What's to say about Eliot Spitzer? If (a) he weren't married, and (b) he hadn't made an issue of cracking down on prostitution services, then I'd say it's nobody's business. But given his mendacity and hypocrisy, that's not the case.
The Washington Examiner does a nice job of comparing Spitzer's imbroglio with other politics and prostitution scandals, which highlights the extent to which prostitution stings have become a favored device in the politics of personal destruction toolkit.
That's another reason why (and again, leaving aside Spitzer's mendacity and hypocrisy), making the purchasing of sexual pleasure illegal opens the door to selective prosecutions and other bad things. Regulate it as might be necessary for health and safety, zone it away from the kiddies, and tax it like other businesses, says I.
The arrangements for the rendezvous at a Washington hotel were caught on a federal wiretap recording last month and laid out in legal papers that reveal the intricacies involved in hiring a $1,200-an-hour call girl and sending her to D.C. from New York.
How nice that the FBI has nothing better to do than elaborate surveillance operations aimed at prosecuting consensual, commercial relations involving adults. What's terrorism, after all, compared to illicit nookie?
You know, if you're a porn director starring in your own films, you can pay a professional to have sex with you and as long as you film it for commercial sale it's all (still, thankfully) legal, despite the efforts of the Meese Commission. How inane does that make our prostitution laws look?
More. Andrew Sullivan picks up on the same theme.
More still.
Client #9, also known as Eliot Spitzer, enthusiastically enlisted in a crusade for tougher anti-prostitution laws and specifically for steps to raise the penalties for "johns" who patronized the women involved. The campaign bore fruit, and in his first months as Governor signed into law what advocates call "the toughest and most comprehensive anti-sex-trade law in the nation". Among other provisions, the law "lays the groundwork for a more aggressive crackdown on demand, by increasing the penalty for patronizing a prostitute, a misdemeanor, to up to a year in jail, from a maximum of three months." (Nina Bernstein, "Foes of Sex Trade Are Stung by the Fall of an Ally", New York Times, Mar. 12). (via Overlawyered.com)
And reader "Avee" comments:
Yes, the FBI may have initially been following a suspicious money transfer in Spitzer's private accounts. But once it became clear this wasn't about corruption or terrorism, but purchasing commercial sex, they continued with the wiretaps and surveillance. So Steve still has a point about the FBI misdirecting its resources at prostitution.
Furthermore. Alan Dershowitz agrees it was entrapment:
Once federal authorities concluded that the "suspicious financial transactions" attributed to Mr. Spitzer did not fit into any of the paradigms for which the statutes were enacted, they should have closed the investigation. It's simply none of the federal government's business that a man may have been moving his own money around in order to keep his wife in the dark about his private sexual peccadilloes.
As [the Wall Street Journal] has reported: "It isn't clear why the FBI sought the wiretap warrant. Federal prostitution probes are exceedingly rare, lawyers say, except in cases involving organized-crime leaders or child abuse. Federal wiretaps are seldom used to make these cases . . ."
And Nora Ephron observes:
This is the problem these guys get into: they're so morally rigid and puritanical in real life (and on some level, so responsible for this priggish world we now live in) that when they get caught committing victimless crimes, everyone thinks they should be punished for sheer hypocrisy.
But they shouldn't really. It's one of the things you have to admire about Senator Larry Craig: he's still there.
76 Comments for “Sex and Destroy”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Steve, if you look at exactly how this came to the government’s attention….
The case started when banks noticed frequent cash transfers from several accounts and filed suspicious activity reports with the Internal Revenue Service, a law enforcement official told the AP. The accounts were traced back to Spitzer, prompting public corruption investigators to open an inquiry.
Ever since 9/11, banks have, under new and stricter money-laundering laws, been keeping eyes out for this sort of thing, mainly because it is one of the flags that can be used to track and identify potential terrorist activity.
Furthermore, you have suspicious activity in accounts that are linked to a powerful elected official. That’s a key way in which you catch bribery.
The FBI was definitely justified in this one.
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
You gotta admit, the press loves it when the high & mighty fall so far and so fast; it makes for great coverage.
What is it about these corrupt Democrats like Spitzer and Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick and others getting into hot water because they perjure themselves or commit multiple federal felonies and then contend it’s a “private matter” and ask for our prayers while they work it out with their families?
Spitzer needs to be spit-roasted in public, through the gentials, by his wife. Just like Clinton needed it. Just like Kilpatrick. Just like Newsom. Just like McGreevey. I feel most sorry for the families of these reprobates.
Nawh, this was a victimless crime, right? Just consenting adults engaged in a little commerce… across state lines, in violation of multiple federal statutes, use of state property to conduct illegal activities, gross dishonorable conduct, etc.
posted by Jorge on
Prostitution is a crime and a social ill, and for good reason. The hypocrisy is not the issue, nor is it fatal. Elliot Spitzer would have a difficult time surviving a prostitution scandal with the married + hypocrisy factor, sure. But Bill Clinton survived multiple allegations of sexual harassment, one verified incident of adultery, and he lied both to the public and under oath (which is a crime). Taken at face value, what Bill Clinton did was much worse. At least Spitzer showed some integrity when this came out.
It’s the corruption that dooms Spitzer. This case came to the government’s attention because the IRS detected a prominent government official doing this. If Spitzer used his government office to facilitate paying a prostitute, that’s corruption, the same as McGreevey, and he’s toast.
That and a governor is much more expendible than a president.
posted by Doug on
Michigan-Matt, so I guess the GOP has not any any sex scandals recently. Your partisanship is showing.
They should all, Dems and Repubs alike, be flogged in the public square.
posted by Avee on
ND30 writes: “Ever since 9/11, banks have, under new and stricter money-laundering laws, been keeping eyes out for this sort of thing, mainly because it is one of the flags that can be used to track and identify potential terrorist activity….The FBI was definitely justified in this one.”
Yes, the FBI may have initially been following a suspicious money transfer in Spitzer’s private accounts. But once it became clear this wasn’t about corruption or terrorism, but purchasing commercial sex, they continued with the wiretaps and surveillance. So Steve still has a point about the FBI misdirecting its resources at prostitution.
posted by Pat on
Regardless whether prositution should be legal or not, Spitzer should resign. The fact is that in New York and Washington, DC it’s illegal. In fact, Spitzer has prosecuted persons for operating prostitution rings. So, obviously, he did not feel that it was a private matter. I’m surprised Spitzer hasn’t resigned yet. But then again, Vitter hasn’t resigned yet either. We’ll see.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Eliot Spitzer is really, really attractive. Why couldn’t he have been brought down by a gay scandal? Why are we stuck with the wimpy Larry Craig, James McGreevey, and Mark Foley?
posted by Dale on
Jorge wrote “Prostitution is a crime and a social ill, and for good reason.” Am I exceptionally dense, or am I missing the good reason? Or, for that matter, in what way does it constitute a social ill. Having gay sex used to be a crime and many people still consider it a social ill today, but I have yet to hear any good reasons for that, despite some highly selective exegesis of the Bible, the autority of which I’m not willing to consider unless one treats the myriad of other biblical prohibitions with equal passion. However, I don’t think the Bible clearly says anything bad specifically about prostitution, any more than Jesus said anything bad about homosexuality. That saintly but neurotic Paul didn’t seem to like homosexuals too well (nor sex in general for that matter), even though he also dismissed the laws of the Old Testament out of hand. But fundamentalist evangelical Christians claim to be followers of Jesus, not Paul, and Jesus didn’t have anything bad to say about us (gay people).
So give me some good reason, supported by solid scientific evidence, not faith, why prostitution should be a crime or how it is a social ill. (Incisdentally, I personally have never used or provided the services of a prostitute, but only because I’ve never understood the protocol!)
posted by Bobby on
“Prostitution is a crime and a social ill, and for good reason. ”
—No it’s not. It’s not more a crime than jaywalking or running a red light. Prostitution has helped many people improve their sexual abilities, it helps men develop self-confidence, it helps neglected women (who hire male escorts) have the kind of fun their missing. And unlike adultery, you don’t have to deal with anyone falling in love with you or an unwanted pregnancy or even a disease since most hookers are smart and demand you wear condoms, even for oral sex. Rather than a social ill, it’s a social benefit.
Frankly, it is ironic for me to defend Eliot Spitzer, he was a democrat I didn’t respect, he tried to pass laws I didn’t support.
But the politicians may want to impeach him for behavior that didn’t take place during office hours are being incredibly unfair, this didn’t take place with an office employee, or with money that belongs to the taxpayers. Bill Clinton had sex with Lewinsky, which would have get him fired at most companies, since Monica was a subordinate. This wasn’t the case. Bill Clinton alledgely raped Juanity Broderick, this wasn’t the case. Bill Clinton used bodyguard paid by taxpayers to transport the women he was having sex with, again, this wasn’t the case.
Spitzer gets a salary, if he withdraws money from his personal bank account, flies to a town, gets a hotel room, hires a hooker, that’s his business.
And it doesn’t matter what he did when he was a DA. DA’s also commit crimes, even people without a criminal record may have violated some law at least once in their lives.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I would think that Spitzer represents the gay community’s ideal of marriage as stated in Beyond Marriage. They should do a float dedicated to him in the next Pride parade. My ideal of marriage for both gays and straights involves lifelong, sexual exclusivity–if you don’t agree with that, then you can’t really condemn Spitzer. He’s a victim of a sexually repessive society, unable to freely express himself without persecution, a veritable Oscar Wilde. If only society had realized that a healthy marriage allows room for using prostitutes, we’d all be so much happier.
posted by Richard on
Their are very real problems with prostitution; worker exploitation, slavery, child abuse and the spead of diseases.
Most of these problems could be dealt with my regulation. Yet, the simple fact is that most voters probably do not want prostitution legalized.
posted by Pat on
And it doesn’t matter what he did when he was a DA. DA’s also commit crimes, even people without a criminal record may have violated some law at least once in their lives.
Bobby, if this was a one-time thing and there was nothing else to the story, I’d agree with you. But as Attorney General he ruthlessly went after prostitution rings and they ended up receiving penalties (including prison time for some I believe). Now as governor, he had irrefutable evidence of a prostitution ring, and given his position on prostitution rings he needed to report this evidence to the current Attorney General that he had evidence of this crime. But, for some reason on this occasion, Spitzer chose not too. I guess he thought they were okay when he was a john. He said in his resignation speech how he needs to hold himself responsible as he has done for others. Well, he hasn’t quite done that yet, has he?
It’s a shame. I actually liked Spitzer (aside from the bonehead license thing). But when this story came out, other distasteful things about his character came out as well. Good riddance!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Avee offers “So Steve still has a point about the FBI misdirecting its resources at prostitution.”
Nawh, he doesn’t really; Steve’s just a tad blinded by the convenient notion that pursuit of happiness and liberty extends to any consenting sexual act -commercial or private- between adults. It doesn’t, of course. Morals matter; the law matters.
The FBI knows that prostitution rings are a criminal enterprise that usually involve multiple felonious activities and that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. And in the Democrat Governor’s case, there are lots of victims.
Laws are all about moral judgments made by a majority of legislators trying to protect the public welfare… even if a small segment of that public thinks criminalizing acts are unnecessary intrusions into personal liberty and the pursuit of happiness for an even smaller segment of the public.
The FBI was warranted in its wiretap and a federal judge approved it. An indictment has been drawn against a group of people who contributed to a criminal enterprise. To spin it as excessive govt intrusion into a “private” sexual act between consenting adults misses the points that it was a commercial criminal enterprise. It wasn’t private.
And for all those folks who contend that the cops never go after the johns… right. That’s what all those sting operations with undercover female police officers in Democrat-controlled city after city are all about… the johns aren’t important. Right. More spin but no spine for the moral relativist movement.
Laws are all about moral judgments; it’s why we consider America a country founded on Judeo-Christian values… not sexual anarchy or moral relativism. Conduct matters… and Spitzer knew it better than most law enforcement officials.
posted by avee on
The FBI knows that prostitution rings are a criminal enterprise that usually involve multiple felonious activities and that there is no such thing as a victimless crime
Wow, so if it’s a crime, it should be a crime? How about sodomy laws before the Supreme Court ruling?
If crime is associated with prostitution, I’d say it’s because prostitution is a crime. Crime is associated with pot sales, but not cigarette sales. If we criminalize cigarette sales, they’ll be associated with crime, too!
Sorry, Michigan-Matt, but The State is not always right, and some crimes shouldn’t be crimes.
posted by Rob on
Laws are all about moral judgments; it’s why we consider America a country founded on Judeo-Christian values… not sexual anarchy or moral relativism. Conduct matters… and Spitzer knew it better than most law enforcement officials.
From your statement, I suppose you support laws criminalizing homosexual behaviour since they’re based on “Judeo-Christian values”? What about the good morals of slavery supported by the Bible? Isn’t this exactly the same kind of argument that was made in order to debase gays and lesbians?
posted by Richard on
I would disagree with the notion that their is, “no such thing as a victimless crime”, as their are certainy many laws that are really dumb, silly or stupid.
I would also disagree with the oversimplifed notion that everything would be wonderful if prostitution were legalized.
Again, their are serious issues dealing with exploitation, slavery, public health and safety, zoning, and property values that would needed to be addressed.
posted by Bobby on
” My ideal of marriage for both gays and straights involves lifelong, sexual exclusivity–if you don’t agree with that, then you can’t really condemn Spitzer. ”
—That has nothing to do with it. Some marriages are open to threesomes, hookers, and all kinds of things. CONSENT is the key.
“Their are very real problems with prostitution; worker exploitation, slavery, child abuse and the spead of diseases.”
—You’re more likely to get a disease by getting high and having sex at your local bathhouse than by hiring a prostitute who doesn’t want to get a disease. Slavery and child abuse are not necesarily linked with prostitution, they’re separate issues. The Bunny Ranch outside of Las Vegas has neither.
“Now as governor, he had irrefutable evidence of a prostitution ring,”
—Yes, but the ring wasn’t in New York, thus he was under no responsability to report it. Also, he had no evidence, all he had was a website with pictures of pretty women looking to meet men for money. The website did not said “sex for money.”
“it was a commercial criminal enterprise.”
—Was it any different from a modelling agency? Or a company that makes porn movies? The law doesn’t make sense, you can pay two actors to have sex for real, you can charge people to watch them having sex, and that’s not prostitution. You can take a woman to dinner, buy her lots of things, so she rewards you with sex, and that’s not prostitution either. But if you give a hooker $5000 to spend an hour in your hotel room, and she decides to reward you with sex, then that’s prostitution.
It’s gotten ridiculous. Hookers at this point are asking for “100 roses” on craiglist just to create an aliby that they’re not getting paid in money.
The Internet on the other hand has allowed prostitution to become an even more private business than it ever was. What happens in a hotel room or a home is nobody’s business unless there’s a violation of consent.
“America a country founded on Judeo-Christian values.”
—No, America was founded on individualism, which is directly related to freedom. Free speech without regards if it’s offensive, freedom of religion without the state choosing a state religion, right to bear arms, freedom from unwanted searchs and seizures, and most importantly, freedom of association.
Meeting with a hooker is covered under freedom of association, the problem is that most people that get caught don’t challenge the law. Most “john’s” are too ashamed to put up a good fight. If gays where the same way, sodomy would still be a crime in this country.
posted by Karen on
Bobby, if you want to go after a fascist, try Ashpenaz. He’s got some REALLY interesting views about state involvement in marriage and consensual, adult sexual activity. P.E. class will pale in comparison.
posted by Bobby on
Well Karen, as long as Ashpenaz doesn’t advocate putting people in jail for “sinning,” I have no beef with him. Although I will disagree on his views regarding marriage and adult sexual activity. I’m afraid some of my conservative comrades are rather unrealistic about sex.
posted by Karen on
No, he advocates the state using its power to financially ruin “sinners”. All common debts go to the cheater, all common property goes to non-cheater. For anyone with a mortgage, that’s pretty much certain bankruptcy.
Jail might even be preferable – jail terms end. A financial hole like that, you might never get out of. ‘Good,’ says Ash. ‘That’ll teach them to have sex outside of marriage, since that’s the worst thing in the world and definitely the government’s business.’
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Avee, spin away all you want. Rationalize immoral & criminal conduct to a point where the perp is now the victim of “govt’al intrusion” and personal liberty is in danger. LOL.
Gov Spitzer engaged in wantonly immoral and illegal conduct, he tried to conceal that conduct from his spouse with whom he took a solemn pledge before her, their families and the public to honor their marriage, he engaged in multiple criminal commerical enterprises as NY’s CHIEF law enforcement official… but you go ahead, and as my former ethics prof used to say -“pad that kneeler with the softest wool” because all your effort to spin doesn’t diminish the simple fact that Spitzer’s conduct was 1) immoral, 2) illegal and 3) anything but private.
