Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

I've been obsessing over Spitzer--not about the consequences of his scandal on the reputation of sexuality but on the nature of a man who would risk a hard-earned governorship by engaging in activities not only grossly illegal but also in direct conflict with morals he made into law. Sex is constantly being used as a pivot point for institutions of power and as a way of bringing disgrace onto someone for something not "naturally" scandalous, as you point out. But it's not everyday that people display such monstrous qualities. Assuming that Spitzer is not a monster but a mortal like the rest of us, how can this be explained?

I think that there is more to the response against Spitzer than "Shame on you, ha, ha" (though I've heard that one also, sometimes from people I could imagine being in a similar position one day). The weirdness is not just about sex. It has to do with the paradox in Spitzer between a moral righteousness, a belief in morals that had been the foundation of, at least, his public identity, and the contrary to this belief, manifest in private acts that make his morality seem totally incoherent. Many people's reactions have been to say that this is not surprising, that it could practically be expected of politicians, but the scandal still seems somehow more unsettling than most. Infrequently do politicians rise and fall so fast. I believe that a NY Times headline pointed this out.

The purity of Spitzer's hypocrisy is what's so disturbing to myself. Few people, even in Spitzer's position, have the power to betray their constituents so profoundly. Spitzer seems less like a person, more like an anti-hero. He reminds me of the character from There Will Be Blood, a combination of hatred for mankind and a redemptive sense of morality--a love for humanity, a hate for humans. Mr. Bruno called Mr. Spitzer a spoiled brat (before this scandal surfaced), which seems very apt. It is clear that Mr. Spitzer did not appreciate his position. It is almost as if he intended to reveal himself as a hypocrite. The risk he took certainly outweighed the benefits of the sex he received and it was risky, meaning it was definitely possible that he would get caught. Maybe Spitzer needed that sex, in that form, because he was too antisocial to get the ladies, as one Times editorial argued (by that middle-aged brown-haired dude with the glasses). But to simply say that Spitzer was an egomaniac does not explain why he would undermine himself in a way that got him caught and defamed his public identity.

Spitzer's legislation, from what I understand, increased the penalties for the "johns" who purchased sex. Spitzer endorsed legislation, or maybe it was even his idea, to decrease the demand for prostitutes by making the law hold more accountable those who purchased them. Spitzer’s convoluted act shows that his judgments against the johns of the world were too righteous, and that’s why we get a particularly good laugh when he is made to pay for his sin, or we are particularly sad that he has made his career a waste, depending on whether his righteousness threatens our sense of well-being or whether we empathize with his fall. By becoming a john, Spitzer revealed himself as a hypocrite, not because of a purposeful ruse he played on the world but because his act made it clear that he does not feel that what the law made a black-and-white matter of right and wrong was in fact so absolute.

On the other hand, I think that Mr. Spitzer's act, precisely because of its blatant hypocrisy, puts him in a somewhat different category than other sloppy politicians. Despite the public’s insistency on reaffirming values that make sex scandalous, Mr. Spitzer’s actions transcend the content of his scandal and they become subversive. Mr. Spitzer shows in himself the deep conflict between not his beliefs and his desires--a conflict that has become a stereotype of politicians--but between two truths: that prostitution is wrong because it treats humans as commodities, and that those who participate in this trade are not malicious. The revelation of this conflict undermines the value system that declares sex scandalous and wrong and demonizes the people who choose to follow their desires instead of societal norms. Because Mr. Spitzer could have chosen a less risky way to quench his thirst, the public cannot ignore the fact that there must have been an intentionally subversive element in what he has done. Part of his motivation must have been, to some extent, the thrill of testing the limits, similar to the thrill an upper-middle-class white girl, such as myself, gets from stealing. Its not that I don't want the $30 dollar eyeliner, or exactly that I don't have the money to pay for it, it's that I'm not supposed to have it because it is too expensive, but I want it anyway, so I steal it. But the risk of stealing an eyeliner on my lunch break at work certainly outweighs the benefits of getting it, and if I decide to do it anyway, because I don't like my job, I don't appreciate what I've got.

At the end of his resignation speech Mr. Spitzer said, “I go forward with the belief, as others have said, that our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.” If that’s what Spitzer believes is humanity's greatest glory, then you can see why he is so willing to make the fall. And I wouldn't doubt that he finds a way to rise again, because that is self-righteousness, his outstanding quality.

