weinerlicious

Music: Hope Sandoval & the Warm Inventions: Through the Devil Softly (2009)

Tuesday morning Pelosi formally requested a Weiner (ethics) probe [snicker] to determine if the democratic representative from New York had violated any rules or regulations by sending lewd images of himself over the past three years to an ever-increasing parade of young women. Republicans are especially rabid, since Weiner is a fierce (and smart) political attack dog for the Democrats. Insofar as Reid has disavowed Weiner and few on the "left" are standing up to support him, this doesn't look very good. I predict Weiner shall be a boner goner.

What fascinates me, of course, is the sexual character of the controversy and how that character is discussed. This morning, a commentator on CNN cited narciscissm and an overabundance of testosterone. Clearly he has a very high sex drive because of his receding hairline and political tenacity, she argued, both signs of gonadal gravitas. I laughed aloud at this "analysis." What public figure isn't at some level a narcicist? It takes a little self-love to believe you can serve publically. Self-loathers are often bad politicians (e.g., Nixon).

The real issue, seems to me, is the way in which our contemporary media environments have collapsed intimacy and publicity. John Sloop and I recently published an essay that spells this all out, but briefly, part of our argument is that social and network media encourage an almost compulsory intimacy. Social media like Facebook work by surveillance, which cannot be achieved if you are "private"; there can be no consumer data to mine unless there is data to begin with. So, the interface creates an environment that is intimate and private, and that intimacy is paradoxically cultivated through the thrills of publicity (collecting friends, having people follow you on Twitter, and so on). We call it "newdity," the advent of a new form of sort-of coming out that subjects one to discipline. New social media confuse the boundary of public/private, such that the only true doors we have left are, quite literally, our orifices.

There are all sorts of reasons why Weiner shared his weiner; the more important question to ask is not whether he has too much testosterone, but rather, what are the conditions that make anyone feel comfortable sharing their privates in public? One answer is that the public masquarades as a private, intimate space. Sexting among teens seems like harmless fun among friends, but the fact is that the only way to keep a secret is mouth to ear. One you send an image of your junk into the cellular ether: it goes.

I was talking to a friend last night about this, who reminded me I jokingly asked her for an intimate photo while texting. I stressed to her again that it was a joke, that I didn't really request such a thing and would never really put someone in that position. We then had an interesting conversation in which we both recalled being asked by someone during "chat" or while "texting." (I didn't comply then, nor will I ever.)

Regardless, I think one thing is certain: Weiner is no different than many folks in his, my, or younger generations. Social media technologies are fundamentally libidinal because they are, well, because they are social (best line of the film The Social Network is when the protagonist observes the first thing someone wants to know about someone on "The Facebook" is if she is "single" or not). Trading naughty photos on the Internet or on phones is probably way more common that many older generations think. That's why, to me, the news reporting is not simply comical (too much testosterone, really?) but somewhat hypocritical. Doesn't this or that athlete or politician get punished sharing or texting images of their junk at least twice a year?

I think if folks want to trade images of their bidness, that is, well, their bidness and there is nothing, prima facie, immoral about enjoying one's sexuality in that way. I'm not, of course, justifying Weiner's weiner sharing. Where Weiner crosses the line morally, to me, is by cheating on his wife.

Clinton was impeached but still kept his job for getting a job from an intern in the Oval Office. I see no reason why Weiner should lose his. If the voters don’t wanna elect this guy again that's one thing, but forcing him out of office early because he cheated on his wife or sent naughty pics of himself is quite another, especially when you consider the likely fact that (almost) "everyone's doing it." Well, I exaggerate, of course, but given the parade of sex-and-technology scandals these days, one wonders if sexting and such will be as ubiquitous as Coca-Cola in five years?