Dealing him further embarrassment, it has been suggested that Weiner might have forced himself on women he met online.Dealing a blow to the English language, it has been suggested that a swinish use of the passive voice can force a writer to employ iffy grammar.
In an earlier comment, I reacted in a skeptical fashion to the idea that someone can be "forced" into phonesex or sexualized online chat. To put the matter to the test, I (with the permission of my ladyfriend) did something I haven't done for a long, long, long time.
I hopped into an internet chat room.
Being rusty at this sort of thing, I didn't expect much to happen. But within a very short time, I encountered a married woman from Tennessee who expressed some dissatisfaction with her husband. To use phrasing that a writer for the International Business Times might understand, it has been suggested that affairs outside of matrimony had occurred in her past and might occur in her future.
Already, I was starting to feel victimized.
And then she sent me a photo of herself in a bikini. Oh god. Oh god. There it was, happening on screen right in front of my eyes. SHE VICTIMIZED ME!
Understand: Throughout this session, she never received a single image from me. Worse, she never asked for proof of my claimed age. She had only my word that I was above the age of consent. In other words, she's a pedophile!
The agonizing ordeal of victimization continued. She forced me to accept a series of increasingly intimate photographs.
First the tight dress...
Then the lacy nightie...
Then the fetishy maid's uniform.
I was being cyber-raped. Over and over. Nothing could forestall this onslaught. What could I do during this ordeal, except repeat the Ave Maria while praying for a quick demise?
When she sent the face-down-in-bed image (it has been suggested that the underwear was skimpy), I knew precisely what those poor people in the Warsaw Ghetto must have experienced.
For long, unbearable minutes, she offered a gruesome description of how she planned to victimize me with her mouth. Then came the ultimate act of victimization. She sent me a frontal shot of herself with her 38D breasts fully exposed!
Humiliated and horrified, I could feel tears of shame burning my cheeks. Even after the ordeal was over, I remained curled up in a fetal position for an hour, screaming in psychic agony.
Yes, such cruelty does exist in this world. I know. I know all too well. For I, too, am a victim.
It has been suggested that I now have no choice but to reveal this woman's identity to the world -- to her employer, to her children and to her husband. That reaction would be justified, don't you think? Obviously, she had no reason to expect discretion.
Speaking as a victim, I feel entirely justified in revealing this woman's face. And real name. Perhaps a log of her chat. Phone number. Exact street address. A Google Street View image of the front door of her house.
What do you think? It has been suggested that there is no other way to stop the victimization.
23 comments:
That was way too funny. A LOL funny. I even had to read it out loud to my partner. Great read!!!!! Loved it. Thank you.
Perhaps you should contact the proper authorities where she lives, to alert them to the fact that a possible pedophile is living in their midst. Who knows how many underage boys (or girls!) may have innocently posed as adults online, only to be raped just like you. Truly, your silence will only allow her to go on and victimize others.
Police in Delaware investigating Weiner contact with 17 yr old
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/exclusive-weiners-messages-to-teenage-girl-in-delaware-draw-police-attention/
Sounds like the Betty and Veronica story, wind.
Gosh, didn't you have any sympathy for my own ordeal?
If you want to maintain your credibility as a victim, don't hire a private firm, go straight to the FBI. And get yourself a good lawyer.
Some people might suggest that we should shut down internet chat rooms altogether. They're not online chat-rooms, they're online rape-rooms. Think of the children!
Um...can you send me the image of her in the Maids uniform :)
What Steve said & ROFLMAO.
Joseph,
No this is the "Ethel" story. She was the 17 year old that would not talk to Tony Christopher so he just dropped any further digging.
There were at least 3 underage girls indentified, since they are underage, the Names: Betty, Veronica and Ethel were used in various reporting.
Joe
You asked, so I answer. Yes, you can be "assaulted" with visual smut, easily. Hell, even on craigslist, in the *housing* section, you can be "victimized" by unwanted and unexpected naked male genitalia. And despite your belittlement, bemusement, and attempt at jovial hilarity, the revolting sight of an engorged male penis along with the lopsided distended egg-sack can trigger more than nausea given the history of male sexual violence. Not the same thing as a bikini in a chat room, not even close. This is why "flashing" is illegal. Joe-anonymous apparently knew your buttons enough to push them, but the correct response would be to scoff at his faux-concern for women, not to pile on. We have no idea whether Weiner engaged in dubious behavior while seeking his online partners, but is there any evidence he frequented online chat rooms? I thought the issue was women following a politician they admired... not women encountering Weiner in a chat room. Ask your lady friend if I'm saying anything outlandish. I've had men follow me into the lady's room and drop their drawers. We were young, so I just laughed and walked away...women are not so visually oriented as men, and it amazed me that a guy could think this comical and repulsive stunt was a come-on, but apparently even older guys, even respected representatives, use this tactic and think it's their appendage rather than other factors at work here.
prowlerzee, what you say here is insane. Literally INSANE.
Leaving the May 27 event (which I question) out of the discussion for the moment, and concentrating on the previous interactions with women (which, incidentally, was the purport of the article): You honestly see no distinction between women who consensually engage in cybersex -- of ANY form -- and some perv who follows you into the bathroom?
My point is simple. Women or men who engage in consensual online erotic banter are equally responsible for their actions. Neither the man nor the woman can ever claim to be forced.
Furthermore, if one of those parties were to then tattle in public about a private matter, identifying their partner -- well, that is simply wrong.
The women who kept silent about a private matter have my admiration. The women who came forward and said "I was sexting with the congressman!" were not victims. They were victimizers. Yes, Weiner was THEIR victim.
And you bet your ass I would say the exact same thing even if we were talking about a Republican congressman who espoused policies I can't stand.
(By the way, I never was all that crazy about Weiner. A lot of people have so assumed, but it's not the case. His single-payer advocacy was remarkable, but his inflexible stance on Israel pisses me off. The Republican angling for Weiner's job -- Ulrich, I think his name is -- shows signs of being a little more even-handed on that score.)
Back to my post: I hyperbolized the situation greatly for humorous effect, but there is a reality behind it. For example, the bit about the fetishy uniform was real.
(And my ladyfriend was fine with this experiment. She read my post aloud to her mother, and they both had a huge laugh.)
No, I did not actually get the Tennessee woman's real name. But hypothetically, let's say I did.
Let's say I were to divulge the name of the woman in my story. Y'know what? I would be victimizing HER.
That is the case even though she is married and was hoping to cyber-cheat -- and maybe physically cheat -- on her husband. In fact...that is the case precisely BECAUSE she is married and was cyber-cheating on her husband.
Even though the lady never said "be discreet," that request was an implied part of our dialogue. And if I breached that implied contract, I would be a despicable bastard.
"But that's different!" No it isn't.
"Yes it is! People with vaginas are ALWAYS the victims, and people with penises are ALWAYS victimizers!"
Fuck THAT.
Consent is consent is consent. That lady in Vegas who did phonesex with Weiner could have simply said "Sorry, I just don't like where this is going" and then hung up the phone. Nobody held a gun to her head. In fact, SHE was the one who suggested moving to voice contact. She made that fact clear in her interviews.
For her to speak in public of private matters was vile and inexcusable.
"But in our society the power relationships..."
All such "gonzo feminist" arguments are BULLSHIT, and you know it.
It's simple: No woman ever has or ever will engage in sexualized online chat against her will. It is NOT POSSIBLE.
Maybe that's why this story matters to me. Longtime readers know that I am, by nature, a private person -- and not just about sexual matters. For example, no-one has taken my photograph in many years. Relatives don't know my address. I never socialize. When I open up about personal details -- again: NOT just sexual details -- I expect the other person to divulge those details to no-one else. Hell, even if I were to confide to you where I bought my goddamned SHOES, I would expect you not to go blabbing about that matter to just anyone.
These women who break discretion simply to grab their Warholian 15 minutes disgust me. If I gave my honest opinion about what they deserve...
...well, you'd probably call me a victimizer.
Hey Joe
A Lady might just happen upon Chat roulette. This said genteel lady might not have heard the sibilant calling from said den of sin-- and even though her purity is white as snow, she will be forced, yes FORCED to see revolting engorged male peepees and those lopsided distended egg-sacks (asking Andrea Dwarkin there to describe a dick is kinda like asking Liberace to describe a lady`s parts). She might have to be a victim of say, twenty engorged and distended cocks before she can come-to and turn off the monitor. HAVE YOU NO SYMPATHY FOR THIS VICTIM?? Engorged and Distended, Joe!!
I'm sorry that anyone was followed to a changing room by a perv. that does suck. I was once manhandled by an elderly man whom I thought I was helping out. He was not invited to touch my revolting non-engorged genetilia (somehow old men don't give me engorged wood). It sucked too. BUT do i turn that into a war against men? against elderly men? Turn it into a campaign where I should hate myself? Hate genitalia???
