Can you blame us? Althouse points out that there is a difference between a Weiner and a wiener–but then, people don’t always seek out the right tool for the right job.
Professor Althouse also reminds us that the online media would be “shredding” Rep. Weiner if he were a Republican (which is quite true), and then waxes lawyerly about how he’s alleged that a crime was committed, and this whole circus supposedly makes Twitter look bad, and yadda yadda. Which… come on. Is there a sentient human being who actually believes Weiner’s Twitter account was compromised?
Everyone lies about Twitter-flirting, and everyone knows that everyone lies about Twitter-flirting.
Anyway, Collin’s got your Weiner’s weiner reference sheet all ready for action.
* * *
Now, remember the rules of internet flirtations:
1) Know the difference between a direct message and a post or a Tweet;
2) Never hit “reply all,” or respond to someone on the kind of email group that will automatically publish your response to the entire group–group lists mean you forward the mail;
3) No pictures;
4) Never flirt with someone who doesn’t understand that the entire enterprise is strictly recreational;
5) No congressmen. Evah.
6) Take two aspirin before you go to bed, and drink a glass of juice.
UPDATE: As always, RSM is all about the scandal.
And the MSM is describing the original pic that Weiner tweeted as “lewd.” I never saw it, but is a clothed erection really lewd? Or is it merely suggestive? I think the clothed vs. unclothed issue is important.
UPDATE 2: Okay–here’s a #Weinergate timeline. But let’s remember that it’s still Memorial Day, and there are more important things in life than monitoring other people’s putative online flirtations.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t do any Twitter-flirting, simply because, well, what’s the point?
As for the pic itself, whatever lewdness it may contain is due, I think, to its limited subject matter: if you took a full-body shot of somebody in his skivvies with the same pup tent, it could probably pass muster in any of a dozen slick general-interest mags.
Well, I’m not saying it was appropriate (and someone just forwarded the image to me; more of the, um, contours are apparent than I had realized, but I stand by my statement).
It’s just that the word “lewd” tends to suggest hard-core pron-style pictorials to me. The message or intent was certainly lewd, but . . . eh. Clothed is clothed.
I just hope that this was simply a flirtation, and that that distance made it feel “safe.” And I wish that people would stop naming the girl involved; she’s just a youngster, really.
This entire story was sordid and shameful and scuzzy in the beginning and the right blogosphere (regardless of the truth or falseness of the tale) has been sordid and shameful and scuzzy in the perversely obsessive coverage this weekend.
The tone and the compulsive handling of the details and the lack of any sort of reticence on the part of major bloggers following this is twisted and distasteful.
If doesn’t matter what the truth may or may not be, the handling and the gotcha and gimme attitudes displayed across the sphere have made me ashamed of many whom I usually hold in high regard.
If, in the end, this goes south on all those who are SOOOOO certain they KNOW the truth it is going to be very difficult for them to recover.
Still milking Breitbart’s latest hoax days after its already been debunked?
You lie down with pigs…
What–I get up with fleas? No, that’s dogs. I get up with bacon? I like getting up with bacon . . .
Only a person like Ponce could manage three false statements in only 11 words.
And if he believes his first sentence then he has no business being here writing the second.
Rather amusing.
Is there a sentient human being who actually believes Weiner’s Twitter account was compromised?
I always knew that Charles Johnson had a mental breakdown; this just confirms it.
(and poncy comments from the home, which just confirms Joy’s hypothesis)
oh poncey
If this really were a “Breitbart hoax” why aren’t you screaming for the FBI to investigate it? Surely you’d love to see Breitbart frogmarched to court??
Lurleen,
Do you ever wonder if god has placed you in your lowly station in life because of the hatred you have for your fellow human beings?
Just askin’.
come on poncy, why are you reluctant to call for the FBI on this?
I mean, everyone knows when a crime is committed you don’t actually call the police, you hire a lawyer!
Just today, my car was stolen and some kittens run over, but I’m sure it is just a prank. A waste of my time to call police so I just hired a lawyer.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
To be honest Lurleen,
I figure Breitbart is costing the Republicans far more votes than gets them.
I’d hate to interrupt his flow of offal for even one night in jail.
Jaysus on a Pony, you are so transparent. Weiner behaved badly and you want to blame someone else.
pathetic
I realize life is tough for you D-List fringe right blogger’s assistants these days, Lurleen.
But that’s no reason to lash out.
As opposed to your high station, ponce?
D-list trolls ALWAYS outrank D-List bloggers, don’t you know that?
And Ponce is so trusted by his lefty friends they don’t even trust him with flaming Breitbart on Twitter like all the COOL lefties.
a clothed erection really lewd? Or is it merely suggestive?
