Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Solving the Spitzer Equation

Filed under: US Elections

Pajamas Media has a fascinating post (over 40 comments already) written by a madam who solves the Spitzer Equation:

Part I: The Customer

One high-powered New York attorney explained it to me like this: "Of course I love my wife. Escorts have nothing to do with that. She comes to my hotel room and I don't have to know her name, because they all use fake names like Amber and Kimberly. I don't have to worry about how she feels or what she wants. It's a simple exchange: I give her a thousand bucks, we have a good time for a couple of hours, she goes away and we never have to see each other again."

See, he "doesn't have to worry about what his lover needs or wants" yet he feels it's appropriate to say "we have a good time for a couple of hours." Not "I have a good time," but "we." He's able to convince himself she's having fun.

Part II: The Sales Girl

Then they got addicted to the money and the lifestyle. And then one day, usually between the ages of 25 and 28, once they'd developed that knowing, experienced look that clients instinctively disliked, they found that themselves in a classic bind: they were addicted to high living but could no longer pay for it; they had no marketable skills; and years of late nights and lazy days had left them with no self-discipline. What to do? The really smart ones pulled themselves together and, with the help of a sympathetic client, started some kind of a business. Others married rich, cynical, older men in a sort of paid-wife arrangement. Those were the most common stories. I did not inquire into the fate of the girls who sort of faded away. I did not want to hear about their loneliness and poverty.

She doesn't have any fun in the room, but she thinks its worthwhile anyway because of the money. Just like people think smoking is worthwhile, right up until they're diagnosed. Then suddenly a light comes on.

So there you have it, mutual delusion ending in destruction for both sides. Cue Lyin' Eyes. The equation has been neatly solved by an expert. Fade to black.

UPDATE: Nicholas Kristof reminds us why prostitution is illegal.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


vova says:

"I don't have to know her name, because they all use fake names like Amber and Kimberly."

Doesn't it remind you of another john, albeit a cheap one? Here's from Ann Coulter's latest coulm:

"According to the wiretaps, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was delighted to be getting the prostitute "Kristen" again. At least he knew her name. It took Monica Lewinsky's boyfriend six sexual encounters to remember her name (bringing his lifetime average to 8.2)".


vova says:

I feel sorry for the girls. Few end up in an enviable position.

Quote: "After one prostitute missed an appointment and left a "crazy" text message for one of her pimps, the procurer remarks that the girl is on drugs. It seems, the procurer adds, "a lot of these girls deteriorate to this point."
Behold the "victimless" crime of prostitution. Hard to believe these girls would turn to drugs. Having sex with strangers for money, nothing to live for ... just thinking about it makes me want to take drugs". - Ann Coulter

But there is a difference between Kristen's client and Monica's:

"That was always the advantage Clinton had: We never expected any better. He went from Skunk Trot, Ark., to Skunk Trot, Ark. Spitzer fell from Fifth Avenue to Skunk Trot, Ark".


Rondell says:

There's a stranger who'd want to have sex with Ann Coulter? ick. Din't she start out as a man and then get a sex change?


misha says:

I don't think that what Eliot Spitzer did was all that wrong. I mean the call girl is pretty hot. Governor Spitzer only showed himself to be a normal man, with normal needs. He didn't hurt anyone. It was purely a business transaction. Prostitution is a victimless crime. Yeah you can say the girls sometimes go on drugs or whatever, but you could say the same about waitresses, and no one blames waitressing or restaurants for it. Drug abuse and prostitution are two different things.

Prostitution is called "the world’s oldest profession" for a reason. We've always had prostitutes and we always will have them, at least as long as rich, successful and powerful men (who happen to be mostly old and bald by the time they arrive) keep on wanting to bang hot young sexy things (which means forever). After all, if a man can't use his wealth and power to get his freak on then what's the point of wealth and power?

Speaking of the Bill Clinton Monica Lewinski scandal, all the Russians I know heard this story, and they were like, "Yeah, AND..." No one could understand what the big deal was, because in Russia it is expected that a powerful man such as Clinton of course gets a little on the side. (And someone thought he didn't?) Not only in Russia but in Catholic France too, a rich and powerful man is expected to take first a wife and then eventually a mistress. Every successful man in France has both a wife and a mistress. It's expected. A wife and a mistress serve two separate purposes; one is useful for taking care of a household and the affairs pertaining to children and the other is good for hot bedroom action. So what's the problem? Didn't Rudy Giuliani also have a mistress? Didn't John McCain also have that sex-bomb lobbyist gal? (But if the story about McCain is true that might be a bit more of a concern, because the implication is that McCain allowed that woman to sway his vote in the senate, in exchange for her letting Grandpa John get the action Ouch!)

So Spitzer’s big problem is that he has a thang for young, hot, 22 y.o. women? And? Men like to have sex with young and attractive women. Get over it already, you prudes!

The problem is not anything that men like a Spitzer or a Bill Clinton do with younger women. That's only normal. The problem is with the puritanical ways of America. Where he Russian Orthodox and European Catholic (France, Italy) traditions understand the true nature of man as a fallen creature, but the puritan protestant tradition of America misstates human nature and wrongly believes in the perfectibility of man in the here and now (in this world). Of course it sets people up for such falls, and we've seen this again and again. How many big-time preachers found themselves demoted by sex scandals in recent years?

The French way (Catholic Orthodox) is that rich and powerful men, such as the president, have a wife and a mistress. Big deal. A man is only human and nothing cleanses the soul better than a little bit of hot raw action, down and dirty. It may not be ideal, but it corresponds with an honest assessment of man's true nature, as a fallen creature.

By contrast the American way is that any powerful man, a leader or a president, must pretend to be the perfect "family man" completely happy and contented with his own little wifey and children, within the narrow confines of bourgeoisie family relations and Puritan ideals. But how inhuman! This means that his "real man" must stay carefully hidden, even if there is nothing particularly monstrous or unusual in him.

Russia is an Orthodox country too, and also has a more realistic grip on human nature. It seems to me that I remember many photos and videos of various members of the Yeltsin Administration being caught in sexually compromising positions (sometimes with very young girls). But did that lead to their downfall or that of Yeltsin himself? No!

Russia of course has an enormously rich body of literature which gives the Russian soul a reference point on issues touching on sin and the human condition. For example, in Russian author Leo Tolstoy’s classic 1877 book Anna Karenina, in the first paragraphs of the very first chapter we hear the interior thoughts that a gentleman has about his wife, right after she found out and confronted him about his affair with a much younger woman. He does not hate his wife, he still respects her. He still provides support for her and continues to meet all her needs. He does not interfere in what she does with the children or how she runs the household. He simply needs something more and she should be more understanding. After all, she is older now and not the beauty she once was. Later on she will eventually decide to forgive him.

Anna Karenina in English Translation:
http://reactor-core.org/anna-karenina.html#p1c1


Outraged says:

The MSN still will not report the most obvious conclusion from the Spitzer scandal, which is that there is something incredibly weird and sleazy about Democrats, who are always caught in old-fashioned heterosexual sex scandals. The Republicans are much more progressive and open-minded, that is why they have sex with underaged boys (Foley), or in bathroom stalls with anonymous sex partners (larry craig), or if they are Republican Evangelical ministers, they snort methamphetamines and have sex with young boys. Well the point is that the Republicans are much more progressive and cooler, and that should be the point of our discussion


elmer says:

As expected - Misha, you are a sick goddamn puke.

Russia is an Orthodox country?

Let's see - in roosha, the orthodox go to church to get married, if that. The so-called orthodox priests were all KGB agents.

And in roosha, after the sovoks, the divorce rate is high, men beat women, get drunk, and still expect the women to work, and take care of things at home.

Is it any wonder that rooshan women want to leave the rooshan bag-of-puke men?

roosha has no sense of public good or public trust.

In roosha, they posted newspaper notices:

"I, Nikolai bag-of-rooshan-puke-who-has-no-balls, renounce my father, an ex-priest, because for many years he deceived theh people by telling them that God exists, and that is teh reason I am severing all my relations with him."

Here's another one from a rooshan-with-no-balls:

"I refuse to be part of this family any longer. I feel that my real father is the Komsomol, who taught me the important things in life. My real mother is our motherland; the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the people of the USSR are my family now."

Misha, you are a rooshan bag-of-puke with no morals and no balls. You think you are so way cool, but you are a pathetic excuse for a cockroach.

Are you getting your thang on, Misha, by admiring that a bag of shit like Yeltsin?

Oh, wait, which is it - Yeltsin was bad for roosha.

No, wait, he was good for roosha, he got his thang on with young girls, and Misha was there to cheer him on, the sick little rat.

No, wait, Misha, the little rooskie with no balls, is confused - he talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and nothing useful or good comes out.


elmer says:

Hey, Misha, Spitzer just announced that he banged your mother, your wife and your daughter - all in the same night. For $2.

Feel real hip now?

Feel better about Yeltsin now?


elmer says:

Oh, yeah, when Spitzer was dunking his donut in your mother, your wife, and your daughter, he announced in his press release that he kept screaming something about "wow, this is the Orthodox way!"


misha says:

Well you are quite right to point out that men interact with women at several different and complex levels. Sure women are our mothers, sisters and daughters; true enough. But women can also be fuck-toys, such as the way Governor Eliot banged the ho in question (not that Mr. Eliot got any particular "advantage," since he apparently paid "full retail" for the privilege, or over $1000 an hour for that uneducated skank).

but love is always blind, and isn't that even the essence of it? (The pure recklessness and blindness of love?)

I think you must have missed the point of my post by a country mile (as expected from a d.f. named "elmer").

While I am perfectly prepared to concede that women can be useful in a variety of day-to-day contexts, I ask only that you also concede that they can also sometimes be useful in "fuck-factor-ten", "code-red" or "wonder twins ACTIVATE" situations too. And if you deny it, then you are no man, only a rather, shall we say 'queer' impostor. You are not even gentleman enough to admit what we both know is truth, since I am 99,99% sure that you are no ordinary root-eating monk, as you try to portray yourself in here.


elmer says:

misha, you and your rooskie fellow cockroach-s**t-for-brains are out trying to justify - and glorify - prostitution.

But after all, that's what the sovok system created - 2 bags of puke like you, who have no moral compass, no decency, no humanity, and no balls to stand up to dictatorship.

Yeltsin, despised by rooskies all over the blogs because of the false supposition that connects him to "democracy did not work" is all of a sudden because he got his thang on with young girls.

The result of the sovok system today is a bunch of degenerates who don't know now to think, don't have the guts to stand up to Putin, don't think that marriage is really marriage, have adultery all over the place, and drink themselves into oblivion.

And then post stupid comments on various blogs trying to justify it all and glorify Puke-in.

"Women can be useful"??????


Just the kind of chauvinistic, ignorant comment I would expect from rooskie pukes, who are used to getting drunk and then beating their women.

Is there any difference between rooskies and muslims' sharia law?

NO.

Muslim women must walk behind men, and have no rights.

rooskies are really muslims.

By the way, in Iran, where there are no real elections, the only concern is whether they can get 80% of the electorate out to vote in a false election.

roosha is just like Iran.

And by the way, it's not a "victimless" crime. Spitzer's wife is a victim. The girl that he bought is a victim, and the fact that she got paid a little bit does not make it less so.

But then again, rooshans are real big in sex trafficking, so they don't understand the concept.

rooskie pukes.

Sick.


elmer says:

In the sovok union, they swore up and down that "сексу немає".


rooskies got so used to lying, that they don't know which way is up.

And we see the results of the sovok system today in roosha and all over this blog and others - absolutely putrid rooskies with no human values whatsoever.

Who think that women "can be useful."


sick, disgusting rooskie pukes.

Here's a link to Yulia Tymoshenko referencing the "no sex in USSR" comment.


Click on the video link.

http://5.ua/newsline/237//48990/


misha says:

“And by the way, it's not a "victimless" crime. Spitzer's wife is a victim. The girl that he bought is a victim, and the fact that she got paid a little bit does not make it less so.”

Prostitution is too a victimless crime. Your claim that Spitzer’s wife is a victim is a bit strange. What happens inside a marriage is between the partners themselves and it is a private matter (whether they are faithful to each other, or whether they lie or tell the truth, or whether one of them spends money without telling the other, etc.) Not all men who frequent prostitutes are married, but even if they are, it’s still a private matter. Would they have made so much fuss about Spitzer if instead of going to a prostitute he masturbated in his hotel room with a Playboy magazine, fantasizing and thinking about another woman? Fact is that such sex is meaningless, and men really do pay the women more to go away (not for the sex itself).

It would be dishonorable for a man to break his marriage vows by betraying his wife, refusing to support her, publicly humiliating her, etc. But it is not dishonorable for a man to find pleasure, as long as he is discreet about it. As I pointed out, many European cultures accept the idea of the wife and the mistress, and it’s no big deal. I would maintain that system is more consistent with human nature than the Puritanical American conception. (As I also pointed out, the biggest preachers have taken the hardest fall in various sex scandals.)

Prostitution monetizes the sex transaction. It’s not so simple to determine who the victim is or even that there is one, as long as a fair price is agreed. This woman got paid $1000 an hour to be with guys such as Spitzer.

The man is paying for sex without the commitment that is usually associated with sex. How many men are out in night clubs on a given Saturday night looking for uncommitted sex and a one night stand? They will tell the woman they love her and whatever she wants to hear. But after sex they take off. At least a prostitute gets paid up front. This woman was 22 years old, which is legally an adult in every state and country in the world. She is not a child. If you think that establishing 18 as the age of consent is too young then what would you raise it to? 25? 30? So then if Spitzer banged a 25 year old you’d feel better?

An adult woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body, since it is her body, not yours. She can get married to whomever she wants or have one-night stands with as many people as she wants for whatever reason she wants. It is not illegal for a woman to go to bars and pick up men for sex, even a dozen times in one night. There is no law against being a slut and lots of women are sluts.

But it only becomes illegal the moment that money or something of value is exchanged for sex. So our society tells women that you can have sex in marriage or outside of marriage “for love” or even outside of love, simply because you feel slutty. It’s your body and you are free to do whatever you want with it. Oh, but not for money, only not that!

The ban on prostitution has little or nothing to do with “protecting women,” who are already free to have sex or not have sex with whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Rather the ban on prostitution has everything to do with forbidding men access to the font of pleasure that it offers them.

Any man is free to try to talk a young woman into sleeping with him, and he might even be successful. If he is successful then it’s no problem, and no law is broken, by the man or by the woman. The man can lie and promise the woman the world, tell her he loves her, tell her anything, lie about his job, his income, his status, and just do everything he can think of to persuade her to let him bang her. No law is broken in any case. We will only say the woman was stupid for believing his bullshit, but no one will deny that it was her right to give herself to him. But the moment he decides to cut the bullshit and pulls out his wallet and offers to put hard cold cash on the line, then you have a conniption fit.

Why would a young and attractive woman want to sleep with a fat bald guy old enough to be her father? The most natural thing in the world is to monetize the transaction. “You have something I want and I have something you want.” The moment the man pulls out a wad of currency his chances for successfully bedding a beautiful woman have just increased 1000%, and you know this, which is why you don’t like it. You despise prostitution not because you want to “protect women” (as you hypocritically claim), but because it offers men easy access to a limitless source of pleasure and you just can’t stand that. If you are woman you don’t want to see men get such happiness, and if you are a man you want all men to be trapped and miserable just like you are.


Artfldgr says:

actually she did have fun... thats why it was no big deal.. and why she thought that it would always be fun... when you do fun for work, as the woman said, eventually you get this look.

so the truth is that the ride lasts for as long as one kind of fun can be fun.

how many times on a roller coaster till you despise roller coasters?

live in ny and not in a nice area and you know the 'game' as its been called for a few hundred years at least.

the girl that spitzer was with, i feel sorry for in so many ways, but also, she may just be sociopathic, and this is her way to use people. though i doubt it because the men are sensitive to them not having fun.

ask the men here... her fun is important to most decent men. maybe not in a, i am going to research her and rock her world way, but that they dont have as much fun if your not.

this would explain why he may go to such. because his wife has the look of the person who stopped having fun, and is imagining that there is greater fun of that type someplace else (or not).

he goes out to get a feedback loop going.

if you read the article in the daily news "tricks of the affluent trade", you get a very different look, and i was very surprised. they had the usual made up feminist drivel the next day that sounded like a sex in the city, vogue confessional article where a bevy of anecdotal examples with names like kyle were easy to find and ridiculous in their characatures.

however, this article the quote they put in the window from a professional call girl was

"i was expecting all kinds of bondage scenearios and costumes... but for most men the fantasy was to have a really really nice date... which i found amazing and a little sad" - jaeanette angell

which makes sense. i wrote about this somewhere else but i cant beleive that everyone has swallowed the propaganda whole.

these ladies go from 1200 to 31,000 a night.. (as the article said). the latter probably being somewhat famous.

there is a rich history that tells you whats going on, but the best we can come up with is the propaganda that its about sex. whats teh difference between 300 dollar sex and 4300 sex?

if we believe that its about sex, then what do women do to compete? welcome to the race to the bottom.

but history says its aobut something else.

geishas did not have sex, but its interesting how in the west they do. they knew languages, song, jokes, they were great company.

sheharazade stayed alive by being a great date everynight (bumping the harem girl out of her place).

old wealth still send their daughters to a finishing school in geneva... who teach cooking, and other skills as well as language, deportment, maintaining staff, and more.

delve into this and you will find that they want great company... the big time fantasy for men would be their version of the white picket fence. (they would keep the girls if they could, which is why so many can be as a later sad option, but its not the same because its not real. to hear such a couple argue, which i have, wow)

the madonna whore doesnt fit here either... especially when the whore is refined company that can hold her own in discussion and topics and not be competitive at it.

do you really think that 4300 would be paid for 3 hours of strawberries and cream, running around a hotel room like a juvinile idiot? LIME IN ALL THE MOVIES...



Artfldgr says:

his wife and children were victims. if he was single that would be another story. if he had permission it would be another story, and the situation would have been safer and not so "troubled".

when he decided to hitch up, he decided that that was something he wouldnt do.

however, if you read some of the quotes from the tapes, he was not the sad guy that wanted the perfect date. he wanted the odd stuff that his wife wouldnt do.

duping delite
need for perversion

sociopath...

in fact that explains it better than the fallen from grace bs we always get as a theory to disgrace all men that they cant handle power. no sociopaths cant handle power. spitzer, clinton I & II, M barry, kennedy.


misha says:

I would suggest that we can judge a society by how well it meets the needs of its people. By this I mean their physical needs, but also their spiritual, social, medical and other needs. Man is not a compartmentalized animal, with each department of his life tied off in its own tidy corner, but rather he is a unified being, a whole.

By this standard I think American society and culture falls far short of any genuine humanistic ideal. Let's remember that we are talking about a country where the school children routinely go on violent rampages to kill their classmates and teachers. When confronted with such obvious absurdities, the right wing will go back to its standard lines talking about "evil" and "the devil" and "free will" and so forth. But they will carefully avoid drawing the obvious conclusion, which is that life in America for millions of its people is a violent and desperate experience which pushes people to the edge and over the edge every day.

As I said, a society and a culture are judged by how well they meet genuine human needs, physical, psychological, emotional and even sexual. A healthy society is a society populated by healthy people, in all of those regards.

So what I suggested is that one of the main roots of American evil is to be found in its puritanical protestant tradition. We can't forget that the very first Americans (the shiny-belt-bucked Pilgrims) were Puritans of the worst sort, and kicked out of Europe precisely for that reason. Now lots of other people have come to America since then, besides just the Pilgrims, but somehow America has never gotten beyond the initial puritanism of its early founders, in a way that is noticeable to Europe and the rest of the world.

A society does not judge its people, but rather the people judge the society, and the basis of judgment is how well that society responds to the genuinely human needs of its inhabitants.

I understand that the concept of one man one wife is deeply rooted in Christian moral values, but those moral values are really ideals more than they are reality. After all the bible also strictly prohibits taking interest on loans, but that's a contradiction that American society seems to have come to grips with.

Societies are judged by how well they meet human needs, but the first prerequisite is to understand human nature and to tell the truth about it. A society that constructs an "ideal citizen" which is for all practical purposes unattainable by the real men of flesh and blood who populate this earth isn't even moving in the right direction towards constructing a truly humanistic culture.

So how many of these "sex scandals" have we seen in recent years then? I seem to remember the famous one involving the American president William Jefferson ("Bill") Clinton, of course. But there were also scandals involving prominent republicans as well. What about Jimmy Swaggert? Or Tom Foly (who pursued young boy Congressional pages for sex). What about that preacher man, Merle Haggard, or whatever his name was. He was the leader of the largest church in the USA, and he was brought down when it was discovered that he had a thang for young men and methamphetamines.

Of course the most recent scandal was the one involving the "toe tapping" right-wing gay-bashing conservative Senator Larry Craig. And now we have this scandal involving NY Governor Eliot Spitzer. By all accounts he was a man with an accomplished and distinguished career, one which which is now ruined thanks to the scandal.

What I suggested is that the greater tolerance of human failure in the Orthodox tradition (both Catholic Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox) in some ways makes Orthodox society and culture more tolerant and ultimately more humanistic than its ultra-Puritanical protestant counterpart. I can hardly believe that I am the first one who observed or suggested this, as it is so blindingly obvious.

I am just "justifying" a man cheating on his wife, or any other human shortcoming. What I am suggesting is that the full Christian tradition understands the existential reality of human frailty and sin, and the need for punishment, but it also makes an allowance for human redemption too. There must always be a pathway for the sinner to find reconciliation, redemption and peace of mind again, after he has broken the covenant with his fellow man though his sin.

The idea that a man who commits a sin is simply utterly destroyed and tossed to the outer darkness of society, beyond any possibility of redemption, as if he is Satan himself, is detestable and inhumane. That would imply that there is such as thing as a sinless man, but we all know that is not the case. A society that expects and demands its leading citizens to be sinless will never get such citizens, but rather it will only get a society of hypocrites, who all pretend to be sinless (until their particular devil is unmasked, if it ever is). It's a society of sinners, as all societies must be, but sinners who are all too willing to pick up and cast the first stone at others. This is an anti-humanistic, lifeless and detestable culture.

America bills itself as the richest and strongest country in the world, the "city on a hill" that stands as a shiny example for the rest of the world. But scratch just beneath the surface of American life and its seedy underbelly becomes visible. This is a society that proposes its own model as having "universal validity" for everyone everywhere, even to the extent that many Americans do not cringe at the suggestion that they should impose their ways on others by violent force.

But in truth America is no Shangri-La of humanistic values, but rather it is a deeply disturbed society and one that is desperately lacking in basic humanistic values.

Links:

http://www.endthiswar.org/amputee2.jpg

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/armed_force/some_us_soldiers_speak.html

http://www.williambowles.info/gispecial/2006/0506/180506/image003-01.jpg

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/15-2.jpg

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/Obama%20gives%20Iraq%20speech.jpg







Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/698