Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Friday, June 10, 2011

Anthony Weiner Isn't the Only Exhibitionist* In Congress

Posted by on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:39 AM

aaron-schock-shirtless-mens-health-02-610x712.jpeg

Send a shirtless pic to one person and you're unfit to sit in Congress. Get your shirtless pic on the cover of a magazine and you're America's fittest Congressman.

* And I'm thinking there's probably more than one closet case in Congress too.

 

Comments (48) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Vince 1
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?
Posted by Vince on June 10, 2011 at 7:46 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 2
Um, the last time I checked, all the commotion wasn't about Weiner's shirt. It was about his wiener.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on June 10, 2011 at 7:58 AM · Report this
Original Andrew 3
Too bad he's so ugly on the inside.

I'd still hatefuck it, of course.
Posted by Original Andrew on June 10, 2011 at 7:59 AM · Report this
Last of the Time Lords 4
I'd happily join in a gang bang grudge fuck of that twerp.
Posted by Last of the Time Lords on June 10, 2011 at 8:03 AM · Report this
Banna 5
They didn't airbrush out his treasure trail.
Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on June 10, 2011 at 8:03 AM · Report this
6
Dan, the two cases are not exactly comparable: Lee resigned for sending shirtless pictures in order to meet people for extramarital affairs, and the most explosive one was that he wanted to meet with a "passable TS/CD." I'm not sure if you'll find this better or worse, but it's different from Schock's photos in MH.

Weigle has the details on Chris Lee and links to relevant Gawker articles:

http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/weigel/…
Posted by interfrastic on June 10, 2011 at 8:13 AM · Report this
7
I wouldn't mind seeing Schock's schlong.
Posted by jessalou on June 10, 2011 at 8:13 AM · Report this
8
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
Posted by interfrastic on June 10, 2011 at 8:16 AM · Report this
9
Schock also never denied sending that photo.
Posted by madcap on June 10, 2011 at 8:17 AM · Report this
John M 10
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."
Posted by John M on June 10, 2011 at 8:23 AM · Report this
dirac 11
@9 Yeah, he's got enough denial going on elsewhere...
Posted by dirac on June 10, 2011 at 8:44 AM · Report this
12
"... let the Weiner thing slide as well." Tee hee ;)
Posted by Squidia on June 10, 2011 at 8:57 AM · Report this
13
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.
Posted by apres_moi on June 10, 2011 at 8:59 AM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 14
@13 - Schock? Total bottom. He might not think so at first, but... expect the zeal of a convert once he's tried it.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on June 10, 2011 at 9:29 AM · Report this
15
oh man, Schock is such a hottie. As long as he's not speaking, natch? (Gag?)
Posted by sylvia browning on June 10, 2011 at 10:05 AM · Report this
Confluence 16
Wait, so this guy's hot and likes to show off his bod so that makes him gay??
Posted by Confluence on June 10, 2011 at 10:07 AM · Report this
17
@16 according to gays, yes.
Posted by Not even gays really, just one on June 10, 2011 at 10:10 AM · Report this
dirac 18
I don't know, my gaydar is not that great, but I thought this was sorta gay.
Posted by dirac on June 10, 2011 at 10:13 AM · Report this
19
@16 No. This guy is hot, likes to show off his bod, and likes to yell about the evils of homosexuality in public. And that doesn't make him gay, but it gives me good reason to think he is a closet case.
Posted by Reginod on June 10, 2011 at 10:16 AM · Report this
20
It's as if, if someone wants something to be gay they just line up as many stereotypes as possible that affirm that want.
Posted by MikeTysonGayCauseLispsamirite on June 10, 2011 at 10:18 AM · Report this
ForkyMcSpoon 21
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.
Posted by ForkyMcSpoon on June 10, 2011 at 10:23 AM · Report this
22
You just want him to be gay because you fantasize about hatefucking him.
Posted by If he was ugly you'd be all "Hell naws" on June 10, 2011 at 10:25 AM · Report this
23
it is sooo delicious seeing the perverts
bawling their eyes out over every indiscretion
of the past decade
whining
Why Didn't THAT Guy Have To Resign?! WHAAAAAAAA
Posted by he did it too!..... on June 10, 2011 at 10:26 AM · Report this
dirac 24
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.
Posted by dirac on June 10, 2011 at 10:27 AM · Report this
25
@1

Let's walk you through it, sport....