Spin yourself into a bloody knot, if you like. Prostitution, transiting hookers across state lines to engage in prostitution, structuring financial actions to conceal said enterprise are all illegal, immoral and inappropriate.
For a group of gays who bemoan the notion that MSM America won’t let gays get married, you guys have a strange penchant for defending the most immoral acts against the most important society institutions… like marriage, vows, families etc. And you wonder why gays have little standing in society to speak credibly about the values of SSM?
BTW, what’s exactly the value of social prohibitions against adultery if, as you seem to contend, consenting sex between adults is always ok. In adultery, there’s a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th person’s interests in that “private” hotel bedroom… the spouse, the family, the kids, the public, etc.
But you go ahead and keep spinning. Because it’s ALL about your tangential interest in removing societal prohibitions and proscriptions against acts you consider acceptable.
The FBI, the IRS, Spitzer’s bank and the various judges, prosecutors and grand juries in this matter have acted within the law, appropriately and with the public’s welfare in focus. I appreciate that it might not help you foster an agenda that seeks to debase societal values in yet another instance… or pass around the precious Victimhood United pity cards.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
And Avee, when you offered this silly tidbit “No, America was founded on individualism, which is directly related to freedom.”
I seem to remember that the Founders and Framers were, to a man, solidly in support of a Christian God, Christian values and even the farthest outside the mainstream Founders and Framers (Jefferson) were still solid Deists.
The Founders began the DofI with the statement that mankind’s rights are “endowed by their Creator”… you can spin that to America being an individualist society… silly as that is. Our laws are founded squarely on Judeo-Christian values, conduct in the public square is governed by those values.
Spitzer’s conduct grossly violated many values society holds in high esteem, not the least among them the solemn vow of marriage.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
my bad, sorry Avee… that was Bobby on the nature of America’s founding.
posted by Karen on
“you seem to contend, consenting sex between adults is always ok.”
It’s not always “Ok”, but it is always private.
It’s not ok if I’m mean to my kind and loving mama, either, but it’s my business if I choose to do so. Even though there are multiple parties ultimately affected, including her, my dad, and my kids.
What we have a penchant for defending is personal freedom. Too many people don’t understand the concept – including, apparently, you.
Personal freedom allows me to be gay even though many people believe that it is wrong. It also allows you to have an open marriage, even though many people believe it to be wrong.
The bottom line is, if an activity doesn’t interfere with someone else’s rights – and there’s no such thing as a right not to be betrayed or hurt or offended – it shouldn’t be any business of the government.
Whether the whole concept of prostitution inherently violates the rights of individuals is up for discussion, of course. I’m not convinced either way.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Karen offers: “It’s not always “Ok”, but it is always private.”
I guess this is a BillClinton ‘depends on your definition of ‘is’ is” moment for you… since “sex is always private”, as a phrase, means something entirely different to you than it means in common-sense English.
Sex between consenting adults can be taped without their knowledge and shared publicly, can be the subject of a commercial enterprise (legal and illegal, but usually immoral), etc. It is distinctly NOT private in hundreds of scenario.
Karen, try to stay on the thread’s subject… Spitzer was hooking whores across state lines, engaging in criminal conduct to evade detection, concealing the actions from his spouse and violating his oath of office to defend the laws of NY. He was also a bright shining star in the Democrat Party… but that’s been lost faster than his honor and about as quickly as Mayor Kilpatrick in his own story of sex with an aide and perjury lost his “Democrat” mayor title.
You can contend sex is always private… and the next queen can contend sex between adults and minors is ok. But it isn’t and commonsense informs the rational ones here that you’re wrong.
Spitzer may have foolishly thought he could trust a $5k/night hooker to protect his honor, but that’ll be a hooker-tells-all tabloid quality “book” before he even starts serving any prison sentence.
Sex is always private? Gheesh.
posted by Pat on
—Yes, but the ring wasn’t in New York, thus he was under no responsability to report it. Also, he had no evidence, all he had was a website with pictures of pretty women looking to meet men for money. The website did not said “sex for money.”
I agree he had no legal obligation to report it, because, among other things, his right against self-incrimination. However, he is NOT prohibited from incriminating himself, and at the same time, report a prostitution ring that he knows exists. I thought the ring did have operations out of New York as well. But even if that wasn’t the case, he could have still reported it to the NY AG and he could have seen if it was possible to pursue the ring himself, or alert the appropriate people.
I personally don’t know if Spitzer deserves jail time or not. But Spitzer’s recent past fervor suggests he believes he should. The fact that he’s trying to cut some deal means that, despite what he said in his resignation speech, he is still NOT accepting the same responsibility that he expected of others.
he tried to conceal that conduct from his spouse with whom he took a solemn pledge before her
MichiganMatt, how do you know that? The only thing we can conclude is that either she didn’t know, or she knew and she or anyone else hadn’t divulged that publicly.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat offers “MichiganMatt, how do you know that? The only thing we can conclude is that either she didn’t know, or she knew and she or anyone else hadn’t divulged that publicly.”
Spitzer and his pants tiger tried to conceal that conduct by a series of transfer payments out of his family’s wealth into a dummy corp intended to hide the true purpose of the payments… come on. Otherwise, he could have used his credit card, the check book, etc. Come on; he was concealing.
He solicited the hooker to engage in sex while on a “business trip” to DC. Come on; he was concealing.
While Mrs Spitzer stood by her man and he referenced in his “plea for privacy” PR stunt that he’d hurt her and lots of others, she was clearly angry, hurt and deceived. That wasn’t acting, Pat. Come on. The press and coverage of his few family friends led with “he’s been happily married for 22 yrs” lie.
He took a solemn oath when he married her to, in part, honor and respect her. It wasn’t an oath that noted honor and respect her except when my pants tiger wants out with a hooker nearly the age of my daughter. Come on.
I tell ya, sometimes you guys try to spin these things so hard to your own ends, I wonder if you know anything about marriage or relationships.
posted by KamtariSeta on
http://incredibleicarus.blogspot.com/
Everyone check out my blog. It’s currently sad and alone like Batman because no one reads it.
posted by Pat on
Spitzer and his pants tiger tried to conceal that conduct by a series of transfer payments out of his family’s wealth into a dummy corp intended to hide the true purpose of the payments… come on. Otherwise, he could have used his credit card, the check book, etc. Come on; he was concealing.
Reread my post. I never said or implied that Spitzer wasn’t concealing his behavior from the public. He may have done this to conceal the specific act from his wife. In other words, it’s possible she “allowed” him to have his dalliances, but did not want to know specifically when they occur, and wanted him to do so discreetly. Or as you concluded, he did this because he completely wanted to conceal his behavior from his wife.
While Mrs Spitzer stood by her man and he referenced in his “plea for privacy” PR stunt that he’d hurt her and lots of others, she was clearly angry, hurt and deceived. That wasn’t acting, Pat. Come on. The press and coverage of his few family friends led with “he’s been happily married for 22 yrs” lie.
Of course, she was clearly angry. I’m guessing she wasn’t acting at all either. Whether she knew about it or not, there is shame in this coming out publicly. And she could have concealed the knowledge and not let on to others that she knew.
If I was Spitzer, and committed this act and my wife didn’t know beforehand, I would NOT want her to have to endure this humilation publicly and have her stand next to me. Now, she may have insisted, and if that’s the case, fine. And, of course, it’s certainly plausible she may have insisted, even if she had no prior knowledge of Spitzer’s behavior.
He took a solemn oath when he married her to, in part, honor and respect her. It wasn’t an oath that noted honor and respect her except when my pants tiger wants out with a hooker nearly the age of my daughter. Come on.
No kidding. But just because they took an oath as such, doesn’t mean he was going to abide by it, apparently, and doesn’t mean that she didn’t know what was going on, and possibly allowed her husband to do it.
I tell ya, sometimes you guys try to spin these things so hard to your own ends, I wonder if you know anything about marriage or relationships.
What’s there to spin? I understand how you came to your conclusions. In fact, if I had to pick one or the other, I’d guess she didn’t know. If this was a one-time thing, I’d most likely think that. But because this apparently occurred often just in this one prostitution ring, and who knows how often he strayed in addition to this, it does increase the likelihood that she knew about it.
But I’m glad you’re taking a non-narrow and tolerant view on an opinion that you apparently think is non-orthodox. 😉
As far as I’m concerned, whether she knew (and approved) or not, it doesn’t matter in terms of how the law should treat Spitzer.
posted by Karen on
Michigan Matt, don’t take it out on me just because you don’t know the meaning of the word “private”.
I’ll give you a hint. It’s not “secret”.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Karen, by your definition and use of the phrase, it doesn’t involve common sense, either. But nice try at a 3 second rejoiner.
No one is taking “anything out on you” except to point out the silliness of your opinion, honey. Put the persecution complex away with the Victimhood Card.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat offer: “Reread my post. I never said or implied that Spitzer wasn’t concealing his behavior from the public.”
Sure ya did, Pat. Right here when you asked me: “MichiganMatt, how do you know that (concealing it from his wife)? The only thing we can conclude is that either she didn’t know, or she knew and she or anyone else hadn’t divulged that publicly.”
You were implying and asking what basis do we have for concluding Spitzer kept this secret (not private by the way, Karen) from his spouse. Not exactly a leap in logic…
I know, to you it doesn’t matter. I get that loud and clear. Situational ethics and moral relativism usually reduce to “what I want to do, now, to Hell with others”. It’s a liberal activist creed.
Spitzer did an excellent job of distracting, lying, distorting the truth while engaging in nefarious prosecution of prostitution rings. I’m glad you’re NOT Spitzer, but trust me on this: you have no idea how effective his deception and duplicity can be… he’s a virtual sociopath when it comes to lying and deception. Heck, he’s a liberal Democrat, afterall (ok, just kidding there).
The part I love in your post is that, even after all the rebutting, you agree with me that he was probably concealing it from his spouse. LOL. Nawh, no spin in all that effort is there?
posted by Michigan Dale on
“You can contend sex is always private… and the next queen can contend sex between adults and minors is ok. But it isn’t and commonsense informs the rational ones here that you’re wrong.”
I’m one of the rational ones here and I try to be open to different ways of looking at things, but come now, Michigan Matt, you’ve got to do better than this if you want us to take you seriously. I’ve heard the definition of “rationalize” as the offering up of rational lies, but your rationalizations don’t quite measure up to that level.
posted by Richard on
Our nation was founding upon many different, often conflicting, religious and political values.
The Declaration of Ind. talks of a Creator, but its author was certainly a Deist. The Constitution ignored God and had a 1st Amendment, but it did not apply to the states.
Compromises were the order of the day, a fact that really bother idealogues on both the political left and right.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Don’t even try to debate American history and the intentions of the founders (or framers) with MM, he’s read books people…books!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, you’re right… the DofI was a compromise document and although Jefferson is the usual “author”, many had a direct and indirect hand in the language. Like all great men and writers, Jefferson stood on the shoulders of others who wrote state constitutions and he borrowed freely from those seminal documents. And the Constitution didn’t get drafted until 12 years AFTER the DofI… and the Bill of rights didn’t go into effect until nearly 1792. The Constituion hardly ignored God… nor the Framers’ belief in Judeo-Christian morality and tenets.
The intervening controlling document was the Articles of Confederation -which is much more religion/God neutral than the ultimate US Constitution and its Amendments.
I don’t understand why gays are so angry at religion that they work overtime to discredit the simple truth: our country is a Nation founded on a moral code which rises from the J-C tradition.
Nice try at baiting, CP. Do you do parties?
posted by Bobby on
“I agree he had no legal obligation to report it, because, among other things, his right against self-incrimination.”
—When I go to a party and see someone smoking pot, I don’t call 911. Most people don’t snitch unless it’s a serious crime.
“I seem to remember that the Founders and Framers were, to a man, solidly in support of a Christian God, Christian values and even the farthest outside the mainstream Founders and Framers (Jefferson) were still solid Deists.”
—Our founding fathers where Christians (although some where secret masons), but they knew each Christian denomination had different standards, and thus they where neither specific about which God they where talking about when they wrote their declaration of independence and other laws. Even our pledge of allegiance doesn’t say “under a Christian God” or “under Jesus.” If the founders had wanted a Christian nation, they would not have allowed freedom of religion.
“He solicited the hooker to engage in sex while on a “business trip” to DC.”
—You ever taken a business trip? You’re not in a meeting all day, maybe later you go to a gym, or a massage parlor, or a strip club, or a restaurant. Everyone has downtime.
“The press and coverage of his few family friends led with “he’s been happily married for 22 yrs” lie.”
—It’s not a lie. Some men have a woman they marry and love, and other women they see on the side. Men are able to separate sex from love.
“He took a solemn oath when he married her to, in part, honor and respect her.”
—It was a religious oath, it has no legal value. Moreover, many men have lost 50% of their fortunes after divorcing a cheating wife. Why? Because most states have no-fault divorces, meaning that no matter how bad the marriage was, someone still gets 50%.
“except when my pants tiger wants out with a hooker nearly the age of my daughter.”
—So what? There’s guys in their 20s that don’t want to date me, they want a guy in their 40s and 50s. Are you “evil” for sleeping with someone young that actually wants to sleep with you? Would it have been better if Spitzer had slept with a 40 year old prostitute?
Prostitution is everywhere. A friend of mine told me that if you take a woman to Las Vegas, get a room in a fancy hotel, pay for all her food, drinks and entertainment. She will have sex with you everynight. I’m willing to bet you that plenty of gay men would love to go on vacation with me under those conditions. Sadly, I can’t afford it and I’d rather have someone that wants me for me.
However, having dated lots of “normal” people, I can perfectly understand the appeal prostitution has. Hookers are sexy, beautiful, passionate, they do as their told, they don’t play games, they’re there to please and unlike my dates, they do return phone calls.
posted by Karen on
Michigan Matt,
Don’t call me honey. I’m not your honey.
Yes, you got owned in three seconds.
Private:
1. Belonging to, or concerning, an individual person, company, or interest; peculiar to one’s self; unconnected with others; personal; one’s own; not public; not general; separate; as, a man’s private opinion; private property; a private purse; private expenses or interests; a private secretary.
Think carefully about the distinction between private industry and public servants. Or private property and public space. Maybe that will help you understand that your “common sense language” is actually just incorrect, and laughably so.
Consensual sex between adults is a private matter. When I buy a doughnut, that’s a private transaction. The government has no business forbidding either.
Whether mixing money and sex makes it a public concern is debatable, but whether adult consensual sexual activity – marital, non-marital, or extra-mariral – is private or not is not debatable. Heck, Lawrence even establishes that even gay buttsecks is private. Aren’t you relieved…
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Karen, simple common sense will inform you, if you can listen above your own shouting, that Spitzer had no rational or reasonable basis to presume that sex with a hooker half his age in a DC hotel would be private. Sex with a prostitute is never “private” when it’s a commerical transaction and one of the parties is a high level govt official who made a career out of busting high profile criminals. Do people get away with it and not be detected? Sure. They ought to consider themselves lucky but they have no right to privacy under those conditions -especially since Spitzer was in DC on govt business.
I understand you can try to contend it was just sex between two consenting adults, but the fact is that it was part of a criminal commerical enterprise. Sex, in those instances, is not private.
I appreciate your morals can allow you to construe sex between consenting adults is private in those instances, but, thankfully, your sense of morality doesn’t inform the law.
The only laugh here is in your attempts to argue that in the Spitzer-hooker case, sex was private. For all the common sense reasons we’ve explored, it clearly isn’t. Wishing it were so won’t make it such. Anymore than your three-snaps make you correct in this matter.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby offers: “Even our pledge of allegiance doesn’t say “under a Christian God” or “under Jesus.”
Umm, Bobby, the Pledge was modified in 1954 to include the words “… one Nation under God”. It wasn’t written by the Framers. But, you’re right, it did extend a long tradition in the US of belief in God and a ready willingness to admit his/her role in our govt and civic life.
As for your distinction that an oath of marriage is a religious one… well, sorry but you’re wrong on that point as well. Public marriage ceremonies use a similar oath to the one likely engaged by Spitzer… religion has no relevant role in your distinction unless it’s a just an attempt to make a distinction where none is relevant.
I’m sorry to hear the men you date don’t return your phone calls. I wonder why?
posted by Pat on
Pat offer: “Reread my post. I never said or implied that Spitzer wasn’t concealing his behavior from the public.”
Sure ya did, Pat. Right here when you asked me: “MichiganMatt, how do you know that (concealing it from his wife)? The only thing we can conclude is that either she didn’t know, or she knew and she or anyone else hadn’t divulged that publicly.”
You were implying and asking what basis do we have for concluding Spitzer kept this secret (not private by the way, Karen) from his spouse. Not exactly a leap in logic…
Umm yeah, that is QUITE a leap in logic. Now reread the above. Explain how questioning about whether he kept this from his WIFE implies that Spitzer wasn’t concealing this from the PUBLIC.
Anyway, I actually meant what I wrote. Sure, I can guess that she didn’t know, but that’s all it is. But neither of us have any real evidence that she didn’t know. You tried, but came up quite short.
I know, to you it doesn’t matter. I get that loud and clear. Situational ethics and moral relativism usually reduce to “what I want to do, now, to Hell with others”. It’s a liberal activist creed.
What the heck are you talking about? Reread my post again. I said whether or not his wife knew shouldn’t matter when it comes to how he should be treated by the law. It had NOTHING to do with justifying his actions.
Spitzer did an excellent job of distracting, lying, distorting the truth while engaging in nefarious prosecution of prostitution rings.
He apparently did, until last week.
I’m glad you’re NOT Spitzer
So am I.
but trust me on this: you have no idea how effective his deception and duplicity can be… he’s a virtual sociopath when it comes to lying and deception.
Granted, I’m not an expert of deception and duplicity.
The part I love in your post is that, even after all the rebutting, you agree with me that he was probably concealing it from his spouse. LOL. Nawh, no spin in all that effort is there?
You seemed certain that his wife didn’t know. I was not that certain. I would be far from surprised, however, if she did know, but it sounds like you would be.
I still have no idea what I’m trying to spin? I am certainly not justifying his actions any more if his wife did know. Regardless, he is a criminal and a big time hypocrite.
—When I go to a party and see someone smoking pot, I don’t call 911. Most people don’t snitch unless it’s a serious crime.
Bobby, in Spitzer’s case, he thought that prostitution was a serious crime, since he fervently prosecuted two prostitution rings. But I guess that changed when he was involved in the prostitution ring.
posted by Pat on
Oops. Forget to close some italics.
Spitzer did an excellent job of distracting, lying, distorting the truth while engaging in nefarious prosecution of prostitution rings.
He apparently did, until last week.
I’m glad you’re NOT Spitzer
So am I. For lots of reasons.
but trust me on this: you have no idea how effective his deception and duplicity can be… he’s a virtual sociopath when it comes to lying and deception.
Granted, I’m not an expert of deception and duplicity.
The part I love in your post is that, even after all the rebutting, you agree with me that he was probably concealing it from his spouse. LOL. Nawh, no spin in all that effort is there?
You seemed certain that his wife didn’t know. I was not that certain. I would be far from surprised, however, if she did know, but it sounds like you would be.
I still have no idea what I’m trying to spin? I am certainly not justifying his actions any more if his wife did know. Regardless, he is a criminal and a big time hypocrite.
—When I go to a party and see someone smoking pot, I don’t call 911. Most people don’t snitch unless it’s a serious crime.
Bobby, in Spitzer’s case, he thought that prostitution was a serious crime, since he fervently prosecuted two prostitution rings. But I guess that changed when he was involved in the prostitution ring.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, it’s frustrating when you change the goalposts and reline the field and switch from playing soccer to rugby all in one statement… if sports metaphors are allowed here.
Frankly, you agreed with me that Mrs Spitzer probably didn’t know that her spouse was engaged in criminal commerical activities, while on business, with hookers nearly the age of their daughters.
You may not be certain at this point, I am. Spitzer was able to keep a 10+ year criminal career concealed from a city that is home to one of the most aggressive, abrasive, invasive and destructive press corps in the world.
He certainly was capable of keeping it from his wife. Mrs Spitzer’s conduct at the two PR events in the last few days -as well as Democrat Gov Spitzer’s brief comments -are evidence enough to confirm his duplicity with his spouse and family.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, in Spitzer’s case, he thought that prostitution was a serious crime, since he fervently prosecuted two prostitution rings. But I guess that changed when he was involved in the prostitution ring.”
—If we prosecute Spitzer for hypocrisy, then we should prosecute “virgins” that give oral sex to their boyfriends, reverends that cheat on their wives, and all kinds of people that say one thing and do another.
“Sex with a prostitute is never “private” when it’s a commerical transaction and one of the parties is a high level govt official who made a career out of busting high profile criminals. ”
—You’re wrong, Bill O’reilly interviewed a former hooker and she said that prostitutes depend on repeat business. You don’t get rich by snitching on your clients. Prostitutes are also used to dealing with all kinds of important people, judges, businessmen, celebrities, etc. Prostitutes have little to gain by outing a public official. If you where a whore, would you want everyone to know? I don’t think so.
Frankly, I abhor the hypocrisy of this society, where some types of rich people like Donald Trump get to have sex with women because they buy them expensive gifts while other types of rich and poor people get busted for it.
You talk about morality, tell me what’s moral about a person who marries for money, a houseboy getting free rent and an allowance for sex, or a goldigger that refuses sexual favors until he or she gets some money or material possessions?
It’s all prostitution in the end. And to an extent, we’re all whores because we all give something for something else. Even when sex is “free,” it isn’t really free, you have to pay with something, like your looks or your personality.
posted by Karen on
“The only laugh here is in your attempts to argue that in the Spitzer-hooker case, sex was private.”
I’ve actually made it quite clear that I’m not certain what I believe about prostitution, vis-a-vis whether it should be a truly private transaction or not. But you get off on making fun of strawman-Karen instead of listening or comprehending what I’m actually saying.
Whatever. I have more important things to worry about now than people being wrong on the internet. My mom just got diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer. So I’m going to take this opportunity to try to break the bad habit of torturing myself by trying to get through to James, ND30, and the rest of the cranks here.
So long.
posted by Pat on
Pat, it’s frustrating when you change the goalposts and reline the field and switch from playing soccer to rugby all in one statement… if sports metaphors are allowed here.
I like sports metaphors. But yours doesn’t apply here. The problem is you criticized things that I didn’t say. You criticized things that you wrongly thought I implied. Reread my posts. For example, you equated a statement I made regarding “concealing from the public” with “concealing from his wife.” Not sure what else I’m supposed to do. Talk about frustrating.
Frankly, you agreed with me that Mrs Spitzer probably didn’t know that her spouse was engaged in criminal commerical activities, while on business, with hookers nearly the age of their daughters.
True, except for the degree of certainty.
You may not be certain at this point, I am. Spitzer was able to keep a 10+ year criminal career concealed from a city that is home to one of the most aggressive, abrasive, invasive and destructive press corps in the world.
He certainly was capable of keeping it from his wife. Mrs Spitzer’s conduct at the two PR events in the last few days -as well as Democrat Gov Spitzer’s brief comments -are evidence enough to confirm his duplicity with his spouse and family.
I agree that Spitzer was very capable of keeping the information from his wife. I’m just not as convinced as you were that he, in fact, did. And your evidence and rationale, in my view, does not convince me any more. I’d expect Mrs. Spitzer to behave the way she did, whether or not she knew. You apparently disagree. That’s fine, and I’m willing to leave it at that, at this point.
posted by Pat on
—If we prosecute Spitzer for hypocrisy, then we should prosecute “virgins” that give oral sex to their boyfriends, reverends that cheat on their wives, and all kinds of people that say one thing and do another.
For now, I’ll leave it to the proper authorities whether or not Spitzer should be prosecuted. However, I would have no problem taking Spitzer at his word saying he should hold himself to the same standard that he held others. So after he gets out of jail, he can certainly work hard to make sure he makes restitution for the people he prosecuted, and do what he can to change the laws so that others don’t have to go to jail for prostitution, if he now doesn’t feel that prostitution should no longer be a crime.
Your examples of hypocrisy are currently not crimes, so I don’t advocate prosecution.
Bobby, I do get the point you are trying to make here. If one believes that prostitution is not a crime, then it should hold for all even if they are hypocrites.
posted by Bobby on
Pat, let me ask you a question. On craiglist there’s a guy that advertises that he will clean you house naked for a fee. He also says that you can “play with him” while he cleans. So, from a legal point of view, would that be prostitution?
And if prostitution is illegal, how come craiglist and newspapers and the yellow pages have listings for escort services? They don’t have listings for cocaine or marihuana (except maybe in Los Angeles and San Francisco where you can go to a pot clinic with a prescription).
Personally, I think the only reason prostitution is illegal is to allow the state to catch hookers, make them pay fines, and release them. It’s like those “speed traps” in small towns where if the speed limit says 45 and you’re doing 50, they will stop you and give you a ticket. It’s how small towns make money.
Dershowitz also raises important issues about entrapment. If Spitzer was indeed entrapped, the judged should drop all the charges and give him inmunity from prosecution.
posted by Richard on
The U.S. Constitution certainly ignores God and the founding fathers would have been deeply offended at the notion that America had a “Judeo-Christian” heritage.
In fact, most Americans did not want to acknowledge such a heritage until after the Second World War.
posted by Pat on
Bobby, I’m afraid I don’t have an easy answer for your question. I am on the fence when it comes to prostitution.
First of all, any element of prostitution that involves children, coercion, money laundering, and other crimes, I am definitely against, and those things should remain crimes.
Another big concern is I wouldn’t want to support something that would increase the likelihood of diseases. And despite the slippery slope stuff I will be talking about, I personally find prostitution immoral.
And we do get into the slippery slope quite a bit, don’t we. For example, in the question you posed, the service that is publicly being charged is the cleaning service. And for escorts, the charge is publicly for their time to be a companion (or something else nonsexual) to someone. And if either thing just happens to have a happy ending, well, hey, that officially was being done for free. So technically, that is legal, I suppose. But in reality, most likely the bulk of the charge is because of the sexual services.
And what about the bar situation, when two people meet, and it’s established somehow that one person has to buy the other person all the drinks before they go off somewhere for the nightcap? Is that different than paying someone the cash value of the drinks, and then go off to have sex, which I suppose would fit the legal definition of prostitution?
For what it’s worth, in my dating days, when I went to the bar and met someone, I would try to alternate the drink buying. If I met someone that felt “entitled” to have all the drinks bought for him, my conversation with that person would end. Not so much because I thought of the prostitution angle (although it may have been in the back of my mind), but because the other person was probably a prick.
Now, of course, in the straight world, the guy is always supposed to pay for the date, whether sex happens or not.
So for the moment, this is the way I look at this issue. Like it or not, prostitution is illegal everywhere in the U.S., except Nevada. And even there, going outside the regulated venues would be illegal, I believe. For now, if two consensual adults happen to meet up, have sex, and there happens to be an exchange of money or goods (dinner, drinks, flowers, etc.), I don’t believe that law enforcement should waste resources on these situations. I am less sympathetic in the case where prostitution becomes a business, involving pimps, rings, etc. Maybe it’s a third party benefiting from it I find objectionable.
In Spitzer’s case, he apparently used the services of a prostitution ring, as opposed to just meeting someone in the street, a bar, bathhouse, whatever. And maybe this shouldn’t make a difference, but the fact that he fervently prosecuted two rings, makes me believe that he should spend a little time in prison, or at the very least, be on probation and pay a huge fine.
Regarding the transfer of money, I would certainly have a problem if Spitzer used taxpayer money to fund his trysts. Also, I don’t know about the funny transfers of accounts he did to pay for this. I’m afraid I don’t understand the legalities with this. But I suppose if he went through these same silly machinations to buy a $4300 plasma TV, I wonder if that would be illegal. It seems to me that this aspect of his actions should make no difference.
Entrapment is a different story. I don’t see how someone who was apparently so against prostitution could be tricked into it. But if somehow law enforcement put Spitzer in a situation that he would have not otherwise engaged in, then there shouldn’t be any charges. From what I heard, that just doesn’t seem to be the case.
I admit that my opinion towards prostitution may not seem rational as well as not definitive. This is an issue that I do not have a firm opinion, and can see both sides of the issue.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Pat, I agree that no sex should be allowed if it involves children, coercion, etc.
?Another big concern is I wouldn’t want to support something that would increase the likelihood of diseases.?
—Then you should support closing bathhouses, raves and sex parties at people?s houses. More unsafe sex occurs there more than anywhere else. And what about all those ?gift-givers,? ?gift-catchers,? and guys who do it ?bare?? Some people actually seek to get a disease. It?s scary, but can you really protect people from themselves? I think not.
?I personally find prostitution immoral.?
—You know what I find immoral? Guys watching sports, shouting like animals, insulting the players. Baseball and football in particular is full of homophobic taunts. And don?t get me started on those weirdoes with the body paint. But I can?t let my sense of morality regulate other people?s lives.
?but the fact that he fervently prosecuted two rings, makes me believe that he should spend a little time in prison, or at the very least, be on probation and pay a huge fine.?
—But that?s not related to the case. That?s like the RICO act, prosecuting someone for whom he associates with regardless of whether he committed a crime or not. If you want to prosecute Spitzer, do it for the crime he actually did, not for past behavior not related to the crime.
?I would certainly have a problem if Spitzer used taxpayer money to fund his trysts.?
—There we agree, and that?s why the Detroit mayor is in trouble, although he didn?t hire hookers. He just took expensive vacations and leased expensive vehicles at the city?s expense.
posted by Jorge on
This is late, but Dale and Bobby argued against what I wrote earlier about prostition being a social and moral ill. That’s fine. I wasn’t about to let Stephen suggest that his position on prostitution is self-evident or some sign of superior common sense. I didn’t expect to be treated any differently.
At the same time, I am not ashamed to say that faith is the primary reason why I think prostitution should be a crime and is a social ill, I am not open-minded to the other point of view, and I don’t see any good reason to explain a position that most people here (I think we’re all adults here) have already heard in other contexts and have already decided to accept, reject, or distort. I see it as black-and-white, either you get it or you don’t.
posted by Bobby on
Jorge, there are people who want laws to be based on faith, they’re called evangelicals. The good ones just want to engage in “hate speech” which I support, the really bad ones would like to enforce Leviticus 18:23, which means people like you and me would be put to death.
While I condemn religious persecution, and support the rights of all kinds of religious people. I do not support muslims cab drivers refusing to drive passengers carrying wine or dogs (as they do in Minnessota), I don’t support evangelicals trying to ban pornography, and I certainly don’t support “faith” laws either.
Laws must be based on reason. It is one thing to allow a christian scientist to refuse medical attention for himself or his kids, it’s something else to let Christian Science, Islam, Christianity or anything else be the law of the land. There’s a big difference between having “under God” in the pledge of allegiance and actually being under biblical law.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby, like many subjects here, you’re clearly wrong when you offer “Jorge, there are people who want laws to be based on faith, they’re called evangelicals”
Only to the religion-hating gays who seek to condemn and repudiate religion because, in their twisted sense of reality, they think religion is to blame for all their social ills.
Laws in the US and many western countries are based on a collective morality, Bobby. Not “faith” as you wrongly term it. Evangelicals, a term you use like an indictment of gross errors, don’t base their belief on man-made laws… they generally have a God-centered perspective on laws, right v wrong, etc. Are you contending above that the majority of evangelicals want to put you to death? How frickin’ silly is that?
Evangenicals and lots of other people seek to ban pornography because of its corrosive, destructive, anti-social effect on society and people. As a gay man, I repudiate our gay culture’s overwhelming embrace of pornography just as I do the unrestrained morals which course through our community. Just like I do with prostitution. You see the latter as a private act between consenting adults… society sees it as a criminal enterprise. For now, you lose; thankfully.
I’m not evangecial, Bobby. I don’t believe in faith-based laws like the Sharia tradition in the East. But I also don’t believe that religion is the great boogey-man hiding under gay beds seeking to bring physical harm to the bed’s occupants.
Take off the blinders for a while and rejoin the broader culture… you’ve been far too long standing in the kool aid stand.
posted by Richard on
No doubt, prostitution that involves children is child abuse pure and simple. Likewise, prositution that involves force or fraud would also need to remain illegal.
The issue of public health is not helped by the fact that adult prostitution remains illegal and totally unregulated.
posted by Pat on
—Then you should support closing bathhouses, raves and sex parties at people?s houses. More unsafe sex occurs there more than anywhere else. And what about all those ?gift-givers,? ?gift-catchers,? and guys who do it ?bare?? Some people actually seek to get a disease. It?s scary, but can you really protect people from themselves? I think not.
I get your point. It’s just frustrating to see that there are still too many people that engage in unsafe behavior.
—You know what I find immoral? Guys watching sports, shouting like animals, insulting the players. Baseball and football in particular is full of homophobic taunts. And don?t get me started on those weirdoes with the body paint. But I can?t let my sense of morality regulate other people?s lives.
And don’t get me started about the weak weasels Selig, Goodell (and his predecessor Tagliabue) who can’t even address the taunts.
There are certain actions that society collectively finds immoral enough to be a crime. So the question is does prostitution fall in that category. Does it make me a moral relativist to firmly believe that homosexual acts should not be illegal (even if a majority does find it immoral), but to believe that prostitution should be illegal? Like I said above, it’s not an easy question.
—But that?s not related to the case. That?s like the RICO act, prosecuting someone for whom he associates with regardless of whether he committed a crime or not. If you want to prosecute Spitzer, do it for the crime he actually did, not for past behavior not related to the crime.
Agreed. Spitzer should be prosecuted based his crime. However, I won’t stand in Spitzer’s way if he insists on the same penalty that he advocated for others who committed the same crime he did.
posted by Bobby on
“Only to the religion-hating gays who seek to condemn and repudiate religion because, in their twisted sense of reality, they think religion is to blame for all their social ills.”
—I don’t hate religion and have spoken many times about secular homophobia. However, religion is to blame for prohibition, for laws that tell you when you can buy or sell beer, for “dry” counties, for abstinence-only sex education, etc.
“Not “faith” as you wrongly term it.”
—It was Jorge who termed it that way, not I.
“Evangelicals, a term you use like an indictment of gross errors, don’t base their belief on man-made laws… they generally have a God-centered perspective on laws, right v wrong, etc. Are you contending above that the majority of evangelicals want to put you to death? How frickin’ silly is that?”
—Evangelicals like most religious groups, are involved in politics and do support establishing laws that are God based. I’ve watched christian TV, I can read between the lines, if someday a charismatic christian leader wanted to put gays to death, and some already do, most christians would not object out of fear of being suspected of being gay or gay-friendly themselves. There are websites out there, not owned by radical fringe groups, but mainstream Christian organizations like the American Family Association, that claims all kinds of things about us. Last night on the O Factor, they had some asshole who supports men’s rights, who was complaining that some gay stripper didn’t get kicked from American Idol the way Frenchie did. While the republican woman claimed it was an issue of sexism, the man simply said that American Idol wanted to be PC, and that if he and his buddies had a straight parade in San Francisco, with naked people and crazy stuff, they would get arrested. So if you don’t think evangelicals and others hate your guts, you’re living in a dream world.
“Evangenicals and lots of other people seek to ban pornography because of its corrosive, destructive, anti-social effect on society and people.”
—You’re offering an opinion, not a fact. People learn about sex from porn, you never get a disease or pregnancy from watching porn. Porn employs thousands of people, it contributes billions to the economy, it has launch careers of people like Pamela Anderson and others. I don’t mind evangelicals having their own fun, but God damn them if they try to stop my fun and my freedom.
“But I also don’t believe that religion is the great boogey-man hiding under gay beds seeking to bring physical harm to the bed’s occupants.”
—Well, if you want to be one of those gays that attends homophobic churches, or the ones that tell you they love the sinner but hate the sin, go right ahead. In communist and socialist countries, the state is the great boogeyman that persecutes gays. In western countries, that role lies in religious and secular homophobes. I am not going to be “conservative correct” and deny the obvious.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby, I think this is the point where we simply can agree that we have opposing and mutually exclusive opinions about prostitution, the corrosive role of prostitution in our culture and its inherent immorality.
You choose to view religion as some boogey-man hiding under your bed prepared to spring forth and instruct you on the debased nature of your ways, but I don’t drink from the victimhood kool aid stand you seem to prefer to frequent. My partner and I attend and support a local Catholic church in our town and have yet to meet the kind of intolerant, abusive treatment you seem to encounter… in fact, the greatest intolerance we find is within our gay community… go figure?
I applaud the work of IGF. We’ve got to put a different face on the gay community -one markedly different than the conventional face you and others provide- if we’re going to succeed on issues like civil unions, gay adoption and financial rights.
And my point about porn, which you seem to love, is not an opinion. It is corrosive, destructive and anti-social. To the users, to the participants in the industry and to society’s broader concerns. Just like prostitution. Fact, not fiction.
posted by Bobby on
Michigan Matt, I want to show you some of the things that are said about gays at a conservative blog I go to very often.
“now they’re strarting to indoctrinate school children that being a homosexual is normal and okay.”
“Homosexuality in itself is not that destructive. What is very destructive is this increasingly liberal acceptance of “alternative” sexual orientations. ”
“That’s because heterosexual behavior is normal and homosexual behavior is not. You can like it or not but it is still true. Everyone chooses who he or she has sex with few exceptions. Just because one has certain feelings doesn’t mean they have to act on them.”
“As for the “acceptance” of homosexuality, it’s not acceptance at all. It’s political pressure which invents laws to force people to “accept” the gay lifestyle. The overwhelming majority of Americans still believe homosexuality is wrong!”
“The kind of behavior you claim as impossible?waiting for marriage to have sex and staying married for a lifetime?used to be normal, and as I pointed out above, it is still very, very common.”
“I would guarantee you that embracing homosexuality would turn others into second class citizens. Canada is a good indicator, how things had gone downhill. ”
Keep in mind that all these statements where made by civil homophobes, the kind of people that won’t call you a f-g or a sodomite, will be curteous to you, will judge you as an individual and not as a member of a community, this isn’t Fred Phelps blog or freerepublic.com, and yet this is how they feel about homosexuality.
While I can’t say for sure if religion has encouraged them to have those views, I wouldn’t be surprised if religion did play a part.
As for your local Catholic church, maybe the individual priest is tolerant and has created an atmosphere of tolerance. But I doubt you and your partner will be joining Opus Dei anytime soon.
posted by Richard on
(1) If we are to ban adult porn, how will we define it? Who will define it?
(2) Why is prostitution bad, but filming adults having sex, and paying them for it (porn) somehow makes it tolerable?
(3) Straight men do have pride parades. Just check out Mardia Gras or many a town during Spring Break…
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby, I’m always amazed at the length that people will go to demonstrate that the world is replete with idiots and bigots. I agree. And for each you offer of said class, we can find dozens of examples of equally bigoted, intolerant, close-minded gays commenting here on IGF… or AmericaBlog… or BlogActive… or Sullivan’s or Huffington’s blogs… or JoeMyGod.
Your “survey” proves little beyond the simple observation that the world is replete with idiots and the presence or absence of a religious bent has no merit. Like I wrote: I’ve found widespread tolerance and a welcoming embrace from my Catholic church… but then, I’ve been to black churches in Detroit that were about as tolerant toward whites, gays, GOPers and the affluent as the Klan is toward blacks.
As we’ve all learned here, liberal mindsets aren’t by nature tolerant… nor are conservatives. Like Sen McCain reminded a leading conservative pundit recently: “We’re all God’s children and we need to keep that in mind”. Good for him.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan-matt, with the exception of cheating on a partner consenting sex between adults is always okay. You have failed (of course) to provide a single example of where it isn’t. What a given religion says and what is moral are not one and the same thing.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
PriyaL offers: “consenting sex between adults is always ok”.
Gheez, PriyaLynn, we weren’t talking -nor is the thread and post about- your opinion (of course) that sex between consenting adults is always ok. It’s Spitzer… and the notion that prostitution should be legalized.
When it’s a commercial criminal enterprise, it is not ok in almost 99% of America. When consent is impaired, as with drugs, alcohol, differential coercion, it is decidedly NOT ok. It is not ok in public. In the gay community, when it involves a stranger and unprotected anal intercourse, it is NOT ok; can and do people do it? Sure; doesn’t make it “ok”. When it involves an HIV pos who does not disclose or lies about status, it is NOT ok.
Right, right, right… now you move to claim that some of those aren’t full consent in the way you meant. Funny how rapists often contend that the other party consented… at least in the rapist’s mind.
Do we really need more examples?
But again, this thread was about a cheating sleazebag Democrat governor who commits one or many criminal act(s) involving his sexual conduct. And by your “generous” standards, that is not ok because he was cheating on his wife and family. I agree.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
A post script, PriyaLynn… I didn’t say that what is moral and what religion allows were the same thing… I wrote that our laws are based on Judeo-Px tenets… there’s THE difference in what you contend I said.
But I doubt you’ll gather that distinction.
posted by Bobby on
“When it’s a commercial criminal enterprise, it is not ok in almost 99% of America”
—True, but in a country with lots of things the majority does not agree with, “majority rules” doesn’t always hold true. Normally, I like to go with the majority on some issues, but when the majority is wrong, I’m not gonna stand with them.
“Bobby, I’m always amazed at the length that people will go to demonstrate that the world is replete with idiots and bigots.”
—True, but they vote, they have influence, they have other people under their command that represent their views. It’s very easy to dismiss them as idiots, you need to deal with them.
“but then, I’ve been to black churches in Detroit that were about as tolerant toward whites, gays, GOPers and the affluent as the Klan is toward blacks.”
—I would never deny liberal bigotry, having it experienced myself. Most of the time I support conservatives, except when it comes to sexual mores. They’re very outdated in that department.
