Saya, when a woman (or several women) come forward to say that a public figure has been sending them pictures of his erect penis over a public broadcast product like cell phone or internet services, it's news for a number of reasons (just ask Brett Favre.)
First, sending a picture by email or by picture message on public networks guarantees you no more privacy than sending a post card.
Second, any time a public figure gets outed for a sex scandal by another participating party, the media has a responsibility to report it. It is news by virtue of the fact that these public figures voluntarily put themselves in the public limelight, and with that limelight comes increased scrutiny.
Third, when the press asked the questions initially, they were simply asking the normal questions they were obligated to ask when the woman came forward claiming to have a picture he sent her.
Fourth, there's a right way and a wrong way to handle a sex scandal, and it's been known for a long time that the problem isn't with the sex scandal, it's in the denial after the fact (see Gary Hart's presidential campaign of 1988.) He could have told everyone this was a matter of privacy and nobody else's business. He could have refused to respond. Instead, he didn't just choose to obfuscate the facts, he outright LIED ("my account was hacked".) That IS the public's business and THAT IS NEWS!!!
Frankly, I know a lot of people like this guy a lot, but I don't think he's as bright as some people think. With the examples of Chris Lee, Representative (R-NY), Mark Souder, Representative (R-IN) and Eric Massa, Representative (D-NY) in recent headlines, he had to know this thing could blow up in his face. And even when faced with the probable likelihood that sending pictures of his aroused hard-on to women he didn't even know personally would result in those pictures becoming public fodder eventually, he chose to do it anyway. That's dumb; just plain dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya
I don't think challenging the notion that politicians must be puritans even when they don't run with the idea of traditional family values, which Weiner did not do, is pointless.
|
I'm saying the public responds the way they do. Politicians know full well before they become politicians that the public is going to react badly if they do certain things in their private life and it comes to light. You're saying it's not fair. But saying it here in a Gothic Literature and Trolling forum where a dozen people are knocking the subject about isn't changing any minds. That's what I meant by "pointless."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya
What? Yes, women get involved in sex scandals sometimes, but women are far less likely to run for office. According to Wiki, there's only 17 senators, and 72 house reps in total, so we're looking at only 16% federally. Six states have female governors. If they don't run and people don't vote for them, scandals remain un-newsworthy.
|
Statistically, if you take all the women who have held political office in this country since they were first able to do so, it's a large enough sample that some scandals should have shown up if they engaged in the same types of risky behavior in the same percentages as their male counterparts. Here's a list of
List of Federal political sex scandals in the United States. I don't see a single female name on it.
I know why. It's a different approach to the role and the responsibility. It's been said, "men run for office to be someone, women run for office to do something."
I wish we had more women in political and leadership roles.