20%$ of sexually active homosexuals give themselves AIDS.

Your magazine is called 'Men's HEALTH'.....

do you see where this is going?

Posted by Cover Boy on June 10, 2011 at 10:28 AM · Report this
schmacky 26
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.

Posted by schmacky on June 10, 2011 at 10:32 AM · Report this
venomlash 27
@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.
Posted by venomlash on June 10, 2011 at 10:34 AM · Report this
Original Andrew 28
@ 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.
Posted by Original Andrew on June 10, 2011 at 10:34 AM · Report this
Dingo 29
#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.
Posted by Dingo on June 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM · Report this
30
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.
Posted by Mickey McN on June 10, 2011 at 11:16 AM · Report this
John Horstman 31
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).
Posted by John Horstman on June 10, 2011 at 11:17 AM · Report this
Original Andrew 32
@ 30,

Why is he a right-wing, neo-fascist asshole?
Posted by Original Andrew on June 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM · Report this
Bauhaus I 33
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.
Posted by Bauhaus I on June 10, 2011 at 12:37 PM · Report this
blip 34
This comparison is weak, and speculating over this guy's sexuality because he has washboard abs and OMG he wore a turqoise belt! is equally weak, bordering on offensive. Policing gender/sexuality norms doesn't help anybody and is frankly rather antiquated and regressive in this day and age.
Posted by blip on June 10, 2011 at 1:38 PM · Report this
35
Slog and Savage are the world's worst for indulging tired homosexual stereotypes.

(when is someone going to break the news to Danny that just because he likes musicals it doesn't mean he is gay?.....)
Posted by Beam on June 10, 2011 at 1:58 PM · Report this
venomlash 36
@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.
Posted by venomlash on June 10, 2011 at 2:07 PM · Report this
dirac 37
@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.
Posted by dirac on June 10, 2011 at 2:23 PM · Report this
blip 38
@37 I'm speaking very specifically of the speculation about this guy's sexuality based on magazine cover and a tacky belt. I don't give a shit whether it's coming from the right or the left, gay or straight, it's the same retrograde bullshit where people are wedged into stereotypes and ridiculed for violating some arbitrary code of behavior. I agree that the initial offense of the Weiner scandal is silly and puritanical and shouldn't have gone as far as it did (the attempted cover-up is another matter altogether). Suggesting this guy is gay because of his sense of style and vanity is also silly and puritanical.
Posted by blip on June 10, 2011 at 2:51 PM · Report this
dirac 39
@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.
Posted by dirac on June 10, 2011 at 3:05 PM · Report this
Original Andrew 40
@ 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.
Posted by Original Andrew on June 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM · Report this
41
But this is totally different, you idiot!

No nipples!! See?!
Posted by Sili on June 10, 2011 at 3:08 PM · Report this
blip 42
PS: Would it help if I clarified that it's antiquated and regressive for people who consider themselves liberal / enlightened on social issues to enforce a socially conservative view of gender and sexuality norms? Because most of the people I know, gay/straight/whatevs, moved beyond this way of thinking back in the 90s.
Posted by blip on June 10, 2011 at 3:13 PM · Report this
dirac 43
@42 Would those same people look past a [humor me, hypothetically] gay Aaron Schock's regressive anti-gay positions?
Posted by dirac on June 10, 2011 at 3:17 PM · Report this
blip 44
@43 Of course not. If he is actually gay that's another matter altogether, but even if he's straight it doesn't excuse his terrible politics. I'm just uneasy with all the speculation about his sexuality because he is politically anti-gay while having a few gay-ish affectations. I realize it's convenient to make him out to be a Ted Haggard-style hypocritical closet case but I think it's counter-productive for that to be the first weapon out of the arsenal. Until he's arrested in an airport bathroom, it should be off the table altogether.
Posted by blip on June 10, 2011 at 3:38 PM · Report this
tunanator 45
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.
Posted by tunanator on June 10, 2011 at 3:45 PM · Report this
venomlash 46
@45: Not to be confused with http://www.dickipedia.org/
Posted by venomlash on June 10, 2011 at 4:16 PM · Report this
47
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.....
Posted by agony on June 10, 2011 at 8:26 PM · Report this
48
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.
Posted by morristhewise on June 11, 2011 at 12:34 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy