How dumb can you be? What a disappointment, since crime-fighter Spitzer is/was a rising star in the Dem party and a full marriage equality advocate. I don't know what his upcoming press conference will involve, but it doesn't look good for the NY gov:
Gov. Eliot Spitzer has informed his most senior administration officials that he had been involved in a prostitution ring, an administration official said this morning.
Mr. Spitzer, who was huddled with his top aides inside his Fifth Avenue apartment early this afternoon, had hours earlier abruptly canceled his scheduled public events for the day. He scheduled an announcement for 2:15 after inquiries from the Times.
Mr. Spitzer, a first term Democrat who pledged to bring ethics reform an end the often seamy ways of Albany, is married with three children.
Just last week, federal prosecutors arrested four people in connection with an expensive prostitution operation. Administration officials would not say that this was the ring with which the governor had become involved.
But a person with knowledge of the governor’s role said that the person believes the governor is one of the men identified as clients in court papers.
UPDATE: He hasn’t resigned…yet.
Take a look at what is a now-familiar picture - the wife of the cheating pol standing behind him, probably wanting to plow a knife into him for being a dumbass. Here is the DOJ Emperor’s Club investigation document. WNYC is also reporting that Spitzer was caught on fed wiretap arranging for a woman to go from NY to Wash DC for a meeting in a hotel room. Yipes.
“I have acted in a way that violated the obligations to my family and that violates my - or any - sense of right and wrong. I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public whom I promised better. I do not believe politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the State of New York. I am disappointed that I failed to live up to the standard that I expect of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family. I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much.”
If Eliot Spitzer steps aside, New York will have its first black governor, David A. Paterson, the current Lieutenant Governor. (Wikipedia):David A. Paterson (born May 20, 1954) is an American politician and the current Lieutenant Governor of New York. He is the first African American to hold this position. He was selected as running mate by New York Attorney General and Democratic Party nominee Eliot Spitzer in the 2006 New York gubernatorial election .Why can’t these pols in power keep their pants zipped? With all the enemies Spitzer has made over the years as AG, wouldn’t he have the sense to know they’d find something as obvious and damaging as this? Ah yes, he was thinking with the other head…Paterson was born legally blind in Brooklyn in 1954. He received a BA from Columbia University in 1977 and later his law degree from Hofstra Law School. After law school, he went to work for the Queens District Attorney’s Office. In 1985 he joined the campaign staff of David Dinkins for Manhattan Borough President. In October of that year, longtime state Senator Leon Bogues, representing a district covering Manhattan neighborhoods Harlem, Manhattan Valley and the Upper West Side, died and Paterson won a highly competitive Democratic party New York (Manhattan) County Committee selection process and was elected to serve the rest of Bogues’ term. The following year, 1986, he won the seat for his first full term representing the 29th District in the New York State Senate. He is the son of former New York Secretary of State Basil Paterson, who was the first African American NYC Deputy Mayor and the first to run for statewide office in New York. Secretary Paterson was the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor in 1970. The elder Paterson also served in the NY state Senate in the same seat his son occupied. In 1993, David Paterson ran citywide for the office of the Public Advocate, the second highest elected office in New York City.
More:
The Web site of the Emperors Club VIP displays photographs of scantily clad women with their faces hidden, along with hourly rates depending on whether the prostitutes were rated with one diamond, the lowest ranking, or seven diamonds, the highest. The most highly ranked prostitutes cost $5,500 an hour, prosecutors said.…In 2004, he [Spitzer] was part of an investigation of an escort service in New York City that resulted in the arrest of 18 people on charges of promoting prostitution and related charges.
214 Responses to “BREAKING: NY Gov Eliot Spitzer admits connection to prostitution ring”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Spitzer, you fucking asshole. You may have derailed national Democratic chances because you couldn’t keep it in your pants.
I just got in from errands and said to Charlie, “I GOTTA see if Pam’s got this one yet!”
“OMG” was our kid’s reaction…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Paterson
Meet the new Governor!
Someone already has updated Wiki to say he is the 70th Gov of NY…
I am honestly surprised by this.
Argh, I give up…
Well, yeah. He’s not a Republican. Who’d a thunk it? /snarkCaren: That’s probably why I am surprised.
Is Paterson still legally blind? That’ll be a first too, wouldn’t it?
Sorry for my rant, people. I feel embarrassed for jumping without evidence or even an admission from Spitzer yet. It’s just . . . fuck . .
It’s just like Bill all over again for me emotionally.
What made him admit this?
Meanwhile, how many Republicans are still serving terms in Washington for similar “offenses?”
I just don’t get it.
And, just like that, there might go our chance at overtaking the NY Senate and FINALLY seeing some marriage equality…
What can be worth $5500 an hour? No, really? Clearly it’s not “discretion”.
Sarah MC, my bet is that he admitted it because the people investigating the Empress Club gave him a heads up (professional courtesy of course… not patriarchial privilege at all… no siree) that the books were being investigated and his name was in them. That’d be enough to call the lawyers, circle the wagons and try to get your spin out on it first.
*headdesk*
Any chance that Spitzer is the letter writer here?
http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2008/03/10/karma/
Doctor Science, I was wondering the same thing. Sex is pretty much sex, isn’t it? I mean, it’s nice and all, but $5500 is a current-gen game console and every game available for it, which sounds like a great deal more fun overall than an hour of sex with some random stranger paid to pretend that they’re having a nice time.
What a putz. Ah, well, at least he’s stepping down.
Anyone know how Patterson is on marriage equality?
Gack, just read the update. Step down, jackass. You must have known that would be the price, and you did it anyway. We don’t need corrupt Democratic politicians–we already have plenty of Republicans providing all the corruption we could possibly want.
I’m gonna be honest, I don’t give a shit. If McCain can fuck around on his first wife with a high-society junkie then I don’t feel at all obliged to care where Spitzer puts his penis. AFAIK he didn’t get into office on any bullshit con-job of a Family Values platform and I haven’t heard that he was payin’ ‘em out of public funds so seriously, who cares?
*bangs head* Why are people so goddamned stupid?
Someone on a mailing list I’m on who is a NY-based activist said that Patterson is pro-marriage equality and his Chief of Staff is an openly gay man.
Pam, good to hear.
Pam, that is, no lie, the best news I’ve heard all day. Yeah, not a crowded field for good news, but …
He probably thought the high price would give him extra security from being caught or from blackmail, since I understand the going rate for “call girls”, even in NY is well below that rate,something like $400-600 per hour. Not likely a forced prostitution ring at the $1,000-5,000 rates. To me prosecutors have better things to do with their time and budgets, but an organization like this with such high prices and emphasis on better treatment for repeaters was likely to have some big fish in the barrel (and a record of the customers) and therefore an attractive target for an ambitious prosecutor.
“Why are people so goddamned stupid?”
…the “little” head doesn’t have much in the way of brainpower…
Suggestion:
When a rightie gets all up in your face about this, as inevitably a rightie will, force the rightie to concede that at least these were female hookers.
Dammit dammit dammit.
Despite being a liberal I find this hysterically funny. Perhaps it’s just the hoist on his own petard factor, but it’s entertaining to see the genteel hypocrisy that passes for morality among the political class torn aside every now and then.
I’m as disappointed and dumbstruck as anyone, but let’s keep it in perspective.
He did it, obviously, because he could. He (I guess) likes sex at least as much as the next man, and in his position and with his income he can afford to pay a lot to get exactly what he wants. And this scenario is the stereotype case for legalized prostitution: women who presumably have other options, making huge coin (even after a cut to the escort service) to sleep with high-class men in swanky hotels with, in this case I would guess, little risk of violence or disease. Why does anyone here care?
He’s cheating on his wife, but that’s between them. If he doesn’t have her blessing to play when he’s out of town, then he has hurt her, probably severely, and deserves whatever she gives him for it - but, again, that’s between them.
He broke the law, which is particularly hypocritical as a former straight-arrow prosecutor, current Governor, but still, it’s a law that exists almost entirely as a result of right-wing sex panic (he’s being charged under the Mann Act, if you can believe it - the federal “white slavery” law), and one that many people think should be repealed.
It has nothing to do with corruption. There’s no claim he was trading sexual favors for political influence - he was just paying to get laid while he was out of town on business. Big deal.
As for the other strange speculations cropping up here - everybody relax. He admitted it because they had him on tape. He was informed he was a suspect because the charges were about to be unsealed and he is now a named defendant - they had to inform him.
Obviously, it was politically stupid to an unbelievable degree - particularly given Spitzer’s chosen public person as Mr. Clean, and his anti-crime record (including prosecuting prostitution rings). But, while we can certainly be dismayed that Spitzer was so reckless, we shouldn’t play into the right wing’s hands by accepting their panicky, sex-negative perspective and agreeing that sex, by itself, constitutes guilt. He hurt no one (except his family - which is his issue to deal with) and did nothing that is wrong in itself. He broke the law, which is more serious, but luckily it wasn’t a serious law. Personally, I’d like to see him say just that, publicly, and tell the Feds where to stick their Mann Act. But realistically, I would think, he’s doomed.
“Not likely a forced prostitution ring at the $1,000-5,000 rates.”
Categorically not true.
The higher price can also be an indicator of just how unwilling the “goods” are.
“Why does anyone here care?”
because it’s romantic visions of prostitution like this that totaly erases the reality.
Because he knows he’ll get away with it. Really, it’s not like he’ll do any time, or his wife will leave him over this.
A slap on the wrist, at most, and he’ll live to campaign and run for office another day.
“He broke the law, which is more serious, but luckily it wasn’t a serious law”
eh, what’s a little human trafficking when Kevin really really needs to believe prostitution is a victimless crime.
I would feel more sorry for him if he hadn’t been prosecuting the same exact crime as Attorney General.
And yet David Vitter is still allowed to hold office.
Spitzer’s arrogance and entitlement make Clinton seem like a self-deprecating monk in a burlap dress.
I’m not surprised that he thought that he could get away with it.
I am not okay with a man running a tab with a pimp. Sure, there are sex workers who have other options and who have made a conscious choice to do sex work. I’ve known some of these women, and it’s lasted a few months to a few years before they decided that it was taking a toll on them and they needed to stop. And that’s the very best, top-of-the-cake scenario. Below that there’s the women (and men) who have a lot of crappy other options, and those who have no options, and those who have no choice. And none of that is okay, and I’m not going to formulate my opinion or my policy proposal about sex work based on what it means for the very few.
I don’t just want him to resign. I want him to be charged with a Mann Act violation. He did a very bad thing. I’m not okay with it, or him.
He certainly could have found plenty of consenting partners. He could have found attractive young women who would have sex with him just for the brush with celebrity. But he wanted a woman who was on the clock, who was obligated to him and who he could use. There’s something wrong with that.
Welcome, Governor Paterson.
Kevin, if it was an affair, i could go along with most of what you said, but it wasn’t an affair. Also, even if you believe prostitution should be legal (and there are feminist arguments for that position), as a prosecutor, he sent numerous people to prison for the same activity he engaged in. That is rank hypocrisy.
Kevin — no one here is suggesting sex is a bad thing, or that we are all mad at Elliot Spitzer for Doing It.
This is not like the Clinton situation — the Lewinsky affair was a classic messy sex panic that pointed the gleeful finger at TWO imperfect people caught with their pants *voluntarily* down.
This is something very different. Ironically, I’m guessing Spitzer thought he was doing the “decent” thing — paying someone for sex rather than having some female colleague pin fond hopes on him, keeping his home and emotional life separate from his bought and paid for soulless fucking. The problem is, a prostitute is a human being, not a sex robot, and Elliot Spitzer is ergo a nasty piece of work, not just a person with a lively libido. Get it?
Chingona, you hit the nail on the head for me. He’s as big a hypocrite as Larry Craig, adn the Democratic party ought to drop him like a hot potato, just as the Repubs have done with Craig.
What an unimitigated ass. I am less offended by Guiliani’s little police-escorted trysts with his girlfriend than I am by this.
Whoops. That’s “unmitigated.” My eyes are giving out . . .
BTW, it was not okay for Mr. Bill to use his staff as a source of sex partners, either. What’s wrong with sex partners that one has nothing to gain or lose from but fun? I’ve had plenty of fun over the years having sex with people that I didn’t hire, pay or supervise.
How did Spitzer go from one of the most prominent rising stars in the Democratic party when he was AG to someone who as governor never gets in the news except when he’s losing at something or screwing something up?
What sort of investigation was this, huh? The feds are trailing the governor of NY? Isn’t that a bigger scandal than (horrors!) a governor getting some on the side?
Or were the feds investigating a prostitution ring, and, uh, why? They don’t have any real crimes to investigate?
I don’t give a damn what Spitzer does in his private life. But taxpayer money being wasted trying to get him? Yeah, that infuriates me.
$5500/hr hooker. Whoa…
I wonder who else is in the little blackbook!
Incidentally, how will this effect NY democratic party machine?
Hah, Spitzer wasn’t engaging in extracurricular sex. In his position, the actual vice he was indulging in was GAMBLING.
And for $5500/hr, i’d say whoever was using that service likes sex quite a bit more than “the next guy”.
Roger stone is in the play. This is going to get really messy.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/10/16652/4585
In the message, he says, referring to a potential subpoena: “There is not a goddamn thing your phony, psycho, piece-of-shit son can do about it. Bernie, your phony loans are about to catch up with you. You will be forced to tell the truth and the fact that your son’s a pathological liar will be known to all.”
Roger Stone´s reasons for being angry at Spitzer:
Republican strategist Roger Stone, who last year was fired by state Senate Republicans after allegedly leaving threatening phone messages for Gov. Spitzer’s elderly father, says John McCain may want to tie Barack Obama to Spitzer’s failed effort to give drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.
Or were the feds investigating a prostitution ring, and, uh, why? They don’t have any real crimes to investigate?
Nice try, but prostitution is a real crime. Just like prostitutes are real people.
Oy, gevalt!
While i think prostitution should be legal, it was hubris on Spitzer’s part if he thought he could do what he did with impunity.
$5500? That, my friends, is one magic vagina.
In Spitzer’s position, that’s GAMBLING, not …. gee, what’s the technical term for “whore-using”? Not ‘procurement’….
That didn’t take long… Fox has a link to the entire 55 page complaint (pdf) via smokinggun.com. A poll on CNN shows 2:1 people think he should resign rather than simply apologize and move on (only about 3000 respondants, I think).
Sucks for his 3 daughters to find out Dad’s a scumbag.
I don’t see any problem with it at all, assuming certain statements are true. Foremost among these is what is the nature of the “prostitution ring”? Are the women performing the services willing participants and the service essentially taking care of booking them, or are they essentially slaves and the service their pimp? What kind of a cut of the $5500 per hour did the woman get?
Because if it’s the former situation, and the woman’s getting the usual 60+% of what the client pays in fees, then I don’t see any problem with it. His wife might, but that’s her business. The law on the subject is idiotic and I wouldn’t convict someone for visiting, or being, a prostitute if I were on a jury. Pimps and traffickers, on the other hand, can go to the slammer, and so can the john, if he’s aware that the prostitute is trafficked, which he may or may not be in any given situation.
Pretty much everyone who’s married, man or woman, wants a little action on the side here and there. He probably thought he was paying extra for discretion. Too bad for him. And if the woman really was trafficked and so forth, then it’s worth investigating. But otherwise, I think the Feds have better crimes to look into.
Prostitution being decriminalized, sure. But legalize the selling of sex — when we know all too well that the sex in question is going to be overwhelmingly young (whether male or female), overwhelmingly female, and OVERWHELMINGLY poor?
the day the sex to be sold is rich, middle-aged, and male, ask me to sign that petition and I’ve got my pen ready.
We don’t know that Spitzer was only involved with prostitutes. He could easily be a sex addict who had sexual contact with other women as well.
And yeah, why does Vitter get to stay in office?
Personally, I want to know what’s he’s done before turning on the condemnation.
Yes, I’m pissed off that he let himself be put in this position, but there are a lot of circumstances where people feel driven to seek such professional services, and where what he’s done didn’t break the law.
However, if he did participate in the same kind of behavior he used to prosecute, then I have no sympathy for him.
as long as he wasn’t fucking little girls (or, like most Repukes, little boys), who cares?
Why are people so resistant to the notion that prostitution is exploitative?
Kathleen:
Because that would require admitting that men aren’t entitled to all the sex with hot babes that they want. Can’t have that!
Pretty much everyone who’s married, man or woman, wants a little action on the side here and there.
Speak for yourself, dude. Not everybody wants to cheat the way you assume.
Prostitution MIGHT be exploitative, Kathleen. But it might be women who are making good money doing what most wives don’t get paid for.
Sarah MC asks: “What made him admit this?”
Uh… federal wiretap sting operation.
Ironically, he did the same to Bruno. Poetic justice. And I used to respect this ass-hat.
there is a huge difference between prostitution and forced prostitution.
Why should he have to apologize to anybody but his wife for where he decides to dip his wick?
Wow, apa doc, I never thought to look at it that way. Obviously my understanding of sexuality is totally clueless and fucked up.
But it might be women who are making good money doing what most wives don’t get paid for.
Sex is not a service I provide for my husband. It’s an enjoyable activity we do together.
When people make comments like yours, I really wonder how they view their sex partners. And it makes me glad I’m not one of them.
Anony said:
If you read the indictment the woman who was Spitzer’s in D.C. (having travelled from NYC) doesn’t sound like she was forced at all. Another prospective provider declined employment because she thought a 50% split was too much for the agency.
I agree with Kevin
Kathleen said:
I get your perspective, I just don’t agree with it when it’s not forced prostitution. You could call any paid work you find distasteful exploitative on the part of the employer. Who is exploiting whom?“Why are people so resistant to the notion that prostitution is exploitative?”
These women were certainly being exploited in a Marxist sense. And certainly in other senses too.
What makes me resistant to the idea that it is automatically ‘exploitative’ in a looser sense is that the people providing the service are making very large sums of money - certainly much larger than my weekly wage. So they are getting a substantial return from the transaction. Of course, the counter-argument is that it’s exploitative because they’re forced into this situation by circumstance. I can’t help but wonder if that’s overplayed, given that most people in that situation don’t become prostitutes. Most young, poor, women don’t sell themseves - so can you really say those who do for $5k an hour have no other option? It seems to me that some people become involved in prostitution simply because they have a more relaxed attitude towards meretricious relationships that other people.
Someone on a mailing list I’m on who is a NY-based activist said that Patterson is pro-marriage equality and his Chief of Staff is an openly gay man.
He’s also got a long history of working on issues of domestic violence, women- and minority-owned businesses, and disability issues. He’s well-respected, and will probably have a much easier time than Spitzer did getting legislation past Bruno and Silver, who pretty much have a lock on the flow of legislation. Which is one thing Spitzer tried to reform but failed at, badly.
And if Paterson can get legislation through those two, and he supports marriage rights, then he may very well be able to get a marriage-rights bill through.
“AFAIK he didn’t get into office on any bullshit con-job of a Family Values platform and I haven’t heard that he was payin’ ‘em out of public funds so seriously, who cares?”
Ah, but he *did* run on a ‘family values’ platform. Or, at the very least, an anti-prostitution platform. Spitzer sent prostitutes to jail and built his public image partly on the publicity therefrom.
If he was just a politician, and not a cop, I’d be more willing to give him a pass - I think prostitution is repugnant, but keeping it illegal just makes things worse for the women involved - but he patronized one organization while sending its competition to prison, and patted himself on the back for it… To hell with Spitzer, and if there’s any way he can end up serving time for this, I’m all for it.
The Spitzer/Catholic Church battle was just starting to get good . . .
So much for his AG spot in a future Democratic White House.
And I agree with the above commenter who said he should be prosecuted for the Mann Act. He was the chief law enforcer and the chief executive of the state. He should be held to a higher standard.
This is pretty disappointing. I liked that he took on investor and corporate corruption. He was a strong advocate of same-sex marriage. He could have overcome his initial missteps with time and a smart strategy. But now he is sunk.
AND WHY do political wives put themselves through these press conferences?
Personally, I just can’t find a positive spin to sexwork. I’ll believe it’s a viable, healthy career choice for women when the average whore is an educated young woman of legal age who has other career options. Instead, it tends to be people born in poverty, people with substance abuse problems, and people who’ve been sexualized since they were very, very young. Perhaps there’s something inherent in the genetic makeup of pubescent females from third world countries that makes them just really enjoy sucking old men’s cocks. Or perhaps it’s truly advantageous to start fucking girls when they’re children, particularly within their own families, so they’ll have a proper sense of how their sexuality should be manifested, and not be trapped by bourgeois concepts of sexuality and bodily integrity. But I’m dubious.
Whoring just somehow seems a little depressing to me for some reason. Maybe I’m just a sex-negative old school feminist.
Do we know exactly how much of that money they themselves get to keep vs how much goes to their pimps? I doubt they keep the higher percentage of it.
And economic coercion is a type of force. You don’t need to be beaten or chained up to be in forced prostitution. Or they could have started b/c they needed money and they still “owe” their pimps money and are working it off. Did any of you work there? Do *you* know that this isn’t the case? In this country these things happen so don’t think that couldn’t be happening in this case.
Prostitution, like drugs, will exist no matter how hard you try to eradicate it. Better to legalize it so there will be some government regulation upon it (safe working conditions, unions, and other protections) than to leave it to the black market where no such protections exist.
In an ideal world it wouldn’t exist, but lets not kid ourselves about eradicating the worlds oldest profession.
My first post is in moderation, but in short:
Better to legalize it so at least the workers are protected by worker regulations.
OK, but taking that argument to its logical conclusion, all forms of free-market participation are exploitative.
If you’re opposed to market economies, you might accept that conclusion, and say that all employment is exploitative in that fashion. But why zoom in on sex work, then?
Why are people so resistant to the notion that prostitution is exploitative?
I can’t answer your question directly, but I am a proponent of decriminalization because the threat of arrest places the prostitute in an even weaker position than if she (or he) was plying a legal trade. I don’t see a way to eliminate prostitution entirely, but it ought to be possible to improve the situation of prostitutes by providing them with at least some legal recourse. Given my druthers I’d keep it illegal to pay for sex, but not to accept payment. Go after the demand side and the supply side will hopefully adjust to the benefit of the prostitutes.
I believe sex work should be legalized and regulated.
I also believe that marijuana should be legalized and regulated.
However, it’s not appropriate for the chief executive of a state to break laws. Full stop.
And it’s especially not appropriate for a former prosecutor who emphasized busting sex-work enterprises.
I think Eliot Spitzer should resign. I think David Vitter should have resigned long ago for the same reason.
I admire Spitzer for having the grace to admit that he did something wrong. Now he needs to go the next step and resign his position of public trust.
Some of us believe that a woman’s body is hers to do with what she pleases, including renting it out by the hour. To argue otherwise is paternalistic, saying that women can’t be anything other than exploited.
It also holds that sex is somehow sacred and that sex work is categorically different from other jobs even ones exploitive of women in dire economic circumstances.
Well, I didn’t mean to hijack this thread onto a discussion of prostitution, rather than Spitzer’s bewildering decision to patronize it, but, just to cover a few points . . .
Anony: “ it’s romantic visions of prostitution like this that totaly erases the reality . . . eh, what’s a little human trafficking when Kevin really really needs to believe prostitution is a victimless crime.”
No one is “romanticizing” the situation. But there is at least some breadth of belief that it need not be condemned out of hand. Neither is there any evidence whatsoever that the women working for this group are victims in some way, still less that they were subject to human trafficking. And I don’t need to believe that prostitution is always victimless to believe that some prostitution might be (nor do I “need” to believe it for any other reason). You’re making all of this up. You are stating facts about people you don’t know, in situations you have little information about, while ascribing to them psychological motives that you have conjured up out of whole cloth.
One might wonder who is doing the “romanticizing” . . . who it is who “really really needs to believe” something that has no basis in fact.
Kathleen: “Kevin — no one here is suggesting sex is a bad thing, or that we are all mad at Elliot Spitzer for Doing It. . . . I’m guessing Spitzer thought he was doing the “decent” thing — paying someone for sex rather than having some female colleague pin fond hopes on him, keeping his home and emotional life separate from his bought and paid for soulless fucking. The problem is, a prostitute is a human being, not a sex robot, and Elliot Spitzer is ergo a nasty piece of work”
Sounds like you’re mad at him for Doing It - or at least doing it in a way that treats the prostitutes as non-human. But there’s no suggestion he did that. I suppose paid-for sex will be “soulless” in the same way that paid-for food will be, or paid-for massages, or whatever else you get in a capitalist system that forces people to trade their human lives and abilities for money. I don’t know why it would be more soulless than most legal jobs people do, or for that matter more soulless than a one-night stand with someone you picked up just because you were horny. Nor do I know why we need sex - alone, of all the things people do for money - to be some kind of . . . (forgive me) “romantic” encounter when we don’t seem to care at all about how diminishing it is to scrub toilets, do other people’s laundry and cleaning, or empty their bedpans - all of which are honored as “honest work”.
“Why are people so resistant to the notion that prostitution is exploitative?”
The basic presumption underlying the movement for legalization of prostitution is the perception that not all prostitution is, or at least has to be, exploitative (or that it is no more so than other jobs we don’t object to people doing). Some of the basis for that perception is that there are prostitutes who themselves make that claim. If that claim is always false, then it is hard to make a strong argument for legalization - but it doesn’t appear that it’s always false.
In this case, the work these women were doing does not appear to be exploitative to any particularly egregious degree. Some articles cited evidence from the recorded conversations between the prostitutes and the escort service that made it clear they were making $500 per hour even after a 50%+ split with the agency [I don’t think anyone was getting $5,000 per hour - I think some clients paid $5,000 per encounter, and the women got paid by the hour], they had complete freedom to choose whether or not to work, and in some cases they refused work for reasons like they had heard a client didn’t take a prostitute to dinner before wanting sex - which hardly sounds like hideous dungeon slavery. The woman complaining about expecting to go to dinner also said she was making the same money doing photo shoots and had considered working as an escort to earn extra - meaning that she had chosen to become a prostitute (or at least considered it, until she found out it didn’t include dinner) while already making $500/hr as a fashion model. I’m willing to believe that most women working as prostitutes are very badly treated and badly exploited. I’m not willing to believe this woman is one of them.
And if that’s true, I’m at least willing to entertain the notion that what she and Spitzer do between them, at $5,500 per evening, is their business. Even if Spitzer has done wrong in some ways, I don’t think - and given what’s come out here, it seems less and less likely - that having teh sex was one of the wrong things. Violating his commitment to his wife, breaking the law while pursuing a career of upholding the law - those are reprehensible acts of hypocrisy and betrayal. But that’s very different from sex in and of itself. We ought to make that distinction, if only to keep the right from whipping up yet another sex panic.
So this woman didn’t have a choice between this $5000/hour job and another non-sex work related $5000/hour job? Poor her.
So this woman didn’t have a choice between this $5000/hour job and another non-sex work related $5000/hour job? Poor her.
Hey James and Pablo and Kevin (all men! how interesting!) — read Kmach and tell me you’re not all disgusting.
Nice try, but prostitution is a real crime. Just like prostitutes are real people.
And you don’t for a second balk at the cognitive dissonance involved making those human beings you refer to into criminals?
Prostitution may be exploitative, but it’s hardly more exploitative than the production of pornography (which I understand it’s possible to take issue with, but it’s nonetheless legal); and, indeed, in a society where the necessities of life are not free, any for-hire employment is, by definition, exploitative.
He gets no sympathy for me on the counts of hypocrisy - public servants really shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing laws they clearly don’t want to follow themselves - but I see no clear reason why he shouldn’t get the Vitter treatment, here. The simple fact is that a politically-motivated fishing expedition set out looking for something to pin a bribery charge on, and prostitution is what they found, so they’re running with it.
Hey, nobody mention the importance of this story yet.
… the super rich suddenly realize the government is spying on them! lol…
This ought to put a crimp on credit card transactions for sure.
all men! how interesting!
That’s right - since we have penises, we can be ignored, I guess.
read Kmach and tell me you’re not all disgusting.
I did. I can’t for the life of me find where Kmach makes an argument that it should be illegal; just that, as a practice, it’s unpleasant and troubling.
Which it is, in most cases. But, like drugs, there’s an argument to be made that the exploitation and abuse prostitutes are subjected to is a function of prostitution being an illegal fringe business and not actually inherent to the business itself. I don’t see why abuse and exploitation has to be inherent in paying someone a fee to allow you to have sex with them. How is that different than any other conceivable service one might hire a person for?
yep…. watch this. Nobody really cares abotu the hooker/sex (hey. story like that is a dime a dozen)
But it seems the surveillance has reached the top. A lot of very powerful people are going to think several times with all their electronic transaction.
(I for one want that machine turned into republican corruption and bring down the party before being shut down. Hey I am evil…)
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/mann-date-by-digby-to-those-of-you-who.html
But there are questions that should be asked. It is unusual to release the names of johns and it’s weird that we still don’t know why the feds were wiretapping on some seemingly inconsequential prostitution case in the first place. Is that something the feds spend a lot of time doing these days?
Far be it for me to mistrust the Bush Justice department or think they might have partisan motives, but it might be worth asking whether there might be a little partisan prosecutorial hanky panky involved. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.
In the instance involving Spitzer in the DC hotel detailed in filing, the prostitute and the “agency” split the roughly $3000 fee 50/50. The phone conversations recorded include that another women turned down the same job on the grounds that her proposed take of 50% was too low, so perhaps at this level the the sex worker typically does get the larger share.
Replying to several things I’ve seen:
Prostitution’s always been around.
Rape, murder, and incest have always been around too. Should we be okay with those things?
all forms of free-market participation are exploitative.
It’s true that pornography and prostitution are the only industries where a woman can out-earn her male counterparts. What does that say about our economy, or about women’s power, that the only way for a woman to outearn a man is to get naked and fuck strangers? How is that not more exploitive of women? (In a patriarchy! *shock*)
Some of us believe that a woman’s body is hers to do with what she pleases, including renting it out by the hour.
In Germany the service union ver.di offered union membership to Germany’s estimated 400,000 sex workers. They would be entitled to health care, legal aid, thirty paid holiday days a year, a five-day workweek, and Christmas and holiday bonuses.
Out of 400,000 sex workers, only 100 joined the union. That’s .00025% of German sex workers. Women don’t want to be prostitutes.
There is no sensible feminist reason to ignore the 92% of prostitutes who do not consider it work but slavery in favor of the 8% minority, especially when doing so only affirms the rape culture that affirms men’s entitlement to use women’s bodies any way they desire, any time they want it.
I’ve heard people talking about making it illegal to *buy* sex instead of sell it. This is a law they enacted in Sweden and you can read a presentation from a Swedish government advisor to a Canadian government subcommittee on the topic here.
Replying to several things I’ve seen:
Prostitution’s always been around.
Rape, murder, and incest have always been around too. Should we be okay with those things?
all forms of free-market participation are exploitative.
It’s true that pornography and prostitution are the only industries where a woman can out-earn her male counterparts. What does that say about our economy, or about women’s power, that the only way for a woman to outearn a man is to get naked and fuck strangers? How is that not more exploitive of women? (In a patriarchy! *shock*)
Some of us believe that a woman’s body is hers to do with what she pleases, including renting it out by the hour.
In Germany the service union ver.di offered union membership to Germany’s estimated 400,000 sex workers. They would be entitled to health care, legal aid, thirty paid holiday days a year, a five-day workweek, and Christmas and holiday bonuses.
Out of 400,000 sex workers, only 100 joined the union. That’s .00025% of German sex workers. Women don’t want to be prostitutes.
There is no sensible feminist reason to ignore the 92% of prostitutes who do not consider it work but slavery in favor of the 8% minority, especially when doing so only affirms the rape culture that affirms men’s entitlement to use women’s bodies any way they desire, any time they want it.
I’ve heard people talking about making it illegal to *buy* sex instead of sell it. This is a law they enacted in Sweden and you can read a presentation from a Swedish government advisor to a Canadian government subcommittee on the topic here.
EEEEWWWWW. It freaks me out to know that my state taxes could have supported Gov. Spitzer’s dalliances with prostitutes.
Turns out Spitzer is not only a surly bastard, but a deceitful, whoring, gross surly bastard.
ohhhh..yeahhhh…
my take: this is going to accelerate economic implosion, because the super rich is going to start hiding their wealth in super tight places beyond the reach of IRS.
nevermind the $5000/hr hooker, It’s the realization that the transaction is being scanned afterward!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/10/222657/142/1001/473948
Is it me or could it be more than a coincidence these stories broke the same day?
NSA’s Domestic Spying Grows As Agency Sweeps Up Data
According to current and former intelligence officials, the spy agency now monitors huge volumes of records of domestic emails and Internet searches as well as bank transfers, credit-card transactions, travel and telephone records.
It Wasn’t the Sex; Suspicious $$ Transfers Led to Spitzer
The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.
I guess it depend when a suspicious transfer constitutes probable cause, and who reported it to the FBI or IRS. Anyone know the legal issues here?
How is that not more exploitive of women?
How is it? Tall people tend to outearn short people in the NBA. Does that mean that basketball exploits tall people? I don’t understand this “the wage leaders are the ones being exploited” argument you’re making.
And you don’t for a second balk at the cognitive dissonance involved making those human beings you refer to into criminals?
Nope, because I support decriminalization, not legalization. JOHNS are criminals (they don’t need my help to be “made” into criminals), not the women they abuse and exploit. If I’m dying of thirst in the desert and you offer me a glass of water for a BJ, that makes YOU a worthless piece of shit, not me. See the distinction?
JOHNS are criminals
But the cognitive dissonance simply mounts. Now, prostitutes aren’t doing anything illegal, they’re providing a perfectly legal service - but anybody who hires them is a criminal? It doesn’t make a lick of sense.
If I’m dying of thirst in the desert and you offer me a glass of water for a BJ, that makes YOU a worthless piece of shit, not me.
See my point above about exploitation. If you’re dying of thirst and I offer you a glass of water for money, or for an hour’s labor in my salt mine, or any other exchange, how is that less exploitative? In a society where we’re all “dying of thirst” - in the sense that we have to barter, trade, or serve to pay for the necessities of life - any employment is exploitative. Why does it get more exploitative when that service is sexual? And why doesn’t the same escalation of exploitation apply to pornography?
It’s cognitive dissonance mixed with sexual disapproval.
yeah a whole lot of mess can be avoided if prostitution is decriminalized. (not to mention public health problem)
With more and more surveillance, sooner or later they gonna start scanning people, what they do, and public security threat level.
It’s the same as religion vs security threat.
Just watch, next national hysteria over things like AIDS/bird flu, they gonna start rounding up people based on this super massive database.
(really people, stop obsessing over “sex-morality” it’s child play compared to what will come)
Focus on the use of that massive database.
“If I’m dying of thirst in the desert and you offer me a glass of water for a BJ, that makes YOU a worthless piece of shit, not me.”
But this is like offering a whole desert oasis for a BJ.
Sorry obsessing, ..but this is hitting the most interesting part.. (what happen to banking trust if they start ratting their own clients. In a lot of case this can bring down a nation, when there is bank run.)
http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/10/some-questions-about-the-spitzer-incident/
All kinds of questions arise here:
1. Why would the bank tell the IRS and not Spitzer himself if there was a suspicious transfer? Spitzer is a longtime client, a rich guy and the governor. We’re talking thousands of dollars here, not millions. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense that they spotted a “suspicious transfer” made by the governor, and that this is how things began. It’s possible it was just ordinary paperwork the bank had to file with the government whenever some particular flag was raised, but if that’s the case, why did the DoJ go to DefCon 3?
2. What is a USA doing prosecuting a prostitution case? This isn’t normally what the feds spend their time with.
3. Mike Garcia is a Chertoff crony. Sources familiar with the investigation say that he sent a prosecution memo to DC two months ago asking for authority to indict a public figure (Spitzer). Which means they had their case made long before the wire tap of February 13. Why did they then include this line from that conversation in the complaint?
LEWIS continued that from what she had been told “he” (believed to be a reference to Client-9) “would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe — you know — I mean that…very basic things….”Kristen” responded: “I have a way of dealing with that…I’d be like listen dude, you really want the sex?…You know what I mean.”
This salacious detail does not seem like it’s necessary to make their case, and appears to be added for no other purpose than to destroy Spitzer’s career.
RE: my being against prostitution for “moral” reasons.