As for Sen McCain, he’s not tolerant either. The Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world at least defend the first amendment, don’t support campaign finance reform, don’t support anything that would stop person A from speaking against person B. McCain on the other hand is an angry old fart, the kind of person who’s not used to having people disagree with him, that is a problem sometimes related with people that come from military backgrounds. In the army you give an order and someone else follows that order. In politics it doesn’t quite work that way.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby, did I say that McCain was “tolerant”? I quoted a recent comment of his that goes far past timid “toleration”. He was instructing the conservative pundit and reminding him and his listeners of what ought to motivate all leaders in govt service.
BTW, McCain was Navy, not army. And your opinion of him as “an angry old fart” who expects immediate and unquestioning compliance with his order of the day… it’s a cartoonish assessment not even worthy of one with severely limited insight.
When PryiaLynn offered that sex between consenting adults is always ok, I offered her a litany of instances when it is clearly NOT ok… by the broader societal standards, by legal standards, by even the gay community’s conventional sense of standard.
I appreciate you don’t hold a mainstream view about sexual mores. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to gather that assessment given your recent comments here. The simple, unavoidable truth is that msuch of your perspectives on sexual conduct don’t have political weight or standing in our society. And that’s a blessing.
And gays wonder why the mainstream in America discounts our opinions on marriage so readily, so completely, so totally?
posted by Bobby on
“McCain was Navy, not army.”
—Some thing, an environment or orders, discipline, and absolutes. Even the Coast Guard is pretty strict.
“The simple, unavoidable truth is that msuch of your perspectives on sexual conduct don’t have political weight or standing in our society.”
—Well, there was a time arguments against sodomy laws had no political weight or legal standing either. There was a time interracial marriage was seen as the most evil wicked thing you could do. Luckily, some people are not afraid to take a stand against bad laws.
“And gays wonder why the mainstream in America discounts our opinions on marriage so readily, so completely, so totally?”
—I used to believe in that argument, I used to think that the only thing gays had to do to be accepted was wear nice suits, move to the suburbs, and live Stepford Wives lifestyles. However, my views have changed, I’m no longer interested in being accepted by conservatives, liberals, whatever.
I don’t care about your precious mainstream! You want to go to a football game, paint your body in blue, drink from a beer helmet and make an ass of yourself in public? You go right ahead, mister.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby offers: “I used to believe in that argument, I used to think that the only thing gays had to do to be accepted was wear nice suits, move to the suburbs, and live Stepford Wives lifestyles.”
LOL. I love it when you prove over and over that your opinions are formed on silly pretexts, unfounded perspectives and impractical conditions.
I’d have abandoned that opinion if I had been you and was stuck in its formulation as well. It’s a stupid predicate for action or advocacy to change America’s treatment of gay rights.
Frankly, you and others here can afford not to care what mainstream America thinks… you’ve placed yourself well beyond the arena for constructive change.
That’s ok. It makes the job easier for the rest of us.
posted by Bobby on
Michigan-Matt, for someone who whines about how intolerant gays are, you show plenty of intolerance yourself.
“Frankly, you and others here can afford not to care what mainstream America thinks.”
—It’s called self-acceptance. It happens when you stop being ashamed of the gay community because you realize all commuinties have quirks. So unless there’s a movement to send gays to concentration camps, I don’t think there’s much to worry about. The world certainly didn’t end with Bush.
“That’s ok. It makes the job easier for the rest of us.”
—Ha! Good freaking luck convincing the rest of America that gay marriage is a good idea, or that gay sex is ok, or that gay adoption is fine.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby, I think the thread was about Spitzer’s criminal sexual misconduct and the attempt by some here to characterize it as simply consenting sex between adults… and that prostitution should be sanctioned and made legal.
It should be clear by now that criminal sexual misconduct isn’t ok, that there are many examples where “consenting” sex between adults harms individuals and society at large, etc.
You’re the one who thought part of YOUR answer to the inherent problem in getting mainstream America to condone YOUR sense of sexual morality was to strap on a suit, move to suburbia and put up a white picket fence. I think that’s silly.
Personally, I’ve already “won” on the issue of important legal sanctions for my gay union, my partner and I have moved forward and adopted two infant sons, and we’ve found a high level of acceptance in mainstream America because we SHARE their values… we don’t seek to displace their values with a false gay agenda of “progress”.
Sneer, snicker and complain about your victimhood. But on the three issues you note above, my partner and I and the place we call home prove it can be done.
It might not meet your need for daily drama or playing the blame game, but we left that world a long, long time ago.
posted by Bobby on
“there are many examples where “consenting” sex between adults harms individuals and society at large, etc.”
—So what’s next? Ban orgies, ban s/m clubs, ban porn? Your legal view seems to be, “if it hurts society, ban it.” Fine, Big Brother is already banning smoking, I’m sure there’s a long list of “bad” things you can get rid off.
“Sneer, snicker and complain about your victimhood”
—Who says I’m a victim? I’m not the one that feels like a victim just because gay marriage is illegal and I can’t serve in the military.
So fine, maybe my lifestyle offends you, maybe the fact that today I had sex with a deliveryman (thanks to craiglist) makes you go “tsk, tsk, tsk.” But you know what? I’m proud I had sex. I’m proud that he was cute and skinny, just how I like ’em. And if you don’t approve of that, so be it.
posted by Hank on
Bobby I am a huge believer in monogamy. But I gotta tell you I love your posts. Hope you had a great time, and that you get to see him again…
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. If you want to partake of orgies, s/m or watersports, bareback with anonymous men or watch porn all day, it matters not to me. You have to decide at the end of the day whether or not your life is worthless.
I’m still trying to figure out how nearly every thread you’re involved in goes from whatever the topic is to you defending your conduct and seeking validation? I think that’s the beginning of anyone’s classification of a victim mentality. Your ill-placed pride at one-standing a “cute, skinny guy” is immaterial to me.
Pathetic. But immaterial.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby I am a huge believer in monogamy. But I gotta tell you I love your posts. Hope you had a great time, and that you get to see him again…”
—Thanks Hank, you’re very kind, I’m also a believer in monogamy, so far I’ve had about 40 monogamous encounters, 2 of which lasted more than one day, oh, and 3 threesomes. I can’t consider the 3-ways monogamous.
Michigan, I do not like watersports, bareback, drugs, etc, I just like plain vanilla sex. Maybe your world is like those Woody Allen movies where people have charming conversations and fall in love ever so quickly. My world, the one 99% of gays live in, is a lot harsher.
“I’m still trying to figure out how nearly every thread you’re involved in goes from whatever the topic is to you defending your conduct and seeking validation?”
—It started with you bashing anyone who doesn’t believe in the white-picket fence same-sex marriage lifestyle you advocate. It is not I who seeks validation, actually, that would be you.
You want to be validated by the straight community, you want to be accepted in their churches, neighborhoods, you want to “fit in.” And you’re ashamed of every gay that doesn’t fit into your narrow-minded vision of what it means to be a homosexual.
Why is it that when it comes to sex you’re such a Bill O’reilly? Seriously, I mean, I can’t expect my favorite bloviator to understand that the crazy things kids do today on spring break are the same crap his hippie comrades did at woodstoock, but you Matt? For god sakes, you’re gay. If anyone should be open minded about sexuality, and that would include prostitution, it should be gays!
But fine, go ahead and condemn prostitution, go ahead and criminalize it, but don’t expect your sense of morality to win you any points with the breeders.
posted by Brian Miller on
Ever since 9/11, banks have, under new and stricter money-laundering laws, been keeping eyes out for this sort of thing, mainly because it is one of the flags that can be used to track and identify potential terrorist activity.
In other words, once again ND-30’s Republican Party has created draconian rules that violate individuals’ privacy rights and tighten the grip of the police state on individuals. A law that supposedly “prevents terrorism” is instead used to bust someone for paying for sex.
Now, I know that the typical GOPer equates most sex to terrorism, but the average American would identify this as a pretty different “crime.” And it’s interesting to note that these new laws haven’t resulted in a single real prosecution of actual terror activity — but have been very handy tools for the feds to bust people for victimless “crimes” while increasing their meddling in our private financial lives.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby offers, without tongue-in-cheek, “But fine, go ahead and condemn prostitution, go ahead and criminalize it, but don’t expect your sense of morality to win you any points with the breeders.”
“Breeders” is it? Well, you really shouldn’t plan on becoming the Gay community’s poster boi anytime soon… even if you do a dozen delverymen at lunch.
“Breeders”. Gheez, Bobby, the last time I heard someone use that term was when I debated a porn producer during Michigan’s Defense of Marriage Act battle… wow, maybe turning off the volume when watching porn would help your vocabulary?