single congresspeople are not allowed romantic/sexual relationships online?

[zazen]

Or if they have them, they're not allowed to use a government-supported computer or smart-phone device through which to communicate with that person? Are they allowed to communicate anything romantic or sexual to their spouses using those devices? Those are the devices they're issued when they're in other countries. Should they always have separate devices for use at 11 PM, 4 AM, 7 AM, walking back and forth to work, in their car, etc., so that if they communicate anything to someone of romantic or sexual interest they don't use the device issued by the government? Is this realistic?

Don't get me wrong. I've suffered a great deal as a result of someone's sex addiction and I abhor the results of internet-based pornography and sex-trafficking. I'm a died in the wool anti-pornography radical feminist. I think what's going on with Weiner reflects a much deeper issue. There are many marriages falling apart because of internet-based emotional affairs as well as pornography use. Something like at least 25% according to some divorce lawyers' guild.

But if a man is single and meets someone (of age) online, and they communicate romantic and/or sexual messages to each other, I don't see where that's our business AT ALL. Once he's married, it's between him and his wife, and obviously I have to wonder about a bigger problem.

There have been single people in Congress who overtly used Match.com and J-Date. They talked to local papers about it. Two at least, and found spouses there. If they ever logged onto their Match accounts from their govt issued laptops or Blackberries, are they in violation of the law?

I'm really confused here.

[pnwmom]

1. He might have come clean immediately if he hadn't been MARRIED.

But he probably shouldn't ever have been using a government phone for phone sex. My husband has a phone for work and he is very careful to limit his non-work calls on it.

[zazen]

7. could someone define "phone sex?"

Seriously. Is it sending photos? Is it telling someone something sexual you like about them? I feel really naive here.

[Maru Kitteh]

16. Really? You've never heard of it? Dirty phone calls have been a multi-million dollar industry

for decades. Weiner was getting freebies and called the women "friends."

[zazen]

18. I mean, romantically interest couples have erotic conversations

If he didn't pay for it, is it "phone sex?"

Does phone sex mean someone had an orgasm on either end of the phone? Is that the official definition? Because if it's sexual banter, that could characterize couples married 50 years or a couple of high school lovers. That's what's confusing to me.

[rateyes]

2. Isn't Weiner married??

[Xipe Totec]

4. He is now

But not then.

[Divernan]

6. He's admitted at least one was after he got married last summer.

[zazen]

10. yes, and that's morally wrong (tho not my business)

But I'm curious about why he's calling his online interactions bad and worthy of apologizing if he did them when he was single.

I mean, what is that violating? If he sent his fiancee a risquee photo of himself or told her something revealing in a text, would that have been a violation of something?

[IamK]

17. for the momment.... n/t

[Xipe Totec]

3. No. Republicans set the standards, apparently.

You need to be married, cheating on your third wife, and skipping on child support.

All other sexual encounters are considered perversions.

[zazen]

5. IIRC, Brad Sherman was one of them, and I'll try to recall the other

Are we now getting into policing exactly what Sherman sent to his prospective wife? Or if he sent something to her on JDate using a computer issued device?

I work for universities and EVERYBODY (except for me it seems) uses their univ e-mail account and/or equipment for family and personal communication. EVERYBODY.

It's written into grants, even, to "disallow" a certain percentage of the cost of a computer because it's understood by OMB that some of it will be for personal use.

So what gives with Weiner and his premarital online communication with of-age consenting women?

[Skittles]

8. yes you are confused

you don't understand that high-profile people need to not do crap that makes slimy actions by conservatives SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy

[WillowTree]

9. No, "they're not...

...allowed to use a government-supported computer or smart-phone device through which to communicate with that person". Or their congressional office phones, either. That's probably the biggest reason why Nancy is requesting an investigation. There's evidence that he did just that and that's an ethics violation. Shoot, Dan Rostenkowski went to prison just for misusing the congressional post office and that one didn't even have the taint of a sex-related scandal attached to it.

Doesn't anyone check their fact before posting this drivel?

[zazen]

11. I've been told quite the opposite by persons serving (and their staff)

So I guess several serving congresspeople believe in this drivel.

[zazen]

12. and times have really changed--almost all use their phones to call home

Should they go to jail for that?

[WillowTree]

13. Believe what you like. It's still a free Country.

[zazen]

14. those with ears to hear, will hear

And to those folks--you know Members use these devices for personal use on a regular basis. These days with the infusion of technology into every moment, everybody who wants to reach you ends up with the same number/address. You don't see Members pulling a crackberry from each pocket.

So, if anyone knows the real policy (or I should say, real practice) and would care to elaborate, please do.

I could have this conversation privately but thought I'd throw it out to the general DU community, some of whom include people who work in the House.

[grasswire]

15. come on.....let's look at Rostenkowski

"In 1994, Mr. Rostenkowski was formally charged with 17 counts of abusing his Congressional payroll by paying at least 14 people who did little or no official work; trading stamp vouchers for at least $50,000 in cash; misusing his office’s expense accounts to charge Congress for $40,000 in furniture and fine china and crystal; misusing personal vehicles and paying for them with $70,000 in House funds; and obstruction of justice."

NYT

comparing this crime spree to using a work phone for personal messages is not just drivel, but flimsy!

[zazen]

19. I agree--I just don't see the two as comparable at all

given that most everyone uses their House-issued devices to "phone home."

[WillowTree]

20. Not just "using a work phone for personal messages".

There's apparently evidence of a 30 minute phone sex session that took place on his office phone which doesn't accept incoming calls, according to the message that it plays, because it's for outgoing congressional calls only. If that turns out to be for real, do you really want to bet that it was only once?

And yes, that is an ethics violation.

But hey, everyone knows that Nancy Pelosi just makes up reasons to call for investigations of her own guys, so maybe this is one of those occasions.

[zazen]

21. was it "phone sex" or a phone call to a girlfriend

People don't need to be snarky. These are genuine questions.

If they evidence that he used the phone and masturbated in his office, well, then, that seems like an ethics violation. Is that what people are saying? Do they have evidence of this?

[grasswire]

23. "well, then, that seems like an ethics violation"

I would like to see the actual rules that make this kind of action a violation of ethics.

Does anyone have the rules?

Anyone?

[zazen]

24. I don't, but then this thread has been un'rec'd for my asking

[grasswire]

22. oh noooes. thirty minute phone calls!

And maybe more than one!

Please.