A) you haven’t been reading what I (or anyone else arguing against it are saying) and
B) While the inherent intimacy of the nature of sexual acts is often a part of some peoples belief that sexuality is unique to personal identity and possibly even sacred, most of what I’ve seen is research focused on the harm done to prostituted people. In other words, I’m not against legalizing prostitution because I’m uncomfortable morally with selling sex or have questions about my own sexuality, I am against legalizing prostitution because I have seen how it destroys health, hope, communities, and many, many lives.
RE: comparing exploitation of prostitutes to exploitation of other workers:
Prostitution is “work” unlike any other, which is why I have come to see it as the Swedish do, as institutionalized sexual oppression instead of work. There is no other “job” where a person is expected to have their bodies penetrated repeatedly and exposed to contagion-carrying human fluids. There is no other “job” where a 13-year-old with zero experience can be sold for 100 times the price what a 23-year-old with ten years experience is sold. There is no other “job” an emaciated homeless person strung out on heroin can do (or, more accurately, have done to them) as they’re lying limp on the floor.
Well, Kathleen, what a well reasoned argument! Try reading escort boards where independent women write about their six figure annual incomes and let me know if they are being exploited. Then tell me you’re not a puritanical tightass.The women working in this agency were not poverty ridden women with no other choices.
Prostitution is “work” unlike any other
Er, well, no; it’s almost exactly like the production of pornography. Which is legal.
There is no other “job” where a person is expected to have their bodies penetrated repeatedly and exposed to contagion-carrying human fluids.
Production of pornography is the other job. That, and medicine, I guess (minus the penetration.)
There is no other “job” an emaciated homeless person strung out on heroin can do (or, more accurately, have done to them) as they’re lying limp on the floor.
I guess I don’t follow this line of reasoning. A drug addict might do it; thus, nobody can be allowed to?
How does that make any sense? The truth is that prostitution doesn’t make any unique demands, it’s well within the scope of other employments we allow people to do. It’s just that it’s squicky.
Chet:
It has nothing to do with disapproval of sexuality. I love sex, I think it’s great. I also love children, but I don’t think you should be able to sell them, either. I have nothing against organ transplants, but I don’t think you should be able to sell your kidneys. There are some things in this world that should not be commodified. You’re free to disagree with this assertion, but please don’t falsely claim that it makes me some kind of anti-sex prude. It does not.
And, to piggyback off of what Lost Clown said, it’s not that they shouldn’t be commodified because I have some sort of moral objection to trading sex for money. Some things should not be commodified because the commodification disproportionately harms certain classes of people (women, the poor, etc.)
And SixtiesLiberal?
I quote the great Twisty Faster:
“When you’re already oppressed, it is, in fact, impossible to volunteer for oppression. A woman is a member of the sex class whether she ‘chooses’ it or not.”
There are some things in this world that should not be commodified.
When you can explain, forthrightly, how you’re justified in making that decision for literally all human beings and not just yourself, then I won’t have any basis to accuse you of having unstated motivations.
But as it is, since you simply assert these positions with no justification, I’m forced to draw significance from the fact that it’s only the squicky things you think shouldn’t be commodified - and, not incidentally, those things most immediately available to the poor.
I also love children, but I don’t think you should be able to sell them, either.
And yet, not only is adoption not illegal, it’s manifestly not free, either. People who adopt pay thousands of dollars to do so. People who arrange adoptions get paid. People who transport the children get paid. Everybody gets paid except the child and its parents, it seems. (And I’m not sure how your desired prohibition against child-selling stacks up against the entirely legal phenomenon of paid surrogate motherhood.)
Some things should not be commodified because the commodification disproportionately harms certain classes of people (women, the poor, etc.)
And so NBA basketball should be made illegal, because it disproportionately harms the tall?
Like I said, I don’t understand the argument, though I see it as significant that the precise acts you’d like to bar from commodification are all acts that the poor, destitute, and compromised could turn to for help.
Sorry, I guess I’m bitter. I’d like to sell a kidney, you see. I have two, they’re both in perfect condition, and I could spare one. It’s worth quite a bit of money, money that I could use for classes, and of course I could give it away if I wanted to be nice to someone; but as soon as we start talking about me being paid for my time, effort, and property, suddenly it’s a Federal case. (Literally, I think.)
I’m intelligent enough to assess the risks and benefits. My financial situation is strained, but not so strained that I’m not considered “exploited” when I sell my labor. But because somebody else - somebody completely unspecified - is presumed to be not smart enough, my actions are enjoined.
Since you’re literally taking my future away, I’d kind of like to know why.
It’s true that pornography and prostitution are the only industries where a woman can out-earn her male counterparts. What does that say about our economy, or about women’s power, that the only way for a woman to outearn a man is to get naked and fuck strangers? How is that not more exploitive of women? (In a patriarchy! *shock*)
The two words “supply” and “demand” spring to mind.
And it is not true that the only way for a woman to outearn a man is to engage in sex work. What is true is that, on average, in most sectors of the economy, women are paid less than men for many reasons, which may include sexism.
Coming from a profession where I’m paid less than women for the simple reason that, well, they’ve been doing my job for longer, I prefer the more naunced version.
But as it is, since you simply assert these positions with no justification, I’m forced to draw significance from the fact that it’s only the squicky things you think shouldn’t be commodified - and, not incidentally, those things most immediately available to the poor.
Yes, you’ve caught me. I hate poor people and want to keep them down. It’s not like I myself grew up in poverty and therefore know first hand what it’s like to worry about where the money for tomorrow’s dinner is going to come from. It’s not like I started working (illegally) in my early teens to help my family get by. It couldn’t possibly be that that is precisely why I oppose a system in which those with money can buy children, sex, and organs from those who are so desperate that their “choice” becomes meaningless. Nope, it’s that I hate poor people. Good catch.
But because somebody else - somebody completely unspecified - is presumed to be not smart enough, my actions are enjoined.
It’s not an issue of not being smart enough. Going back to my prior example, if I am dying of thirst in the desert, and you offer me a glass of water for sex, it’s not that I am stupid for taking it. It’s that you are an ass for putting me in that situation. In that situation, I would be perfectly justified, I think, in making that trade. Which, again, is why I support criminal sanctions for johns, and not for prostitutes.
Or, to put it another way, if you are in a situation where the only way you can finance your education is to sell a kidney? There is something deeply wrong with the society that led to this situation, and the problem is not that you can’t sell your organs.
Lost Clown March 10, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Prostitution is “work” unlike any other, which is why I have come to see it as the Swedish do, as institutionalized sexual oppression instead of work. There is no other “job” where a person is expected to have their bodies penetrated repeatedly and exposed to contagion-carrying human fluids. ”
huh?
plenty of hazardous industry around. Where “human body” is being penetrated” by all sort of toxins or dangerous level of radiation. (not to mention common industrial waste in the environment in developing countries with lax environmental rule)
It kill faster and much more painful than what you propose.
This doesn’t mean prostitution doesn’t create suffering and major form of human exploitation.
But we are not talking about Calcutta here, we are talking about an organization that charged $5500/hr.
Here is one example to think about: drug mule.
My take: decriminalize it. (it doesn’t mean it should be shunned by society, but making it illegal complicate a whole lot of things.)
Once a women has legal record being a prostitute, in modern society, she is screwed for good.
“Ophelia March 10, 2008 at 10:40 pm
but I don’t think you should be able to sell them, either.”
Therefore you want a mechanism to enforce your standard.
The definition of freedom is : ability to project will and coherency of that will. If somebody wants to be a whore, it’s none of your business about what that person wants to do with his body.
Granted there is a question of “if this is a real choice/exploitation/false freedom” etc. But that’s a matter of providing “choice” aside of being a prostitute. It’s a social policy.
The problem with current social/legal habit:
once a person is in (for whatever reason) that person can’t get out. Because it’s on the legal record. After that it’s a matter of further exploitation.
Pornography is filmed prostitution and I have the same problems with it that I have with prostitution.
You completely missed the point that it’s because women are devalued as people and valued most for their bodies in a patriarchal women-hating society. But then again, you seem to think that oppression of women is the same as less pay for shorter basketball players. Which is misogynist.
Hey, in some places women in any moving image product is consider immoral/pornographic. Nevermind a few ‘bedroom’ scene for the purpose of tiltilation.
It’s the economic exploitation paired with sexual tiltilation what makes a product pornographic. Without the exploitation element, one might as well go all the way to banning women to appear in any public spaces.
I was almost sold on the argument, until I read an article about Green Party members backpedaling on legalized prostitution in Amsterdam, and how what was supported with all good intentions for women just made sex trafficking even easier to hide. I’m at a disadvantage because I don’t have a citation for this. Maybe someone here can either find one to support or refute this.
Sexwork is categorically different from other work. And, and I realize this is going to be taken as dismissive, but perhaps it’s not a distinction males can understand. It’s similar to arguments about rape vs. non-sexual assault I’ve had with men, wherein the men truly haven’t understood why being raped would be a more terrifying and humiliating prospect for a woman than a mere beating. Perhaps it’s only something you can understand if you’re female, and have grown up in a world where you don’t have a lot of physical power, and the consequences of sex involve a far greater physical risk of injury and STDs than a male worries about.
Once we have a world where men are only going to patronize females of legal age, and where these men are going to be horrified and unwilling to even entertain the thought that the girls and women they’re fucking are coerced, and would be willing to pay far higher fees for women with this guarantee, and these men somehow believe these women to be full human beings like themselves, and will then adhere to the terms prescribed by these sex workers, and that men and women in our society understood that being a sex worker doesn’t make you fair game for any kind nonconsensual sex or abuse, then maybe legalized prostitution would seem like a good deal to me. I realize that legalizing prostitution is supposed to create this kind of atmosphere, but, um, ever read anything about brothels in Nevada?
Back to the “categorically different” idea of sex work: how many guys here would rather take a job where someone twice their strength took them alone in a room and shoved a dildo up their ass or down their throat, several times a day, instead of even the shittiest factory job? Not many, I’d wager.
Most poor young women don’t choose prostitution. Most women wouldn’t choose prostitution And the proportion of happy hookers making a bundle from a rich, clean clientele is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of whores whose situation is far less pretty.
Going back to my prior example, if I am dying of thirst in the desert, and you offer me a glass of water for sex, it’s not that I am stupid for taking it. It’s that you are an ass for putting me in that situation.
Sure, and I recognize the coercion. But what you’re saying is, because thirsty people will do anything for water, no business can be allowed to sell it.
That doesn’t make any sense. (And being an ass isn’t illegal.) Sure, desperate need is an occasion for charity, not a chance to make a buck or get your pole greased. But the need is not always desperate, the choice is not always coerced, and your solution can’t distinguish between those two situations.
Or, to put it another way, if you are in a situation where the only way you can finance your education is to sell a kidney?
But it’s not the only way, just as prostitution clearly isn’t the only way for these women to earn a living. By my judgment, selling a kidney is the optimum way to pay for my education, but because some hypothetical person can’t make that choice freely, I’m not allowed to make that choice at all.
It doesn’t make any sense.
There is something deeply wrong with the society that led to this situation, and the problem is not that you can’t sell your organs.
I agree, and that proves that laws against selling kidneys are irrelevant to the problem. What you’re talking about is akin to curing colds by banning sneezing. If prostitution is a symptom of a larger social concern, then address the concern - don’t simply push the symptom out to the fringe of society.
Which is misogynist.
I take the point that you don’t have any argument but name-calling.
So what are you saying? Only female understand STD transmission? Or that prostitution is the only underground economy that involved human trafficking/labor exploitation? What is this mystical knowledge? (I tend to lose patient with that type of argument. It breeds BS.)
Of course everything poses unique circumstances and any remedy will have unintended consequence. But locking up women isn’t exactly reducing prostitution is it?
on top of that, nobody has given the solution of social stigma in the age of massive government database and surveillance
It’s similar to arguments about rape vs. non-sexual assault I’ve had with men, wherein the men truly haven’t understood why being raped would be a more terrifying and humiliating prospect for a woman than a mere beating.
But prohibitions against “squicky” kinds of service are the reason for that reaction. When we, as a society, make it abundantly clear that sex outside of narrowly proscribed boundaries is not only wrong, but illegal, it’s no surprise that women would be more frighted of the idea of a sexual violation than a violation of property or personal injury. Indeed it’s no surprise to find police not doing their due diligence on cases of sexual assault, reinforcing women’s fear of rape.
