were struck by a penis, alameida?
233: Oh my god, you people are such giant nerds. (And I love you for it.)
Crap. First speeding ticket in years.
Oh man, that sucks, apo.
Also, Oxford meet up sounds good! I'll keep y'all posted on what my schedule looks like.
240 Ha! My license has been points-free since March 21st of this year. Sorry to hear that.
It's always cheaper if you stop before they get out the spike strips and ruin your tires.
You don't get points on your license for running red yellow (! I swear!) lights, do you? Because I keep getting nabbed, every six months or so, by the new red light cameras at intersections.
So I guess for me the interesting question is: will ANY sentence pattern eventually stabilise into an exactly repeating low-number pattern of lines?
(Low-number because if there are 80-odd characters in the line it can't force 80-plus different types of possible line-- and obviously since words cluster and don't break randomly at line end it's a lot less than this...)
Right - without the low number stipulation, then the number of words in the sentence is an upper bound on the length of the repetition: at worst, you can end on each word once before having one repeat.
But it would not be too hard to achieve that upper bound, especially if every word in the sentence is about the same length. Then, if your sentence is about one word longer than the length of a line, each line will end on one word past the previous line.
without the low number stipulation, then the number of words in the sentence is an upper bound on the length of the repetition
Unless the length of the sentence is less than the length of a line.
244: Isn't that insanely expensive?
246: No, you could have a sentence which was roughly one word shorter than the length of the line, and it would cycle through ending on every word in the sentence before repeating.
I think different states/jurisdictions treat red-light camera tickets differently. I'm kind of amazed I've never gotten one, but California seems to be on the generous side in defining the boundaries of an intersection and the time at which one is considered to already be at an intersection.
Is it true that you'll always see a flash of light when the camera takes a picture? I've always wondered, when I've cut it close, just how close I've cut it. I think I saw a flash once, but if there was a picture it must not have shown whatever they need to deem it worth sending out. Also, I was driving someone else's car and anyway, the light was still yellow when I entered the intersection.
109: I've done the auto-oneiro-cock-block thing myself on several occasions. Can't find a condom, can't get in touch with the (now-ex) wife to get permission, etc.
Joan Walsh isn't making sense:
Oh my god!
Breitbart has, er, leaked an explicit Weiner photo.
No I haven't clicked through to any of it.
249: Is it true that you'll always see a flash of light when the camera takes a picture?
No. I've seen the flash of light at an intersection facing me, taking a picture of someone else, but since it's taking a picture of your car's rear end license plate (at least around here), you don't necessarily see it when it's basically flashing for a split second in your own rear view mirror.
You'd only notice it if you thought you were in danger and happened to check your rear-view mirror as you sailed on through the yellow. Once you get caught once or twice, it works pretty well as a caution and deterrent at those particular intersections.
I clicked through.
As near as I can tell, the unblurred photo is gone. Or else the actual photo is of very bad quality and looks like a blurred photo. Breibart says that "Opie and Andy" illicitly took a picture of the picture that was on his phone. Opie and Andy say this also.
Also, it's a penis and his left ball droops compared to his right.
Also, I have learned it is "Opie and Anthony" and nobody is in Mayberry.
Opie has a long winded self-justification/explanation/apology* on YouTube.
*to Breibart, not Weiner.
You have better eyesight than I do. That pic just looks like a grey blur.
People update Wikipedia pages very quickly.
Well, I've had about enough of this.
I saw it earlier. A blurry cock on a mobile phone. I came was disgusted.
Parsimon has had quite enough weiner, thank you very much.
This would be a good soap opera. Weiner and his pregnant wife have obvious drama. Then, the support cast would keep lots of ripe subplots.
Opie and Anthony are the guys who got taken off the regular radio for broadcasting a couple having sex in Saint Patrick's Cathedral. Briebart's father-in-law was both blacklisted by Hollywood for being a commie and supported Prop 8. Toss everything in with a couple of screaming Mexicans and Univision wouldn't be able to resist.
And for people like parsimon who want something more uplifting, cute stuffed animals.
I have to say that it didn't strike me as a penis so large as to invite sending pictures of it all around.
Does irritably reversing gender markers in a statement violate the analogy ban?
Then, the support cast would keep lots of ripe subplots.
There would have to be a role for the guy who played Tobias Fünke.
Politicians. "It's the same, the 'ole world over"
That's actually quite a bit different.
268: no, it just doesn't make sense. "those tits aren't so big as to invite sending photos of them all around" would rest on the false premise that men (and queer women) only want to see big tits.
please feel free to let me know tons of queer guys are just as interested in lesser as greater penises and I will modify my claim.
the false premise that men (and queer women) only want to see big tits.
Define "big."
273: I'm a woman, and I have to say size really doesn't interest me much. For n=1, queer men and women don't only want to see big cocks.
the influense of Seussical compels me to note that a penis is a penis no matter how small.
Sometimes a penis is a cloaca. Of course, some of those aren't small at all.
