So, is this a commercial for Men's Health magazine? I ask because the couple times I picked it up, gay men didn't seem to be included. Am I wrong?

Um, the last time I checked, all the commotion wasn't about Weiner's shirt. It was about his wiener.

Too bad he's so ugly on the inside.

I'd still hatefuck it, of course.

I'd happily join in a gang bang grudge fuck of that twerp.

They didn't airbrush out his treasure trail.

I wouldn't mind seeing Schock's schlong.

Comment system seems to have cut the link to Weigel (and I misspelled his name earlier. Here's a shorter URL: http://tinyurl.com/3d7kuqr

Schock also never denied sending that photo.

I've been wondering why the media seems much more obsessed with David Vitter who committed actual crimes in his sex scandal when the worse Weiner can be accused of is the nebulous "conduct unbecoming to the House of Congress". Aaron Schock shirtless spread seems a much more apt comparison, sure, he has a totally hot body, he should be in a profession that requires not wearing any clothing, like gay porn, but he choose to be a congressman and I don't think it is appropriate for a congressman to be posing for beefcake photos in a magazine while in office. If we are going to let the David Vitter thing slide, and Aaron Schock's thing slide, we should let the Weiner thing slide as well.

Assuming they don't go after Vitter, which they should, as you know, he was committing crimes, we don't need more ethics investigations, what we need is Pelosi and Boehner to stand stand up together at the speakers podium, bang their gavels and say "Children, stop taking damn photos of yourselves without your clothes on, you are fucking members of congress for christ's sake."

@9 Yeah, he's got enough denial going on elsewhere...

"... let the Weiner thing slide as well." Tee hee ;)

I'm hoping for the day that someone catchs Schock on Grindr and copies his profile and the chat along with it AFTER fucking the shit out of him. Because, we all know that'd be one hot rough fuck. Ironically, I don't see him a bottom, but rather as a lousy top.

@13 - Schock? Total bottom. He might not think so at first, but... expect the zeal of a convert once he's tried it.

oh man, Schock is such a hottie. As long as he's not speaking, natch? (Gag?)

Wait, so this guy's hot and likes to show off his bod so that makes him gay??

I don't know, my gaydar is not that great, but I thought this was sorta gay.

He's not gay juuuust because he likes to show off his chest.

There's also this outfit: http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834…

Also, he's kinda got some gayface going on, IMO. And before you dismiss that, remember: scientific studies have confirmed the existence of gayface and its correlation with gaycock.

Also, who was holding the Bible for him when he was sworn in? Not his mom and dad. Nope, that man is not his brother.

People defending Weiner are sure not making their case easier by throwing up all these stupid false equivalences. Dan, you know this I'm sure, but there's a big fucking difference between 1) a magazine cover meant for mass consumption, and 2) a private pic-share online with a specific human being. And of course, as far as we know, there are no pics of Schock's dick out there, for magazine covers or fetching young Twitter followers.

Also, you keep fixating on the pic-share and the sexuality itself as the issue. Sure, there are some idiot talking heads and opportunistic politicians trying to make it about that, but as your own poll results show, those arguments don't have much traction with most folks.

No, the issue is, and continues to be, the grotesque idiocy and insanely bad judgment Weiner showed in sending out digital pictures of his dick. It's just so fucking stupid! Time and time and time again, powerful men have been brought low by the internet and its share-and-share-alike nature. Over and over has the evidence been produced that nothing you say, do, or share online is private. If you are ANYBODY, but ESPECIALLY a person like Weiner with enemies and visibility and fame, you simply have to be more careful, more savvy. Everybody...EVERYBODY knows this now.

So why did he do it? Your theory seems to be that horniness turns men's minds to mush, and that a guy in the throes of a hard-on is capable of the most extreme stupidity. I actually find that argument vaguely offensive. It's a gender caricature, akin to saying all women become raving bitches when they're on the rag. Your opinion of men's sexuality in this matter is beyond condescending.

@25: Please cite your source that 20% of sexually active homosexuals give themselves AIDS. If you cite a source that doesn't actually back up your assertion, I will fly into your kitchen tonight and make a mess of your pots and pans.

@ 16,

Type "Aaron Schock gay" into the Googles and watch your browser es-plode. He's apparently been on the circuit in both Illinois and DC, and he's also got all the requisite gay-hating political positions, non-existent dating history and mysterious personal life that every closet-case RepubliKKKan sports.

#1: I've been reading Men's Health on and off for years, and for a magazine that claims to be about "men's" health, and given all the "guy" issues they always cover, it's very strange that to my knowledge they've never even mentioned the word "gay." At the very least I'd have expected them to run one of those schlocky "how I dealt with the fact that my older brother is gay" type articles.

Hey! that's MY district representative! And I know him, and I know whereof I speak. He's handsome, he is intelligent and well-spoken, he is an achiever, and while I vigorously oppose his GOP alignment politics and have never voted for him in any election, he has been responsive to my contacts as his constituent, knowing I do not concur with his politics. That he is on the cover of Men's Health is fine with me. Lord knows most USA males, gay or str8 or whatever, need encouragement to improve health and fitness. To compare Aaron Schock with Vitter or Weiner is idiotic, non-sequitur. Sadly, Aaron's self-serving ambition has led to his being protege of the likes of Eric Cantor. As for the allegations of him being 'on the circuit in both Illinois and DC" : Put up or shut up; if those who allege this wouldn't swear to it in a court of law, or themselves choose a cloak of anonymity, it's just queeny gossip. And it is Aaron himself, and voters, not gossipy queens, who will determine Aaron's future.

I'm not questioning that he's ripped, but does that photo look airbrushed/digitally touched-up into uncanny valley territory to anyone else? Plastic-looking skin as a beauty ideal creeps the hell out of me (but power to all of you who think it's hot).

@ 30,

Why is he a right-wing, neo-fascist asshole?

I don't care what the body looks like, and I don't care what the face looks like. If someone opens his mouth and says things that are in favor of the super-rich getting richer at the expense of poor and middle-class people, then I ain't tappin' that with a ten-foot pole.

Greedy, self-serving pig is all I can say.

@35: Dan's not the writer who talks about musicals much; he tends to avoid LineOut like the plague, as does FUCKING EVERYONE. He doesn't strike me as particularly swishy (or otherwise stereotypical) either: more of a toned-down Jody Dallas sort of gay.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.

@34 This is rich when we're talking about the fall-out of a scandal made by some guy's boner pics that he didn't want to own up to for a week. Yeah, really antiquated and regressive in this culture.

@38 I guess my point is that you're complaining that our sensibilities are so past that. No they're not. First, I can see where it's a matter of interest to gays because Schock is a person who's come out against gay rights. I can also see that it could be projected attraction, even on my part. He's an attractive man. You're right, it's silly to point out his Miami Vice duds or whatever but Weiner never came out against boner pics to women or coming on to women although he later admitted it's stupid. And I have no love for Democrats or AIPAC hack Weiner but I think the closeted Republican thing has had so many "hits," it's become an expectation now.

@ blip,

Please type "Aaron Schock gay" into the Googles. We're not speculating that he's gay based on a photospread, as the countless results will inform you.

But this is totally different, you idiot!

No nipples!! See?!

@42 Would those same people look past a [humor me, hypothetically] gay Aaron Schock's regressive anti-gay positions?

As a futurist focussed on the USA, I predict that the day will come when all men who run for Congress will be required to show schlong whenever asked to even be considered fit to run for Congress.

(Not just at Bohemian Grove; EVERYwhere.)

When that not-so-far-off day comes, The Weiner will be recognized as a trailblazer. His photos will be "Featured Picture of the Day" at least once a month on Schlongopedia.

@45: Not to be confused with http://www.dickipedia.org/

Just reminds me of this picture - http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun… - she went on to become the Prime Minister of Canada (however briefly) It doesn't really count as exhibitionist, but it's certainly suggestive.....

The Weiner scandal highlights the need for politicians to maintain puritanical sexual standards. The scandal is proof that thousands of clean words can be forgotten because of a few dirty ones. After his resignation Weiner no longer will have to maintain puritanical sexual standards. He can be as freaky as the law allows and be a happier man.