It’s because society construes sex as a fundamentally separate kind of human interaction from which all this stuff originates, kmach. When we get rid of the special rules for sex, all kinds of stuff gets better. Prostitution is simply one of many kinds of legal service you can hire. (I mean if I can hire a doctor to grab my nuts and tell me to cough, it’s not clear why I can’t purchase that service from someone else.) Rape is a personal assault the police take as seriously as any other. Marriage is just a property-sharing, child-custody, power-of-attorney combo platter that the government recognizes for couples. (Or maybe more than couples.) Homosexuality is just one of a number of sexual proclivities, not an issue for the state.
For all that you keep trying to refute the anti-sex characterization, you keep bringing arguments based on the idea that sex is squicky and a different kind of interaction, fundamentally, than anything else we do with our various orifices.
Back to the “categorically different” idea of sex work: how many guys here would rather take a job where someone twice their strength took them alone in a room and shoved a dildo up their ass or down their throat, several times a day, instead of even the shittiest factory job?
…does the dildo job provide health insurance?
lol. OK. we’ve reached the absurd. This is more realm of BS, wishful thinking and mysticism. I am going to start screaming nonsense and throwing things. so I better quit now. *poof*
Except that you’re not simply arguing that we shouldn’t trade sex to people dying of thirst for water, but effectively that trading water for sex with anyone would be wrong, even someone fully hydrated who could easily say no without undue harm, because there are many people out there who might be dying of thirst and we might not be able to tell the difference.
Yes, Chet, I am saying that sex is a fundamentally different kind of human interaction. And rape is fundamentally different than non-sexual assault. It’s not only uptight women who think sex is squicky who would prefer getting punched in the face to forced penetration. I don’t think sex-positive, kinky-minded women who grew up without the stain of restrictive religious taboos on sex bounce back immediately from the trauma of sexual assault.
I really don’t know what the answer is, Chet. I find it incredibly naive to believe that we can wave the magic wand of legalization and make sex work just another kind of work.
Squashed, no, prostitution isn’t the only kind of work where people are exploited or trafficked. It just sucks worse to be repeatedly gang-raped than to sew shirts for twelve hours a day. I don’t really love the idea of illegal immigrant construction workers (all male) working in unsafe conditions, for example. It’s risky, badly paid, and it seems that every few weeks I read about someone dying because the owners ignored basic safety precautions. But personally, I’d rather pour concrete all day than blow and get fucked by a string of men. But apparently, this is only because I’m uptight and squicked out by sex, and there’s actually no innate difference between the two occupations.
It’s not an issue of not being smart enough. Going back to my prior example, if I am dying of thirst in the desert, and you offer me a glass of water for sex, it’s not that I am stupid for taking it. It’s that you are an ass for putting me in that situation. In that situation, I would be perfectly justified, I think, in making that trade. Which, again, is why I support criminal sanctions for johns, and not for prostitutes.
Since we’re unlikely to be in a position where people will be getting water for free anytime soon, I assume you’d prefer the offer wasn’t made and those crawling thirstly across the desert were left to die in ideological and sexual purity?
Wow, Piator, new heights of assholedom there. Good job. You’re just the guy I can picture offering that glass of water for exactly that reason, too.
$5500? That, my friends, is one magic vagina.
I’ve heard of people paying 3 or 4 hundred to see one perform the ping pong ball trick.
For $5,500 an hour, I’d expect this vagina to be able to play a round of championship lawn tennis. And accept a trophy afterwards.
Wow, Piator, new heights of assholedom there. Good job. You’re just the guy I can picture offering that glass of water for exactly that reason, too.
Don’t be a bigger idiot than you usually are, ginmar - unless Ophelia is also preaching the Glorious People’s Revolution as well, her righteousness coexists with the real world the same way the Titanic coexisted with that iceberg.
i, Either poor people do shitty jobs to make ends meet OR
ii, Society is radically rearranged so poor people don;t have to do shitty jobs to make ends meet OR
iii, Poor people don’t make ends meet.
No third option.
No fourth option, dammit. Oh, I need more sleep.
I don’t play ping-pong with my vagina, I VOTE with it…it’s reaching the lever that’s the trick!
bekabot wrote
Ahhh, but y’all can’t do that! To do so would be “heteronormative,” or whatever the word is, and we’d just throw Jim McGreevey back atcha.
If there’s one place I agree with Pam, it’s the way these caught politicians use their wives as props. It’s just plain cowardly.
Once, just freaking once, I’d like to hear a politician tell the truth: “Yeah, I was screwing
¤ prostitutes
¤ other men
¤ other men I met in a public john
¤ the help
¤ anyone I could
[select one or more options] and I liked it, and I had no intention of stopping ’till I got busted.” I think that I’d have a little bit more respect for them.
BetsyD asked:
Because, like Larry Craig and Eliot Spitzer (so far), he hasn’t chosen to resign, and the voters can’t recall him. Mr Craig has a misdemeanor conviction, while Mr Spitzer hasn’t actually been convicted of anything yet; I’m not sure, but I don’t think that Mr Vitter was charged with any crimes.
Anyone who thinks this is a victim-free crime might consider this bit from the NY Times article:
Also, is anyone else getting tired of seeing the long-suffering wife at these press conferences?
What a surprise, a bunch of men circling the wagons and preaching about all the ways prostitution is great or never going to end so just shut up about it, or waxing misogynistic and then pouting about be called out for it.
One might be led to think there’s no small amount of entitlement and privilege running through these boys. And one might be led to think that those two things have made them value their teeny weenies over women.
What a surprise.
Dana, didn’t Jim Kolbe say basically that? That he was always gay, but hid it because he feared discrimination? Backbone isn’t absent in politics, just rare.
I don’t play ping-pong with my vagina, I VOTE with it…it’s reaching the lever that’s the trick!
I’ve tried ruling the world with my penis. You would not believe how difficult it is to get the paperwork done.
What a surprise, a bunch of men circling the wagons and preaching about all the ways prostitution is great or never going to end so just shut up about it, or waxing misogynistic and then pouting about be called out for it.
Fine, we’ll take Ophelia’s “solution” and make hiring prostitutes illegal then. It’s not going to bother me one bit.
What precisely do you believe will happen as a result?
Didn’t this guy ever read the press for that last 10 or more years?
Gawddamn, if he doesn’t know how to get a prostitute without leaving traces, he is too DUMB to be in government.
kmach March 11, 2008 at 1:54 am
Yes, Chet, I am saying that sex is a fundamentally different kind of human interaction. And rape is fundamentally different than non-sexual assault. ”
Being an astronaut is also fundamentally different human interaction. What’s your point?
Yes, Chet, I am saying that sex is a fundamentally different kind of human interaction.
I realize that. What I’m trying to get you to understand is that this position is simply your own prejudice; it’s not a reflection of reality.
It’s not only uptight women who think sex is squicky who would prefer getting punched in the face to forced penetration.
I’m unconvinced that this represents the reality. For instance, the fact that a lot of rapists are successful by using the threat of violence would imply that, when it comes down to the unthinkable choice, a lot of women would prefer rape to assault. Other situations where women trade or bargain with sex to avoid abuse are further evidence against your position.
Obviously, the sentiment that “rape is worse than death” is fairly common, but when it comes down to it, people put in that situation seem to “choose” rape (in the godawful sense that they’re making any kind of choice at all, of course.)
I don’t condone these views or apologize for rapists. I’m simply saying that, when actually put in the dilemma that you’ve raised, forcible penetration is the alternative that many choose.
I find it incredibly naive to believe that we can wave the magic wand of legalization and make sex work just another kind of work.
Certainly not when you set a completely impossible standard. But legalization and support can result in a system of prostitution that’s at least as safe as other jobs. Can, and has.
What a surprise, a bunch of men circling the wagons and preaching about all the ways prostitution is great or never going to end so just shut up about it, or waxing misogynistic and then pouting about be called out for it.
What a surprise, name-calling and sexual prudishness are all you moral busybodies can marshal in defense of your position. Before you launch off with accusations of misogyny, let’s try to remember precisely which side has taken the position that while a woman’s uterus is hers and hers alone, her vagina is a state-regulated resource. Hint - it’s not me.
The surveillance aspect of this case ought to be played up more, IMO. The thing that got Spitzer was that his transactions showed a pattern similar to that used when trying to avoid reporting requirements on transfers of $10,000 or more. Not that it was his bank that turned him in, and it did so for looking suspicious, not in compliance with any law. The erosion of civil liberties that took off with the drug war (IIRC the origin of the $10,000 reporting requirement) has gained huge momentum with the war of terror.
Ophelia March 10, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Or, to put it another way, if you are in a situation where the only way you can finance your education is to sell a kidney? There is something deeply wrong with the society that led to this situation, and the problem is not that you can’t sell your organs.”
Right, and while we try to achieve the utopia, in the meantime you are proposing to ban all ugly things to make it go away.
What is this? Khmer Rouge revolution? I got an idea, let’s kill every intellectuals and move all urbanites to subsistance farming. We won’t have modern social disparity anymore. Everybody will be happy farmers living on the riches of the land. what possibly could go wrong?
“What I’m trying to get you to understand is that this position is simply your own prejudice; it’s not a reflection of reality.”
Silly gurl! Let big daddy tell you all the ways in which you’re wrong. It’s not like you’re a woman who has the benefit of knowing what it’s like to be one. You’re just prejudiced. Let all-knowing big daddy show you the correct way.
“I’m simply saying that, when actually put in the dilemma that you’ve raised, forcible penetration is the alternative that many choose.”
And, despite have absolutely no proof of this statement, coupled with the fact that he has never and will never have to face said situation, means he’s totally the one who’s correct and we should all listen.
“What a surprise, name-calling and sexual prudishness are all you moral busybodies can marshal in defense of your position.”
What a surprise. Accusations of prudishnes and guilt by association fallacies levelled at anyone who isn’t on board with the idea that men are entitled to sex from women. Obviously, if one thinks that women aren’t the sex class, one’s a prude.
What qualifies you to speak on behalf all women on the matter, exactly - including those who specifically disagree, and don’t necessarily regard sex as “fundamentally different”?
Who’s trying to show who the “correct way” to be a woman here?
Spitzer
So NY Governor and former crusading AG and Wall Street crime buster Elliot Spitzer is going down for going a-whoring. First fact: it seems pretty clear that he broke a few laws along the way and he should resign. Second fact: he cheated on and humiliated his wife and humiliated and embarrassed his family, and he deserves every bit of moral calumny laid on him. (We will leave aside for a moment why so many right-wing bloggers are howling for his blood when the equally guilty Sen. Vitter (R-LA) earns their endless defence.)
All of that aside, the most interesting thing question is going almost wholly unanswered*: Why was the FBI investigating Spitzer in the first place?
(* - Squashed had it spotted at 91 and 97.)
The FBI says that they were investigating suspected corruption and just happened (shocked! shocked they were!) upon the prostitution evidence. Why were they investigating Spitzer? He and his family are rich as hell, he has a reputation for being a business and commercial law straight-arrow; he therefore seems a rather odd target for somebody looking for financial malfeasance.
>> Thing to remember number 1: since the tenure of Louis Freeh the Feebs have been within an inch or two of being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.
>> Thing to remember number 2: Spitzer has been one of the most aggressive enemies of the kind of top-floor white collar corruption that has been the staple of the Bush administration. (Don’t forget that the Bushies simply don’t believe that any theft done by a corporation or corporate executive is even a crime. That’s not exaggeration, that’s simply a fact.)
>> Thing to remember number 3: The Bush administration has thoroughly politicized the Department of Justice. Partisan zealots occupy not only the political slots in the DOJ but have dumped vast numbers of professional career staff and replaced them with even more GOP tools.
My guess? The thoroughly-Roved federal Department of Justice said, “dig and dig and dig until you find something on Spitzer”. The prostitution stuff was an easy and unexpected win, negating the need for Plan A: Siegelman him.
Aw, lookit Chet whipping out the ‘prudery’ card, one half of the classic ‘prudes or whores’ dichotomy. Also ‘moral busybodyness’—-why don’t you stupid bitches understand that this is just a private matter?
realize that. What I’m trying to get you to understand is that this position is simply your own prejudice; it’s not a reflection of reality.
Maybe not for you, dude. Talk about privilege, a man telling women how they experience the world. Just get over it, girls, Chet’s sure it’s all in our minds.
