Photo by Flickr user aagius. Used under a Creative Commons license.
In one very, very specific sense there's not a moral equivalency between what we know about Rep. Anthony Weiner's behavior and that of Sen. David Vitter. And in that narrow specific, narrow sense it is not the case that if Weiner should resign then Vitter should resign as well.*
As it happens this narrow, specific sense is probably anathema to the conservatives who are clamoring for Weiner's resignation, but we already know they're fucking hypocrites and partisan assholes. The consequent fact that their moral opinions are worth exactly zero doesn't change the equation, however.
So here's the deal.
When a particular woman semi-randomly caught Rep. Weiner's eye he evidently sent them unsolicited photos of his bulgy underwear. Without prior agreement that's (social if not legal) harassment and sexual imposition without consent. And from a moral standpoint that's pretty objectionable whether or not the objects of his solicitations wound up appreciating his, um, attention.
Senator Vitters, on the other hand, did not courier unsolicited soiled baby-play-fetish diapers to semi-random women. Instead he hired and paid consenting adult sex workers agreed-upon sums to let him pretend to suckle milk from their breasts and to hold his feet high over his head while they unpinned his diapers, cleansed his soiled groin, and presumably "finished him off" with previously-agreed-upon manual, oral, or penetrative sex. And from a moral standpoint that's entirely unobjectionable in the sense that to the extent one could ask Rep. Weiner to resign one could not automatically demand Sen. Vitter to resign as well.
Frankly I believe Senator Shumer, Senator Reid, Minority Leader Pelosi* should stand up before their respective august bodies and, in the spirit of bipartisanship and fairness, recite my argument exactly.
Furthermore, in my own reach across the aisle I invite partisan Republican bloggers, pundits, and politicians to freely repost or reuse my points in their castigations of Weiner and their equally full-throated defenses of Vitter.
Because, no, really, seriously, in all honesty it really is narrowly and specifically far more immoral to mail unsolicited photos of one's underwear than it is to pay an informed, consenting adult to baby-wipe your ass and then jack you off while saying "ootchi, gootchi, goo naughty baby Davey."
Just sayin'
* There are numerous other related reasons why Sen. Vitter should have resigned. And been castigated by his peers. And been voted out of office if he refused to resign. This just isn't one of them.
** Or possibly Sen. Frankin since I'm pretty sure he could do it with a straight face.
Tags:
Vitter engaged in illegal
Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-08 21:24.Vitter engaged in illegal behavior. Prostitution remains illegal, whether you and I think that's the best solution or not. Weiner - to the best of our knowledge - did not break the law.
Weiner may not have sent that photo to Cordova. (Did you check out the Cannonball blog a previous commenter mentioned below? It's not conclusive, but it sure does introduce reasonable doubt - enough so, that I wrote about it today.) We don't know the facts, but Cordova has pretty convincingly stated that she did not solicit the crotch pic. I would not want her to be interrogated in order to ascertain whether she had a prior relationship with Weiner. It's her own damn business. The folks who deserve investigation are the wingnut cabal that was hounding Weiner on Twitter.
The other women involved with Weiner were not "victims." They appear to have been consensual participants - enthusiastically so! Which makes me wonder what has induced them - especially Meagan Broussand - to "come forward" now. Money? Fame? Blackmail?
Finally, I think there's a massive "glass houses" caveat to be observed here. Any of us who've engaged in flirtation online can just be glad we're not congresscritters. Any of us who've lusted from afar would be wise to keep off a high horse. That might well go for half the comment section here. :-) And figleaf, I know you were quite conscientious about keeping risque photos behind a break. That doesn't mean you never had unwitting or underage viewers gawking at you. Glass houses may be great places to grow tomatoes; they're pretty uncomfortable as actual abodes.
Hi Sungold, First of all I
Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2011-06-08 21:44.Hi Sungold,
First of all I want to make it really, really clear that I meant all this only in a really, really narrow sense. And that I was trying to channel a Fox News "sensibility" on moral equivalencies. I think I just didn't put enough emphasis on the "IFs" in my post.
