Spare Me Your “Weinergate”!

Newsflash: Anthony Weiner Has a Libido

Punch Line: Anthony Weiner showed everybody his namesake.  Get it?

Caveat: I despise politics and all politicians, except for Ron Paul (libertarianism) and Cynthia McKinney (9/11).  I reserve the right to discover just a little bit of life-orientation in one or two more, but not Mr. Weiner.  This one is difficult for me, because I have little to no sympathy for politicians, even the ones I don’t despise.  I doubt any of Weiner’s intentions are really all that noble when it comes to his political actions, so normally, I would let such an individual lie undisturbed in the bed he’s made.

However, Weiner and I have at least one thing in common: We’re both men.  A politician’s manhood is under intense scrutiny, in the midst of a misandric culture.  Therefore, I do not wish to remain silent.  As I see it, the trouble with all of this man’s personal troubles is that people are, once again, angry and upset over molehills while the mountains behind them are blocking the sun.  Here’s a little sunlight for you:

Weiner gets a 100% rating from some pro-choice constituency, and a 0% from us pro-lifers, but he has to resign over a cock-tease pic.

Weiner opposes a bill that puts restrictions on what the government can do with money it steals from me to fund abortions that (to my mind) are, if not murder, something dangerously close, but he has to resign over showing his clothed hardon (Or was it entirely exposed? …Better find out.) to willing, horny women.

Weiner augments the drug war by making more of the market in cigarettes illegal, as well as giving more of my stolen money to the assholes in charge of the Mexican government to “fight” the never-to-be-repealed War on Certain Kinds of Drugs, driving up the cost of business (and hence the suffering of poor men), and putting more men in overcrowded prisons, but he has to resign over his penis and what he occasionally likes to do with it.

Weiner flexes his statist muscle at YouTube to pull videos down that allegedly turn the viewer into a terrorist simply for watching (you can watch this guy, though), which comes dangerously close to violating everybody’s favorite amendment, but he has to resign because he likes showing his dick to the ladies.

Weiner voted in favor of a mindless, bloody war that has killed more than a million people, many of them guys who liked showing their cocks to select women in private, but because more people saw Weiner’s tool than he intended, he has to resign.

Weiner vocally opposed an attempt by a Palestinian delegation to enter the UN, making a snide remark about them in the process, but he has to resign because he enjoys his manhood with more women than current American culture will allow for a married man.

Weiner voted in favor of sanctions on Iran, which will undoubtedly lead to greater poverty and suffering for other penis-owners, but he has to resign because there are apparently at least seven women who have seen his.

Worry not, virginal proles.  Your government will thoroughly investigate this most serious matter.  From Wikipedia: “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi [a genius and chaste benefactor of all feminine concern] announced that there would be an investigation by the House Ethics Committee to determine ‘whether any official resources were used or any other violation of House rules occurred’.”  Excuse me?  “Official resources”?  So it’s an “ethics violation” if he uses his work computer instead of his home computer, at 2 AM, when the missus is asleep, and he’s wondering what the hell he got himself into back in 2010 when he married her?

I suppose some political types, especially Republicans, are going to try to spin this as a matter of lying about it, but I hope my readers are smart enough to know that the spin is really all about an open seat in government, and this “news story” is really all about Weiner’s dick.  Well, I already covered that subject in a previous article.  Therefore, the rest of this article will be a “terrorist rant” against our ridiculously stupid culture.  Alert the Department of Vaginal Homeland Security.

What the hell is everybody’s problem?  Why are they blind to the egregious violations of simple human behavior through political action, but private exchanges — that no doubt hurt a woman who expected more from her husband — are hyped to such a great extent?  Keep in mind, I turned off the TV years ago, but even I have heard about this nonsense now, from a link at Salon.com.  That link went to more links at Salon about this single, ridiculous issue, then more links on into self-righteous cyberspace.  For the next few days, this cock-hungry story will be all the rage, while innumerable fires rage in the Middle East, some of them set by the man currently under the sexual microscope.  Then, over the next few weeks and months, it will fade to occasional mention.  After that, a few enterprising magazines, desperate to keep readership that is going elsewhere, will probably bring this back up like reflux at the end of the year, for the nauseating recap of 2011: “Remember Weiner’s wiener?  Yuk, yuk!”  Don’t believe me?  Remember Tiger Woods?  More yuks to follow.

In the meantime, a guy I don’t even like (based on what I saw of his unctuous nature prior to my liberation), will be made to suffer silently and ashamedly for doing something similar to what a great many other men and women are currently doing online.

And at the beach.  I went to my first nude beach on Memorial Day weekend.  Since my friends told me it was a gay beach, and since I’m no stranger to the different rules at all-gay-male events of this sort, I knew the following: Clothing is optional, you can look all you want, but no sex or masturbating is permitted.

