Spitzer Headlines
So, I saw several headlines that went roughly like this: "Elliot Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring!" and "Spitzer involved with Prostitution Ring!!!11!." WOW! I thought...the governor of NY is involved in running prostitution ring??? Holy crap!!!(111)
Turns out the guy just had sex with a prostitute.
I gotta say, that's not what the headlines suggested to me.
I guess this is the end of him. I don't have much of an opinion on Spitzer one way or the other--though it's probably good that somebody gives Wall Street a little bit of a hard time. And though there's no doubt that lots of prostitution is a sad, exploitative affair that ought to be stopped...I gotta say, I don't think it's going to be very easy to argue that there's exploitation involved in a case like this. In fact, a multi-thousand-dollar-per-night gig like this is probably considerably less exploitative than a lot of jobs in the service industry. (snicker...service industry...)
However, it seems fairly clear that you're a scumbag if you screw around on your wife. Unless such around-screwing is authorized, of course. (Polyamory: perfectly fine. Lying to spouse: not at all fine.
But, even if there's nothing immoral about such prostitution, it is illegal, so I reckon Spitzer's done for.
So, I saw several headlines that went roughly like this: "Elliot Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring!" and "Spitzer involved with Prostitution Ring!!!11!." WOW! I thought...the governor of NY is involved in running prostitution ring??? Holy crap!!!(111)
Turns out the guy just had sex with a prostitute.
I gotta say, that's not what the headlines suggested to me.
I guess this is the end of him. I don't have much of an opinion on Spitzer one way or the other--though it's probably good that somebody gives Wall Street a little bit of a hard time. And though there's no doubt that lots of prostitution is a sad, exploitative affair that ought to be stopped...I gotta say, I don't think it's going to be very easy to argue that there's exploitation involved in a case like this. In fact, a multi-thousand-dollar-per-night gig like this is probably considerably less exploitative than a lot of jobs in the service industry. (snicker...service industry...)
However, it seems fairly clear that you're a scumbag if you screw around on your wife. Unless such around-screwing is authorized, of course. (Polyamory: perfectly fine. Lying to spouse: not at all fine.
But, even if there's nothing immoral about such prostitution, it is illegal, so I reckon Spitzer's done for.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:27 PM
11 Comments:
I had the same reaction to the headline, WS. I'll drop the headline speech for now---suffice to say that they're written by low-level people at the paper, and favor, shield or defecate on the subject depending on prejudices.
[Learned that trick selecting photos at the high school yearbook. We didn't like you, you are mooked for all time.]
Since Spitzer's a Democrat, and quite a self-righteous one, I'm trying not to enjoy this too much. A GOP senator named Vetter got named in a DC hooker ring, and he was given a pass, as it was indeed a private matter.
Proper, in my view.
Spitzer was a prosecutor, however. My rules for hypocrisy are pretty liberal---Spitzer said he failed to live up to his own standards, and that's fair---among human beings who have standards, failure is inevitable.
But to condemn others [and Spitzer prosecuted prostitution] for what you do yourself is another matter entirely, and fits my definition of hypocrisy.
Now, if he gave hookers a break---and because there is no moral difference here between buyer and seller---perhaps he's just the victim of bad luck.
Me, I just wonder how he could afford Emperor's Club courtesans on a civil servant's salary. Up to five grand a pop? At least we can hope he selected from the Three Diamond menu instead of the Seven, as any fiscally responsible politician would.
Oh, heck, enjoy. I give you special dispensation. I enjoyed the hilarious Larry "Wide Stance" Craig incident.
I'm not sure I agree with either of you... Sen. David Vitter preached about abstinence only education - "teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness." Further, he wanted to amend the Constitution to ban same sex marriages. He ran and voted on matters of sex; should he not be considered a hypocrite when he failed to live by the standards he sought to force upon others? I would prefer he didn't remain in Congress, but if he can, and if Larry "Wide Stance" Craig (I never get sick of that) can, I don't see why Elliot Spitzer should resign as governor.
As for prostitution, I tend to agree that it can be and often is exploitative in practice, e.g. in cases of forced prostitution, or in cases where pimps abusively call the shots. However, I also think that it's always going to happen, and I'd rather it be regulated, both in terms of regular STD monitoring and to prevent exploitation and coercion, especially of minors. Either way, I'm not sure that the case here is exploitative at all given the rates these people were charging. It even reminds me of the first season of the West Wing - Sam's hooker was working to put herself through law school by sleeping with sleazy politicians. I'm inclined to suggest that this, and perhaps the DC Madam ring, is not the prostitution ring prosecuters should focus on.
Re: your sidenote about polyamory - it gives me the creeps, in part because I'm reading "Under the Banner of Heaven" right now, but I suppose that involves a lot of confounding factors, such as indoctrination and statuatory rape.
Yes, polyamory must not be confused with other things such as statutory rape or sex as a part of indoctrination ritual.
Confusions like those likely lead to much of the condemnation floating around out there.
Re: Tom's inquiry about Spitzer's ability to afford high-priced call girls, he comes from a very wealthy family - real estate magnate for a father, I believe.
Taylor,
Yeah, I think that polyamory--well, actually, polygamy--is like prostitution in this respect: in principle, it's unobjectionable. But historically, in actual practice, it's been largely wrong because exploitive and abusive.
To put my point more carefully: there's nothing in principle wrong about being married to X and having sex with Y. It's generally wrong because it generally involves lying to or otherwise deceiving X (and sometimes Y). But if X and Y are both cool with it, then no problem.
One might argue that it's still wrong if the wedding ceremony included the "forsaking all others" clause, because this would involve a kind of broken promise, at least to the attendees of the wedding...or whoever such promises re made to (oneself? The community? God? Nobody in particular?). That argument seems a bit of a stretch, unless we're equally willing to say that a woman has done something wrong if the wedding included an "obey" clause and she fails to obey in some instance. But that's crazy. (One might respond that "obey" clauses can never be legitimate...and I'd be inclined to agree.)
Anonymous helps out here---Gov. Spitzer does seem to be a man of [inherited] means, and could well afford what appears to be his taste for the Seven Diamond menu.
WS, I tried to work up some glee about this, but my heart's not in judging the man.
However, since you seem to be an aficionado of philosophy-as-syllogism, and seek to prevail on those grounds frequently, I'm surprised you let pass Brother Taylor's implied syllogism that Sen. Vetter, as a confessed adulterer, should support gay "marriage."
How to put that into As and Bs and Cs and Xs and Ys escapes me. I imagine you might give it a whack to help Brother Taylor out with his logic, but you're also on record as being opposed to torture.
As for Gov. Spitzer, I just want him to go away. He has done some good but also some bad for this nation as a prosecutor, but now he's made a mockery of laws that at one time he zealously enforced.
It's rumored he's waiting to resign in order to cut a deal with the feds, where he surrenders his office but stays out of jail, and perhaps avoids a permanent disbarment, as that would take away his means to make a living.
You may recall former president Clinton cut such a deal with Fed prosecutor Robert Ray, and further, that I was satisfied with it. Unlike Spitzer's own pound-of-flesh approach to prosecution of the law, mercy can also serve the cause of justice.
Good morning, TVD. You sure are cheerful...
I did not say that Vitter should support gay marriage. I said that he should be considered a hypocrite because he sought to impose sexual standards on others while failing to live up to those standards himself.
You said that Vitter should get a free pass because it was a private matter but that Spitzer is a hypocrite, so he should not get a free pass. By your logic, this means Vitter is not a hypocrite. How do you defend that when he tried to legislate ridiculous sexual standards through abstinence only programs? When he tried to Constitutionally define marriage as something so sacred that monogamous homosexuals can't partake of it?
I'm not seeing the connection between urging abstinence and supporting gay "marriage." Too many stops in between.
As for hypocrisy in Vitter's part, we might say anyone who falls short of their ideals is a hypocrite. But that's too low a bar for me. Each one of us advocates that people not lie, cheat or steal, yet we've all done it anyway. [Have we not?]
Therefore, to violate one's own highest standards is hypocrisy, and each of us is one. The word begins to lose all meaning, as the only way to avoid hypocrisy is to have no standards at all.
Spitzer is different because he prosecuted prostitution, which is not quite the same as saying it's wrong.
Isn't legislating something the same as threatening prosecution in the case someone fails to obey the legislation? Legislation certainly makes prosecution possible. At what point does a legislator become responsible for prosecution that follows?
I suppose you could argue that Vitter was legislating indoctrination (so teachers get in trouble for failing to indoctrinate), not legislating sexual activities. I still think someone is a hypocrite when they fail to live up to standards they've forced (either through indoctrination, legislation, or prosecution) on others.
Oh, I think voting for abstinence programs is a long way from "forcing" chastity.
But if it weren't, I'd agree with you here. If Vitter voted for shooting harlots and stoning adulterers, he'd be a hypocrite.
Indeed, if he had pushed for stronger anti-prositution laws, I'd be with you on this.
But opposing gay "marriage?" I just can't connect the dots. Even some gay people don't support gay "marriage." There isn't a necessary connection between private behavior and public policy.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home