Web Letter

The views of those who rank human sexuality as a set of predefined Cartesian-grade coordinates are certainly free to express their disdain over the deviations or derivatives thereof.

My interior puke festival commences when these aspiring children of the various vaporous deities seek to label nonconforming prurient activities as sordid excesses of a lesser and inferior society succumbing to edgy spirits cloaked in a strange malaise.

Social tinkerers of all ilks who moralize their cracked and peeling hypocrisies construct their own respites of sordid and naughty delights secreted within their most promiscuous of muscles, the mind. Yet, this revelation still doesn't silent their swift and slanderous hypocrisy.

The author of this article has submitted an engaging wisdom to this widest of webs.

Civilization would do well to emulate its curious prurience.

Web Letter

I don't think either the Larry Craig scandal or the Eliot Spitzer one were about erotophobia (and with all these sex scandals, is sex really getting more repressed in our society? I beg to differ). I think both were basically about men who constructed political myths about themselves that were directly contradicted by their private behavior (in both cases, the men gave off a "wanted to get caught" vibe, exhibited by their remarkably sloppy behavior). That is the basic definition of hypocrisy. If Arnold Schwarzenegger is caught visiting a prostitute next week, I don't think he will be forced to resign. He has always postured as a macho guy who does what he wants (similarly, Barney Frank's sexual habits did not destroy his career). Spitzer positioned himself as a crusader against prostitution and an advocate for women's rights. That myth shriveled with revelations of his private behavior. He may well have been the victim of a campaign to set him up. Nevertheless, he obviously bears real responsibility for his self-destruction.

Although I'm no puritan, I don't think much is gained by claiming that any public judgment of people's sexual behavior amounts to erotophobia. Progressives should aspire to non-exploitative, mutually fulfilling sexual encounters. Does Spitzer's dalliances fulfill this basic criteria? And I think speculating that Larry Craig's personal preference is for procreative sex in marriage combined with anonymous head is, quite simply, a stupefying demonstration of academic pedantry. I think it is far more likely that he is a gay man (in the sense that he is aware that his desires lean strongly to same-sex encounters) who wanted to go far in Republican politics, so he married a woman and issued homophobic rhetoric (whether his wife was in on all this or not, who knows?) and tried to fulfill his needs through anonymous encounters and prostitutes. He claimed to not be gay in a desperate effort to salvage his image. This is obvious to all but academics seeking to make a career out of unnecessarily complicating basic issues.

Web Letter

"Erotophobia: fear of sex, tinged toward hatred of sex. Public sexual scandals revel in the hatred of sex. Disgust at the appetites. The strangeness of sex, the ordinary out-of-controlness of sex acts and sex drives that we all experience (if we're having it). Actually, usually, sex is not a threat to very much. But it feels like a threat to something, which is why so many people stop having it."

Perhaps no one has ever totally and accurately covered the twisted reasoning associated with our hatred, our fear and our disgust over sex in an entire book; therefore, I will not pretend to be able to do so in a mere few sentences. However, while my approach may be too simplistic for many, it is not a view that is without merit.

Modern Western concepts about sex began with the story of Adam and Eve located in the Book of Genesis. In there we see that shame about our genitalia ruled the day and apparently, every day since.

Read carefully the early parts of the Book of Genesis, concentrating on the actions and words pertaining to the precise time at which Adam and Eve realized (became aware of) their nakedness. Then, after learning how they responded to the fact that they were naked, ask yourself why they did not initially feel guilty that they disobeyed their God, but instead, felt ashamed of their nakedness and immediately covered up their genitalia? If you answer that question without bias towards wanting to protect your childhood beliefs about this story, you will feel the Aha! moment and things will start to be revealed to you.

I told you my explanation would be too simplistic for many and in no way cover the complexities of this topic in comprehensive detail. But there is often more said in less words; just look for that Aha! moment in a lyric, a phrase, a quip, a joke, a metaphor or in what I just wrote, and if you find it in what I wrote, you will know exactly what I’m saying and not have to read a book on the subject. If not, perhaps I failed at relaying the message and should focus on writing that book.