What I was not prepared for was the fact that the “gay” nude beach was separate from the “straight” nude beach only in the most ambiguous sense.  I thought, since it involved gay men and gay male behavior that most others find abhorrent, that the beach we were going to would be isolated.  Instead, my friends and I walked past a whole bunch of naked, straight men and women, making eye contact with them, these skin-clad guys knowing full well which side of the beach we were headed to.  They paraded themselves and their women all over the gay side.  No sex, no hardons, no lewd behavior.  (You may be opposed to the following, but I even saw one nude mom and dad there with their nude six-year-old boy, whom none of the grown naked men there bothered to molest.)  Strange indeed that the only difference between this beach and any other is that many of the bathers were naked and nobody gave a damn.

It was a fascinating experience in a non-sexual sense, one that paralleled the memory of one of my straight, Mormon, college roommates, when as a teenager he went to the French Riviera with his dad (the non-molesting variety).  He said that the first day on the beach (where the ladies went topless), he couldn’t pry his eyes away.  For the rest of his time in southern France, however, he said it simply didn’t faze him.  Keep in mind: He was, at the time, a straight, virginal, teenaged male who had little access to real or pornographic breasts.

If the two of us can experience that sort of instant acceptance at the sight of genitalia, why in fucking hell can’t “your elected representatives” get over Weiner’s private gaffe?  Why can’t you?  Why doesn’t Salon?  Why don’t Jon Stewart and all the late-night talk show hosts?

I propose that it has to do with a peculiar, wonderful, fascinating, and powerful social phenomenon called American Christianity.  Religious belief on this land mass has almost exclusively revolved around the idea of material progress “married” with spiritual progression.  In this regard, it is inextricably linked to ancient Puritanical belief.  I defer at this point to a much smarter guy (who, like Weiner, is Jewish and politically left-of-center), Simon Schama, and his captivating “A History of Britain.”  In Episode VI, “Burning Convictions,” he points out that Catholic England eventually went underground, heavily persecuted, their gorgeous adornments torn asunder as Puritanism sought, more than once in English history, to make everybody that much closer to perfect.  At one point, these people banned Christmas.  Yikes.  Then they settled in America and created Thanksgiving (Christmas Lite).

What do these sorts of people say about sex?  Nothing good: “In the relation of churches to civil power, Puritans believed that secular governors are accountable to God to protect and reward virtue, including ‘true religion’, and to punish wrongdoers [emphasis mine].”  The stage is set so that someday, even a Jewish man who “represents” others in a “God-given” government must be a cut above “normal” men; he must be impervious to a man’s passions, in complete control.  A land mass full of people who believe in being obedient to authority means that the authorities have to act differently.  (How, then, do they represent you?)

Having come from a religious tradition that could not have grown the way that it has without the bedrock of American Protestantism, I can safely say that the American Protestant approach to human sexuality is different than other Christian churches only by degree.  Sex is godly (or “good”), but only when it is safely within the bounds of heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong marriage as legally recognized, and no place else.  Since, in many American Christians’ minds, American government is linked to the essential goodness of God and His church, even non-Christian leaders need to act like American Christians.  Thus, the American Jewish Weiner keeps himself clean-shaven and metrosexual-looking, and throws in a few votes that even I can’t complain about.  He knows how to look and act the part.

Until the indiscretion.  Weiner’s acknowledgement of his manly sexual feelings in an unapproved manner means that he is now persona non grata. People can focus on the lies he told (as he desperately hoped it would go away), the humorous nature of how he was “exposed,” and ignore everything that they’ve been ignoring their entire lives: the state’s lies, the state’s murderous adventures abroad, the state’s continuous violations of everything individuals prefer to deal with in private, the state’s dumbing down of children (including boys), the state’s destruction of the economy (including blue collar men: the backbone of our society), the state’s heavily-regulated, vapid, “free market” entertainment, and the state’s false premise.  In short, if the state can gloss it up like Weiner’s smiling mug, Americans will buy it.  They’ll dutifully line up on either side of the aisle, set up their little Tea Parties and Progressive Caucuses, and pretend that the biggest concern about Weiner is a silly private exchange that involved sex.  They will also claim, falsely, that it has nothing to do with our collective Puritanical roots.

America used to be full of men who could clear the land and push West; men who did it themselves, who also came from the American Protestant tradition.  They built beautiful churches in every community, something America has now abandoned, or given over to corporate designers to handle.  They educated their own families, something that we no longer have time for.  They thought politicians like Weiner were full of shit, which they were and are, a belief that seems extreme or downright dangerous now.

What this means is that America now has it ass-backwards.  I’m neither advocating nor condemning a married man whipping out his dick online.  What’s in Weiner’s head?  I don’t know and I don’t care.  That’s between him, his wife, and what’s left of their marriage.  Maybe, given his political mind, they’ll come up with some Clinton/Rodham Clinton-style arrangement.  Ugh.  That’s their problem.  It should never have been mine, or yours.  But a culture mired in lies that are widely believed and maintained will get a lot more mileage out of Weiner’s cock than he ever dreamed of, without any of the respect his masculinity (what’s left of it) deserves.  And every time you turn on your stupid television, you’re helping them to do just that.

I don’t like him either, but Good Lord, leave the man alone.  Unless, of course, you’d like to open up a dialogue about the many problems the man’s voting record has already caused.  I won’t be holding my breath.  I’ll be too busy holding down my lunch.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar