...and he is victim of revenge porn? It seems like he sent pictures of his junk to a woman he met on Facebook, then became embarrassed that she was telling her Facebook friends about it, then decided to threaten her. Unless he can provide some texts that he was set up, and that she was asking for the pictures, it looks at best like he made a stupid move in sending naked pictures, then panicked. At worst, the pictures were unsolicited and lewd, the Barton decided to cover up his harassment with a threat. Even better, Joe Barton is claiming that the women disclosed the pictures because Barton ended the relationship with her.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/23/politics/joe-barton-image-revenge-porn/index.html

Wednesday evening, an unnamed woman came forward to The Washington Post, telling the newspaper that Barton sent her lewd photos, videos and messages when they had two sexual encounters over the course of five years.

In a 2015 phone call, Barton allegedly confronted the woman over her communications with other women, including her decision to share explicit materials he had sent, the Post reported.

The woman shared that secretly recorded phone call with the paper and, according to the Post, in that call, he warned her against using the explicit images he had sent her, in a way that would negatively affect his career -- vowing that he would go to the Capitol Hill police over her actions.

The woman told the Post she took that phone call as a threat, and she never had any intention to use the materials to retaliate against Barton.

...but just because you have sex with a woman does not mean you have the green light to send pictures of your junk to them. I know some guys think that, but a lot of sexual harassment is from a tryst gone bad.

Perhaps you should familiarize your condescending self with the actual sequqence of events.

...pictures. It is clear you see no problem with sending such pics, but I am curious as to the reasoning.

Sorry, if it seems normal to you, but I don’t.

I am sure Roy Moore thought it was okay to hit on kids, but does not mean it is.

No, I am pretty sure the DU Eumenides would send me straight to the firing squad for that.

I think it is weird and stupid when anyone does this and I was decidedly unhappy about receiving lewd propositions on my work cell phone from women who were barely acquaintances, but I still think that material has to be treated with a certain discretion.

pornographic pictures using the interwebs.

I'm rather old, and back in the day we used Polaroid photos for such things. Back in the day I did have two, maybe three such photos taken of me, but I had the original Polaroids, and at some point destroyed them. My only regret all these years later is that they'd show a much younger and vastly more attractive version of myself. Sigh.

But my point is, that we didn't put anything out there that could be readily copied or passed on. I honestly don't understand why people today don't get that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not offering a blanket condemnation of such things, just positing that those who put such pictures out there ought to be cognizant of how they might be passed on. A Polaroid couldn't be. It was a one-off, pure and simple. Of course, I suppose no one under the age of 40 even has a clue what a Polaroid might have been.

Call me an old fart, but I just don't get all the sharing that goes on in social media these days. I've seen family "fights" that nobody else should be a part of shared. It isn't just the pics, it is what is going on that should be personal and not other peoples business. And yes, I do know what a Polaroid is. I don't share any of that kind of stuff online, you never know who could be reading it.

Mixed in with - heavy on the conniving - blunt tell it like it is - Reality TV.

The acceptance of dumb-ed down thinking and lowest common denominator attitude is what brought us King Orange Shit-gibbon.

Stupidity, off the cuff commentary, and protracted flagrant lying is considered the new intelligent, the new honorable, and the new smart.

While there is an expectation of privacy, the truth is that there are many not very nice people ought there. None of us should have to lock our doors but we do even though many of us never had our homes robbed. We do it because it has happened to many others and there is a chance it could happen to us.

Same with nude selfies and sex videos. Phones have been hacked and former sex partners have published sex videos. Don't engage in behavior that, while legal, you would be very embarrassed about if made public.

33 years ago, a certain first AA "Miss America" lost her crown because of such. Fortunately for her, she went on to have a fantastic musical and theater career. However the scandal was horrible at the time.

WTF? You send pornographic pics of yourself to someone and then when it goes public you call it "revenge"? I call it "victim of your own arrogance". Even some of the RW media is balking.

Apparently the pics came after they'd been having sex for a while, and the woman found out she wasn't the only partner he had. In fact, he was separated at the time, she showed the pics to other women she suspected him of sleeping with, and off to the internet it went.

She got him on tape describing their relationship.

What is illegal is sharing photos of your sexual partner online after a breakup, which it appears his girlfriend did.

If somebody sends me their photos, why is the burden placed on me to keep it private? How about don't send to people what you wouldn't want for everybody to see on the internet?
And what the hell does the law mean by "disclosure?" You can't disclose the photos you got from someone? Even if that someone send them to you?
By sending the photos, didn't he disclose it first?

That’s funny shit right there.

He was playing the field and sent nude selfies to one of several women he was sleeping around with. This seems more of a reflection on him, then her.

