I’m sure Democrats will be thankful for this. Ultra-conservative Texas Congressman Joe Barton, in his fourth decade in the House, has a nude selfie circulating on the web. As I note above, ew. There are some material distinctions from the Weiner debacle: Joe was separated when he sent them; he wasn’t showing his man-things to cyber-pal he he had never met, and most important of all, he didn’t lie about it, immediately confirming that the selfie was indeed his. which, unfortunately, means that he is also copping to sexting the message “I want u soo bad. Right now.Deep and Hard.” The details don’t matter, though. Barton has provided the perfect template for the Naked Congressman Principle, which is so similar to the Ethics Alarms Naked Teacher Principle that not much elaboration is required.
The Naked Teacher Principle states that a secondary school teacher or administrator (or other role model for children) who allows pictures of himself or herself to be widely publicized, as on the web, showing the teacher naked or engaging in sexually provocative poses, cannot complain when he or she is dismissed by the school as a result.
A tweak here, a word changed there, and Voila! Naked Congressman Principle! Hence,
A member of the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate who allows pictures of himself or herself to be widely publicized, as on the web, showing the elected official naked or engaging in sexually provocative poses, cannot complain when he or she is required to vacate his or her high office.
This is the case, not because the member of Congress in question isn’t an adult who has every right to send such photos to consenting adults, but rather because such conduct by a member of the body that makes our laws, and thus who must model the highest levels of conduct, dignity and decorum and not basest level that won’t prompt an arrest, is signature significance for a n idiot, and idiots should not be trusted to make laws, not to mention to handle sharp objects.
Helpfully, Ethics Alarms earlier—last year, in fact—promulgated the Naked Mayor Principle, after the married mayor of Hernando, Mississippi, sent a photograph of himself naked in the shower to his mistress, who then widely circulated it on the internet. My advice to the felicitously named Chip Johnson:
Resign. Mayors should, at very least, be reasonably trusted not to have their johnsons get displayed far and wide. There is no good reason for any mayor’s johnson to be so displayed. If a mayor’s johnson, like Mayor Johnson’s johnson, is so displayed, it is proof positive that said mayor is an irresponsible fool with terrible judgment. Nobody who is an irresponsible fool with terrible judgment should be a mayor.
Same with Congressmen.
But even more so.
52 thoughts on “Finally! The Naked Congressman Principle!”
And to think I voted for a Johnson in the last election.
The Democrat crypto-fascists have earned me NEVER voting for them for at least 3 decades on all but city-level positions (probably longer as I don’t see them quitting their totalitarian addiction any time soon).
The Republicans are working their hardest on earning me NEVER voting for them as well in certain realms of government.
Is poor Gary in a home yet?
Was this Congressman dating a blind woman?
If she wasn’t blind before seeing that selfie, she was definitely blind after.
If you ever wanted to know what it’s like to be a woman on the receiving end Tinder …
May I ask a question? What is it about the dick pic? Why do some men feel so compelled? I don’t get it. Neither do most women. We (and I’ll safely speak for most of us) really, really, really don’t want to see a pic of your dick. It provides us with nothing more than fodder for hilarity on our next girls’ night out. So, where is this getting lost in translation? Is it that for some men, the dick pic is where they try to compensate for their insecurities? I’m honestly asking, because I would love to understand.
I have no $#%$%%^ idea. None. NONE. I wouldn’t want to see a photo of my own—you know—much less presume that anyone else would.
This whole week has made me want to castrate myself, frankly.
I learned that dick pics aren’t really wanted by women not that long ago. Amazingly, it’s not very obvious at first that its unattractive because, as a man, I like naked photos of women, so you think the reverse would be true for women…but women don’t feel the same way about naked photos of men.
And maybe therein the difference lies: men are visual. Women are turned on via their brain: conversation, whispers, being made to feel safe, protected, desired, respected…. The penis? It’s a one trick pony. Sure, in the moment it’s great; but ultimately for a woman it’s not a visual thing. It’s an emotional thing: the dichotomy since time immemorial.
That’s exactly it. It’s utilitarian. Some women (most?) like nice bodies on men and find that attractive. But you’re right…the penis not so much.
Because where’s the mystery? Yes, a well built, beautiful man is always a sight to behold; but that’s because we are left to wonder, to use our imagination: What does he sound like, smell like, feel like…. But a dick pic in your face? Game over. No mystery. No romance. No wooing. No courtship. Not even dinner and a movie.
That’s why I think it would only be appropriate in the context of an ongoing sexual relationship. Besides, if you’re sending pics of the full montey before the main event even happens, it makes the main event less exciting…
Though since the best course of action is to simply wait and see if the woman requests a pic, this is a moot point.
Some women do enjoy a well-shot, artistic photo of a nude male whom they are either in a relationship with or have already established satisfying sexual contact with…provided that the conversation has already been broached and the woman has indicated interest.
Good photos are almost never of just the penis, however, and NEVER shot from the angle at which Barton shot his–many men seem to think that simply making their penis look as big as possible is what makes a photo erotic, which shows an absurdly limited view of what women find sexy.
Barton should have used Rate My Dick Pic, a hilarious and artistically informed site in which a woman…well, rates dick pics. The notion that all dick pics are always unwanted by women is just as untrue as the notion that all women always want dick pics, although of course the latter delusion is more dangerous than the former. But context is everything. “Don’t send dick pics unless the woman has expressed interest” is a pretty good rule, but it isn’t the only rule.
Tell your friends?
If there’s enough women willing to sell themselves that cheaply, then douchey men WILL gravitate to that market. The internet and mass communication makes it way more likely that a man will risk 99 rejections with women they will never meet again for the 1 woman who will give it up over a dick pic.
This is a problem generated by both sides of the aisle.
But hey, sexual liberation for the win right?
Way to blame women for the actions of men who made their own choices. And such a change from your usual.
Are you now ready to blame poverty and racism for crime?
Are you stupid or illiterate?
I’ll accept “illiterate”.
Here, to summarize points I’ve mentioned in this discussion:
ALL the men on Tinder are *douchbags*
1 in 100 of the women are the equivalent of those *douchbags*
They ruin it for the 99 other women who are not *douchbags*.
Who am I blaming more even when I say “this is a problem generated by both sides of the aisle”?
Both, so let’s see how this plays out to my so limited mind.
Guy says he just learned the glaringly obvious. Dick pics aren’t the highly sought-after treat that Antony Wiener would have you believe.
I say tell your friends.
You tell me women share the blame because if any are receptive men will feel justified.
Here’s a secret. The men who send dick pics are going to feel justified no matter what.
Here’s another secret. If 99 out of 100 women were swooning over dick pics and begging for more, it still wouldn’t justify sending them to the other 1% nor would that 1% be wrong to complain about it.
Haha all my friends know now. But we’re a little older. I don’t think a 21 year old knows though. Plus they may just think it’s funny, and like showing it off.
“It provides us with nothing more than fodder for hilarity on our next girls’ night out.”
All they ever say is that they want us to make them laugh…..
1) Tinder is only going to attract douchebag men (pardon my language). You will find no upstanding gentlemen on tinder. If they insist they are gentlemen they are lying.
2) Sexonomics, meets the internet. Douchbags want sex at a ratio that increases a more guaranteed frequency to a decreased cost of pursuing it. That is man’s sex drive unencumbered by the values that civilization seeks to work onto man…that is a douchbag at work. If even 1% of women seeking relationships on the internet are cool with dick pics or rely on dick pics to be an accurate summation of what they expect from a single evening’s worth of a consummated relationship, then you can guarantee that 1% of women have ruined for the 99% who are absolutely repelled by dick pics. I suspect it’s more than 1%, but as long as douchey guys get a positive return of 1 out of 100…every…single…one…of them will engage in that behavior on platforms where the cost of such behavior is negligible.
3) The internet is a platform that enables high volume “sales” with low cost of rejection.
4) Our modern pop culture heroicizes the douchebag. Oh, not directly mind you. Our culture heroicizes the “rebel” the “violator of authority” the man who doesn’t care about convention… the guy who’s “coolness” is more important than anything else.
Our culture refuses to accept, those guys are the same douchebags who are going to send you a pic of their dick.
You have misread the signals.
The rogue is supposed to be charming, not creepy.
What was that verb you used prior to the word “to be”?
In real life, rogues are rogues for a reason.
Real life Han Solo sends dick pics.
Very rarely in history do you run into an actual gentleman rogue.
“Very rarely in history do you run into an actual gentleman rogue”.
Which is why Han Solo is the swoon-worthy charming rogue while Hand Solo is the creeper that no one romanticizes.
Real life Han Solo sends dick pics.
This is one of the best sentences I’ve ever seen on Ethics Alarms. Hell, the Internet.
Really?? Are you being intentionally dense? You surely realise that (many ) men still like the female form, in spite of increasing pressure to guilt trip them for it? Whether you play it or not, you also know the wonderful courtship game of seeking to attract male attention without ever acknowledging that to be your intention? Watch some ballet or opera : they are full of it. Is it so surprising that some men, maybe just desparate and confused ones, might think male display might work for them?
“maybe just desparate and confused ones, might think male display might work for them”
I might suggest, then, that it is they who are being dense. Of course I get that many men like the female form. And no, I don’t guilt trip them for it.
True story: my middle son, at about the age of 8, came out of his bedroom one evening shirtless. When asked why he wasn’t wearing a shirt, he said “because I want the babysitter to see my six-pack”. Now, at 8, he hardly had a six-pack but he was well aware that a 16 year old girl was coming over to babysit. He’s no fool, my boy. I assure you, however, that a conversation ensued – on an 8 year old’s level – of what is, and is not, appropriate behavior. And that conversation did not contain an ounce of guilt-tripping.
God luck with all of that, but I am stil intrigued as to what is ‘appropriate behaviour’, on an 8 year old boy’s’ or any other level! I wonder what you will tell him when he is mid teens, about for instance looking at women? “What is the difference Mum between ‘admiring’ and ‘perving’? Do you have a daughter and can you tell her what ‘appropriate’ behaviour’ is too? “Mum, how do I stop the boys I don’t want, but encourage the ones I do?” It is perhaps convenient for most of us fathers that we don’t have such discussions with our teenagers. The emergency default response for my generation (old) and culture (Anglo) was ‘Talk to your mother’. I suppose that might now be updated to ‘And ask Google’. I have resolved to be a better grandfather but as yet have little clue as to how. I’m consulting Freud.
The only one I ever sent was a Polaroid, inside an envelope, given to my gal-pal-at-the-time, transported to FL, opened when she, et al, hit the beach in Ft. Lauderdale (Spring Break/April 1981), with a $20 bill, to defray their 1st drink.
I hope she/they didn’t feel…um…shorted…
Joe Barton: I never knew ye.
Now I am SURE I am a liberal. Not a leftist. A liberal.
A liberal who is NOT the same kind of conservative as Joe Barton.
Definitely neither a Republican nor a Democrat.
That’s enough. I can’t comment any more. I’m taking a week off.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Joe Baron in my opinion is a real weiner! I’m assuming that the cyber pal he sexted is about the age of consent. Even still with that belly and the male bosoms, the pic is an offense to my eyes. He should resign immediately even though he has nothing to hide. 😉
Can we just send all these guys to a penal colony?
With a stiff sentence?
Stay classy, Ethics Alarms.
You might need to erect a barrier.
How about a different angle?
Congresspeople and any one else ought to be able to behave like any other decent human. They may take nude photos of themselves and share them with any other consenting adult that wants to.
The problem is you people who violate their privacy. It is not your business what pictures they take. It should be illegal for you to view private photos. Stop spreading them around. Stop talking about them. Grow up and mind your own business.
How about reading the post? Or studying your Constitution? The post explains that they may take nude photos of themselves and share them with any other consenting adult that wants to, but that since doing so places them at an unreasonable risk of looking like a cretinous, ugly, frat boy when the photos come out on the web, they are irresponsible morons to take the chance. Which they are.
And speaking of morons:
It should be illegal for you to view private photos.
Photos on the web aren’t private any more.
Stop spreading them around.
A public figure is a public figure, and a public figure who takes a photo like that and alows it to become public has no basis on which to pretend to be someone he’s not.
Stop talking about them.
Bite me. People can and should talk about whatever they want, and the conduct of a Congressman is a valid topic of discussion.
Grow up and mind your own business.
The judgement and respect for the dignity of an elected high office by a member of Congress is my business. Literally.
Wow, you really want to fight for your “right” to look at pictures which weren’t intended for you or your business. Truly, a person who takes a picture must have ownership of it. You aren’t allowed to have it just because you think you should be. I’m sorry it upsets you so much about what these people do in their private lives. I guess just keeping pretending it is your business and try to police it. Maybe your big governments can help you.
I didn’t say it upset me, you utter dolt. Have someone explain the post to you. I said that risking such a photo’s exposure is the unethical part, because it is incompetent, as in stupid as hell. Nor did I suggest that such a matter should policed—you did.
One more comment this dumb, and you trigger the rarely used “too dumb to comment” rule. I’m betting you can do it.
You are a rude fuck. Just because you can see a photo doesn’t mean it is okay to do so. Just because a photo is “on the web” doesn’t mean they aren’t private and you have some right to look at it.
Also, I’m certainly not as dumb as you, fuckface.
Mercy me, someone whiz on yer Wheaties this morning?
ALERT! This idiot is BANNED, but I LOVE this response! If you hadn’t followed the exchange, I warned “American” that his first two comments were idiotic, and a third of equal or lesser intellectual quality would trigger the rarely used stupidity ban, for those who show that they are too IQ deficient to comment here. So he responds with the immortal “Just because a photo is “on the web” doesn’t mean they aren’t private and you have some right to look at it.
This is the last time you will see American here, sadly, or I will have to stop spamming those comments I get from padded cells, Homes for the Puzzled and dog pounds.
Politicians who take nude photos of themselves do not deserve to have them shared against their will, any more than anyone else does, and the jealous lover who leaked them should be held legally responsible if what she did is illegal in her state (and it should be).. That said, once they are out there it is not off limits for citizens to criticize them for being foolish. I’d say that citizens who access leaked photos of nude politicians and celebrities are behaving unethically, since they were not given consent; however, making such conduct illegal would raise first amendment questions and would certainly be impossible to enforce.
I agree across the board, Chris. Sharing the photo is horrible conduct, a vicious betrayal, and in Texas, a crime. Handing someone a loaded gun isn’t leave for them to shoot you, but it’s really, really stupid.
Oh wow, you’re definition of the “principle” didn’t go where I thought it would. The interesting “principle” to me isn’t you did wrong so you’re fired – of course that needs to happen to people in positions of influence over others. Rather, I think the most interesting “principle” happening around the country is when an ultra-conservative person or in this case, lawmaker creates, votes and champions ultra-harsh, ultra-ludicrous laws condemning things like sex offenses or gays, etc., but who then is the very person privately engaging, on a very extreme level, in those behaviors himself. THAT’s what is so hilariously mind boggling! We gotta come up with a term for that…..