Moral Rectitude or Rectal Masturbation
A scandal!! What a great birthday gift to me, in my guise as the writer!
So Eliot Spitzer, present governor of New York state (but not for long, likely), was revealed yesterday to have been a client of a very high-priced call-girl company (do they still call them brothels?), with reported liaisons in a D.C. hotel, The Mayflower, infamous for being the same hotel that former Bill Clinton adviser Dick Morris was busted with his own peccadillo out. (I know "peccadillo" means "a relatively small sin" but in this case, the literary license works.)
Anyway, according to the government affadavits, he is the now-infamous "Client No. 9" of the "Emperor’s Club V.I.P." How ironic, since most of the political "Masters of the Universe" have probably got the smallest peccadillos -- I think you get my drift -- and the biggest wallets. That much is obvious, as it's alleged that the least expensive girl in the Emperor's Club stable (the "one diamond" girl, as they were rated) goes for about $1,000 an hour, while the highest-rated seven-diamond girl commanded over $5,000 an hour, presumably for more than coffee and doughnuts. Well, perhaps a nut or two...Sorry. And no more references to "peccadilloes."
But my question is, Spitzer is number nine of how many?
As you might imagine, there is a bit of Schadenfreude here, to be sure.
You couldn't have asked for more irony: the morality crusader, who persecuted Wall Street's moneyed bigwigs, and tried to clean up radio's incestuous financial relationship with big music labels, and who himself shut down TWO high-dollar prostitution rings as then-Attorney General for the State of New York, being brought low by his own sexual insatiability and outside-the-home quenching of that lusty thirst with fist-fulls of dollars.
His career is all but done. It's just a matter of when the word will come. He's literally a dead man walking, politically speaking.
But what of Spitzer, the person? One of the best descriptions comes from the Head of State blog: "One can feel that they are so far 'ahead' in moral victories as compared to the vastly less moral and vanquished others, that they are allowed a structured, narrow, and quiet deviation." So I guess he figured he'd benefitted his state's citizens by so much, he could afford a bit of kinky prostitute sex? Whatever.
Now, don't think I am judging him. I, for one, don't believe prostitution should be illegal. I think it should be legal and highly-regulated for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the health of the practitioners, but more practically, to remove the stigma placed on one's sexual appetites. Would I seek a prostitute? No, I'm good, thanks. But should others be penalized for doing so? No, I don't think so. I'm not them, so I don't know what sex means to them, but that doesn't give me the right to judge them. Not to mention, those that pay the price legally are often the women who provide the service, not the johns. That is inherently unfair, and in a society that preaches "fairness," it's a pretty obvious deviation from that theme to leave the johns unstained by their conduct.
But lets, get away from all that. Let's just be real for a minute.
Spitzer is not in dutch because of whom he used to satisfy his urges to get his fuck on.
He's in trouble because he violated the "puritanical" beliefs that this country continues to flaunt openly, but break not-so-secretly, and not-so-infrequently. We'll talk about how people should wait for marriage to have sex, then castigate those that do wait as "nerdy" "pent up" and "uncool." We'll proclaim that sex is a sacred act between two consenting adults, then use that sacred act to sacrilegiously market EVERY material good under the sun, from high-brow automobiles, to the cheapest alcoholic beverage, and everything in between. And lastly, we'll decree that sexual drive and desire is unclean, uncouth, even un-Godly, yet we'll indulge that drive with everything from the girl (or guy, depending on your particular persuasion) around the corner, to the hooker up the block.
Or, even the $5,000 "call girl" in the $500-a-night room in the hotel downtown.
Did you notice the distinction?
The softness of the "call girl" and the brazen insucculence of "hooker," as if there is a real difference? Using a call girl lets you believe you are somehow better than the other guy, 'cuz you appreciate her for her "companionship" and (supposed) "intelligence," whereas the common dude wants the street hooker to blow him, do him, and keep it moving, providing nothing more than a convenient release.
But in the end, it's all the same isn't it? Sex for money.
It's not that Eliot Spitzer is a new pariah because he used a prostitute. That's just a convenient diversion on which to hang one's hat. He's a pariah because his actions remind all of us how even the most upright, and upstanding upholders of the faith from the best upbringings succumb to that most base, basal and basic of all human instincts. And it reminds us of how we use arbitrary, meaningless distinctions to categorize and make value judgments.
In short, he reminds us of us. Of what many of us would do, if we had the time, the money or the power to do. So really, is it the prostitute or the sex? To me, it's apparent that it's the sex.
And you know what they say: that which you hate most in other people is exactly what you hate most about yourself.
So Eliot Spitzer, present governor of New York state (but not for long, likely), was revealed yesterday to have been a client of a very high-priced call-girl company (do they still call them brothels?), with reported liaisons in a D.C. hotel, The Mayflower, infamous for being the same hotel that former Bill Clinton adviser Dick Morris was busted with his own peccadillo out. (I know "peccadillo" means "a relatively small sin" but in this case, the literary license works.)
Anyway, according to the government affadavits, he is the now-infamous "Client No. 9" of the "Emperor’s Club V.I.P." How ironic, since most of the political "Masters of the Universe" have probably got the smallest peccadillos -- I think you get my drift -- and the biggest wallets. That much is obvious, as it's alleged that the least expensive girl in the Emperor's Club stable (the "one diamond" girl, as they were rated) goes for about $1,000 an hour, while the highest-rated seven-diamond girl commanded over $5,000 an hour, presumably for more than coffee and doughnuts. Well, perhaps a nut or two...Sorry. And no more references to "peccadilloes."
But my question is, Spitzer is number nine of how many?
As you might imagine, there is a bit of Schadenfreude here, to be sure.
You couldn't have asked for more irony: the morality crusader, who persecuted Wall Street's moneyed bigwigs, and tried to clean up radio's incestuous financial relationship with big music labels, and who himself shut down TWO high-dollar prostitution rings as then-Attorney General for the State of New York, being brought low by his own sexual insatiability and outside-the-home quenching of that lusty thirst with fist-fulls of dollars.
His career is all but done. It's just a matter of when the word will come. He's literally a dead man walking, politically speaking.
But what of Spitzer, the person? One of the best descriptions comes from the Head of State blog: "One can feel that they are so far 'ahead' in moral victories as compared to the vastly less moral and vanquished others, that they are allowed a structured, narrow, and quiet deviation." So I guess he figured he'd benefitted his state's citizens by so much, he could afford a bit of kinky prostitute sex? Whatever.
Now, don't think I am judging him. I, for one, don't believe prostitution should be illegal. I think it should be legal and highly-regulated for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the health of the practitioners, but more practically, to remove the stigma placed on one's sexual appetites. Would I seek a prostitute? No, I'm good, thanks. But should others be penalized for doing so? No, I don't think so. I'm not them, so I don't know what sex means to them, but that doesn't give me the right to judge them. Not to mention, those that pay the price legally are often the women who provide the service, not the johns. That is inherently unfair, and in a society that preaches "fairness," it's a pretty obvious deviation from that theme to leave the johns unstained by their conduct.
But lets, get away from all that. Let's just be real for a minute.
Spitzer is not in dutch because of whom he used to satisfy his urges to get his fuck on.
He's in trouble because he violated the "puritanical" beliefs that this country continues to flaunt openly, but break not-so-secretly, and not-so-infrequently. We'll talk about how people should wait for marriage to have sex, then castigate those that do wait as "nerdy" "pent up" and "uncool." We'll proclaim that sex is a sacred act between two consenting adults, then use that sacred act to sacrilegiously market EVERY material good under the sun, from high-brow automobiles, to the cheapest alcoholic beverage, and everything in between. And lastly, we'll decree that sexual drive and desire is unclean, uncouth, even un-Godly, yet we'll indulge that drive with everything from the girl (or guy, depending on your particular persuasion) around the corner, to the hooker up the block.
Or, even the $5,000 "call girl" in the $500-a-night room in the hotel downtown.
Did you notice the distinction?
The softness of the "call girl" and the brazen insucculence of "hooker," as if there is a real difference? Using a call girl lets you believe you are somehow better than the other guy, 'cuz you appreciate her for her "companionship" and (supposed) "intelligence," whereas the common dude wants the street hooker to blow him, do him, and keep it moving, providing nothing more than a convenient release.
But in the end, it's all the same isn't it? Sex for money.
It's not that Eliot Spitzer is a new pariah because he used a prostitute. That's just a convenient diversion on which to hang one's hat. He's a pariah because his actions remind all of us how even the most upright, and upstanding upholders of the faith from the best upbringings succumb to that most base, basal and basic of all human instincts. And it reminds us of how we use arbitrary, meaningless distinctions to categorize and make value judgments.
In short, he reminds us of us. Of what many of us would do, if we had the time, the money or the power to do. So really, is it the prostitute or the sex? To me, it's apparent that it's the sex.
And you know what they say: that which you hate most in other people is exactly what you hate most about yourself.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Moral Rectitude or Rectal Masturbation.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.obsidianhustle.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/153
Happy birthday, T. I figured you were gonna weigh in on this.
Your logic reminds me of a conversation we "Black Lounge" folks had
many many moons ago about the complexities of the male-female courtship dance. Remember?? Someone (probably one of you guys) asked
the ladies in the place what they thought of a man who wined and dined her with the intent of getting her into bed, as opposed to a man who
just comes out and asks for the booty.
20 years later, it's safe to say that it all boils down to a man's need for sex and his willingness to give up what he has (time,
resources, i.e., money, resources, connections, access to networks, etc) to a woman to have that basic need met.
I'm not a man, but I would think that a man gives up just enough of what he has with the hope of maximizing his investment. Talk about ROI!
GG, you're exactly right.
Indeed, it is a question of
1. What the man values? In this case, sex is of primary value, I think you'd agree. :)
2. If he chooses to be honest about his intentions
3. What will he give up to have #1
First, there were no illusions about what the ex-governor wanted: sex. He was completely honest about his intentions, so his wining and dining had the obvious, and desired outcome for both parties, unlike so many of the typical interactions between men an women.
Second, Spitzer got to have a woman, fairly uninhibited, satisfy his sexual desires/needs for relatively little (in his terms, since money, at his level of apparent wealth, is not that big a deal in terms of its real value). He does give up what he thinks is necessary, up a point of equilibrium.
(In fact, prostitution might be the only perfectly-functioning economic system based on the willingness of customers to pay x dollars for any given service, with little or no serious negotiation.)
It's all about the sexual ROI in this case.
Perfect transactional relationship from everyone's point of view, as I see it.
Well, as I was telling my sister yesterday, this is just another reason I have happily given up on men and am content in my reclaimed celebacy and revelling in emotional independence. Between guys like this and the creeps on To Catch a Predator (including the Rabbi) every illusion I had about romance is shot to hell - and trust me, there weren't many left. I mean this dude did the nasty with said call girl the day before Valentine's Day. How much do you want to bet that he then went home with flowers and a bauble or two for his wife and then gave her some mediocre sex because he wasn't as into to it with her as he was Miss $4300. But it's cool. I really think men will be men and that's fine. I just choose to take myself out of circulation so I don't run across this mind set. I hope he feels that his orgasm was worth his career, good name and family. We see where his values were. What an ass.
TVGigi- Giving up on men is extreme, but I won't defend us. Good guys are the exception, not the rule. But so are good women (the exception, not rule). So we should all give up? Outsource the baby making to clinics and those lucky I've-found-the-perfect-mate exceptions? Nah. Just have to have faith, compassion and forgiveness and move on...
GirlyGirl72- I might have been in the lounge that day? I, or the person sitting next to me, could have easily posed that question. I've taken that stance many a time (more for arguements sake than my actual belief). Money spent one the dates (where men are assumed to pay) leading up to sex versus just putting the cash on the table to go at it. Funny how this sex conversation seems to sound like some act that men DO to women. There is a Male-sex worker industry that stays plenty busy. Maybe the men are more discreet, as workers. Or happy.
Tony- Happy Birthday Old Man. Good to see the wit and wisdom hasn't faltered in your old age. At least not much.
Effaridi,
I know this may sound extreme to you, but to me it is logical. I remember when I was about 15 or so, I told my friends back then that I did not believe in love - that it was just chemistry. Later when I was in my early 30s I read an article in the Post that sort of underlined this. The premise was that when you meet someone new and sleep with them (actually sleep, not have sex) you cannot sleep at first because there is a new chemical reaction in the mix, then once you become accostomed to this other person's body chemistry, you can't sleep without them. I say all this to say that in most cases a relationship is about molecules. It takes a truly evolved person to decide to be in and stay in an emotional state of love. The sexual excitement of a first or new encounter quickly wears off and many choose to chase after the next hormonal palpitation. I have learned to be fine with that and not fight the fact that this is human/animal nature. I don't blame people, man or woman, who decide to do this as I believe it is a truly hard physical challenge - for some. However there are still consequences for following that path. I feel for Spitzer's children who are humiliated by his behavior. And I just recognize that he is not evolved enough to have taken others into consideration and let his penis dick-tate his future - and theirs.
TVGigi-
I thought the foundations for my ascetic lifestyle were rationally founded, but your hormonal logic takes it much further. I applaud your celibate lifestyle. It takes strength and determination to deny that intrinsic pull constantly wafting in your direction. As long as your reason in founded in science and not in apprehension. Does that mean your celibacy is permanent (thus your logic irrefutable), or will you succumb to your emotional-chemical side?
I won't let the Spitzer off the hook with an psycho-chemical arguement. He was an ass who thought his money and power entitled him to a priveledge of ananomity and continuous purchased infidelity. Thankfully he got neither and his hypocrisy has been seen in the light of day. Now New York will get a Blind Black Governor. There are some jokes in there somewhere...
LOL. Yes, I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.
As for my celebacy... I have no idea if it's permanent or not. All I can say is that it would take an incredible man for me to consider breaking it. On the other hand, I have not completely ruled out succumbing to my animal nature and satisfying sexual urges with a casual encounter (and please don't call me afterward)but as far as wanting to be in a relationship... No. I don't think so. Don't get me wrong. I find men amusing but I just don't think I'm cut out to have one around all the time. My experience has been that they are more trouble than they are worth. Sorry, Bro.
I was certainly in the Black Lounge that day, and hell, it might have been me that made the comment. I don't remember, seeing as there was lots of alcohol-addled pontification going on in House 1, Floor 2's lounge. :)
Back to the point, we should remember that Mr. Spitzer's behavior, while common, isn't the typical example of male/female interaction, thank God.
Or is it?
In some way, isn't there an exchange of material good (movie, dinner, drinks, etc) for sex at least at the beginning of every relationship? (That might have been GirlyGirl's point).
The hope is that people grow out of that particular stage to where the sexual attraction to your companion is the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Unfortunately the soon-to-be-former Governor of the great State of New York hasn't quite learned this.
As for TVgigi's fight for emotional independence and chosen celibacy, call me kooky, but I think no man ever believes a woman is content when she's not getting exorcised of her sexual energies at fairly regular intervals. The facts, from the woman's point of view, are almost certain to be different, but when has that not been the case: men and women see most things differently. (That's probably either a design flaw in us men, or something that allows perpetuation of the human species; I don't know which yet.)
Hey Tony,
Happy birthday!
Funny post.
But seriously, I hope he doesn't resign and fights all the way. I would presume the damage is done and that they don't have anything worse than sex with prostitutes on him. This being NY, I think he can ride it out.
Because the media loves a scandal, they have moved the line between public and private life so that your sex life is now part of your public life.
I have no idea whether he is doing a good or bad job as gov of NY. But this is a dumbass reason to fire your governor.
@Sherwood:
Welcome to the 'Hustle!!
Well, my friend, he in fact did resign today. So, there was no fight in that dog, pun not intended. :)
You are right that the proletariat has decided that one's personal life is a genuine basis on which to judge one's professional capabilities, and at least in part, that surely played a role in his resignation, which is officially effective on Monday.
Should he have fought it? Maybe.
But in truth, he was already a marked man, as Albany (New York's state capital), doesn't like reformers -- even those who speak of reform lightly. This was just the tool that could be used to dislodge him from the Executive offices.
There's an old saying that "in New York State, policy is made by three old men in a dark office," those three men being the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the state Senate President. Spitzer was disliked by those other two guys, one of which is a fellow Democrat. So basically, he was going to be impeached if he didn't resign. He just spared the state more sordid details.
Now, Eliot'll have plenty of time to get his freak on, since he's technically unemployed.
Not only will Spitzer have plenty of time to get his freak on, but he'll have plenty of time to catch up on his WSJ, NY Times, Post and Daily News reading in his Fifth Avenue apartment in the city! He may want to grab the Vaseline to take the edge off...
Tony, you are absolutely right about Mr. Spitzer being a marked man. The irony here is that none of his foes needed to pull the trigger or order the hit. Because of his arrogance and self-righteousness, he got caught in his own snare. Luckily his "death" was quick and relatively painless. I've penned an epitaph, borrowing shamelessly from Clyde Haberman of the New York Times: "Long a Public Scold, Now Facing Life (or Death) as a Punch Line, a la Gary Hart, Monica Lewinsky and Senator Larry Craig. Can we say ouch?
@Tone,
Didn't realize that this guy was so disliked. Given that, do you buy the coincedence that the Feds just happened to be investigating his favorite house of ill repute?
@sherwood
Yeah, among many of the elites (read rich, and powerful), he was hated because he cut into their fun. He shut down a couple prostitution rings himself, not to mention going after other industries, from the payday loan racket, to Wall Street, to the music industry.
He was a royal pain to a few folks.
As to whether the feds were "convenient" in their finding the favorite call-girl gang of Mr. Spitzer, I'll leave that to others to speculate.
What is clear is that Mr. Spitzer knew he was got.
But his quick cop to the wrongdoing and his resignation says to me that there might be more stuff the Feds have gleaned, as a result of this investigation. Apparently, this all began as a tax investigation. That's why I tell people the most feared law-enforcement agency on earth isn't the FBI...It's the IRS.