What is it about wealthy and powerful men who they think they can send pics of their junk to their mistresses? And then are convinced that no one will ever find out about their sexting habits?
Perhaps they never saw the 1980 raunch comedy Used Cars, when one car salesman said to another:
“Don’t let the little head do the thinking for the big head.”
The latest smart man to go full stupid, of course, is Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, who’s now embroiled in a feud with the aptly named David Pecker, CEO of National Enquirer. American Media Inc., which owns the Enquirer, said they would publicize some “intimate” (which is charitable) photos of Bezos with his girlfriend, Lauren Sanchez. AMI may have bitten off more than they could chew here: Bezos is the wealthiest man in America, and when he accuses AMI of blackmailing him, hungry lawyers are going to take notice.
Well, Bezos may eventually prevail in a court of law, but he’s become yet another laughingstock among us plebes.
As Philadelphia talk show host Chris Stigall posted at Facebook:
“If you’re going to take pictures of your pecker for your paramour, better pray Pecker doesn’t print your pecker pictures.”
Try saying that 10 times fast.
Bezos’ dilemma brings up another the story of another powerful man in a similar peccadillo (or is it peckerdillo?)
Remember Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner, who practiced unsafe sexting with a series of women? There was the 40-something divorcee to whom he sent dick pix while laying in bed with his infant son. Then there was the 15-year-old girl who also received pix of his junk. A court sentenced Weiner to 21 months in prison for that little adventure in sexting.
An indie movie even documented how Weiner’s political fortunes went limp (yes, I said that) after the scandal broke:
Folks in Texas might laugh at Seattle resident Bezos and New Yorker Weiner, but they had their own congressman who went full stupid by sexting.
Last year, Rep. Joe Barton left Congress after serving over 30 years because of his own raunchy pics. In 2017, Barton — then separated from his wife — sent a nude picture of himself to a girlfriend. He also texted these romantic sweet nothings:
“I want u soo bad. Right now.”
In case you forgot what Barton looks like, here’s a picture. No, it’s of him at a speaking event, so don’t worry:
Credit: Gage Skidmore @ flickr. Attribution CC BY-SA 2.0
Barton may be a Texan, but Matthew McConaughey he ain’t.
Credit: giphy.com.
And neither is Bezos or Weiner. So what is it about these men and their sexting? Are they compensating for lack of attractiveness above the waist by sending pictures of what’s below? Or maybe they’re afraid that even with fame and fortune they have (ahem) shortcomings they need to make up for? And then they foolishly think they’re bulletproof.
I don’t care what happens to Jeff Bezos, as long as Amazon sends my orders on time. But like Weiner and Barton, Bezos got caught with his pants down — literally. This ‘peckerdillo’ he’s in right now is the result of letting the little head do the thinking for the big head. Meanwhile, we plebes are having fun snickering and making bad jokes.
Featured image: cropped from pixabay. Free for use.
Hate_me says: I don’t really see what’s wrong with sexting between consenting adults (I definitely have an issue with Weiner sexting a 15 year-old, but that’s a different matter).
I’m reminded of the marines united scandal and how some (nowhere near all) of those pictures were willingly taken by those women and sent to their own significant (or not-so-significant) others… what those others did with those pictures, to hurt and shame those girls, was wrong on many levels – but we don’t blame the girls for taking the pics, at least, not for anything more than poor judgment.
I’m still on the fence on the whole dick-pic thing… it’s a monumentally stupid thing to do, but (again, with the exception of the pedophilia) it seems like those men are as much victim as some of the marines united women.
Stupidity, and putting your trust in the wrong person (who isn’t guilty of those two things, to some degree) should not be a damning offense… it’s entertaining, and a good sign that the hubris of some politicians has reached a ridiculous level, but the public fascination with it is… sad commentary on the American people.
Scott says: As much as the left says they want equality for women, shit like you pointed ut is just one more example of the double standard they perpetuate, “women should be equal, until they shouldn’t:.. like most things that come out of the left its pure bullshit…
Robin H says: I don’t know why men keep doing that. Not one woman I know would be happy getting one of those pictures. Send flowers instead, guys!
GWB says: Are they compensating for lack of attractiveness above the waist by sending pictures of what’s below?
So, you’re saying it would be OK if McConaughey sent you pics of his naked self? But not people you find unattractive?
“I want u soo bad. Right now.”
What’s wrong with that? You expect every word out of your husband’s mouth (or McConaughey’s?) to be poetry? It’s one text out of … how many?
Those items marred an otherwise excellent post, imo.
Kim Hirsch says: So, you’re saying it would be OK if McConaughey sent you pics of his naked self? But not people you find unattractive?
Um, that’s a pretty big stretch there, GWB. Apples, oranges. . .
What’s wrong with that? You expect every word out of your husband’s mouth (or McConaughey’s?) to be poetry?
What’s wrong with that is that it came from a man who was still legally married to his wife.
GWB says: a man who was still legally married to his wife
But that’s not how you presented it. You presented it as unromantic.
And I really don’t see how it’s apples and oranges on the looks of those involved.
but Matthew McConaughey he ain’t.
All that might have been snark. But it implied that your first consideration for the appropriateness of sexting might be whether *you* desired it or not. IMO.
And that hurt your point. IMO.
I am of two minds about this issue. On the one hand, I think it is perfectly reasonable for consenting adults to engage in erotic play using whatever communications they choose. (The issue of consenting adults engaging in erotic play with people not their spouses is another issue, but that’s between them, their lovers, their spouses, and God.)
However, it behooves those in the public eye to realize that they are going to be targets for invasion of privacy. Joe Bloggs and Sissy Sweetcheeks can simply slip away to the NoTell Motel for a romp, but celebrities should be aware that paparazzi may be lurking in the bushes with a telephoto lens.
In the same way cellular communication is only somewhat private. I don’t know how the picture in question got from its intended target to the National Enquirer, and I wouldn’t be qualified to comment on the legality of it even if I did know. The point is that, fair means or foul, the picture was intercepted and redirected, and a man as tech savvy as Jeff Bezos should have realized that it was a possibility.
Is it fair that famous people should have to take extraordinary care to keep their private business private because there are lowlifes who will exploit security breaches for profit–not to mention media consumers who (I presume) create a market for such things? No, it isn’t. But it’s the price of fame.
GWB says: Concur.
Scott says: “I don’t know how the picture in question got from its intended target to the National Enquirer” The latest I heard, from Fox News, was that it was sent by the brother of Bezos’ mistress..
9 Comments