Weiner’s Weiner


 
Written by Gary McCoy
Writer for The Global Exclaimer
 
 

With Weinergate in full view, I found myself pondering an interesting thought. In this day and age of technology and the virtual world more prevalent than ever, do the same socialistic stigmas of  who is and is not promiscuous still apply?

What made me question this is the young lady that Anthony Weiner was “sexting”. She said in an interview that she had several different virtual lovers out there. She had never met any of them personally and had never actually had the act of sex with any of them. I heard one commentator call her a “lady of the evening” (the other bad word) and thought to myself, “SELF, is she really a S***? After all, the traditional view of the town whore is not new and usually reserved for someone who sleeps with others in lust rather than be in a committed relationship. Say a Hester Prynne.

Can you even have a relationship with someone in the virtual world rather than the physical world? We hear of people who have never met other than online and fall in love. So by that same string of theory, someone who has multiple “partners” online could be considered promiscuous.

Then I started thinking about all the people I know on different forums and blogs and how I would regard them as friends and I really don’t know anything about them other than a screen name. It is very strange that in many aspects we do not have to actually physically know a person to feel a bond to them. So if we can have relationships with others with no physical contact or visual point of reference would 2 consensual adults “sexting” be considered another form of a literal sex act?

As we progress with technology I think we are going to have to define what is and is not considered a relationship, cheating, love, lust, and a gambit of other feelings that we have in the physical world.

Advertisements

11 responses to “Weiner’s Weiner

  1. And this has what to do with the Bill of Rights? On another note, re: Hester Prynne, she of the Scarlet Letter – There is a lot there to ponder, especially as you have contrasted her with the mores of today. (On another ‘nother note – I’m not really sure what societal norms are anymore – is it normal to essentially act like a dog instead of a human? Should stepping down from your humanity and embracing the instinctual drives of an animal be considered normal for a human?)

    Hester was in a bizarre situation – thinking her husband was dead, going to someone she should have been able to trust for solace, succumbing to passion, having a child, yet, retaining her dignity as a human person by not compromising her own values any further despite the cost. In many ways she is the most moral person in the story.

    I’m not sure technology should impact our definitions of relationships, cheating, etc. Mrs. Weiner is rightfully dismayed by her husband sexting another woman. He cheated on her first where it matters most, in his head and in his heart. Technology just gave him the excuse (it’s not really sex) and the means to attempt to get away with it.

    Like

  2. This has NOTHING to do with the constitution but was an interesting discussion I had with my wife and the bartender last night.

    Like

  3. I’m inclined to think that a relationship is a relationship: something that involves the time and effort exerted specifically to connect.
    Whether intimate or formal, intermittent or regular, face-to-face or on-screen.
    We humans are so often fulfilled by being engaged with our minds, that what is real ‘up in da noggin’ is, to some extent, our Reality. I say sexual/intimate encounters with multiple partners is non-monogamy, no matter how it occurs. Likewise, If one has numerous fleeting encounters, then one is promiscuous.

    Like

  4. Ha-ha! His NAME is WEINER!! lol!

    Like

  5. It is priceless isn’t it – that his name is WEINER :p

    Like

  6. I just think Anthony has a lot of balls to cheat this way

    Like

  7. name = destiny?

    Like

  8. From the National Review: “…a fine example of how the Weinerization of the culture leads to a moral compass as flaccid as . . . oh, never mind.”

    priceless

    Like

  9. Thou didst cause me to snort Uncle Buck

    Like

  10. That was funny. made me chuckle below my buckle.

    Like

Tell me what you think about this article!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s