December 22, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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

posted by Drood at 01:55 PM on December 22, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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

posted by graymatters at 03:41 PM on December 22, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

... 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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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

That hurts.

posted by rcade at 04:53 PM on December 23, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010

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, 2010