What if Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin are lying?

What if there is a much larger scandal lurking within their private lives? What if the “whole lot of therapy” was merely a ruse, a going through the motions. What if it was an act  necessitated by the need “to get to a place where [Abedin] could forgive Anthony?”  Not for engaging in a relationship with another person intimate enough for the exchange sexts, but rather forgive him for being so stupid as to get caught.

A greater scandal than infidelity would be an open marriage.

Let that sink in.

Because the authoritarians out there are fine with infidelity. They do it themselves. What they will neither abide nor tolerate though, is a challenge to their moral superiority. The challenge of the sexual revolution of the sixties for the moral fundamentalists was not free love.  It was guilt-free love.  It’s ok to have sex. It’s just that after almost every instance you are required to feel guilty.

The sixties freed us of  “premarital” sex guilt.  So much so that the very word “premarital” is falling out of common usage.

But “open marriage” guilt. Not by a long shot.

And it’s beyond ironic that one of the kind of people most in need of standards of conduct within an open marriage are politicians. The essence of politics is lots of interaction with lots of people. Both shallow and deep interactions and interfaces. It was a revelation to my daughter when I pointed out to her the high likelihood that the Clintons had between them broad understandings of what they would permit of each other. And a greater revelation that agreements of that sort would be more scandalous than the acts themselves.

It is a sense wrongness that can constrain progressive politicians from living our values. Best if felt by the politician but sufficient if merely felt by the voters. Even if Anthony Weiner feels that sexting is ok, he has to lie.

Eliot Spitzer, of course, has a similar problem. Even if engaging professional sex services is allowed within his relationship and his personal ethics, it is beyond efficacy to say so.

And this is what drives the moral superiority of the authoritarians. They can still safely feel at one with their beliefs. As long as we feel, and I mean feel, that we must deny our fundamental beliefs, we will be at a disadvantage in the political arena.

 

9 Replies to “What if Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin are lying?”

  1. I think your’re looking for depth in a shallow pool.
    Weiner is a psychopath, which suits him and qualifies him to join the political theater that
    is the U.S.s’ present political geography.
    His wife is a political animal who will, as demonstrated, do anything to further her husband’s political future; which is and should be zero.
    He’s a psychopath who cannot control his base instincts; a death knell for his psychopathy and thus, his future.
    Huma made a fatal choice, not for her if she bails, but it is what it is…

      1. You are mistaken! I know exactly what that word means!
        Definitions; this from Collins Dictionary;
        noun;
        a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts Also called: sociopath
        Would you prefer sociopath?
        I’m fine with that as well.

        1. Yes, as a matter of fact, sociopath is a more accurate description, and there are differences:
          the psychopath’s open disregard for public opinion (as long as they don’t get caught) versus the sociopath’s pretense of acceptability (even when they are caught);
          the psychopath’s predilection for overt violence vs the sociopath’s preference for behavior which is socially destructive;
          the psychopath’s tendency to focus on individuals or conceptual targets (the pesky neighbor, women, government) versus the sociopath’s focus on covert violence for personal gain (gut education to prevent effective opposition from arising, gut the social safety net to reduce taxes), etc.

          By most standards, a large percentage of the .1% (Koch et al) and their political mandarins (like Wiener) are sociopaths: i.e.; they pursue their goals of achieving and/or increasing wealth and power with a total disregard for the effects their actions have on Society, the ‘screw society’ attitude being the pragmatic hallmark of sociopaths.

          Psychopaths tend to hate their targets and want them to suffer/die and this hatred is strong and personal. They are specifically out to cause harm. They usually accept that society will condemn their actions.

          The harm sociopaths inflict is a by-product of their goals/methods – they don’t necessarily try to harm but they just don’t care if they do. And they are usually insulted/amazed/shocked at being criticized.

  2. Well, there were rumours that Abedin was really Hillary’s plaything, and that the marriage was a sham from the get-go. Those rumours existed even before the wedding, so this is an extension of that trope.

  3. Responding to both Celsius and actor.

    Ugly moralizing rumor mongering. This rather harmless role playing excursion is evidence of psychopathy?

    What business is this of ours.

    I have other reasons for not particularly liking Weiner. Same goes for Clinton. This stuff is simply distraction.

    1. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
      Harmless? Really? Role playing?
      Just what the hell do you think is going on in America?
      Do you honestly believe the political theater in America is harmless?
      Just when does it become serious? So, we should just chill and let the band play on?
      I could care less about rumors (actor212); my comments are based on what’s in our face! Out of their own mouths. Hello?????

  4. The role playing is in the texting not the campaign. The political theater comes from the press not Weiner. I would follow on Steeleweeds distinguishing sociopath from psychopath. It comes closer to describing Weiner, however, I don’t see any particular evidence that Weiner’s texting demonstrates the type of disregard for society that would be necessary for that diagnosis.

    Of course, Celsius, I thoroughly agree with you about American politics in general.

    1. I find it telling, that my riposte, in which I allowed that sociopath was acceptable, became the point.
      That was very obviously not my point; psychopath (which I stand by) or sociopath (which I accept) is indicative of a pathology, which I maintain, is a hallmark of today’s politicians.
      That was my point!
      I’m of a mind, that I’m not of a personality type, who should be posting on forums such as this.
      What I mean by that is this; I’ve been out-of-country for just over a decade and my view from afar is at great variance with the general view, seemingly embraced, even by seemingly progressive posters. I’m not inclined to take prisoners; yet to remain “acceptable” it seems I must. I don’t know if I can continue to do so…
      Your agreement is welcome; but it seems to come with caveats…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.