FanDuel - WFBC

December 22, 2010

Deadspin Links Rex Ryan, Wife to Foot Fetish Videos: The wife of New York Jets head coach Rex Ryan "may or may not be" the star of a series of foot-fetish videos posted to YouTube, the sports blog Deadspin alleged in a Tuesday evening post. "We were told by one source that if this is Michelle Ryan, there's no way Rex knows about it," they write. "But listen closely to the voice of the cameraman."

posted by yerfatma to football at 12:46 PM - 80 comments

They look fine to me, but the main thing is, at least she can see them.

Rex hasn't seen his feet since he was in his early 20's.

posted by beaverboard at 10:57 AM on December 22

I'm so sad this is even being discussed. I'm not a foot guy, but if this the Ryans, they're going to catch end of abuse for just liking one another in most people would consider an odd way.

*sigh*

posted by wfrazerjr at 11:14 AM on December 22

What they do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.

What they do on the Internet is another matter entirely.

This is the best thing to happen to NFL hecklers since Michael Vick signed in to STD clinics as Ron Mexico.

posted by rcade at 11:29 AM on December 22

Yeah, sorry, I got nothing against anyone's fetish, but I have lots to say about the fetishes of a loud-mouthed coach of my team's rival.

posted by yerfatma at 12:11 PM on December 22

If it's really the Ryans, I think it's pretty off-the-wall to star your spouse in fetish videos for public consumption, particularly when you're famous and tried to do it incognito.

For what it's worth, Ryan did not deny that it's his wife in the videos when asked by reporters today, saying "I know you need to ask, it's a personal matter."

I think the weirder fetish here is the exhibitionism. What did they think would happen if the New York media got a hold of it?

posted by rcade at 12:53 PM on December 22

Maybe this is what they were hoping for all along.

posted by apoch at 01:03 PM on December 22

Hell of a way to take the heat off the team. Mark Sanchez can breathe easy now. As long as he's not having lunch at the Ryans' house.

posted by yerfatma at 01:17 PM on December 22

I could only make it 20 seconds into a video before bailing. Too cringe-inducing.

Never judge a man until you watch his wife take off her shoes.

posted by rcade at 01:30 PM on December 22

Are they breaking the law? No? Then who gives a crap?

posted by Drood at 01:55 PM on December 22

What Drood said- adolescents will be tickled by this "naughty" "scandal", because oooo sex! But fuck it- two married adults getting their freak on in a perfectly legal, harmless and fun (for them) way. This is *news*? This is any of my business, how? Then again, deadspin is not a bastion of journalistic integrity...

Besides, I'm much more concerned by how I'm not getting my freak on... *sob*

posted by hincandenza at 02:20 PM on December 22

What they do on the Internet is another matter entirely.

Really? Because they made a few videos (if this is them) of a not-too-uncommon sexual fetish, they should be held up to public ridicule?

What did they think would happen if the New York media got a hold of it?

I believe most of these videos were made before Ryan took the coaching job.

I think if the public wants to find out about the sex lives of those in football, perhaps they should Google the number of assaults and domestic violence cases involving NFL and NCAA players. It seems especially shitty given how everyone's talking about the videos and we're already done discussing this.

posted by wfrazerjr at 02:35 PM on December 22

Football - Foot Fetish

COINCIDENCE?

posted by Joey Michaels at 02:47 PM on December 22

I'm a lot less troubled by the thought that Rex Ryan and/or his wife may have a foot fetish, than I am by prurient interest that it seems to inspire in so many people. This seems like something to quietly ignore rather than bray like a jackass over.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:01 PM on December 22

I think if the public wants to find out about the sex lives of those in football, perhaps they should Google the number of assaults and domestic violence cases involving NFL and NCAA players.

This.

posted by cjets at 03:09 PM on December 22

Really? Because they made a few videos (if this is them) of a not-too-uncommon sexual fetish, they should be held up to public ridicule?

When they chose to post them on youtube, they took what should be private and made it public. I certainly feel bad for them, but not very much. They made a choice to risk this happening to full their own desires and now have to face the consequences. If this were some video that someone stole from them and published, then I would have agree with you that they should not be facing public ridicule.

posted by bperk at 03:15 PM on December 22

So they should be facing public ridicule because they like feet? Is the United States still that tight?

posted by wfrazerjr at 03:33 PM on December 22

Football. Foot fetish. Hope the next videos aren't of a Ball fetish.

posted by graymatters at 03:41 PM on December 22

So they should be facing public ridicule because they like feet? Is the United States still that tight?

It doesn't matter what they like, they face public ridicule because they decided to post it on youtube.

posted by bperk at 03:43 PM on December 22

So they should be facing public ridicule because they like feet? Is the United States still that tight?

Half the country still can't cope with the horror of homosexuality. This isn't Amsterdam, holmes.

cjets, is that a tacit endorsement of your ball coach's behavior?

posted by yerfatma at 03:54 PM on December 22

It's not her. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

posted by cjets at 04:25 PM on December 22

So they should be facing public ridicule because they like feet? Is the United States still that tight?

I like sex involving dental x-rays and banana cream pies. Should I face ridicule for that? Of course not. Now if I were to publish my strange fetish somehow on the internet, then I have bourne the risk of the slings and arrows of the masses.

Wait, did I just...ah, fuck it

posted by tahoemoj at 04:37 PM on December 22

They're facing public ridicule for being swinging exhibitionists who advertise on alt.com so Rex can watch his wife get done by three guys.

I have ridiculed people for far less.

Your private pecadillo's are none of my business... But this wasn't private. This was posted on Youtube.

I'm in to way kinkier things than feet, but I don't publish pictures/video of it, and I don't advertise for threesomes. If I do, please ridicule me.

posted by LostInDaJungle at 04:47 PM on December 22

It doesn't matter what they like, they face public ridicule because they decided to post it on youtube.

No, they face ridicule because people are going to judge the Ryans because they like feet. Are the Ryans forcing anyone to view the videos? Are the Ryans forcing anyone to become foot fetishists?

So in order to have some kind of issue with the Ryans, you have to go WAYYYYYY out of your way to view the videos, then be concerned about someone else's sexual preferences which in no way affect you.

Seems like a lot of work.

Half the country still can't cope with the horror of homosexuality. This isn't Amsterdam, holmes.

Doesn't mean you can't hope for better.

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:57 PM on December 22

Fucking awesome. Pervert Brett Favre, pervert Rex Ryan, my kinda people.

posted by vito90 at 05:15 PM on December 22

I wouldn't classify this as perverted. I'm not sure I'd even call it naughty.

But I can't imagine why someone with his job would post the videos. It would be one thing for this to be a stolen tape, but failing to predict the consequences of being discovered is regoddamndiculous.

Reminds me of summer camp when I was 12. Boys would constantly accuse and tease each other about masturbation. Like they weren't doing it.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:33 PM on December 22

I have a difficult time believing any of this. Particularly the part about that woman being married to Rex Ryan.

posted by THX-1138 at 06:40 PM on December 22

This story goes further than foot fetish videos. There are public alt.com blog posts for the account ihaveprettyfeet from 2007 with X-rated photos of her privates and the caption "I would like to see my wife get nailed by someone or some people with big dicks!"

I think this is moving pretty quickly into "can Ryan's job survive this?" territory. It would be a shame if it didn't, because he's funny as hell and I think he's 1-3 seasons away from having the Jets in a Bowl.

posted by rcade at 06:48 PM on December 22

As much electronic ink as is spilled about this...

I just can't bring myself to care in the slightest, or to say anything more than what I'm saying here.

posted by Bonkers at 09:35 PM on December 22

You know, as history churns forward and the Internet becomes more and more ubiquitous, we're going to have more and more people who've willingly posted stupid shit on the Internet. Maybe it will be photos and videos like this, or racist and sexist screeds they outgrew after leaving for college, or pictures of themselves passed out drunk, nude with penises drawn all over their body by their fraternity brothers.

As a society, we're either going to have to agree to punish anyone who does something inappropriate for their entire lives by not hiring them or firing them or whatever, or we're going to need to have a gentleman's agreement that everyone does stupid shit and we just have to accept it.

I have no problem making fun of Rex Ryan over this, but he doesn't deserve to lose his job over it. For the record, I would be equally all right razzing him for practically anything stupid he did that ended up posted online. Of course, I am comfortable making fun of people who do stupid things. Your mileage may vary.

I am also comfortable with people making fun of me when I do stupid things.

posted by Joey Michaels at 10:23 PM on December 22

Half the country still can't cope with the horror of homosexuality.

That's why they sublimate it by following football, perhaps the gayest sport there is other than MMA.

posted by afl-aba at 02:03 AM on December 23

Not a big deal at all. Makes for some good heckling material though. Just because I don't think this should even be a story in the first place doesn't mean I can't ridicule my Jets loving friends for it.

posted by Andy1087 at 02:20 AM on December 23

I think he's 1-3 seasons away from having the Jets in a Bowl.

They're dropping down to D1?

In all seriousness, if this affected his employment at all, that would be a shame.

posted by yerfatma at 08:37 AM on December 23

bperk:

They made a choice to risk this happening to full their own desires and now have to face the consequences.

That's got to be the prissiest thing I have read in some time.

Joey Michaels:

As a society, we're either going to have to agree to punish anyone who does something inappropriate for their entire lives by not hiring them or firing them or whatever, or we're going to need to have a gentleman's agreement that everyone does stupid shit and we just have to accept it.

That. Jesus Christ, people, grow the fuck up and stop acting like stupid teenagers who just saw your first naughty pictures.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:38 AM on December 23

No thanks. I'm not going to pretend this isn't scandalous just to demonstrate what an enlightened and tolerant person I am. The Ryans are stupid for making their private sexual peccadilloes public in a series of fetish videos, and they compounded the stupidity by associating those videos with accounts they set up on sex sites looking for couples who like to swing.

I have no opinion on what repercussions, if any, he should face. I like the guy and enjoy watching his teams play. But I just have to marvel at the stupidity.

posted by rcade at 09:44 AM on December 23

That all said, as a Patriots fan, if the Jets want to fire Rex Ryan over this, I will cross my fingers that he gets a job in the NFC West or really anywhere other than the AFC East. Yeah, he has a big mouth, but he can back it up most ofthe time. Let him go beat up on the Seahawks instead of us.

posted by Joey Michaels at 09:46 AM on December 23

I understand yerfatma & lbb's point, but at the same time what someone does in private (and for whatever reason makes public) reflects on their character, and someone's character matters in employment. Further, to what extent that it does is open to debate, and exactly what these actions reflect about Rex's character is also open to debate. But that's just the point-it is a debate. I agree with rcade that the tone of some here is a bit too sanctimonious.

Also, i think it is a bit naive to say that this doesn't matter b/c the perception of a business' employees can affect a company's bottom line. That's profit-making 101. Some here may not like that many would find this offensive and decide to quit spending money in support of the team, but it is a real possibility. If I was the owner I would be pretty unhappy for this reason if nothing else. So from a pure business standpoint I don't think you can avoid the idea that Rex screwed up here. When you add in the numerous other PR debacles under Rex, he really didn't have a ton of margin for error in that department. If he gets fired for perception reasons, that would be a cumulative case.

Full Disclosure: I'm not a Jets fan & this would bother me if the head coach of the team i root for got into this mess. I'm not sure if this would make me quit rooting for them, but if my team had all the PR messes the Jets have the last few years, I would probably consider it.

posted by brainofdtrain at 10:10 AM on December 23

No thanks. I'm not going to pretend this isn't scandalous just to demonstrate what an enlightened and tolerant person I am.

How about acknowledging that it isn't scandalous because it just isn't that big a deal, unless you're a little kid seeing your first naughty pictures? They put it out there, sure, but you're the one carrying on like it's a big deal, when it really shouldn't be if you're a grownup. In my eyes, you look a lot sillier than they do.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:11 AM on December 23

I understand yerfatma & lbb's point, but at the same time what someone does in private (and for whatever reason makes public) reflects on their character, and someone's character matters in employment.

I'm going to file that one in the overflowing category of "bland and unsupported assertions". Come on. Reflects on their character, how exactly? Matters in employment, how exactly? Maybe it does, but you'll have to do a lot better than an unsupported broad-brush statement like that. Get specific.

Further, to what extent that it does is open to debate, and exactly what these actions reflect about Rex's character is also open to debate. But that's just the point-it is a debate.

Well, no, it really isn't. Or are you saying that anything that you ever did, that got to be public knowledge by any means, is reasonably and suitably subject to a public debate? Ridiculous.

I agree with rcade that the tone of some here is a bit too sanctimonious.

God damn, there goes another broken irony meter.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:17 AM on December 23

How about acknowledging that it isn't scandalous because it just isn't that big a deal ...

Again, no. I think the head coach of an NFL team posting beaver shots (NSFW) of his wife, asking "any takers?" and receiving 20 comments on a swingers site qualifies as scandalous.

I'm just not as big a person as you are.

Reflects on their character, how exactly?

That's a question for the Jets owner and the league to decide. If they're not scandalized by this and have no problem being associated with it, great.

posted by rcade at 10:25 AM on December 23

what someone does in private . . . reflects on their character

He likes feet. I don't see where character comes into it. I don't believe people pick their fetishes from a menu. That shit gets wired into you somewhere along the way and as long as you're not hurting anyone else (or are but have a safety word), none of my business and says nothing about you. He isn't some anti-foot fetish Congressman in his daily life.

posted by yerfatma at 10:43 AM on December 23

I get your point, rcade, but when you're letting your news agenda be set and scandal meter be calibrated by A.J. Daulerio ...

Killing dogs? Fine, get the scandal.

Sending unwanted weiner pics to women? Fine, get the scandal.

Posting videos of your wife's feet and asking others if they enjoy the same sexual kinks do you? Where's the scandal? Who was harmed?

It's only scandalous if a) you think this is outrageous or inappropriate behavior for grown-ups, or b) you allow someone else to dictate what's scandalous to you.

So which is it?

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:51 AM on December 23

I don't know how this doesn't reflect on his character, at least with respect to his judgment. Posting your private fetishes in public forums shows excessively poor judgment. It doesn't even matter what those fetishes are. Putting potentially embarrassing private activities out for public consumption is flat-out stupid. I don't think recognizing the stupidity of such an action makes one a giggly teen or a prude.

posted by bperk at 10:53 AM on December 23

Putting potentially embarrassing private activities out for public consumption is flat-out stupid.

Potentially embarrassing to who? The Ryans -- or you? Just because you're embarrassed by something doesn't mean they are or should be.

posted by wfrazerjr at 11:11 AM on December 23

Potentially embarrassing to who? The Ryans -- or you? Just because you're embarrassed by something doesn't mean they are or should be.

So what if Ryan posted a video on the internet of his wife and he having good old fashioned missionary position sex? In no way, shape, or form should he be embarrased about the action, and there isn't a "priss" or a "prude" out there who would think so. Howver, reasonable minds can disagree about the propriety of that good old fashioned missionary position sex being posted on the internet, and whether or not they should be embarrased by it. Further, reasonable minds can also reach the conclusion that he, as a public figure in the largest sports and media market in America, should be embarrased about opening up himself and his employer to yet one more in a recent series of public relations black eyes. Is that so hard to comprehend?

posted by tahoemoj at 11:22 AM on December 23

It's only scandalous if a) you think this is outrageous or inappropriate behavior for grown-ups, or b) you allow someone else to dictate what's scandalous to you.

Answer b. The meaning of scandalous relates to the public's view of an action. I can be the biggest sex freak in the world and still regard it as a scandal because I know the whole sports world will be talking about it.

posted by rcade at 11:29 AM on December 23

The meaning of scandalous relates to the public's view of an action.

Have to be careful about that though: if everyone assumes everyone else thinks it's scandalous, you wind up with a public shaming for something no one thinks is shameful.

posted by yerfatma at 11:32 AM on December 23

rcade missed a huge hanging pitch over the heart of the plate, that being an opportunity to use "clam shot" on SpoFi.

posted by holden at 11:54 AM on December 23

Potentially embarrassing to who? The Ryans -- or you? Just because you're embarrassed by something doesn't mean they are or should be.

Embarrassing to the Ryans, their family, their employers, their colleagues, anyone who has that info who would rather not. Who would want to be privy to information about other people's private sexual preferences?

posted by bperk at 11:55 AM on December 23

Embarrassing to the Ryans, their family, their employers, their colleagues, anyone who has that info who would rather not.

Why? Just why is it embarrassing? Because you would be embarrassed in their position? That's not a valid standard.

Who would want to be privy to information about other people's private sexual preferences?