On all other points, including obviously matters of actual law, Vitter would still be in jail if any of many proposals he's publicly endorsed had been made into law. Weiner, on the other hand, seems like a bit of a putz.
I am a little sensitive to the sense of presumption that still appears to be associated to Congressional privilege, as indicated in the Jon Chait link I appended to my Jon Stewart post. I'm not sure Weiner himself was an active participant in the observed event (my impression is not.) But I am concerned that being introduced to that climate still leads to "careless mistakes." Not to mention a certain sense of invincibility and immortality. But I still don't think Weiner should resign over this. (I do think Vitter should have resigned, been censured, or been voted out of office for the public/private disconnection of his transgressions.)
In the same Jon Stewart post I also already linked to the Cannonfire page. And as I've said elsewhere I completely agree that the Twitter post in question seems to categorically be a fraud. *Despite* Weiner's confession that he sent the thing! I don't know how it'll get shaken out in the end but I earnestly hope that by confessing all interest in the Cannonfire evidence will be dropped.
Oh, and finally, I don't have a problem with line flirting because, yeah, scanning through my archives suggests quite a bit of glass housing!
Thanks for catching me on this, Sungold. I got so enthusiastic about my back-handed, damning with faint praise "exoneration" of Vitter I rumbled Weiner more strictly than I intended.
figleaf
You remember Bob Packwood,
Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-08 23:46.You remember Bob Packwood, yes? Another congresscritter with a sterling record on women's rights - who in the 1990s was revealed to be a serial sexual harasser? Packwood was much worse in terms of consent than the allegations against Weiner. And yet I see a similar pattern in the response from media (and now blogs, which post-date Packwood) - a desire to give the man a total pass on the part of some liberals (hey, he's one of us!) versus a desire to just CRUCIFY him, on the right. Maybe it's just that feminists like me are pathetically eager to have a few male defenders of women's rights, we're willing to forgive and forget. Or maybe Weiner really did nothing without mutual consent. I still cling to that hope.
Interesting. You too doubt the confession re: the public tweet of his bulging boxers. Once Weiner started hemming and hawing, I figured he *must* have some sexy pics in circulation and was hedging against them becoming public. Now I see that Breitbart has revealed the almost-money shot, via a couple of satellite network clowns. But none of that refutes Cannon's argument, and in fact it gives Cannon support on a couple of key counts, esp. wrt extortion.
And I remember my own local
Submitted by figleaf on Thu, 2011-06-09 00:05.And I remember my own local Senator and, before that, long, long time women's-issues-friendly public servant Brock Adams, who was accused of an *extremely* serious offense... circumstances of which still smell "funny" to me almost two decades later. So yeah, compared even to Packwood, let alone (the allegations against) Adams, Weiner's offenses even if true don't really add up to "firing" offenses. Anyway, my point in this post was more to negate the syllogism that *if* Weiner should resign *then* the far more disgraceful Vitters should as well. My feeling is more like *if* Sen. Vitters shouldn't have to resign then Weiner shouldn't either. And, I ought to add, if those fuckwads on the Right were willing to stand behind Vitter then the broad left shouldn't have that much trouble standing behind Weiner. Who's just been a putz.
And yes, I agree with what I think is your suspicion as well. Those were photos of Weiner. He probably did take them. He might have sent them to more than one person. Breitbart's coven may have stumbled across them in a different context, and spoofed the undies photo into his Twitter feed as some kind of shot across the bow. The evidence for that ought to be sufficient to justify an investigation into possible violations a variety of very serious hacking-related statutes. Point there being that emailing your own dick makes you a putz. Emailing someone else's to an account not your own is criminal. If as you say it could have been blackmail related and involving a Congressman it would be very, very serious indeed. I mean, yeah, yeah, there might just be smoke, but with that much smoke there's no credible reason not to assume there's fire.
Thanks, Sungold.
figleaf