Anony March 11, 2008 at 10:06 am
What a surprise. Accusations of prudishnes and guilt by association fallacies levelled at anyone who isn’t on board with the idea that men are entitled to sex from women. Obviously, if one thinks that women aren’t the sex class, one’s a prude.”
what are you trying to say? that sex is strictly male on female?
And everything that doesn’t confirm to that model must be a misogyny trickery?
Law is a very blunt policy tools. Combined with accelerating computing technology and simplistic view, it will screw more people. Remember “tough on crime, lock ‘em all up, three strikes you are out?”
there you go. That was a product of bunch of idiots too. Look at the damaging result.
This guy was starting to seem like the Democratic Party’s version of Giuliani: a my-way-or-the-highway former New York prosecutor who fetishizes loyalty and thinks anything goes in a political fight. Can’t say I’ll miss him.
To everybody dig this:
somebody (automatic gov database) is scanning your financial transactions, combine it with your sexual relationship/travel pattern/names. dig pattern.
Congratulation.
Sixties Liberal — you’re disgusting too, I forgot.
Here’s the thing that the comment thread just reinforces: the problem with prostitution is that it treats sex as a BAD. The comparisons its (100% male) defenders have been making here are to sellling organs, cleaning toilets, working with hazardous chemicals, etc. etc. Their conclusion is: if all this is legal (including sellling organs, at least in some places), why not prostitution? (Extra points to apa doc who suggested that it’s wives who really get the short end of the stick, being as how unlike prostitutes they don’t get paid to make their husbands holler).
Fine — if sex is a BAD, sure, it would be preferable to regulate it, make it safer, add a pension and health insurance, whatevs. I get it, guys! You all think sex is vile, low, dangerous *work* and women demean themselves every time they do it so why shouldn’t they get fair compensation? I get it, I see your worldview, I grasp it in its many aspects.
Here’s my problem: your worldview is repulsive, loathsome, sick-making, and everything feminism stands against. Sex is not “work” (thanks, capitalist ideology!). Sex is not a BAD (thanks, patriarchal bullshit!). Sex is not a harm to women and male and female youths mitigatable via proper regulatory frameworks (thanks, state apparatus!).
Here’s my view: Sex is a lovely party! Everybody is born with an invitation! Defenders of prostitution have no clue! Their worldview keeps the party from developing its full manifold loveliness! Developing the full and manifold loveliness of that party is a revolutionary goal! Onwards!
OK, I think I have it now. It is not OK for men to say individual women should be free to do with their bodies as those women choose, but it is OK for women to say that other women are not free to do with their bodies as they choose.
I don’t condone these views or apologize for rapists. I’m simply saying that, when actually put in the dilemma that you’ve raised, forcible penetration is the alternative that many choose.
Wow, just wow. You got a cite for any of your assertions?
Let me go on the record, I would rather have the crap kicked out me than be raped. I’m willing to bet that there’s a whole lot of women who believe the same thing.
Would a man rather be beaten up or raped by another man?
dana–Diaperboy is unprosecutable for his Louisiana trysts because the statutes of limitation have come and gone.
What a surprise, a bunch of men circling the wagons and preaching about all the ways prostitution is great or never going to end so just shut up about it, or waxing misogynistic and then pouting about be called out for it.
Expanded upon here
And herein lies the problem: at the heart of all these arguments is an effort to tell other people What Sex Is, or Should Be, for them - regardless of their own particular feelings on the matter.
No, I don’t regard sex as a BAD. I don’t think I’m in a position to tell anyone what sex is to them personally.
Yup. The problem is getting past the bouncer at the door, though. Sign ME up for a red flag scarlet bedsheet, comrade!Dammit, red flag was struck out in the preview, and not in the post! I used [del]scratched[/del] - Is there a way that works? Anybody?
You got a cite for any of your assertions?
Department of Justice statistics on rape; specifically, the degree to which the threat of physical violence was used to secure cooperation.
Look, let’s make it clear, I didn’t set up the dilemma; you all did. You set up a situation where hypothetical women are being asked to choose between being raped and being physically assaulted.
DoJ statistics make it absolutely clear that many women, put in that exact dilemma - the dilemma, again, that you all presented, not me - choose to submit to rape over physical violence. (Again, I use the term “choose” very loosely.)
Talk about privilege, a man telling women how they experience the world.
Oh, cram it up your ass. I’m not the one trying to tell all women in the country precisely under what circumstances it’s ok for them to have sex.
That’s you, remember?
I get it, guys! You all think sex is vile, low, dangerous *work* and women demean themselves every time they do it so why shouldn’t they get fair compensation?
Kathleen, you don’t get it. People view prostitution as icky, clearly you do, and all those other examples show is that ickyness isn’t a justification for making some kinds of employment illegal.
But, predictably, you either missed the point or are being disingenuous. If there’s an honest defense of prohibiting prostitution, why can’t any of you present it?
Here’s my view: Sex is a lovely party! Everybody is born with an invitation!
Unless they want to pay or get paid for it. That’s where your invitation isn’t so inviting. That’s where people like you think it’s the business of the state to tell women what they can do with their vaginas, and men what they can do with their penises, and how that follows from your supposedly sex-positive philosophy doesn’t make any sense at all to me.
Would a man rather be beaten up or raped by another man?
This man would prefer rape.
KathleenMarch 11, 2008 at 10:52 am
hazardous chemicals, etc. etc”
I am giving a real and concrete counter example of job hazard. IBM class action suit against leak of chemical cleaning agents for chip fab processes.
It create massive number of cancers showing up 2 decades later.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/12/BUGEF97HJN1.DTL&type=business
My point: risk assessment, physical trauma, genetic damages, etc (nevermind psychological damage).
are all at different level. Sure it question favorite feminism idea that rape is the cruelest form of crime. And all sexual relationship probably is merely milder form of such crime. And the only remedy social apathy toward such crime is to describe it as such.
But that distortion, as you can see, start to have negative return.
( And we haven’t started talking about other industry that give birth defects yet. )
“What qualifies you to speak on behalf all women on the matter, exactly”
I didn’t speak for anyone. So, you failed in your attempt to shame me.
Is there a way that works? Anybody?
You’re looking for the strikethrough tag (
strikethrough), like this:<strike>text to be striken</strike>
Sure it question favorite feminism idea that rape is the cruelest form of crime. And all sexual relationship probably is merely milder form of such crime. And the only remedy social apathy toward such crime is to describe it as such.
I don’t for a minute think these are feminist ideas; the idea that “rape is worse than death” is a patriarchal idea that comes from valuing women on nothing but their sexual purity. Obviously it’s not so surprising that many women internalize this view, but when it comes down to it, DoJ statistics show that most women will capitulate to a rape as a survival strategy (and I’m not judging them for doing so, nor judging anyone but the rapist who put them to that awful dilemma); hardly something they would do if they viewed rape as the worse outcome compared to bodily harm or death. (I’m having some problem with the categories, here, since rape is assault and bodily harm.)
Rape is bad. Are we done with rape, now? Incidentally, illegalizing prostitution means that, invariably, prostitutes are made completely unprotected from rape. I won’t go so far as to assert that my opponents are facilitating rape, but I beg them to consider the effects of their position on the women they claim to be standing up for.
When you declare prostitution should be kept illegal (on either side of the transaction) on the grounds that sex is “fundamentally different” for women, that’s what you are professing to do.
Chet — you will be relieved to know that much of the time, women *don’t* have to choose between rape and death or rape and getting the crap beat out of them: they get to have it all! Yeah, twofer!
Seeker — consider your scarlet freak flag to be flying!
Chet — you will be relieved to know that much of the time, women *don’t* have to choose between rape and death or rape and getting the crap beat out of them: they get to have it all!
You’re a sick, sick person, Kathleen. They have medications for what’s wrong with you, they really do. Seek help.
will do, Dr. Concern Troll!
will do, Dr. Concern Troll!
I’m truly baffled, Kathleen. Did you honestly expect that any of the arguments you’ve offered here would be convincing to any reasonable person?
Seriously? How can you possibly account for your behavior, here?
“When you declare prostitution should be kept illegal (on either side of the transaction) on the grounds that sex is “fundamentally different” for women, that’s what you are professing to do.”
Ballst- I think you have me confused with someone else. I made no such statment.
__
“You’re a sick, sick person, Kathleen. They have medications for what’s wrong with you, they really do. Seek help. ”
SO now you’ve moved on from denying the experiences of women to prop up your arugments to outright telling women that their experiences are not real, but the result of mental issues?
Concerned troll is too nice a label for you.
“Did you honestly expect that any of the arguments you’ve offered here would be convincing to any reasonable person?”
This coming from the anti-feminist who has failed to produce any evidence for his claims that women chose rape over beating. As if there’s a choice.
“Rape is bad. Are we done with rape, now?”
Wow, thanks boy-with-privilege for giving us little wimmins that much.
“Incidentally, illegalizing prostitution means that, invariably, prostitutes are made completely unprotected from rape. I won’t go so far as to assert that my opponents are facilitating rape, but I beg them to consider the effects of their position on the women they claim to be standing up for.”
Wait, I know the punchline to this one - legalizing it is the only way to go, right? That will magically solve all the problems.
You might want to ask actual sex workers about that, Chet. Of course, that would mean actually listening to women, which you’ve shown to have an aversion too.
Not to derail this thread about rape and prostitution, but here’s a link to local NY CBS affiliate coverage regarding Eliot Spitzer:
http://wcbstv.com/
Anony March 11, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Wait, I know the punchline to this one - legalizing it is the only way to go, right? That will magically solve all the problems.”
“decriminalize”
You might want to ask actual sex workers about that, Chet. Of course, that would mean actually listening to women, which you’ve shown to have an aversion too.
“so what are you saying? Illegal is better?”
Kathleen, thanks for fighting the good fight here.
SO now you’ve moved on from denying the experiences of women to prop up your arugments to outright telling women that their experiences are not real, but the result of mental issues?
No, I’m objecting to the perverse glee Kathleen clearly takes in women being raped, beaten, and killed. It’s fucking sick. I don’t know how else to describe it.
This coming from the anti-feminist who has failed to produce any evidence for his claims that women chose rape over beating.
Again, DoJ statistics. They’re easily found on the Internet. I can’t comprehend why you think I’ve taken the contentious position, here. If at least some women didn’t prefer rape to beatings, it wouldn’t be possible for rapists to achieve compliance with threatened beatings.
I guess you can stick your head in the sand and pretend that this never happens, of course, but out here in reality, some things are obvious.
That will magically solve all the problems.
It’ll invariably solve some of the problems, and has, where it’s been tried; at any rate, there’s no evidence that legalization and regulation makes things any worse for prostitutes. So to borrow from Matt Ygelsias we might as well err on the side of personal freedom, here. Again, if there’s a justification for telling women what they can and can’t do with their vaginas, I have yet to hear it. If there’s a justification for how regulating vaginas is the feminist position, you have yet to provide it.
You might want to ask actual sex workers about that, Chet.
Many of them have come out in favor of legalization, since they favor the protections that come with being employed by a legitimate business, rather than working in a twilight market outside of the law.
But I guess they don’t count, right?
Have you, Anony, talked to any sex workers charging $300 and hour? If you have talked to any sex workers at all, have they all been street hookers run by pimps?
In February this year a Denver t.v. station talked to escorts about a bust of a Denver escort agency:
Apparently since I’m male, my belief that women should be free to use their own bodies as they choose is a misogynist idea. But advocating criminal penalties for a woman exercising that choice is feminist, as long as the advocate is female.
BTW, as much as it pains me to agree with Kathleen and Anony, the rape/beating is a false choice. It’s a beating and rape or just rape choice, with a chaser of hope to live added on both choices.
My attempt at posting this failed the first time. If it appears twice, I’m sorry and maybe the mod can delete the duplicate:
Have you, Anony, talked to any sex workers charging $300 and hour? If you have talked to any sex workers at all, have they all been street hookers run by pimps?
In February this year a Denver t.v. station talked to escorts about a bust of a Denver escort agency:
Apparently since I’m male, my belief that women should be free to use their own bodies as they choose is a misogynist idea. But advocating criminal penalties for a woman exercising that choice is feminist, as long as the advocate is female.
BTW, as much as it pains me to agree with Kathleen and Anony, the rape/beating is a false choice. It’s a beating and rape or just rape choice, with a chaser of hope to live added on both choices.
Regulation of the sex worker industry is only feasible if sex workers identify themselves as such. In the German example cited above, that was a very low number. Is there any reason to assume more sex workers in the US would identify themselves as such, if the industry were more regulated to benefit the safety and health interests of its workers? Even these high class call girls, like the kind Spitzer allegedly frequented - would these women “out” themselves as sex workers in a decriminalized, regulated environment? Perhaps there’s a study I’m not aware of, but my assumption is that the social stigma against paid sex work would prevent many women and men from seeking the benefits of the prostitution equivalent of the Fair Labor and Standards Act or the protection of the sex-related OSHA.
Still, I think the gains would come from a prostitute being able to report assault/battery without fear of prosecution, and the number of people saved through mandatory drug and STI testing are entirely worth the political trouble of trying to decriminalize sex work. Fundamentally it is a victimless crime if it occurs in the most ideal environment: no trafficking, fair wage, consensual parties, managed health risks. I don’t assume that’s the standard situation for prostitutes, nor do I believe for one second that most people who are in a position to choose prostitution over another career do so without having experienced some kind of long-term fucked up sexual dynamics in their life, but it hardly seems reason to deny anyone, whatever their troubles, an honest form of income for providing a physical service.
(1) Advocating decriminalization (which I do) is not the same as advocating legalization. I don’t ever want to see a single prostitute arrested or in jail.
(2) Categories of people defending prostitution: men, escorts. According to those male defenders, taking testimony of escorts that their work is great, enjoyable, and profitable and a fun choice! as unproblematic representations of experience is the Ultimate Test of Feminist Bona Fides Evers!!!!! No backs!!!! Otherwise you hate women although you is one! So ironics!
(3) aiiieeeeeeeeeeee.
Update Spitzer stuff:
Source: Eliot Spitzer met with call girls 7 or 8 times
http://www.latimes.com/ny-stpro0311,0,4551038.story
NY Republicans threaten to impeach Gov. Spitzer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080311/pl_nm/newyork_spitzer_dc_23
Aide: Spitzer May Defy Calls To Step Down
http://www.nysun.com/article/72713
obviously he is testing water and see how it plays out. I for one think he gonna lost, I don’t think Vitter/Craig situation applies on him.
I don’t ever want to see a single prostitute arrested or in jail.
Yeah, but I challenged you on this and you had no reply. What’s your legal justification for criminalizing the purchase but not the sale? How can it be illegal to buy what it’s legal to sell?
Categories of people defending prostitution: men, escorts.
Right - the people most affected by the practice. Maybe you could actually pay attention to what they have to say, and abandon your arrogant presumption that you know what’s best for every single woman?
I’ve been following this thread and I’m absolutely amazed many think that prostitution should be illegal because it’s demeaning. Because of the unequal power relationship between a hooker and a john, the transaction should be forbidden by law. How utterly patronizing of you. In my youth, I was a bus boy. I cleaned up table after people who were wealthier and more socially powerful than I. I wipe the table after they rudely spilled on them. I picked up their used, microbe encrusted tableware while politely smiling, projecting the impression that I enjoyed this sycophantic task. Why would I, a young intelligent man do such a demeaning thing for people who didn’t care a whit about me?
Because I wanted the money!
Why does a young, intelligent female do demeaning work like spreading her legs, performing fellatio, and other demeaning tasks while smiling, giving the impression that she is enjoying her work for people who don’t give a shit about her?
Because she wants the money!
I will assert that many woman who support the criminalization of ladies of the evening, do so because the are concerned that their husband/lover/significant other would avail themselves of a prostitutes services if not for the possible legal repercussions. How shallow and lacing self confidence they must be.
Chet, first, look up “decriminalization”. It does not mean what you think it means.
Your second point is so stupid it can hardly breathe.
Back when minimum wage laws first were enacted, they were struck down because they violated workers’ inherent right to work for whatever wage they wanted. Same with workweek regulatitons. If workers wanted to work 80 hours a week, who was the state to tell them they couldn’t? Same with child labor.
Even if you take the tack that all labor is exploitative, it does not therefore follow that anything and everything is fair game.
As for listening to those who are affected, I’m happy to listen to sex workers. I really could care less what men think about prostitution, and the notion that they are “affected” by it is ridiculous.
J sub D — if you have been following the entire thread, you will see that no one is advocating sending prostitutes to jail. Pay attention.
If you think that sex is like cleaning dirty plates, that is very sad and depressing but luckily there is probably still time for you to turn your frown upside down! Done properly, sex is not like cleaning dirty plates at all. It is fun. You may want to look into changing your approach to it.
J sub D, if you think it’s the same thing, why weren’t you out giving blow jobs instead of clearing tables? The question I keep coming back to in my own head is: If this is such a great, fun way to earn some money, why is it almost exclusively the work of women and gay men?
As for this:
It cannot possibly be because they care about the well-being of women. Not like the men who frequent prostitutes. They are the selfless martyrs falling on their swords to defend the right of women to do whatever they want with their bodies as long as they get to come.
Chet, first, look up “decriminalization”. It does not mean what you think it means.
I never said that it did, and I wasn’t referring to your specific stance on decriminalizing the providers, but your stated stance of shifting the criminal burden over to the johns.
But with all the effort you’ve taken to throw up this insipid smokescreen, you’ve failed to address the point. How do you justify, as is your stated position, making being a prostitute legal but making it illegal to hire one? What are the prostitutes supposed to do, exactly, if it’s illegal for anyone to hire them?
Your second point is so stupid it can hardly breathe.
And yet you have absolutely no ability to respond to it. Remind me who’s stupid? It’s actually a very interesting point: since you’re neither a prostitute - among whom the general consensus is that they’d be safer if what they were doing was legal - nor a john - among whom the general consensus is that they’d get a better experience for less money if what they were doing was legal - it’s not precisely clear why your viewpoint should be privileged over anybody else’s. If this were a discussion of abortion, the experience of men would be considered secondary. Since you’re neither hooker nor client, yours should be likewise unprivileged. If you can get past your own wounded pique for ten seconds you might see how you’ve sweepingly dismissed the very people most affected by the discussion. Or is it just that you’re too arrogant to admit it when it’s being pointed out by a man?
Sigh. Despite signing in with my own username, it posted on my wife’s account.
Much work needs to be done on comment authentication around here.
If this is such a great, fun way to earn some money, why is it almost exclusively the work of women and gay men?
Because women are a lot less likely to hire prostitutes.
I mean, duh.
It cannot possibly be because they care about the well-being of women.
By advocating a stance that’s completely inconsistent with promoting the well-being of prostitutes?
Not like the men who frequent prostitutes.
Oh, I see. Anybody who has problems with the current legal stance towards prostitution is a dirty man who wants to fuck whores. It’s funny how you complain so loudly about the presumption of bad faith, and then take precisely that presumption with your opponents. It’s possible to consider this issue from an uninvolved standpoint and still arrive at the conclusion we’re defending.
If there’s an honest defense of criminalized prostitution, it has yet to be presented. Why don’t you all work on that, instead of all these insults, distortions, and imprecations against your opponents?
It cannot possibly be because they care about the well-being of women. Not like the men who frequent prostitutes. They are the selfless martyrs falling on their swords to defend the right of women to do whatever they want with their bodies as long as they get to come.
And of course you know what’s best for them. How noble and, dare I say, better of you.
J sub D — if you have been following the entire thread, you will see that no one is advocating sending prostitutes to jail. Pay attention.
No, you just support outlawing their own control over their own body. Not your body, theirs. Prostitutes are not children, they are adults that have the same rights as you and I. On of those right is freedom of association. But because you care, it’s OK to prohibit their choice of business.
And ladies, the odds are (>50%) that your husbands/boyfriends/lovers has used a courtesan’s services in ther past. That also applies to your brothers, fathers and uncles as well. What should their punishments have been?
“If at least some women didn’t prefer rape to beatings, it wouldn’t be possible for rapists to achieve compliance with threatened beatings.”
Oh please boy-with-privilege, tell me more about what women do. You’re obviously an expert having read one link on the internet.
Here’s something that obviously didn’t occur to you. Isn’t is possible that in knowing she was going to be harmed no matter what this hypothetical woman knows she doesn’t actually have a choice at all?
Isn’t it possible that someone willing to force a woman to have sex with threats of violence isn’t going to not be violent even if she acquiesces? To put it more simply, where’s your proof that “choosing” to be raped spares women from violence? Because, if it doesn’t, doesn’t that kinda mean that she didn’t have a fucking choice at all?
There is nothing more disgusting that some dude claiming women chose to be raped, while pretending to be fucking ally.
“Many of them have come out in favor of legalization, since they favor the protections that come with being employed by a legitimate business, rather than working in a twilight market outside of the law.
But I guess they don’t count, right?”
Proof? Nah, Of course not. Just having a sanctimonious penis makes it true, I’m sure.
“Right - the people most affected by the practice. Maybe you could actually pay attention to what they have to say, and abandon your arrogant presumption that you know what’s best for every single woman?”
Who else sees that, inbedded in this pretense of caring about women is the suggestion that we listen to men about prostitution?
____
“Apparently since I’m male, my belief that women should be free to use their own bodies as they choose is a misogynist idea.”
You’re a misogynist because you pretend to be an ally, while essentially telling women to shut up, on several different blogs, I’ve noticed.
“Have you, Anony, talked to any sex workers charging $300 and hour? If you have talked to any sex workers at all, have they all been street hookers run by pimps?”
I’ve been working with all sorts of sex workers, for over 15 years. Decriminalization with regulation has always been the name of the game. Legalization simply makes human trafficking (you know that icky thing all you johns never like to talk about) invisible.
“Because women are a lot less likely to hire prostitutes.
I mean, duh.”
Now you’re just being willfully ignorant.
The fact is women are the sex class. Prostitution is to low and disgusting a job for men. it belongs to women and gays.
I mean, duh.
J D - got proof or is that just a really lame and desperate attempt at making yourself feel better about being a john?
Now you’re just being willfully ignorant.
The fact is women are the sex class.
A lot of us are wondering when you’re going to be able to present an argument that’s not just assertion and name-calling.
Like I said, think it through. Women are much, much less frequently the clients of prostitutes. The market emerges to supply the clientèle. As a result there’s not much need for straight male prostitutes.
Prostitution is to low and disgusting a job for men.
And, yet, male prostitutes for women are sufficiently common that there’s even a specific name for them. And, sorry to inform, but the characterization of prostitution as “low” and “disgusting” is coming solely from your side. Over here it’s just another form of employment, but one unfairly stigmatized as a result of religion-driven moral prudishness.
Anony, are you ever going to say something that turns out to be true?
Isn’t is possible that in knowing she was going to be harmed no matter what this hypothetical woman knows she doesn’t actually have a choice at all?
Not only possible, but that’s what I’ve been saying all along.
Try to pay attention, ok? There’s a lot going on here, so it’s easy to get lost. Like you apparently have.
Who else sees that, inbedded in this pretense of caring about women is the suggestion that we listen to men about prostitution?
Why, you’re completely right. Better you keep dismissing my arguments and calling me names, just because I have a penis. Why, it’s a wonder I can use the internet at all, as afflicted as I am by such a malady as not having a vagina. Why, I’m sure that if I had one, I could immediately see how feminist it is to tell other women precisely what they can and can’t be legally allowed to do with theirs.
I mean, your argument makes so much sense, Anony! (It’s a mystery why you wouldn’t want to put a more unique, recognizable moniker to that level of reasoning.)
You’re a misogynist because you pretend to be an ally, while essentially telling women to shut up, on several different blogs, I’ve noticed.
You mean like you’re doing now, Anony? Or is telling women that their perspectives are irrelevant ok when you’re saying it to whores?
The flaming here is absurd.
Kathleen, your arguments aren’t cohesive or clear anymore. You’ve twisted a sense of compassion for the exploited into the position that sex workers should be able to work - just not have any of the clients inherently required for them to do their work(?)