Well, I don't want to be, in the sense that I don't seek it out, but neither do I feel outraged when I come into possession of the information -- which, by the way, I wouldn't in this case if certain people hadn't decided that this was a "scandal" and that they needed to get that information to as many people as possible, because it just wasn't right that we weren't all getting ourselves in a scandalized froth about the matter. I didn't want the information, but so what? I also don't want to know where the woman standing next to me on the bus is going to meet her boyfriend for drinks, but since she's having her cellphone conversation six inches from my left ear, I've got that information too. There's a lot of information out there, and if you're not equipped to simply filter and discard a lot of it as uninteresting or not pertinent to you, you're going to put yourself through a lot more strain than you need to. Get that -- put yourself through it. All this being scandalized? It's something you're doing to yourself.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:40 PM on December 23

Yeah, I would be embarrassed if the whole world saw my sexual activities on youtube. I'm a prude. My parents would be embarrassed because they are prudes. My friends would be embarrassed for me because they are prudes. My colleagues would be embarrassed and uncomfortable because they are prudes. My clients would be embarrassed and uncomfortable because they are prudes. The only reason I don't publish all my sexual activities for public consumption is because all of us are prudes. There is no distinction between what is private and public unless you are a prude.

posted by bperk at 01:11 PM on December 23

... if certain people hadn't decided that this was a "scandal" and that they needed to get that information to as many people as possible, because it just wasn't right that we weren't all getting ourselves in a scandalized froth about the matter.

Don't know who you are referring to here, but once it was reported on Deadspin it was going to be all over the place whether or not it was posted on SportsFilter.

The meta-discussion of why scandals become scandals is tedious. How much discussion is necessary to prove that you don't care about this?

posted by rcade at 01:13 PM on December 23

bperk:

Yeah, I would be embarrassed if the whole world saw my sexual activities on youtube.

That wasn't the question I asked you. I asked you if you thought they should be embarrassed just because you would be embarrassed in their place.

The only reason I don't publish all my sexual activities for public consumption is because all of us are prudes. There is no distinction between what is private and public unless you are a prude.

Strawman.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:36 PM on December 23

Don't know who you are referring to here, but once it was reported on Deadspin it was going to be all over the place whether or not it was posted on SportsFilter.

It "was going to be all over the place" because a lot of people said, "ooo, naughty pictures!!!" and continued to forward, post, link and talk about it. It's not like mycelium, rcade, it doesn't just spread by itself and it dies unless it's fed. It's the spreading and the feeding that creates a scandal.

The meta-discussion of why scandals become scandals is tedious.

Well now, I like this. You're the arbiter of both whether we should be scandalized over something, and whether the nature of scandals is worthy of discussion? That's tidy.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:40 PM on December 23

You're the arbiter of both whether we should be scandalized over something ...

Bullshit. I never told you or anyone else what to think. I think we're all clear on the point that you and others are too high-minded to find this scandalous. I am not.

As for whether the Ryans are embarrassed, he sure seemed that way at the press conference.

posted by rcade at 01:52 PM on December 23

I asked you if you thought they should be embarrassed just because you would be embarrassed in their place.

Would you dispute that there are just certain societal norms out there, and to be discovered in breach of them is reason for many reasonable people to feel one should be embarrased?

As for whether the Ryans are embarrassed, he sure seemed that way at the press conference.

Prude

posted by tahoemoj at 02:49 PM on December 23

Let him go beat up on the Seahawks instead of us.

WTF?! 'Aint things bad enough for the Seahawks? But in light of what Charles Barkley had to say about Favre's...erm...junk, and Ryan's desire to see someone (or several someones) with..um..big dicks...give his wife the old in/out, I understand a bit why he has been QB'ing in Minnesota.

Happy Holidays Everyone!

posted by THX-1138 at 03:02 PM on December 23

rcade missed a huge hanging pitch over the heart of the plate ...

That hurts.

posted by rcade at 04:53 PM on December 23

Would you dispute that there are just certain societal norms out there, and to be discovered in breach of them is reason for many reasonable people to feel one should be embarrased?

On the day after the hypocritical "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law was repealed, as someone who was around and well aware of the issues when it was enacted, and as someone who remembers both Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas, I find that I can't help but dispute this. Not too long ago, these unquestioned "certain societal norms" you talk about would have made it unthinkable for two people of the same sex to hold hands in public. You would have said that these "certain societal norms" meant that someone should be terribly embarrassed if there was any public knowledge that they had a same-sex partner. And, at an earlier time, you probably would have said that other "certain societal norms" meant that someone should be terribly embarrassed if they were part of an interracial couple, or an interfaith couple, or if they were or did any number of things that just weren't done.