Really! Dworkin did more damage to sexuality in the 80s and 90s than all the creepy guys rolled into one (Larry Flynt, Al Goldstein and The Mitchell Brothers, Hef...) [and no, that wasn't a reference to Ms Dworkin's corpulence, though when she sang, it was over...]
I have a friend who plays online poker and complains to me constantly that men try to sexually engage her in chat during the poker game. I've given her some advice.
A. Don't indicate your gender in your game room moniker, if you're only there to play cards your gender is irrelevant.
B. Turn OFF chat in game rooms.
It's easy to avoid online sexual chat, texting chat or twitter chat. Don't engage with people who take the conversation in that direction and use the tools available to end any dialogue that gets uncomfortable.
Great post, Joseph. It is clear that the women were not forced to participate in Rep. Weiner's chats. I don't know about the age of consent in Delaware -- most states 17 is considered adult. It would be creepy if the congressman sent porn to a 17 year old, but it might not be illegal.
That said, I think he indicated he accidentally sent out the underwear picture to more people than intended. So some people were not willing recipients of that picture. (A simple but sincere apology should suffice.)
I believe there is an expectation of privacy in such communications and that the willing recipients should have not made them public. But for a politician to rely on that expectation is foolish, so very foolish.
I am just sad that yet another liberal voice may be silenced through an exercise of extremely poor judgment. And of course, it is terrible for his loved ones.
djmm
I don't know if you're a "victim" of anything, but that sure is one creepy woman you've been chatting with. And if she expects pictures and comments she sends to an internet chatroom to be kept private, she's as stupid as she is creepy.
Especially if she's a publicity-hungry public figure.
" the revolting sight of an engorged male penis along with the lopsided distended egg-sack can trigger more than nausea given the history of male sexual violence." - prowlerzee.
Time to get yourself a better therapist, 'zee.
...time to also get yourself a better anatomy book--
the ovum (or ova) are produced in a sack named an "ovary." That's the sack where the eggs are kept, ProwlerZ. You see, Spermatozoön, or "jizz," is what they keep in the male's sack (lopsided or perfectly symmetrical ..and many are well groomed now, too)
One last thing-- when it comes to a man's junk-- it's not the balls that distend (i.e. swell up), really-- even if you think guys are both gross and icky, you still oughta know which part is the part that gets swollen.
OK I GOTTA ASK.....
Nudie pics in the caigslist housing section????
and they say no one smokes crack anymore!
Good post, Joe. I pretty much agree with you. Now I'm going to go back to fantasizing about Hillary and Huma because I kind of don't want to think about egg sacs anymore. I mean, I'm a lesbian and a feminist and I can only take so much. Geez.
Weiner is a victim!!!!???? You've gone far beyond losing your credibility at this point. You are one sick puppy.
I truly don't know what everybody is bitching about here. Why don't you shit-stirrers and busy-bodies get a life and maybe a job. My only comment would be to echo an old Gertrude Stein homely ... namely "there is no there there" ... and that the Congressman's name is really pronounced WY-NUR and not WE-NUR. Get a life and STFU already.
The guy that shot the hostage (penis photo) is concerned about blackmail! CNN is busy protecting Clarence Thomas and his failure to report his wife's income while sitting on cases that involved the people connected to the money.
Look over there... as more Weiner photos are released.
Andrew Breitbart: Rep. Weiner's behavior opened himself up to compromise or blackmail
http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/08/andrew-breitbart-rep-weiners-behavior-opened-himself-up-to-compromise-or-blackmail/
Sorry Joe, but being on the internet is not a request for homemade porn to be sent. The issue isn't consenting adults -- the question is was any of this sent without such consent? I've been in a chatroom with friends... a room designed to discuss pet care... and creeps will wander in and start spewing obscenities and try to send files unsolicited to people in the room. It happens daily in chatrooms all over -- including chatrooms flagged as "child friendly".. which "pet chat" should be. Heck I know a few women who got friendly enough (not in the sexual inference in any manner) that they ended up emailing with each other and others in the group.... and ended up with one of the guys getting drunk and emailing a group of them a picture of .... you guessed it. Needless to say the core group in that room disappeared because no one wanted anything to do with him, nor to risk running into him again after that.... oh, and the guy claims to be a minister... go figure. Yes, they WERE victimized when they opened their email to find it contained that photo from someone they thought was an internet friend.
As with most things, reality is in the details, not an assumptive overview.
I don't know if Mr. Weiner ever sent such when unsolicited... I do know sending such at all when he was married and knew damn well he was being followed that closely was both an insult to his wife, and just plain damned stupid.
Post a Comment