Krystal Ball is a Democrat running for an open Virginia Congressional seat in the 1st District. Today, however, most Americans who know her at all only do so because some spectacularly embarrassing photos of her have gone viral on the Internet. In the shots, a Santa-clad Ball is shown in a series of suggestive poses involving a bright red dildo, which is fastened to the nose of young man wearing reindeer antlers. In some shots, she has Rudolph the Dildo-nosed Reindeer on a leash, just to add that dominatrix flair we all associate with the holidays.

Needless to say, these are not images most citizens like to associate with their elected officials, from whom one hopes to get service that is serious, dignified, and sensible. Ball, who has a young daughter, is understandably upset and angry that the photos surfaced, and the incident has set off a predictable series of accusations about dirty tricks and double standards. (To his credit, Ball’s Republican opponent has called for the pictures to be taken down, although 1) he knows they won’t be, and 2) an unscrupulous politician would make this request even if he personally posted the photos. There is no proof that his campaign was in any way responsible for the pictures surfacing. )

The ethics verdicts on the incident:

The photos: Silly, racy, private photographs taken at a party when a candidate was 22 years old usually should not be a factor in a Congressional race. Ball’s photos show her doing nothing illegal, cruel, harmful or wrong, and as far as I know, lots of politicians suck on dildos fastened to people’s noses…behind closed doors, of course. It is unfair for Ball to be judged on the basis of such photos, but undeniable that she will be, and that unfair or not, this is human nature at work. Voters want to know who candidates are: what they like and don’t like, their temperment, their quality of judgment. If voters see photos that make them think ” Oh, heavens, I would never do that,” then a judgment has been made, fair or not. Voters decide on who to vote for based on many factors, including how a candidate looks, how her voice sounds, how he dresses, where she went to school, who his parents are, and whether she goes by the name of Krystal Ball. Any or all of these qualities may be just as irrelevant as whether a candidate has photos of herself leading a man with antlers and a dildo on his nose up the stairs to her bedroom on a leash, but they can be and are factors in the complex process of deciding whether to trust a public official. Again: here is nothing wrong with the photos in themselves. But there is nothing wrong with voters factoring in the photos as they consider whether to vote for Krystal Ball, either. Indeed, once having seen the photos, a voter would be challenged not to go through the process of asking themselves, “does this matter to me?”

The voters: There is only one ethical way to consider such photographs, and that is the approach of suggested by the Golden Rule and its equivalents: “If I allowed embarrassing party photos of myself to be taken when I was 22, and they turned up on the Internet, to be seen by potential employers and others who do not know me, what would I feel is the fair and just way for them to use them in making judgments about me?” It is not an easy exercise, because bias is everywhere. But if the conclusion is that it would be fair and just for those seeing the photos to have doubts about your common sense and dignity, then so be it.

The person who first posted the photos: Indefensible. These were private photos, of a young woman goofing around with friends. Whether she was a Congressional candidate or not, posting photos to embarrass her was mean, unfair, and irresponsible. It was a certainty, given the nature of the photos, that blogs and websites would have a field day, and they have.

Krystal Ball’s response and accountability: The photos are less relevant than her response to them, which has come in a series of interviews and was fully laid out in an essay on the Huffington Post. It is not a bad post, in general; many of her observations about sexism in the media and in politics when women run for office are valid and well-stated. Still, they have absolutely nothing to do with her current plight. Ball is ducking accountability for her own actions, playing the victim, and, once again, we have to hear a ridiculous double standard defense, one that is just as outrageous in this context as conservative claims that nobody would care about Rich Iott playing Nazi Storm Trooper on weekends if he were a Democrat. If Ball seriously believes that photos like these wouldn’t be just as sensational for a male candidate, then she has serious cognitive dificiancies. A coltish Dick Cheney sucking a dildo on Lynn Cheney’s nose? A young Jerry Brown leading a dildo-nosed Linda Ronstadt in a reindeer suit up the stairs on a leash? Harry Reid posing with a blow-up doll? The fact that Ball was photographed in these shenanigans doesn’t bother me at all; the fact that she insults my intelligence with this argument does.

In her HuffPo piece, Ball rails against women being portrayed as “whores.”  I heartily agree with the outrage, but I have to ask, Krystal,  who posed for the pictures? Blaming the media and political opponents for the sexual innuendo inherent in intentionally suggestive photographs she participated in voluntarily defies all logic. It’s fairly simple, really: if one wants to avoid being characterized as a whore, a good place to begin is declining to pose as one. Krystal Ball cannot duck her own accountability. “How did this happen? How did I end up with private photos of me at 22 with my ex-husband across the entire Internet, and in papers from London to New York to Boston?” she asks in the Huffington Post piece. Yes, some creep posted photos that never should have been posted, and yes, the Web, led by unscrupulous blogs, made the photos viral. It shouldn’t have happened. But it wouldn’t have happened if Krystal Ball hadn’t posed for the pictures in the first place.

What Ball should have said, the ethical response, was this:

“I appeared in those photographs years ago, at a party, when I was a naive 22-year old woman. To me, at the time, it was innocent, raunchy fun; I gave no thought whatsoever to how the photographs might affect my future, how others would assess my judgment based on them, or that any children I might have in later years might be exposed to them. I know now that was irresponsible and foolish. I am no longer that naive young woman; I have learned a great deal in the intervening years. One lesson I have learned is that one’s past choices will always affect the degree to which others respect and trust you. Another is that one way to tese whether your conduct is wise and right is to ask yourself if you would be willing to see a headline revealing the conduct in the New York Times. If I had employed that simple ethics test when I posed for those photos, I wouldn’t be dealing with this situation today.

Those photos were personal and never intended for public view. It was a terrible violation of my privacy for them to be posted. Nevertheless, I am accountable for allowing them to be taken at all. They have embarrassed me and my family, as well as my party, my supporters, District 1, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. They havedistracted attention from the serious, crucial issues in this campaign. I apologize for all of that, and accept full responsibility. Luckily for Virginia and District 1, I’m not that 22 year old girl in a Santa hat any more, and now have the maturity, experience and good judgment to serve my constituency in Congress, if they can forgive me, and extend me their trust. And as painful as this episode has been, if it serves as a warning to other young women who may be future leaders that it is never too early to consider how their conduct might affect their future reputations, it will have been worth it.”

I’d trust a candidate who said that, even one with a name like Krystal Ball, who once, at party, a long time ago, sucked on a dildo attached to a man’s nose.

[You can see the party photos here. My usual practice would be not to link to them, because I think it was wrong to put the photos online. But they are all over the Web, and I don’t think the issue can be understood completely without seeing the photos that caused the problem.]