Those Who Do And Those Who Don’t
In which Dr. Marty Klein wonders, rather sensibly in my view, whether we shouldn’t worry rather more about the dog that doesn’t bark:
Everyone in America is conflicted about sex. But only people with certain kinds of sexual conflict get caught.
Some people conflicted about sex never masturbate, never ask a woman what time it is just to stand next to her, never look at porn, never choose a table or subway seat based on who they get to look at, never fantasize when they walk past a dress shop, never read a romance novel, never think about what’s under those tight NFL pants, never look up old boyfriends on Facebook, never wear a plunging neckline, never own a vibrator, never smell their spouse’s underwear.
They never think of sex, feel little passion, and rarely do it.
Such people’s sexual conflicts are never exposed to public scrutiny, because they’re rarely acted out in ways we can easily see. But the internal crippling of sex phobias, the terror that one might not be 100% heterosexual, the rage against others’ sexual self-acceptance–these qualities in our public servants should concern us far more than the phone sex of Anthony Weiner, the love child of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the prostitutes of David Vitter or Elliot Spitzer.
The problem with all the moralistic, self-satisfied, judgmental crap being thrown at, on, and around Anthony Wiener is that it affirms the idea that sex gets us in trouble–and that if we stay away from it, we’re OK. It affirms the idea that people who are conflicted about sex and act it out (in Weiner’s case, playfully, consensually, and without meeting or touching, remember) are somehow less trustworthy and less emotionally stable than people whose sexual conflicts leave them with frozen hearts, frozen bodies, and a complete lack of a paper trail.
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=6985
Remember, Thomas Eagleston was deemed not fit to be Vice President because he had been depressed and got help. So, instead we get Nixon in the White House, at the least a paranoid sociopath who never DID seek (or even see the need for) help.
Denial, not only in the sexual but in almost ALL endeavors, seems to be a national pastime. As for Weiner, the lies and the attempted cover-up are indeed worse than the initial transgression.
It is worse concerning our sexual sides than in other things because even those who don’t DO anything about it (maybe especially those!) are inordinately concerned about other people’s sex lives.
I have a theory. Those who are afraid of sex or determined to NOT have passion, are really afraid OTHERS are having a good time, and they don’t want THAT to happen! Just a theory…
I wish DR marty had the comments turned on on his blog, because I always want to respond to his posts. He’s so often dead on.
In this case, i think he goes a little too easy on the our overwhelmingly sex-hostile public dialog; flatly stated, what Weiner did is utterly, completely ok, and should not even be noted.
We’ve made a social crime of sexuality, and we have a a bizarre, near-fetishistic obsession with monogamy; the very idea that married people are flirting and cheating is abhorrent somehow, despite most people doing it sooner or later.
I don’t think such people actually exist.
I’m pretty sure we’re all conflicted sexually, in some way. It’s just that most of us don’t get caught doing said activities.
I completely agree with Karl’s comment. People make a crime out of sexuality, as if we don’t all have our demons we’re dealing with.
Every commentator keeps talking about how it’s Rep. Weiner’s lies that are the problem. Let’s be honest, what politician hasn’t lied? Nobody calls for a resignation over broken campaign promises or stating inaccurate facts while debating. Those lies are ok. But, God forbid you lie about your sex life. Out on a rail with you!
Hell, it’s not just a politician who lies. I’ve never met a person old enough to understand consequence who hasn’t told lies. It’s a default condition.
But what REALLY cheeses me is the idea that he’s done something horrible to his wife by not cheating on her at all.
Let’s be clear; people in power cheat, and they always have, and they always will. No one has EVER cared about that ’til the last 30 years or so; now, the very idea, we pretend, is so shocking that something that vaguely smells of cheating must be castigated.
You know what sets Clinton and Schwarzenegger apart from others? They got caught at it. They’re all doing it, or near enough all as to be irrelevant.
Getting caught liking sex, in this culture, is still a crime.
yeah, I’m sure his wife would say the same thing as commenters 1-4. Stay Sex Positive, Y’all!
Or maybe cheating on your spouse makes you a douchebag, even if it’s “just” cheating about sex. I don’t know.
Just to be clear. Sex: good. Lying to your wife about sex: bad. Even if the lying is done by someone you agree with politically.
Hold up everyone, before we get to the part where we condemn Weiner for “cheating” on his wife, is there definitive evidence that she DIDN’T know? I know plenty of married couples with…”arrangements” We can’t bash him for being a cheater till we know the facts.
Despite all of the press I’ve seen about Anthony’s Weiner, I’m still not sure that I’m all that clear about exactly what transpired, and with who.
Frankly, I don’t much care, and I’m pretty sure that it’s really none of my business. Maybe some future press about it all, will change my mind, but I doubt it.
I doubt if what he did (originally), was illegal, but then I admit to not knowing every detail. If what he originally did was immoral, then I feel like that’s purely between he and his wife, or possibly he and his God, I certainly don’t feel qualified to judge either one.
I do have a slight problem with his lying about it, but being as others were jumping into his business, I can sort of understand why he did. I do think it’s a shame that he felt he had to cover up his behavior.
I wouldn’t want the world or my lover or my wife (I don’t have both…), to know my every lustful thought or deed, and I wouldn’t think it was fair to my partner to have such thoughts or deeds reported widely, so I myself might be tempted to hide my behavior for any or all of those reasons.
As it is, my partner knows I enjoy looking at ErosBlog cuties, and I wouldn’t fault her for similar behavior. Other couples may have their own agreements which may include swapping or additional partners, and I would refer you to my third paragraph, second sentence on how I feel about that.
I don’t require a report on the sexual history of anyone one else that I’m getting a product or service from, why should politicians be any different?
I do however have a problem with politicians who set themselves up as paragons of virtue, and try to dictate what others may or may not enjoy in their sexual thoughts and activities, all the while they themselves are having sex with underage children or the very sets of sexual persuasions that they have been denouncing or railing against.
In other words, hypocrisy bothers me… a LOT.
Shorter comments: it’s OK when someone I like does it. And maybe his wife was OK with him cheating on her. So don’t judge!
I am, however, interested in the idea that as long as someone doesn’t ‘preach’ sexual honesty they’re allowed to cheat on their wives with no repercussions or negative judgements. I don’t think my wife would have bought it, and I’m not crazy about what that attitude says about the morality at the core of sex positive culture (I thought “honesty” was the core value to consenting adult sexual relationships), but if you can make that fly, good luck to you.
Also, I especially like the implication in the article that since I didn’t cheat or lie to my wife about sex, I’m not an adult with self control and respect for my spouse, I’m some emotionally frozen, asexual drone. Is this going to be the new party policy? Nice. Include me out.
I agree entirely with Dr. Whiplash–I think it’s a shame that to a lot of people or to younger children learning about social values and mores, this type of scandal basically equates sex with being evil, morally corrupt, etc. I don’t really care who’s having sex with whom and what fetish is being indulged (things like pedophilia and abuse excluded, naturally), and I don’t expect politicians to keep it in their pants any more than anyone else.
BUT. Those who preach things like sanctity of marriage and that letting gays marry will ruin it, those who constantly throw their religion in my face because God says premarital or extramarital sex is a sin, and those who generally spend a lot of time trying to legislate around private consumption of pornography or the legalities of private, adult, consensual sex, and THEN are found out to frequent male prostitutes/keep harems in South America/father children out of wedlock–THOSE people are out of bounds.
It’s not the sex, it’s the meddling in the rules of my private life and belief system, the implicit setup of their situation/choices as exemplary, and the subsequent massive hypocrisy. That’s my issue. And I hope that when I have children, I will explain this in a way that they understand and that will create hangups around being an asshole, not around sex.
There’s another angle to this nobody brought up in the comments here.
The social status quo regarding extra-marital sex (even with an open marriage) is not one of acceptance. Being in an elected position where the majority of your constituents would very likely not cast their vote for you again if they found out you are having an affair puts you in a position to be blackmailed by anyone who finds out your dirty little secret.
A congressman is privy to sensitive information and casts votes on important issues that affect the whole nation. We The People cannot allow a person in such a position of power to remain in that office after exposing themselves in such a way (pun not intended) regardless of one’s political affiliation.
As a voter, I don’t care about politician’s sex lives, I care about their stand on the issues that come before them as they govern. The only way their sex life would be an issue is when they promote some standard of sexual behavior politically and then totally violate it in their personal lives (typically, your conservatives pandering to religious right types fail here). But Weiner never took any stands on sexting that I know of, so it’s a problem for him and his wife, if anyone. (Unless he was coercive in his emails, no sign of that anywhere that I know of.)
What bugs me is the STUPIDITY of the lie that he told. He didn’t KNOW if the picture was of his crotch? Who the hell photographs his crotch and forgets about it? That was BEYOND stupid, a sign that his brain had frozen, rabbit-like, probably from pent-up fear of public exposure from all those years of sexting. I’d like to have a rep who tells smarter lies, dammit! And living in Georgia, I do!
Er, not that I have ever voted for anyone who has been elected in Georgia in the last decade or two. I’m just kinda stuck with them.
It’s not up to We The People, only the ones in his district.
Also, logic flail: his dick pic is on the internets now, I think it’s a bit late for blackmail to be a concern.
Re: Bacchus. Logic Fail? Really? I mean, I know it’s you’re website and all, but that doesn’t give you license to be wrong. The point Graumagus was making was that you can’t trust someone whose judgement is that bad. Weiner is willing to do things that lay him open to blackmail. That’s just a fact. I’m done with this issue, but really, the “lying is ok as long as you’re a Democrat” bit is getting old. It basically says that Democrats don’t have a moral standard, and as a Democrat, I resent that.
I never lied or cheated on my wife, and you all seem to be saying that I’m a sucker for behaving that way. “everyone does it?” What that says about your morals is your business, but I think you need to think about moral standards. Those standards should include honesty towards your spouse. The fact that that’s even on the table for negotiation should indicate that there’s something wrong.
Good thing I’m not wrong then, eh Sebastian? And you yourself seem to need a lesson in reading comprehension, because Graug didn’t say a word about judgment. His *only* argument was that having a dirty little secret exposes a rep to blackmail. Which is a fine and useless sentiment, because secrets are secret, and once they are exposed, there’s no further blackmail risk.
You yourself are on thin ice with respect to the ErosBlog civility rules (check the FAQ) because you are accusing people (including me) of all kinds of arguments we are not making. I haven’t even opined on whether Weiner should stay in office, nor said a word about the most serious (in my view) component of his behavior, which is lying on national television. And yet you’ve got fake summary quotes around an argument with respect to that behavior, attributing it seemingly and dishonestly to me or to others in this thread.
We try to keep the conversations civil and friendly around here, and you’re up to four commments now that don’t meet that standard. You won’t get a fifth unless it’s calm and polite and free of sarcastic straw men.
My opinion on what, exactly?
So far in this thread I quoted Marty Klein, pointed out an error with respect to the constituency that is rightfully concerned about Wiener’s tenure in office, pointed out a logic flail with respect to the risk of blackmail, and pointed out that the lies had not yet entered the discussion (here).
I haven’t expressed my opinion. But it’s funny how people keep inferring it.
Now I will express it: I don’t personally give a fuck who a politician flirts with over the internet, unless he’s deliberately seeking out children — not an allegation I’ve heard in this case. Adultery and dishonesty to one’s committed partners, those I disapprove of, but it’s a fascinating conversation about the extent to which online flirting rises to that level, and depends on personal information about his marriage we do not have. Rank hypocrisy, present in so many of these scandals, I despise; but it seems not to be present in this one. Going on television and telling unnecessary lies to everyone? That, I cannot forgive; and I’m more inclined to despise it harder from someone I kinda liked than from one of the usual corrupt reptiles I didn’t expect better out of.
Finally, it is axiomatic that, on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. This cuts both ways. It’s not reasonable, I think, to expect people to know the ages of the people with whom they exchange tweets; but the knowledge that your anonymous internet correspondent might be eleven should therefore be kept firmly in mind at all times. Thus sexting with strangers is risky for anybody, and even more so for people in the public eye.
The news reports I’ve seen suggest that there’s a 17-year-old in this current scandal. If he knew she was 17 and he tried to hook up with her for actual fucking, that would be a crime in a few states, legal in a bunch of others, and creepy as hell for a man of his age everywhere. If he knew she was 17 and merely flirted, that’s creepy. If he didn’t know she was 17 and merely flirted, her age is, I think, close to irrelevant; but of course it’s one more tiny ding against the quality of his judgment, which has been shown to already have some considerable gaping holes.
But even there, I’m not sure how politically relevant his poor judgment about online sex chat may be. The blackmail thing doesn’t impress me, because of the “If you know about it, it’s not a secret any more, so why should I do what you want?” factor. The engorged ego that makes these guys think they can get away with anything, that’s a factor, but it’s realm-specific. Failing to grasp that the internet is fundamentally public? Lots of people make that mistake every day.
For me, it comes down to the lies. I’m a little sympathetic to the “It’s OK to respond to a rude question with a polite lie” line of argument, but only to the extent that your lies are responsive and not proactive. When you deliberately go on TV to try and control a story, and then lie in response to questions you invited as this guy did repeatedly, that’s basically unforgivable. I’ll never personally be able to hear words coming out of this guy’s mouth without thinking “but I’ve heard him lie with great facility, why should I listen to him now?” That strikes me as politically debilitating — even more than being known as “Vitter the Shitter” or having your name turned into a synonym for lube/shit foam like Sen. Santorum.
Bacchus, has your opinion changed at all now that it seems he’s been hitting on minors too?
Finally, I will NOT allow this thread to deteriorate into the usual abusive cesspool that political argument threads on the internet usually turn into. Long time commenters (and me!) get a little more leeway, but if you are commenting here for the first time, your comment should strive to sound friendly and pleasant, whatever the views you are espousing. Biting sarcasm and vicious denunciation (of whomever) won’t be passed through moderation. Most recently a comment that included the phrases “boo hoo” and “little ass” in the first of 8 similar paragraphs failed to make the cut. If you were a stranger at my front door who opened a conversation with me like that, I’d slam the door in your face; this place is no different.