With the benefit of hindsight, I think most people would agree today that these "certain societal norms" made pariahs out of people who did nothing to deserve it. They also were not universal and proved not to be immutable. When I hear talk about "certain societal norms" forbidding harmless consensual behavior today, I wonder how universal and immutable they will seem tomorrow.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:58 PM on December 23

I don't really care if Rex Ryan and his wife post videos of their fetish. It's not my place to applaud or condemn. That said, I can still chuckle at it, because Ryan is a generally serious figure who tries to keep a macho image. It is the essence of comedy when the serious is suddenly reduced to something inane.

posted by Howard_T at 05:10 PM on December 23

Well, Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. TX involved criminalization of consensual homosexual sex (in the privacy of one's own bedroom). If you for one moment think that this is the same thing as internet publication of fetish videos and possible solicitation of anonymous sex, I think you cheapen when the Court did in those precedential cases. To cite these civil rights cases to support the position that what Ryan did was perfectly normal behavior for which he should not feel the slightest embarrasment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of them and strikes me as disengenuous. Is your level of respect for the gay community sow low that you equate same-sex love to internet sex solicitation?

Further, is anyone looking to prosecute Ryan, or are they making fun of him for making a very questionable decision? I think most people's stance is that he did something silly and is open to some ridicule (and it seems like Ryan might agree).

I tell you what, in twenty or forty years, if posting fetish videos of your spouse becomes something for which people are lynched, beaten or otherwise denied the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, you can make that comparison. Until then, you are deliberately mischaracterizing what I meant by "societal norms." You often accuse people of arguing against straw men; in this case, I think you prove that you are adept at it as well.

posted by tahoemoj at 05:18 PM on December 23

yeah, what tahoemoj just said.

The whole "is this embarrassing or not" discussion seems a bit tedious to me, as clearly each of us has our own definition of what is embarrassing. My mother wouldn't think of letting a bit of her lingerie show, my wife is fine with some tops that show a bit of lace, and I know 20 year old girls that seem just fine with the top half of their thong underwear showing.

I'm with the group that would be embarrassed if it were publicly known that my wife and I were swingers, and that I wanted to watch other guys stick it to her. I would also not want one of my managers to be posting this kind of information publicly as well. Like me, they represent our company, and I wouldn't want any customer to think differently about our organization. If one of my team was a swinger, and kept it totally confidential fine, no issue. Share it with the public, big issue.

posted by dviking at 06:53 PM on December 23

If one of my team was a swinger, and kept it totally confidential fine, no issue. Share it with the public, big issue.

The Ryans did not "make this public." They put some foot videos up on YouTube (I'm guessing they thought relatively anonymously, because how little time do you have to have on your hands to try to figure out who the people are in YouTube videos?), and they subscribed to some closed swingers sites that I assume require registration.

So, again, you had to be trying really hard to find out information the Ryans didn't make public knowledge, or you have to have your agenda set by the low-standard pricks at Deadspin.

You want to think I'm high-minded for that, be my guest.

posted by wfrazerjr at 07:06 PM on December 23

If the Ryans had asked you beforehand about posting on YouTube, would you have told them they wouldn't be found out since YouTube is relatively anonymous?

posted by rcade at 08:37 PM on December 23

I don't think you're high-minded, I think you're misguided.

Posting shit on YouTube is to make it available to every person with a computer and internet access in the world. Not like he just shared with a few people in a swinger's club that needed to pay a membership and be screened for confidentiality. I don't go looking for pictures of women showing off their feet, so I didn't stumble across this in my internet searches. Now, if lace panties and live chickens had been involved, I would have found out about this years ago.

posted by dviking at 11:13 PM on December 23

If the Ryans had asked you beforehand about posting on YouTube, would you have told them they wouldn't be found out since YouTube is relatively anonymous?

Posting shit on YouTube is to make it available to every person with a computer and internet access in the world.

No, but I wasn't there to advise them, and I suspect they simply didn't properly gauge how easily people find things on YouTube. If I'm correct, then we're saying they're fair game for ridicule because they made a mistake. If I'm not and they did this on purpose, then they're just fair game because they like something you don't.

Neither one of them sounds particularly fair to me.

Also, again, you're linking this with what should be anonymous (or at least extremely private) swingers ads on sites that it takes at least registration to reach and I'm betting in many cases a payment of some sort (IANAS -- I Am Not A Swinger -- so I'm guessing, but most adult sites do require payment).

So what's driving the desire to chase down leads about the Ryans' sex lives? Is it because the public needs to know this information, or because they know a bunch of people will hold the Ryans up for ridicule -- and visit the web sites of those who hosted said information?

The story is out there, no doubt, and if you want to laugh at the Ryans, as I said, I understand it. I just won't join in, and as you ridicule and wonder about them, I'll shake my head and wonder about you.

posted by wfrazerjr at 11:27 PM on December 23

Oh, come on, you're going to shake your head and wonder about me because I find humor in a NFL coach posting foot and crotch shots of his wife on Youtube/Swinger sites?

Even my mom wouldn't shake her head at me about that.

I, nor most of the others finding humor in this, want the Ryan's lives ruined because of this. I make absolutely no calls for his head, or his coaching job. I just find quite a bit to chuckle at with this, and like the case with Favre, I truly wonder how a guy in his position (Ryan) couldn't see that he was possibly making a mistake posting what he did.

As to I suspect they simply didn't properly gauge how easily people find things on YouTube. Have you ever checked out the site? If you find the site through a Google search, you get the following "YouTube - Broadcast Yourself". Perhaps that should have been a warning to them.

posted by dviking at 12:37 AM on December 24

lbb (if you are still interested),

It appears to me that the heart of your critique of my previous post was this:

Get specific.

You missed my main point in my 1st paragraph. I didn't want to speak for everyone or give a concrete opinion b/c reasonable minds can differ on whether/how public knowledge of a highly visible employee's sexual activities should effect their employment. I was being general on purpose, b/c I was hoping that a genuine conversation could occur, as opposed to certain members merely dismissing other's opinions as juvenile. I admitted up front that I am not sure what i think about all these issues at the end of my initial comment, & was merely hoping that we could move beyond some people shouting "quit acting like a child looking at naughty pictures for the 1st time."

In my opinion the essence of being sanctimonious is thinking opinions that vary from yours are so beneath you that they can just be dismissed by ad hominem attacks on people's maturity level, and honestly that is what I'm hearing from you right now. That my forming opinion on this topic has nothing to do with my maturity I can vouch for, and I'm guessing for others that is an irrelevant sentiment as well. People just don't agree with you and fraze, & that's not an indictment on their maturity, it just means that maybe other people have a valid perspective to contribute. Simply shaking your head at people with dissenting opinions doesn't make anyone of us right, it just clogs conversation. It appears that subsequent to your engagement with my post you did offer some arguments. That's all i was hoping for, but i don't understand why you had to happen after the initial splurge of rhetoric.

You're right, it is ironic that I am being rhetorically attacked for asking for more than catcalls on a site devoted to actual dialogue.

There is more to be said on my end with your caricature of what i wrote, but I am guessing that you'll disagree with me on this basic level, so it's all good if it goes no further than this honestly. I just wanted to make clear what I was trying to convey, however poorly, and note that I didn't appreciate the caricature of what i was trying to accomplish in my post.

posted by brainofdtrain at 02:02 AM on December 24

Also, again, you're linking this with what should be anonymous (or at least extremely private) swingers ads on sites that it takes at least registration to reach ...

The swingers sites -- including some pornographic images of Michelle Ryan -- are publicly accessible to anyone who searches for her YouTube username. You're assuming they took steps to assure their privacy they did not take.

I think you underestimate the (a) stupidity or (b) desire to be exposed that's on display here. They kept that Alt.Com profile online for the past three years and logged on to it as recently as yesterday.

posted by rcade at 11:18 AM on December 24

The women's blog Jezebel and many of its commenters find this scandal/non-scandal an endearing sign of a happy marriage.

posted by rcade at 11:28 AM on December 24

I think it was poor judgment on their part to put their peccadilloes out on the internet in this fashion, but the fact that they did so is in and of itself a source of amusement to me as it seems to be for many others.