Chingona, men are absolutely affected by prostitution. The male-male and male-tranny sex work industry is a pretty large underground movement. Men are both the solicitors and the prostitutes. Your statement comparing restrictions against prostitution to enactment of child labor laws or minimum wage laws is interesting but I would argue that in the case of child labor, there is someone still providing that labor (an adult). And in the case of minimum wage laws, those are setting a pay floor for labor. We could reconcile these ideas within decriminalization of prostitution by regulating the age at which women/men could legally be solicited as prostitutes and by setting the base rates men would pay, but like other non-corporate private employment it would be difficult to track or enforce.
J D - got proof or is that just a really lame and desperate attempt at making yourself feel better about being a john?
You were right to call me on it. That 50% was a SWAG. Some real numbers from The U.S. National Institutes of Health
OBJECTIVE: To test hypotheses about demographic and behavioral characteristics that predict use of female prostitutes (Px). METHODS: Drawing on a 1982 national survey of 80,434 readers of Playboy magazine, we examined data on 52,527 exclusively heterosexual men age 18 and older who answered a question about having sex with a Px in the last five years. Univariate and multiple regression techniques were used. RESULTS: In all, 10,191 men (19.4%) reported experience with Px. Associated with Px use were: high school education or less (23.5% vs. 18.2%); annual income of at least $40,000 (25.4% vs. 18.5%); divorced or widowed (24.7%) or single (21.7%) vs. currently married (15.2%); between ages 21-49 (20.0% vs. 14.1%); Catholic (20.6%) or Jewish (24.2%) vs. Protestant (18.1%); and residence in a city or suburb (20.2%) vs. small town or rural area (17.2%).
All the caveats about self selected survey statistics apply. It’s a very old survey so that also needs to be considered. Expect today’s numbers to be highrr. But with what I could find on a cursory google, only 1/5 of your husbands/lovers/brothers/fathers are guilty of engaging the services of a prostitute.
Higher and lower estimates undoubtably exist. I’m not going to spend any time finding and cherry picking data.
J sub D — used the services of “a courtesan”? Really? Cool. I had no idea that over 50% of my sons, lovers, husbands, and fathers were time travellers. I mean, I figured 17.64% of them were, tops.
Kathleen, Courtesan is a perfectly good word. Unlike whore, hooker, prostitute et al, it isn’t seen as denigrating a label. Were you embarrassed when you had to look it up?
And of course you know what’s best for them. How noble and, dare I say, better of you.
Because the plethora of studies about the harms of prostitution are all lies b/c no one asked the men is not a good enough reason in your eyes?
Again, making illegal to buy sex makes it easier on the women who sell it. I again point you to the Swedish law which does just that and has been very successful.
Chet: you do not even bother to read or think about anyone’s comments so your telling us (all women, note) that we’re not forming arguments and just name-calling is absurd. As for my calling you a misogynist, I don’t consider that name-calling since the shoe fits.
And given the choice, I’d rather have the shit kicked out of me. What your stats reflect is that these women could have been raped OR they could have had the shit kicked out of them and THEN raped. Not really a choice there.
The bolded portion is a baldfaced lie. I can recall only posting on two feminist blogs, here and on feministing. I have never told a woman to shut up. I have sometimes disagreed with views of particular women and have labelled some views silly and incorrect. I find yours particularly so, but with an added tone of viciousness toward any male who dares to disagree with you.
You or anyone else are free to believe I am no ally because I don’t toe your line in all respects. I do believe that equal rights for women can be liberating for men and women. I believe I have a fairly coherent philosophy that is pro-women’s rights.
Pro womens’ right to convenience your desire to buy women, that is, Not the same thing.
Unless they want to pay or get paid for it.
That’s not actually an option for women–not to the extent that it is for men. Heidi Fleiss has found opposition from the brothel owners association in her efforts to open a brothel that caters to women. The fact that so many supposedly pro-sex, “liberal” dudes ignore this is pretty damn telling. Of course, women who are sexual on their own terms are sluts, ho’s, skanks, whatever–we get a ration of shit for actually, you know, doing what we want with our bodies FOR OUR OWN PLEASURE. If we buy into that (and many do, hard to not buy into it when it’s shoved down your throat from the time you’re a kid), we’re pearl-clutching prudes. We don’t, we’re sluts. Apparently, the only sexual women that people want to acknowledge, are wives who suddenly become super magic nymphos or prostitutes. Please the men, not yourselves. Well, fuck that 50’s era noise.
Sorry, but I don’t buy into the puritanical and uptight version of sex where women do most of the selling (along with some men), and men do all of the buying.
“Pro womens’ right to convenience your desire to buy women, that is, Not the same thing. ”
Word.
***
“The bolded portion is a baldfaced lie. I can recall only posting on two feminist blogs, here and on feministing. I have never told a woman to shut up.”
Oh sorry, it’s only two blogs where you routinely dismiss and denounce what women say. Of course you don’t actually use the phrase “shut-up”, that would out you.
***
“Better you keep dismissing my arguments and calling me names, just because I have a penis.”
Poor chet, the put up boy-with-privilege who doesn’t understand why women just won’t obey him.
“Why, it’s a wonder I can use the internet at all, as afflicted as I am by such a malady as not having a vagina.”
It’s not the lack of vagina, it’s the lack of functioning brain cells.
“Why, I’m sure that if I had one, I could immediately see how feminist it is to tell other women precisely what they can and can’t be legally allowed to do with theirs.”
Where did I do this? I have said nothing of the kind. Either start paying attention, or stop trying so hard to dismiss what I’m saying because I have a vagina.
I don’t care if a woman chooses to be a sex worker. I’ll do what I can to help ensure she’s safe and her interests are made priority. The woman who choses, however, is the not the majority. This I know from working with sex workers for over 15 years. My primary focus is on ending human trafficking – that icky thing you johns like to pretend doesn’t exist - not legalizing prostitution so human trafficking gets easier.
“Like I said, think it through. Women are much, much less frequently the clients of prostitutes. The market emerges to supply the clientèle. As a result there’s not much need for straight male prostitutes.”
Now, let’s try to get Chet’s seven fighting brain cells to work together for a moment – why would the market be primarily men seeking women? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Let’s wait for the smoke to emit from his ears.
“And, sorry to inform, but the characterization of prostitution as “low” and “disgusting” is coming solely from your side.”
Pure bullshit. Once again, it would require you to actually speak to women and listen to what they say, but over the course of 15 years that I’ve worked with sex workers, the constant narrative is that the clients and the cheerleaders from the sidelines are hardly treating them well. My side is those who actually work with sex workers. I don’t think its “wrong” or “disgusting”, that was me describing patriarchy’s treatment of the work. Way to prove you’re completely dishonest though.
You’re going to have to try harder than that to make me out to be the bad guy. 15 years of experience versus your what now?
Because women are a lot less likely to hire prostitutes.
I mean, duh.
And that, of course, has nothing to do with the sexual double standard, slut-baiting, and the hissy fits supposedly pro-sex dudes pitch when women make efforts to get the same services that men get. See: the Nevada brothel associations tantrum over Heidi Fleiss’s efforts to get a stud ranch opened for women. It just all happens in a vaccuum. That must be it. I will defer to the menz to tell me what my sexuality is. Gosh, thanks!
All of these male prostitutes who cater to women? Where are they exactly? On the stroll? Stud ranches in Nevada? It’s not like women don’t like getting laid, no matter what the evo-psych freaks say.
Anony, I’m guessing you despise me for two points of view I have brought to these boards,repeatedly I admit:
1) that labeling one’s political opponents (no matter how close or far away from one’s position those folks are) and their motives evil and hate-filled is counter productive to persuading anyone but those who already are 100% true believers in one’s cause, people who do not need persuading, and
2) Exaggerating the factual basis for one’s arguments undermines the credibility of those arguments and of the person exaggerating.
You have engaged in both types of conduct on this string alone. The more you engage in personal attack the more your hatred shows and the more intellectually bankrupt your ideas are revealed to be. But rail on, by all means.
Anony, you rock.
Sixties Liberal, if you keep reading feminist websites, you will learn that your argument — “but if only you would be nicer when you make your points about sexism men would understand and then sexism would totally go away!” is the first, middle, and last refuge of sexists clinging to privilege. It’s a crock and round these parts we are way past falling for it.
Kathleen,
You are engaging in the same tactic there, in a milder form, as Anony. You mischaracterize what I’m saying by exaggerating it and assume I’m the evil “sexist clinging to privilege”. If it makes you feel better, go ahead, don’t be bothered by reality.
The extremes of those behaviors are called “demonizing” and “lying”. If you think those tactics are helpful, go right ahead. There are quite a lot of people who are moderate thinking who can be persuaded to support policy issues beneficial to feminism. You and Anony are certainly not the ones equipped to do it.
“You and Anony are certainly not the ones equipped to do it”
Translation: If you don’t coddle my fee-fees I’m taking my toys and going home.
Good riddance, fraud.
And Kathleen - all women who stand up for sex workers (themselves included, of course) and against pig johns rock. So you rock too.
Not going anywhere, tootsie, unless the board owners tell me to buzz off.. I won’t even tell you to shut up. As I said at #203 you reveal yourself more each time you post. Unfortunately it is your ilk that makes folk much more middle of the road than I hesitate to vote for Clinton or Obama. They might like the candidates and their programs OK, but those candidates might also bring the lunatic left like you in with them.
“you reveal yourself more each time you post”
As do you.
See below:
” tootsie,”
Sexist slur.
“Unfortunately it is your ilk that makes folk much more middle of the road than I hesitate to vote for Clinton or Obama.”
And a non-sequitir.
Stunning, really.
I’m not surprised you don’t recognize ironic humor.
Nor am i surprised that you see my point on electoral politics a non sequitor. It is exactly the point. Your penchant for demonizing and lying puts off people who would otherwise support feminist proposals..
But I’m still supportive of most of the feminist goals and viewpoints, even if you’re around, too.
Smooch. [That’s ironic humor, too, babe. So was that.]
All of these male prostitutes who cater to women? Where are they exactly?
Making other arrangements? Watching Midnight Cowboy? Outcompeted by the guys who give it away for free? This assertion that there’s no male prostitution for straight women simply can’t be comprehended.
Where did I do this? I have said nothing of the kind.
You’re a liar, anony. That’s precisely what you’re saying when you support the legal prohibition on prostitution.
Once again, it would require you to actually speak to women and listen to what they say, but over the course of 15 years that I’ve worked with sex workers, the constant narrative is that the clients and the cheerleaders from the sidelines are hardly treating them well.
Why would they, when the sex workers are operating extra-legally? That’s been the point all along. How did you manage to miss it?
Anony, excellent use of the term “fee-fees”. Two thumbs up.
“You’re a liar, anony. That’s precisely what you’re saying when you support the legal prohibition on prostitution.”
Since you’re clearly a total moron, lets repeat this again to see if it sinks through your thick skull.
I have 15 years+ experience working with prostitutes, porn performers, strippers, etc. I support what they themselves have consistently told me they feel would protect and support them the best. Since they actually do it - unlike you who argue it academically from a privilege position - I think they know best.
If that doesn’t work out for johns, oh well. I really couldn’t care less about them.
***
“’m not surprised you don’t recognize ironic humor. ”
:) Did you really think anyone is going to fall for that transparently false excuse?
“That’s ironic humor, too, babe. So was that.”
More sexist language and now a pathetic and dishonest excuse for using it. Pathetic and sad.
Of course I understood the point you were trying to make. I’m simply not going to fall for logical fallacies.
“Why would they, when the sex workers are operating extra-legally? That’s been the point all along. How did you manage to miss it? ”
And making it legal will sometime magically end this? God, you are a dumbass.
Making other arrangements? Watching Midnight Cowboy? Outcompeted by the guys who give it away for free? This assertion that there’s no male prostitution for straight women simply can’t be comprehended.
Do try to comprehend it. Sure, guys give it away for free. So do women–and men who have no trouble getting laid still use prostitutes. A woman who wants to pick up some random guy for sex has safety considerations. She doesn’t know if he’s Ted freaking Bundy, if he will force her to do something she doesn’t want to do, or if he’ll slip her a roofie and invite a friend to join him. If she pays for it, it can be a lot safer–he’ll do what she wants (and it will be about her). She will be in far less danger physically than doing the random guy pickup crapshoot.
Men who have NO trouble at all getting laid use prostitutes. The market analogy doesn’t hold up, here. Given the safety considerations of a lot of women, there’s actually a likely bigger market for male prostitutes who service women.
Let’s not pretend that it’s all about who’s willing to put out.