He put her topless pics in a Craigslist personals ad.

He was young and stupid, so the judge gave him 1 year probation and a restraining order.

Should he have received a lighter sentence for what he did?

... if they met on Facebook, just had bootycalls, she was sleeping around with several other guys AND he showed the unsolicited pic that the woman sent to him with one of the other guy, then I don’t see how she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Now, if the son took a pic of his ex, then shared it without her knowledge and consent, then that is different. You describe the latter, not the former.

The current revenge porn laws don't exempt you if you met online, or if it was just casual sex, or if you have multiple partners, and they are right to do so.

What you're asking for are revenge porn laws so neutered they are worthless to the vast majority of people (mostly women) they are meant to protect.

But to answer your question, she sent him the pics, then they broke up a few months later because he became a controlling asshole.

Just wondering, since you seem to be defending Barton.

My take is that the first amendment should protect publication of Barton’s pics and if the revenge porn laws prohibit such publication, then it is a disservice to his constituents that they do not know how stupid and hypocritical their elected is.

he was an adulterer and apparently a serial one at that. Whether we agree with that or not as none of anyone's business (my view), in GOP RW loon faux Xtian, "Values Voters Summit" world, that is a sin in and of itself, and their RW media blowhards had quite a bit to say about Bill Clinton among others in that regard, but were mum regarding Gingrich & McCain.

It's one of those ignoring "the log in thine eye" kinds of things.

34 states in the US have passed such laws, any many progressive states in Europe have done so.

Because a douchebag Repub got outed and had his nude pics shared does not make these laws a bad thing. The person who shared the the pics is going to have to answer for them, and that's a good thing.

I hope Barton's wife sues for divorce, his life comes crashing down, and a Dem gets elected in his district. But that doesn't change the fact that his partner broke the law by releasing pics.

Just because it’s a Republican, it doesn’t mean they can’t be a victim of revenge porn.

I'm flabbergasted that so many here are willing to shit all over a good law because they can't bear the fact it could help this man.

Dem isn't going to get elected in his district because the district is very red.
Law preventing exposure of politicians behaving badly is not a good law in my book.

This woman is exposing, idiot two faced Republicans, and who they really are.
Fake should be our word, that is why the pukes use it, so when we use it against truth it seems to have less meaning.
They do this all the time. They blame us for shit they do? And it sadly still works for them.
Please stop believing this reverse crap they and their bought for media use? Its very old now.
They use it for guns, religion, taxes, the military, health care, the deficit, the debt, everything. Please lets all of us finally wake up to their deceit and stop being played. They even have many believing we are at war against a word, Terror. How do you end a war against a word? That is what they want endless war and endless defense spending. We have to stop it, now.

"“It’s not normal for a member of Congress who runs on a GOP platform of family values and conservatism to be scouring the Internet looking for a new sexual liaison,” she said, explaining her motive for coming forward."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/congressman-told-woman-he-would-report-her-to-capitol-police-if-she-exposed-his-secret-sex-life/2017/11/22/e3345862-cf10-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?utm_term=.27240740f4f8

it just does not normally get exposed (hey, is that a pun???)

It doesn't matter whether the lady is arrested, convicted and punished. Your dick pick will be on the Internet forever and ever and ever. A hundred years from now people tracing their roots will be treated to Joe's dick. It's a shame intelligent people aren't elected to Congress.

the damage is done. Hit them where it hurts....their self righteous hypocrisy.

spectacular if he had to paint it over with blue,,,,,,, btw nice teats

If it were painted with blue from the start, it would be never considered revenge porn because the "private part" isn't showing.

may have done the covering. That pic has apparently been deleted on twitter.

testimony under oath in public as to why he thought his penis was so spectacular that he needed to recorded it for posterity !

I took a Greek Civ class in college and the professor (who was Greek origin) had specialized in documenting ancient architecture, sculptures and art and one of the things he got a kick out of was showing his many photos of "phallus monuments" that were at one time prolific at the entrances of homes during a certain era in ancient Greece. And we're not talking about "uncovered" statues of men, we are talking literal penises. He would get a kick out of throwing up a slide and watching the reactions in the class.

I just looked him up and he just retired this year after 39 years.

you will regret it. I speak from experience.

and still can't un-see that.

Ewwwwwwwwwww!

Party of personal responsibility strikes again.

Yet another fat, right-wing white guy who feels compelled to spread nude images of himself. It figures that shit-for-brains Joe Barton is one of them. Hope this leads to his retirement.

the pic itself is revenge porn. Anyone who sees it should be eligible for PTSD disability.

just another reason I hate to admit I live in Texas.