However, digging deeper to look at posts and videos and pornographic imagery of his wife is taking it farther than I think is necessary unless you've got a vendetta out for Ryan. I don't care about their sex life so I don't plan to follow this one at all, though I do hope their serious lapse in judgment -- and it's inevitable publicity, you know it was only a matter of time -- doesn't negatively affect their marriage, which seems on its face to be of decent strength.

posted by evixir at 12:25 PM on December 24

However, digging deeper to look at posts and videos and pornographic imagery of his wife is taking it farther than I think is necessary unless you've got a vendetta out for Ryan

I think that's taking a bit far. I'm sure thousands have clicked on those photos this week, few, if any, have any sort of vendetta out for Ryan. I'm pretty sure if you posted "naked skunk photos" on a board, people would look. I don't have the slightest interest in foot fetish boards, nor do I find the Ryans to be an attractive couple, but yeah, I looked. Curiosity, not a vendetta. Now, if I go back, then I have an issue.

posted by dviking at 03:29 PM on December 24

However, digging deeper to look at posts and videos and pornographic imagery of his wife is taking it farther than I think is necessary unless you've got a vendetta out for Ryan

Or you wanna bang his wife.

Sorry.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:50 PM on December 24

tahoemoej:

To cite these civil rights cases to support the position that what Ryan did was perfectly normal behavior for which he should not feel the slightest embarrasment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of them and strikes me as disengenuous.

It might be, if that were my position. It isn't. My point is a simple one, that mores change, and that people may sniff and say something "just isn't done" today...and the fact that they sniffed and said that may itself prove to be a little embarrassing down the road. In other words, I disagree with certain blanket assertions made in this thread.

Is your level of respect for the gay community sow low that you equate same-sex love to internet sex solicitation?

I'm a member of the gay community, and I was there for the aforementioned struggles. It may be that you have something new to offer me in the way of perspective on these matters, but I'm inclined to doubt it. Certainly you're in no position to scold me.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:26 PM on December 25

you probably would have said that other "certain societal norms" meant that someone should be terribly embarrassed if they were part of an interracial couple, or an interfaith couple, or if they were or did any number of things that just weren't done.

So what, exactly did you mean by that? I must have missed the point of your argument as you were misconstruing the equal rights and due process holdings of the cited cases as well as insinuating none too subtly that I was a bigot for believing that any sexual behavior might cause a blush if participated in in a public forum.

It may be that you have something new to offer me in the way of perspective on these matters, but I'm inclined to doubt it. Certainly you're in no position to scold me.

You were the one that equated being gay with soliciting sex on the internet, not me. Go back and read your post again; tell me honestly that you didn't make the comparison. If I as a married man, in the context of trying to marginalize the gay community, equated being gay or lesbian to soliciting anonymous sex on the internet, I can't believe that you would appreciate it. Regardless of your orientation or experience, I continue to reserve the right to point out disingenuous arguments.

posted by tahoemoj at 02:01 PM on December 26

So what, exactly did you mean by that?

Um....what it said? That "certain societal norms" change with time? That things that once upon a time would have been said to violate "certain societal norms", no longer would be said to do so?

I must have missed the point of your argument as you were misconstruing the equal rights and due process holdings of the cited cases as well as insinuating none too subtly that I was a bigot for believing that any sexual behavior might cause a blush if participated in in a public forum.

I wasn't misconstruing or insinuating anything, but I can't control what you infer on your own.

You were the one that equated being gay with soliciting sex on the internet, not me.

No, I wasn't, and no, I didn't. My point -- final attempt now -- was that people's attitude towards being gay, in the not so distant past, was every bit as censorious as their attitudes towards whatever flavor of sex is judged naughty today. Do you understand the difference between saying "This is as bad as that" and "People commonly used to think that this was as bad as they nowadays commonly think that that is bad"? If not, then I'm sorry, I just don't know any simpler way to explain it.

Regardless of your orientation or experience, I continue to reserve the right to point out disingenuous arguments.

Please feel free to do so, when you find them. You're completely wrong in this case.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:50 PM on December 26

OK, you're right. The frustration of trying to hit a moving target is too much for me. You win. Ryan posting a video of his wife's feet and soliciting someone with a big dick to fuck her is completely reasonable behavior for a high profile person. And anyone who makes fun of him or considers it poor judgment is a bigot who probably would have told gays and interracial couples to feel embarrassed.

posted by tahoemoj at 07:36 PM on December 26

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.