Secret Service and Man Shaming

So with interest I have watched yet another "sex scandal" grow in the media. The last one being Anthony Weiner's apparent "wiener" shot which got him in trouble and out of office. Then it was women leading the charge over his 'horrific" behavior. The view of many of my male compatriots was that he was an idiot and certainly deserved whatever ire was directed his way from his wife and perhaps the female that received the photo against her after the fact, wishes. But for the rest of us, it simply was not our business. Besides, as far as politics went, Weiner was one of the "better" democrats who had recently made a strong presentation on the house floor against yet another bit of Republican nonsense. It didn't make sense to any of us to drop kick one of your best players. But so it goes.

Now the media is obsessed with the fact that a few of the Secret Service agents in Columbia decided to get drunk and get laid while on what I presume to be their time off. I understand that they, while being on location aren't entirely "off the clock" but we know that they definitely have the right and the option to do personal business.

For some odd reason it comes as a shock to people that there are men who, when traveling overseas, get laid. Some pay for it and some don't. Not all men do it, but it happens. Some countries are, unfortunately, sought out specifically for sex. In the case of these Secret Service agents the country in which they were in has legalized prostitution. It is to the extent that hotels, at least this one, actually provide what I'll call "hoe be gone" wake up calls to guests to have the registered women leave per hotel policy.

I assure you that these men were not the first Secret Service members to have indulged in a locally legal activity. Why do we know about this now? Because one of the fellows got into an argument with one of the women. There are conflicting stories as to how much he owed and how much he agreed to pay. That is not really a point of contention with me. I. Do. Not. Care. There is only one valid concern with this that I can see: Did the actions of the Secret Service agents endanger the president or whomever else they were assigned to protect? That is it.

Since I'm operating under the assumption that these professionals "entertain" themselves in this manner on a "regular" basis, I am going to believe that these men did not act in a way that they believed would have compromised presidential security. I could see if they had done something as obviously stupid as take the prostitute along on the scouting missions but I doubt they did anything of the sort and I do not believe that the president (or any other before him) was in danger from the agent's use of "escorts". It would be one thing if these guys broke a local law (which as far as I know is not the case). It would be an entirely different thing if these guys were taking some locally legal mind altering drug that could impair their judgment long after it has been ingested, but sex? I am certainly open to having an investigation done though.

This morning I saw Sarah Palin on the television set commenting about how one of the agents is "fired" in response to a Facebook comment he made during the time he was assigned to Sarah Palin for security. Apparently this fellow was "checking Palin out."

The only thing I could think of is "and, so?" Have we gotten to a point in society where folks are actually under the belief that men do not "check" all women "out"? And that such "evaluations" says less that bill about how good or bad they are at their jobs?

Let's look at the Palin example. Regardless of how "hot" or "not" this agent may have thought she was, he clearly did his job. It is clear that he made no comments directly to her or her entourage at any time. It is clear that he did nothing that made her feel uncomfortable. If he had we would know about it wouldn't we? Of course. So it is clear that he did his assigned job professionally and completely and without incident. So why do we even give a damn whether he "checked her out"?

Well "we" give a damn because a growing segment of the population feels that they have a right to police the eyes, ears and minds of males, specifically heterosexual, masculine, males. You have many women who are of the opinion that they don't want men looking at them in a certain way (not physically but mentally). Too bad. It's not your eye and it's not your brain. The same way women do not want to be told what to do or what others can do to their bodies is the same way I could give 2 shits what someone wants to tell me I should and should not look at in public and what I should and should not think.

But this goes even further into the conflation of personal and employment life. What this guy said on his Facebook page (and I'm curious as to who violated the privacy of this individual and exposed his wall post to those who were not in his circle) isn't relevant to his work. It isn't relevant to your work unless you admit to committing a crime.

For example, when this Secret Service flap happened, pictures of Hilary Clinton were shown with her dancing and drinking. First thing I was wondering was why we needed to see that. Second thing was that for people who are morally opposed to alcohol consumption and dancing (yes those people exist) such behavior could be seen as "immoral" and "reprehensible" in whatever group they are in. Should we be subject to their particular codes of conduct when we judge whether they are effective at doing their jobs? I don't think so.

At the end of the day, after all the talking heads get a chance to get their time on TV, rational heads should prevail. They should be concerned with one thing and one thing only: Did these individual's behavior jeopardize the safety of the president? Did the behavior damage the relationship between Columbia and the US? If neither of these things have happened, given that having a prostitute is legal in the host country and none of the females were minors, people should shut up and sit down. The only explaining so far that needs to be done is to any of the wives of these men and that assumes the wives don't know how they get down when "on assignment".