There's something to be said for the predicted "normal" response to events. It provides a comfortable frame of reference for people who were in no way affected by events to process what's happening to you; it also provides a template for shitty actors to mimic in movies rather than actually having to do work.
Oh, and it also allows Andrew Breitbart to endlessly discuss penises.
Short version of what I'm talking about: on Friday night, a tweet appeared on Representative Anthony Weiner's Twitter account. It involved a link to an associated yfrog account (a picture-sharing service) to a man's underwear-laden erection. It was addressed to a female Twitter user.
One of two things happened here: either Representative Weiner mistakenly sent what was supposed to be a private message as a regular tweet, which means he's cheating on his wife and is generally an asshole, or someone else posted the tweet and the picture, and everyone involved is suffering from the act of some anonymous asshole who thinks weiner jokes are de rigueur.
Weiner and the woman involved are both contending that the tweet and picture were a result of someone breaking in to Weiner's account. The woman suspects that it was a user who had been harassing her for weeks based on the fact that Weiner was following her account.
Unfortunately for the woman involved, she operates under what is legally known as "the presumption of dick suckingness". You see, she's a "21 year old coed", which pretty much means she would fuck the fail whale if those birds would just drop it on her luxuriously appointed extra long twin bed. Having denied that there was any inappropriate relationship or exchange between her and the Representative, Tom Maguire responds:
As to whether any exchanges were "inappropriate", let's take a step back – were she and the Congressman cyber-buddies engaging in idle chit-chat and having appropriate exchanges from time to time on the Twitter private service? Is it possible that a third party might consider some of those private exchanges to be a bit flirty? I am not sure a twenty-one year old who wants this whole thing to go away is the most reliable judge of what might have been appropriate.
This makes a great deal of sense – the proper people to determine whether exchanges that didn't take place were appropriate are a group of slavering middle-aged conservative men who should be allowed to go through every e-mail and Facebook photo the woman's ever been a part of and comment on how much cleavage she's showing. Roy has more on the Boobie Brigade, who will not rest until they have constructed every possible interaction between a faceless penis on the internet and this woman's pictures. And if they have to use their own penises as stand-ins, I'm sure they will. Repeatedly.
Of course, weeks of harassment followed by her name and sexual proclivities being blasted all over the internet this weekend led her to try to shut off her online profiles and information (I'm sure it had nothing to do with the New York Post using this picture of her, either). She shouldn't have done that, though. Only guilty, sexy coeds do that. Probably in lingerie. Jim Hoft has, in a completely detached and non-creepy fashion, gathered up all of Weiner's "luscious" Twitter followers, because that's apparently okay to do now.
Just keep in mind, ladies: if you don't want to be seen as an insatiable whore by people trying to smear someone with whom you're vaguely associated on the internet, then you should give the smearers as much information as possible so that they can properly determine your level of whorishness. Preferably on Twitter. That's the normal thing to do, and any deviation from it probably means you're a whore.