Sin makes you stupid, Spitzer

Aren't all politicians involved in prostitution though? I mean, it's pretty much a job requirement isn't it?

That being said... just...wow. What an idiot. I think prostitution should be legalized anyway, but still.... Wow.

Wait . . . aren't we going to hear a chorus of comments to the effect that as long as he was hypocritical about it and pretended not to be doing it, while publicly prosecuting it in a seemly fashion, that makes it oh so much better than just coming right out and favoring legalization? I thought hypocrisy was good.

Spitzer is a Democrat though, so it's obviously worse than Republican hypocrisy.

gah, jaybird got there first.

Who exactly is praising "Republican hypocrites"?

Those of us who regard prostitution as a criminal vice will prefer Spitzer's hypocrisy in public office over a crusader for legalization of the practice. That doesn't mean we admire his conduct, any more we admire that of Larry Craig or whatever Republican you have in mind.

That said, in this case as in others, all of us should strive to resist the temptation to schadenfreude (which is merely a form of Envy). According to the Times, Gov. Spitzer has a wife and three kids. He and they deserve our prayers as they struggle through what is certain to become a nightmare.

Sig: Wait . . . aren't we going to hear a chorus of comments to the effect that as long as he was hypocritical about it and pretended not to be doing it, while publicly prosecuting it in a seemly fashion, that makes it oh so much better than just coming right out and favoring legalization? I thought hypocrisy was good.

I swear, how many times do I have to explain it to you before you understand my point?

Sin is bad. No matter who does it, it's bad. I would prefer to have a governor who prosecutes prostitution rings and who, in his private life, does not patronize prostitutes. But if I had to choose between a) a governor who prosecutes prostitution rings while secretly hiring hookers, or b) a governor who declines to go after prostitution rings while secretly hiring hookers, I'll take the former. When both choices are bad, it's better to have a public official who believes in upholding the law even as he privately violates it than an official who feels no obligation to uphold the law in public or to live by it in private.

Wouldn't you agree? If not, why not?

I understand that it perhaps gives y'all pleasure to pretend that I'm indulgent of Republican hypocrisy and hard on Democratic hypocrisy, but you have produced no evidence of that, and I don't think you can.

CNN just carried audio of Spitzer's brief press statement. He didn't resign, though he apologized to his wife and the public for non-specified actions. Looks like he's going to try to hang on.

Here's what I said when it became known that Sen. Vitter, the Louisiana Republican, had gotten mixed up with a hooker:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/07/character-and-comeuppance.html

No attempt there to justify him or his actions, but rather saying that the GOP deserves comeuppance for the behavior of its leading officials (this was part of an Al Gonzales post). So please, spare me the lazy accusations.

Just goes to show how easily the names of the self-righteous can end up in some madam's little black book.

Why is Spitzer automatically "self-righteous"? Because he tried to stop corruption and illegal activities? So is anyone who condemns evil actions automatically "self-righteous"?

There are several crimes involved when a person of privilege is "caught" (base assumption: that Spitzer bought sex):

1) Whoever is caught, it requires little imagination to see that this is the tip of an iceberg. It's a crime that we see this sort of story only once in a great while. Prostitution does not exist without customers.

2) He committed a crime, and should bear the full brunt of both legal and social censure. Unlimited sympathy for his family, not one whit for him, because in the world of privilege there is only one deterrent: getting caught. If the damage he does to those he purports to love has any value, it would be in deterring others from going down that same path.

3) The get-tough on crime crowd has a favorite cliche: commit a crime, pay the price. Do not spare Spitzer, not one bit, or we put the lie to such slogans and the so-called principles behind them. For every thought to spare the family this "nightmare", consider the untold unprivileged thousands who are not only not spared, but made to suffer years beyond via guilt by association.

No attempt there to justify him or his actions, but rather saying that the GOP deserves comeuppance for the behavior of its leading officials (this was part of an Al Gonzales post). So please, spare me the lazy accusations.

You did make a subsequent post about Larry Craig where you questioned whether he is a hypocrite or not. Just sayin'.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/08/larry-craigs-socalled-hypocris.html

For the record, I thought Spitzer was the worst sort of obnoxious little nanny-state bureaucrat troll before this, and I'm even less kindly disposed to him now. I say throw the freakin' book at him.

You need not take everything so personally, Rod. Last time I looked, your name wasn't in my post. Re David Vitter and other such cases, plenty of people piled on there to assert that right-wing hypocrisy was the good kind, for one logic-pretzeled reason or another. You didn't have to do it yourself for it to have happened.

Since you mention it, though, I will take exception to something that you did say. What on earth gets into the minds of these powerful people, taking these kinds of chances? Is it really that thrilling to tempt fate? While this is a valid question, it seems a little off the mark to me. Is the most pressing moral issue here really the fact that Spitzer was reckless and spoiled his political reputation? Isn't it more important to note that a man with every kind of wealth and privilege still felt entitled to sexually exploit women, to betray his wife and children? That's what I'd be asking. What on earth gets into the minds of powerful men? Is it really that thrilling to degrade women?

Apparently the answer is yes. For Simon, I do not "regard prostitution as a criminal vice." Using prostitutes isn't a "vice." It's violence against women. Sex trafficking is a crime against humanity. All that has to happen for this "crime" to go away forever is for men to stop doing it. It's very simple. Clearly, men (in general) are not serious about stopping it, or it would be stopped. What men in power want is to compartmentalize and control the buying of sex. So, to that extent Spitzer was fulfilling his role perfectly.

Blaise Pascal put it best in his Pensees:

"Man is neither angel nor brute, and the unfortunate thing is that he who would act the angel acts the brute."

If we don't come to grips with the deepest contradictions in our natures--our shadow selves--we deceive others and lie to ourselves.

Sig, I tend to agree with you re: the reasons prostitution is wrong. But your argument seems to utterly ignore any agency or responsibility the women in question might have. The women employed by the Emperor's Club aren't tough-luck cases regretfully doing whatever they have to do to get by, they're stone-cold professionals who have no real material need to do what they do but choose to do it anyway. And for $5500 an hour, it's not hard to see why. They participate fully in their own exploitation and I have little sympathy for them.

All that has to happen for this "crime" to go away forever is for men to stop doing it. It's very simple. Clearly, men (in general) are not serious about stopping it, or it would be stopped. What men in power want is to compartmentalize and control the buying of sex. So, to that extent Spitzer was fulfilling his role perfectly.

What a bizarre thing to say, and a sexist one too. What if I said, "Clearly women (in general) are not serious about stopping it, or it would be stopped. All that has to happen for this 'crime' to go away forever is for women to stop prostituting themselves"? (Except I wouldn't have put ironic quotes around the word "crime.") I just heard a reporter on CNN reading the federal document listing the results of their wiretap on Spitzer's hotel room in Washington. I don't believe the $5,000 hooker whose services Spitzer negotiated was force-marched robotically into his room at the Mayflower.

As long as we have men who desire sex, and women who are willing (for whatever reason) to sell it, we are going to have prostitution. I believe we should try to diminish it as much as possible through law enforcement and social action, but I don't believe it can ever be eradicated -- or rather, the measures that would have to be taken to eradicate it would require turning our society into Saudi Arabia.

The women employed by the Emperor's Club aren't tough-luck cases regretfully doing whatever they have to do to get by, they're stone-cold professionals who have no real material need to do what they do but choose to do it anyway. And for $5500 an hour, it's not hard to see why.

I'm not sure if it's related or not, but within the last week or so, I read about some high-end escort service under investigation that actually "employed" some very notable, high-profile women from the entertainment industry. There may be a few more shoes dropping shortly...

The women employed by the Emperor's Club aren't tough-luck cases regretfully doing whatever they have to do to get by, they're stone-cold professionals who have no real material need to do what they do but choose to do it anyway.

That doesn't make it less exploitive. Whether a man pays $10 or $5000 to have a woman perform sex acts with him, it is exploitation.

Finally, something on which we agree, Daniel. But do you agree with me that a woman who chooses to prostitute herself -- and I'm NOT talking about those who are forced into sex slavery! -- is also exploiting herself in a morally impermissible way? What about male prostitution?

New York State-we live in a one party banana republic run by and for idiots. Wall Street is going to wake up one day soon to the realization that no financial services have to physcially be in NYC. And when that day comes, it will be past time to get out of Dodge.

I can't wait for Governor Paterson-the blind and incompetent leading the broke, lazy and stupid. Fitting.

"I can't wait for Governor Paterson-the blind and incompetent leading the broke, lazy and stupid. Fitting."

Always the ugly, classless remark.

But do you agree with me that a woman who chooses to prostitute herself . . . is also exploiting herself in a morally impermissible way? What about male prostitution?

Absolutely. But that immorality of the john outweighs the immorality of the prostitute. But only slightly.

Daniel-

Does the truth hurt? Paterson is legally blind-and utterly incompetent. We have a state with a busted budget(to the point that even "progressive" Spitzer realized he could no longer tax&spend his way out)abysmal schools and growing welfare rolls as jobs flee.Further, if Spitzer needs to allocate blame for finding himself the punch line today and for the rest of his life, he can look in the mirror.

And worse, he can wonder about what he has done to his wife and kids, how he has dishonored them with his behavior; what he has done to his children is abominable.

Whether its prostitutes or drugs, I don't believe prohibition is the answer because prohibition opens the door to all kinds of violent criminal activity. This violence does more damage than the immoral act does. We should treat sex and drug addiction like mental illness rather than a criminal justice issue.

What galls me is the hypocrisy of politicians that support and enforce laws that they feel don't apply to them. I think its out of shear arrogance and elitism that they flaunt their moral corruption. The power addiction that these tyrants have is where the real moral depravity lies.

The most hypocritical aspect of Spitzer's situation for me is not the contradiction between his public life as an enforcer of the law and his private life as a breaker of the same -- it's the contradiction between his public stance as a standard-bearer for (putatively) the more "feminist" of the two political parties and his private life as (apparently) a fairly conventional "male chauvinist pig."

This at a moment when the pundits are abuzz about the newly "feminine" values of Spitzer's party, and when a presidential candidate of Spitzer's party -- a senator from Spitzer's state -- is chiding Iowans and Mississippians for not being "feminist" enough -- that is, not enough like their "betters" in New York.

Granted, there's irony as well in the fact that the aforementioned senator and presidential candidate owes her political career to a husband who has been engaged for years in sexual predation of powerless working-class women -- precisely the women whom the senator and candidate now claims to represent.

But don't get me started on that.

>>>
Lust for power and lust get mixed up quite often.
Posted by: elizabeth | March 10, 2008 4:51 PM
>>>

>>>
but I still wonder if there isn't something beyond actual sin and even original sin going on here.
Posted by: Caroline | March 10, 2008 5:21 PM
>>>

Another example of 'alpha male' psychology.

I didn't like Spitzer even before I knew how ardently he loves abortion. I thought he abused his office as Attorney General to extort money from corporations and prominent individuals, who had committed no crime, by threatening to slime them even worse if they resisted.

We now return to our regularly scheduled Lenten Fast, which does not include schadenfreude.

Yesterday, I wrote in another thread: "But seriously ;-), I love this blog because it is the psychological equivalent of a gender-neutral house of ill repute. According to liberals (I wouldn't know), people can go to such places and safely blow off steam; rid themselves of all their frustrations and become better, more productive citizens."

Had the Governor simply availed himself of this blog, he would be OK today.

The fall election here in the Vampire State should be interesting in the extreme. The voters now know that EVERY politician in the state (except a few of the town and county-level types) is corrupt in one fashion or another.

Not that I expect them to care. After all, there's all those billions of dollars of Solid Gold Goodies (financed by Your New York State Tax Dollars, brothers and sisters !) to divvy up. Got to keep the Downstate unions and the Long Island/Downstate school districts happy.
(Upstate doesn't count; they're just a bunch of hayseed appleknockers in gingham dresses and frock coats out of the Sears Roebuck catalog, don't you know.)

Prediction: Spitzer will flee the scene. Patterson will become governor. And absolutely NOTHING will change in New York State.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

I could tell he was a Democrat because it wasn't a homosexual encounter in a restroom.

But if I had to choose between a) a governor who prosecutes prostitution rings while secretly hiring hookers, or b) a governor who declines to go after prostitution rings while secretly hiring hookers, I'll take the former. When both choices are bad, it's better to have a public official who believes in upholding the law even as he privately violates it than an official who feels no obligation to uphold the law in public or to live by it in private.

I'm stunned by this one, Rod. You would rather a hypocritical public servant who penalizes people for behavior he engages in?

Prostitution should be legal. No, don't give me that "exploitation of women" crap. She walks away with money in her pocket. The John gets his rocks off. No one is exploiting anyone.

No one is touching on another factor: the laundering of money - which I believe will be the real issue when the indictment comes out.

The money trail is rather bizarre - and Spitzer, having done this (gone after launderers) as AG, should have known better.

It's all about EGO.

And he, as AG, p$*sed off some verra powerful people - don't think they didn't have something to do with this. Spitzer just made it easy for them. From racketeering to the Wall streeters (remember Grasso???) to Welch (GE) - he got to them all. Payback is a b#$*.

I'm surprised his pal in Westchester didn't offer him tips - oh wait, he was caught during his presidency... Hillary had better step aside and not defend her pal.

(Someone last night on TV said that he'd had a hard 2007 - like this is an excuse to blow off steam with a call girl? At those prices?)

Joel:Prostitution should be legal. No, don't give me that "exploitation of women" crap. She walks away with money in her pocket. The John gets his rocks off. No one is exploiting anyone.

So, Joel, how much money would it take for you to allow random strangers to violate your body for their own gratification? How much would you need to be paid for you to consider that a fair deal? How much do you think your girlfriend, sister, or wife should accept in return for letting men use her as a lust dumpster?

As you consider these points, I hope you've made it clear to your current sex partner (assumed to be female) that such is your view of relations between men and women. It would be a real shame if she gave you free sex when she could have been getting paid--or if she assumed your relationship was something other than transactional, and learned the truth later.

Financial Times this morning (asterisks added):
ft.com/cms/s/0/43c37d14-eecc-11dc-97ec-0000779fd2ac.html

Mr Spitzer was the unnamed "Client-9" listed in the official criminal complaint. According to the complaint, "Client-9" arranged to pay for a prostitute from Emperors Club VIP to *travel from New York to meet him at a hotel in Washington* on the evening of February 13, which coincides with a trip Mr Spitzer made to Washington to testify before Congress the next day.

Court scene (charades), Episode Fifteen, Monty Python's Flying Circus:
ibras.dk/montypython/episode15.htm#9

Counsel [John Cleese]: The accused, m'lud, sentenced her to be *taken from this place and brought round to his place*.
Judge [Graham Chapman]: Have you anything to say in your defense?
Judge Kilbraken [Terry Jones]: I haven't had any for weeks.

sigarlis, your 12:08 posting is a waste of space. Stats about illegal prostitution are irrelevant to this discussion because I said it should be legal.

I can't speak for the rest of Nevada, but here in Churchill County brothels are regulated thusly:

1) Business may only be transacted in the brothel. IOW, no outcalls and no streetwalking.

2) The girls must be paid at least 51% of house revenue.

3) The girls must get medical checkups at least every 30 days, at house expense.

4) Condoms must be used every time, no exceptions, no excuses, this means you.

5) The girls have absolute right of refusal under all circumstances.

And of course, since prostitution is an above-board job here, any girl can quit at any time and go work at Wal-Mart if she wants. No pimps.

Exploitation my *ss. It's just a job. A particularly unpleasant and nasty job, IMHO, but a job nonetheless. And every woman who takes this job in Nevada does so by choice.

Joel, my comment was indeed a waste of space as far as you're concerned. I've found that it's pointless to argue with a zealous prostitution advocate. My comments are made for others who may have an interest in them, not for you. It's nice that you know so much about brothels. In my opinion, however, those who list such facts have normally not done much research into the reality behind them. They prefer to believe in a world where women spontaneously agree to do things they'd never do themselves. Which reminds me that you still haven't answered my question about what it would take to get you to prostitute yourself. Or what would be an appropriate fee for your wife or daughter to do the same. If it's "just a job," there should be some economic incentive that would induce you to do it.

...Or stupidity makes you sin?

In general, Spitzer seems to have done a good job, both as prosecutor and as governor. One does wonder whether, in his prosecutorial days, he ever set up the kind of sting operation in which he has been caught. That would be poetic, or even biblical.

Thanks for those statistics, Sig. Definitely food for thought...

Michael M, as I understand it, Spitzer has broken the law, specifically the Mann Act, which forbids someone from transporting a female across state lines for the "immoral purposes." He has been caught purchasing services from the very same type of enterprise he has vigorously prosecuted in the past - an organized prostitution ring. And, well... he's the GOVERNOR of New York. He should be holding himself to a very high standard, if only for propriety's sake, if nothing else. There's basically no such thing as a "private matter" when you're a man in his position....

I've just spent some time on Huffington Post. Very interesting. Everyone there pretty much agrees that Spitzer did nothing wrong, aside from being a "hypocrite" (the only sin they still believe in at HuffPo, besides intolerance). But they are equally united in their agreement that Spitzer's wife shouldn't have stood by him at yesterday's press conference, and that she should, in fact, "lawyer up" and drop him like a hot potato.

I don't get it: If Spitzer did nothing wrong, if engaging a prostitute is just "something men do," then why should his wife leave him?

I don't understand the rush to judgement. This, so far, is a private matter.

Huh? Whether Spitzer is charged or not is a matter of prosecutorial discretion. But his actions certainly constitute multiple crimes crimes (structuring illegal payments, transporting a woman across state lines for purposes of prostitution, soliciting a prostitute, perhaps misusing public funds, and others).

By definition, criminal conduct is not "a private matter."

I wouldn't prostitute myself for any price, and I gather you wouldn't either. But you are telling other women, the many thousands in the US who would like to prostitute themselves for money, that they cannot make that choice.

Because it's a "choice" that women make only under extreme duress, and even then usually only if they've been physically or sexually abused, grossly neglected or abandoned early in life. We do not let them make that "choice" because reasonable people understand that prostitution is physically and emotionally self-destructive and leaves a person's dignity in shreds.

If your wife or adult daughter had trouble paying the bills, should she be allowed to "choose" to sell her body for sex? And if so, should she also be allowed to sell a kidney or an eye?

And is it coincidental that the couples in question are Democrats? Are we to assume that any self-respecting Republican woman would walk out immediately?

Marian, I haven't checked out those comments at Huffington Post, but it's not exactly one of the web's great Republican enclaves.

I appreciate that women have options, and no one should be judging whatever the Governor's wife does at this point. She's the victim here, having been publicly humiliated by a very self-centered husband.

But it IS amazing that political wives of both parties invariably choose to stand next to the creepy hubby politico and endure these wretched, humiliating press conferences -- whether it's Spitzer, Craig, McGreevey, etc. Why is that?

Amen, Simon. But I would add that in my view, "not letting them make that choice" means, in a just world, that we don't let men force them into that choice--not that we stop them by jailing them.

Re Joel's claims: as I thought, it took me one search string--"nevada prostitution reality"--followed by one click, to get me to the following link:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/09/10/2003378104

It's an article about a book, Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections by Melissa Farley.

Take HBO's hit documentary series, Cathouse, which features the most famous of the Nevadan brothels, the Moonlight Bunny Ranch. Tune in and you'd be forgiven for thinking that all prostitutes in Nevada are on to a good thing. The women speak coyly about loving their work, their customers, their bosses.

"The series sheds light not only on the numerous joys and challenges of working at a legal brothel," says the HBO Web site, "but on the therapeutic benefits that customers take with them after a stint at the Ranch."

Given such great PR, a new book -- Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections -- makes interesting reading. During a two-year investigation, the author, Melissa Farley, visited eight legal brothels in Nevada, interviewing 45 women and a number of brothel owners. Far from enjoying better conditions than those who work illegally, the prostitutes she spoke to are often subject to slave-like conditions.

Described as "pussy penitentiaries" by one interviewee, the brothels tend to be in the middle of nowhere, out of sight of ordinary Nevadans. (Brothels are officially allowed only in counties with populations of fewer than 400,000, so prostitution remains an illegal -- though vast -- trade in conurbations such as Las Vegas.) The brothel prostitutes often live in prison-like conditions, locked in or forbidden to leave.

"The physical appearance of these buildings is shocking," Farley said. "They look like wide trailers with barbed wire around them -- little jails."

The rooms all have panic buttons, but many women told her that they had experienced violent and sexual abuse from the customers and pimps.

Please read on if you want to understand the reality.

*sigh* I knew this was coming. Melissa Farley is well-known in Nevada. Let's just say she's not renowned for her personal integrity.

A radical feminist who gets published in "off our backs" magazine and rants about "femicide" is perhaps not the most reliable source of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Farley

(Be sure to read the references and external links. A fascinating look into the mind of a genuine misandryst.)

I see nothing discreditable to Melissa Farley in the Wikipedia article in question. I would encourage anyone to go read all the links in question, and to examine the claims of Farley's critics, as well, and then make up their own minds. I suspect they would then be better informed than Joel.

" could tell he was a Democrat because it wasn't a homosexual encounter in a restroom."

What's Barney Frank got against restrooms? Isn't that where he met that guy who ran gay prostitution out of Frank's crib? Taking "clients" to the Congressional gym?

LOL! Democrats don't like gay bathroom sex! LOL! What planet have YOU been on? They pioneered the idea.

>>>
What's Barney Frank got against restrooms? Isn't that where he met that guy who ran gay prostitution out of Frank's crib? Taking "clients" to the Congressional gym?
Posted by: Max Schadenfreude | March 11, 2008 2:33 PM
>>>

Dunno, that was before my time of political awareness seeing as how it happened more than 17 years ago.

Thanks for the history lesson, though.

Per sig: "Clarity of speech is a first step toward clarity of thought."

Per sig, March 11, 2008 12:08 PM: "I support legalization of prostitution...But...inflicting maximum social opprobrium on any man who chooses to degrade...women."

If you ran the Emperor's Club with such clarity of thought :-), you'd go broke.

"I wouldn't be running the Emperor's Club, Cleveland. I'd be clubbing the Emperors till they were running." - sig

Speaking of concentrating the mind wonderfully! If *I* could find a straight man capable of playing catalyst to such pearls from swine like me, I'd be loosening my Borscht Belt in a Catskilled minute.

Not since The Drew Carey Show has Cleveland so enabled such rolling of my spare tire...

Sig-
The 'You' is like y'all, like the masses...

'need' = commerce? Um, you wouldn't have a business selling hamburgers if people didn't buy them.

You wouldn't have bootleggers on street corners making money if there wasn't clientele who purchased from them.

You wouldn't have prostitutes if the clientele (johns) weren't willing, and able, to pay for them.

It's a business. It's commerce. Morality aside - it's a CHOICE.

And, in the above, you is a general YOU. Please feel free to substitute 'the population' 'society' or some other general term.

I prefer you and it was used correctly.

Thanks for the explanation, speakfromtheheart. Yes, the general "you" is an acceptable usage, but in this case, there's a problem. Over half the population is female and thus doesn't have the "need" you speak of. So, you're using a term to refer to "the population" or "society," but you're leaving out more than half of the society you address.

And you still haven't explained wherein lies the "need" for the minority portion of the population--men--to receive sex on demand in return for money. Please explain how you arrive at your knowledge that this is a universal necessity that must be provided.

sig-

Women do indeed use male escorts. So right from the start, I cannot agree with this 'man only' thing you speak of (in this case the you is directed to you).

Need, desire, power thing - whatever. I don't claim to understand this. I do however see it as 'common' and universal to the world. No country is immune from prostitution - it's been around, likely, as long as man has (or slightly thereafter).

I never said MUST BE PROVIDED. Where did you get this? It is commerce - they fill a NEED - why there is a need? Go ask an expert in the field of sexual deviation, or sexual desires, or sexual needs, or need for power. There are many theories and explanations for why.

Something fuels the commerce of prostitution - male and female. Not only do men go to female prostitutes, they also go to male. The same for females.

For you to to not be aware of the gender-crossing is well, somewhat naive - if what you said in the last post is what you think.

Who said it cannot be done away with? I didn't, Sig.

It is a fact (never said universally accepted). And it is LEGITIMATE in some places in the world.

I'm not assuming anything. It is commerce.

I never said ANYONE is ENTITLED to get sex whenever they wanted.

Entitled? That would be Spitzer, McGreevy, Clinton, JFK.

They feel they are entitled. It is about ego.

My own assumptions have not been put out here. I never said I agreed with, or disagreed with any of this. I stated reality.

You do not know my stance on prostitution. This isn't about what I think. I don't foist my thinking on people (or try not to).

You really don't read my posts. I do not understand your analogy to 'women robbing banks.' You said "Over half the population is female and thus doesn't have the "need" you speak of" -- this is not even a true statement. And I challenged it.

Women do have the need, there are successful male escort services out there. Cougars (and by that I mean older women prowling for men) do troll the bars -- they may pay for the guy via drinks, trinkets - or they may BUY THEIR TIME. Just like any other prostitution transaction.

And if you want to get into it - what about the golddiggers - be it male or female. The choose to PROSTITUTE themselves in order to get the money, power (um, the things I've said about Spitzer), whatever that they feel they need.

Same word, different take. From streetwalker to call-girl, golddigger to lonely person - what makes someone choose to go, or be, a prostitute, is well, a large discussion indeed.

Scott -

The significant other/spouse is a victim. On another Spitzer thread I said "Spitzer, by not using condoms, played russian roulette with his wife's life..."

Arrogance, ego - above the law. People in power seem to think they are immune from being caught.

But, the Farley quote above -- myth that people choose prostitution? Myth? They have. They may feel they have no other choice, but one is not necessarily coerced into prostitution any more than being coerced into staying in an abusive relationship. It is a choice. I'm confused about the comment.

Spitzer's "Kristin" does not seem a person held against her will. I do not believe the Embassy group locked her up or stole her from her home and forced her into this life.

Am I missing something?

"Wasn't it Chesterton who said that original sin was the only Christian doctrine you could prove by simply opening the newspaper?"

What's original about the Spitzer story? Everybody has already listed innumerable precedents, though nobody else has mentioned John Profumo, who really did seem to have spent a great deal of his later life atoning for his episodes of sleaze with Christine Keeler.