Interesting question. There are some photography sites (one in particular that I belong to) that make a big distinction between what pics should be labeled “mature audience” and it has to do (when dealing with male models) on state of arousal.
Frontal nude is acceptable for males ONLY if no arousal. (label mature) No arousal whatsoever is allowed at all.
Passive bulges can be “suggestive” (omg, I’m flashing on the airport screening scene in Spinal Tap) but they aren’t lewd.
YMMV
Yeah, I seem to remember that at one point Playboy had a “genitals okay, but no erection” rule. That was decades ago; who knows what the guidelines are these days.
In this case, the label might have to do with the thinness of the fabric, which allows one to see exactly where the glans begins and ends.
I still think this is quite different from a naked erection.
Yep,
It could just be a cucumber.
Or some kind of novelty mushroom.
That can be your epitaph, ponce.
Though, even through those briefs/boxers it is definitely NSFW. Federal Mutaweens have seen to it even a Cosmo or Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition Magazine on one’s desk can be grounds for dismissal via sexual harassment.
Most states had obscenity laws written so that erections were not permitted, at least until the 1970’s, in publications sold in stores. I believe the USPS had a regulation against them [or it may have been a law] in mailings, once again, at least until the 1970’s. I’m not sure what is permissible now.
For the longest time, many states would not allow the showing of pubic hair, which is why in many cheesecake photos from the years 1940-1970 the women were shaved.
This lady is, ahem, covering it.
This is the start of an epic rant, too. ^>^
I’d consider sending someone a picture of your tighty-whities when stuff is obvious to be lewd. Then again, I use the classic “crude and offensive in a sexual manner” meaning– which includes 90% of club dancing in movies. (Me, muttering: the definition ‘a vertical expression of horizontal desire’ is supposed to be poetic, not a challenge….)
A Prominent Member of Congress! . . . No, I wouldn’t touch it.
Honestly, I don’t care if it’s lewd, and I don’t care whether Mr. Wiener is cheating on his wife. I just know a ridiculous situation when I see one. A man who publicizes his erection is fair game. The best thing he could possibly do is say “oops” and laugh at himself.
As I’ve indicated, this story — true, false or in between — stains everyone who touches it.
“Did I say ‘prank’? I meant ‘frank.'” — Anthony “Cocktail” Weiner.
I feel stained now.
But, you know, reading Vanderleun’s posts, I’m feeling the prick of my conscience.
” I never saw it, but is a clothed erection really lewd? Or is it merely suggestive? ” That depends on how crowded the elevator is.
And I tried Twitterflirting, briefly. You’d be surprised how few twitterettes have any use for stock footage from Flesh Gordon and the Cosmic Cheerleaders…
Given his seniority is it fair to describe Wags Weiner as a “long-standing member of the House?”
Weiner seems to be enjoying this hoax as much as everyone else.
I never realized how much he scares the Republicans until I started reading up on him.
Yeh, boy howdy he was havin’ hisself a HEAP o’fun on CNN…
As for the young woman in Seattle, I don’t think we’re being fair to the Congressman. I don’t think he’d touch her with a 10-foot pole.
I think you’re being far too generous; I highly doubt the Congressman has a ten foot pole, or could find it with both hands if he did.
Yeah, I couldn’t resist, though.
More of a pup tent, really.
….there’s a Dachshund joke to be made, but I can’t phrase it right….
She’s a very attractive young girl. I just wish she hadn’t become enmeshed in the congressman’s indiscretion.
Sounds like she’s been stalked by Breitbart’s buddy for weeks.
God is still looking for a new home for Lee Atwater’s brain tumor.
Talk about a target rich environment.
Oh, now, you know my comment wasn’t intended as a dig against the young woman’s attractiveness. I know nothing about her, let alone anything against her. I’m sure the Congressman (or the hacker who inhabits his virtual body) would like nothing better than to touch her with a 10-foot pole, the main problem being that he doesn’t happen to have one at his disposal.
And although I’m usually the last person who would make jokes at the expense of a man’s, er, manliness, it’s hard to resist when a guy publishes graphic images of his erection. What could invite more ridicule than that kind of display?
My new phrase for this story and for the activity of tracking it and posting about it is: “Snorkeling In A Sewer.” It doesn’t matter if you are doing it for the great good, you’ll still never get the stink off.
Ah. I shall then go link a story about the First Lady’s rear end . . .
Let me start it for you: “As our only First Lady to beep when she backs up since the LBJ administration, Michelle clocks in at a respectable .97 Ladybirds….”
Anything that’ll look good on the ol’ fringe right resume.
Too bad all they offer is unpaid internships.