Politicians and Prostitutes

I think I saw at least three different bloggers (including myself) refer to yesterday's admission by NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's hiring of a sex worker with just the word "wow." Understandable given Spitzer's legal history wherein he has gained recognition for successfully prosecuting prostitution rings. Quite a contradiction it seems, but alas we see time and again, political power--which often manifests as hyper-masculinity--produces powerful men that just can't keep it in their pants. It makes sense to descend into the preconditioned response of chastising a politician for abusing power and trying to (stupidly) get away with paying for sex, not to mention transporting a human for the purpose of paying for sex. I think we can all agree that if a sex worker is going to get prosecuted, he should as well. No questions.

What I don't want to do is chastise a man for potentially having a sexual kink (I'll let the wing-nuts hypocritically take care of that), not because I am all for protecting Eliot Spitzer's sexual kinky rights (ew, barf, ew), but because I think it tells a bigger story of patriarchy, heterosexuality, legalization of sex work and the ethical treatment of sex workers. As Ann Friedman recently pointed out on Feministing, as progressives, we shouldn't jump to attack politicians when we find out that they committed a sexual "indiscretion." As someone who supports the decriminalization of sex work (hello prison nation!), I don't think we need anymore fodder for the right-wing"I hate sex" machine to use in their purity crusades.

The over-reliance in the US political system for our politicians to be heterosexual and vanilla in the bedroom is like a recurring nightmare of puritanical ethics that continually allows for anti-sex, anti-gay, and anti-kink legislation to continue. If anything what these "outing" episodes should teach us is that everyone should be allowed to have the kind of sex they want and have the proper education about it, so we should stop pretending we are all "Republicans" in the bedroom. This story in particular, along with the DC Madam drama, for me is an opportunity to talk about the rights and conditions of sex workers. Spitzer may get a slap on the wrist and be asked to step down, but sex workers nationwide will continue to be subjected to harsh criminal proceedings, high incarceration rates, drug use, violence, lack of health-care and no protection from violent, retaliatory pimps.

It is obvious that Spitzer hiring a sex-worker is a gross abuse of masculinist political power and completely hypocritical, but let's not lose the bigger story of the horrid treatment of sex workers by the criminal justice system and society at large. And let's be real, $5500 dollars is still not enough for a woman's body.

Comments (25)

1. Samhita: It is obvious that Spitzer hiring a sex-worker is a gross abuse of masculinist political power........

   I've already had my fill of reading/hearing about Spitzer but to claim his being Client #9 as abuse of "political power" is just not credible.....#9 did not demand Kristen's services in exchange for granting some state contracts, appointments, or to help anyone's political prospects....unless I missed out on something still raging on the media!

   Posted by Happy at 03/11/2008 @ 5:27pm

2. but alas we see time and again, political power--which often manifests as hyper-masculinity--produces powerful men that just can't keep it in their pants.

   What a stupid and sexist remark. Aren't women who sell their body for money just as guilty as the men paying for it? Aren't they as deserving of snotty remarks as these god-awful men? Hmmm.

   Posted by KSP556 at 03/11/2008 @ 6:16pm

3. Spitzer may get a slap on the wrist and be asked to step down, but sex workers nationwide will continue to be subjected to harsh criminal proceedings, high incarceration rates, drug use, violence, lack of health-care and no protection from violent, retaliatory pimps.

   Umm, subjected to drug use? Are they forced into this? High encarceration rates? Isn't prostitution illegal? Are prostitutes jailed more than Johns or other criminals, I somehow doubt it. I think Miss Mukhopadhyay is suggesting that the worlds oldest profession should unionize. I am all for it, do you think the teamsters would have em?

   Posted by Extraneous at 03/11/2008 @ 6:21pm

4. KSP -- Not sure what world you come from but I absolutely think that rich, powerful, hypocritical pols do deserve far more snark than anonymous women selling their bodies. And check your history dude--powerful male pols in America have in fact been repeatedly caught with their pants down, if you will. Noting that is neitehr stupid, not sexist.

   Posted by Peter Rothberg at 03/11/2008 @ 6:30pm

5. Peter Rothberg -- It takes two to tango. According to the news, this was a very pricy ring with women charging between $1,000 and $5,000 an hour. Those don't sound like down-in-the-dumps street hookers to me. They sound like women making more money in a month than you make in a year. Spitzer's prostitute actually liked him as a client (she might have received as much pleasure from her work as he did).

   Posted by KSP556 at 03/11/2008 @ 6:37pm

6. of course they exist...they will keep existing & it might get even worse after this Democrat fiasco.

   BTW I found some fantastic articles…A MUST read for EVERYONE "The Hussein Dynamic" at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171 and "Follow the Money" at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165

   The writing is BRILLIANT and goes beyond what the MSM feeds us. It was about time!!!!! Their sections for "Humor" and "Political Analysis" are FANTASTIC!!!!

   http://savagepolitics.com

   Posted by elsylee at 03/11/2008 @ 6:45pm

7. MALE politicians and prostitutes will always exist.....

   BTW I found some fantastic articles…A MUST read for EVERYONE "The Hussein Dynamic" at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171 and "Follow the Money" at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165

   The writing is BRILLIANT and goes beyond what the MSM feeds us. It was about time!!!!! Their sections for "Humor" and "Political Analysis" are FANTASTIC!!!!

   http://savagepolitics.com

   Posted by elsylee at 03/11/2008 @ 6:45pm

8. I notice an earlier comment of mine is missing. (lol)

   Posted by KSP556 at 03/11/2008 @ 6:47pm

9. Posted by EXTRANEOUS 03/11/2008 @ 6:21pm

   Isn't prostitution illegal?

   The question is who bears the brunt of "justice"? When you have 1 in 100 Americans behind bars and when you look at the demographics of the prison population, you have to start wondering what the justifications are behind making prostitution, drug use and other non-violent crimes worthy of a prison sentence.

   You also have to start wondering why the sentencing is different depending on your race and sex? For example, it is a fact that men get longer sentences than women - for the same crime. I'm wondering if the feminists here can get behind sentence parity - ideally giving men the same sentences as women. If not, can you explain how this is not "in scope" for feminists?

   It is also interesting to note the progression. We have had a five fold increase in the incarcaration rates since 1980. Maybe it is time to step back and take stock and look at what caused that and whether that's good for society.

   Posted by srjenkins at 03/11/2008 @ 6:48pm

10. Spitzer may get a slap on the wrist and be asked to step down, but sex workers nationwide will continue to be subjected to harsh criminal proceedings, high incarceration rates, drug use, violence, lack of health-care and no protection from violent, retaliatory pimps.

    Spitzer should NOT get a slap on the wrist, and I am generally for NOT prosecuting sex offenses between consenting adults.

    The reason the Spitzer case is different is that the very premise of his rise in politics was based un an unforgiving prosecution of "anyone" regardless of their position in society.

    I wish I had some of Spitzer's closing arguments that I could replay here, but I am sure it includes some version of "no man is above the law".

    Spitzer's hypocrisy is the issue, and we need to send a message to all prosecutors that THEY are not above the law regardless of the political benefits of being "tough on crime". I think sensitizing these prosecutors to the damage they have done with the "tough on crime" mantra by sending them to prison to serve with these other non-violent offenders that they prosecuted will go a long ways toward reforming the criminal justice system and start being "smart on crime" instead!

    Posted by Metteyya at 03/11/2008 @ 6:53pm

11. KSP -- 1) We have no idea how much money the women were making. The $5000/hr was going to the company employing the hookers. I'm sure they were making more than most sex workers but they were doing nothing hypocritical, as far as we know. Spitzer was. That's the main reason I think he is pretty much deserving of the mockery and snark. I donm't at all see why the women should/would be subjcted to any kind of public abuse.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 03/11/2008 @ 7:22pm

12. Well Ms. Mukhopadhyay, haven't legalized prostitution and pornography often been the "third rail of American feminism"?

    The constant battle of "it's exploitation" and a strange alliance with the Religious and Social Right...and "it should be legalized for the women's protection" and the Libertarian Right.

    I'm in the legalization camp myself, simply as a utilitarian matter....we can't stop it and we waste precious law enforcement resources going after it.

    But there are feminists who disagree and will truck no discussion of de-criminalization.

    One of the less "black & white" dividing lines of American politics.

    Posted by Mask at 03/11/2008 @ 7:25pm

13. Peter R -- I agree that Spitzer is guilty of hypocrisy, whereas it appears the hooker isn't. A good case can also be made that he should resign at once.

    My gripe was with the little bits of sexism that popped up in the column; e.g.:

    1. "alas we see time and again, political power--which often manifests as hyper-masculinity--produces powerful men that just can't keep it in their pants." [She fails to note that a lot of women in America are governors and legislators, and that probably some have cheated on their husband. She's also generalizing unfairly about men. Would you agree that MOST men in elected office do "keep it in the pants" and are probably (hard to verify, I know) faithful to their wife?]

    2. "It is obvious that Spitzer hiring a sex-worker is a gross abuse of masculinist political power." [The inclusion of "masculinist" in the sentence is a dig at men; the meaning is perfectly conveyed by saying "abuse of political power."]

    3. "And let's be real, $5500 dollars is still not enough for a woman's body." [Another snotty little statement that betrays hostility to men. I think it would've been sporting of you to allow my comeback to stand.]

    Posted by KSP556 at 03/11/2008 @ 8:46pm

14. One question does remain: if Spitzer simply intended to visit the hooker, was he even guilty of a felony? If he was only guilty of a misdemeanor, then how many felony drunk driving incidents in the last 48 hours were there, and why were they displaced in the news cycle by a guy who got caught trying to take his pants down?

    Perhaps it is because no one committing the felonies had previously put people in jail for doing the same thing? Nor were they were elected officials who, presumably, are held to a higher standard. The hypocrisy angle gets eyeballs - but you know this.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/11/2008 @ 9:25pm

15. Zero -- I don't think prostitution should be decriminalized, for one important reason: sex should be free. Women should want to be generous in that department (as Dr. Laura says, we all do things sometimes we don't want to do; so women should "put out" occasionally even if they don't want to). Society shouldn't tell women that it's okay to sell their flesh. By the way, ask yourself, if the guest blogger were a guy and said things like "you know how women are," do you think it would go unnoticed by female readers of the Nation?

    Posted by KSP556 at 03/11/2008 @ 9:27pm

16. Posted by ZERO 03/11/2008 @ 9:51pm

    Now, why did I KNOW that eventually a "feminist thread" would degenerate into ZERO and his now-expected "poor oppressed men" rant?

    Posted by Mask at 03/11/2008 @ 10:20pm

17. Maybe it is time to step back and take stock and look at what caused that and whether that's good for society.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/11/2008 @ 6:48pm

    it's good for business, brother.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/12/2008 @ 04:28am

18. "The question is who bears the brunt of "justice"? When you have 1 in 100 Americans behind bars and when you look at the demographics of the prison population, you have to start wondering what the justifications are behind making prostitution, drug use and other non-violent crimes worthy of a prison sentence."

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/11/2008 @ 6:48pm

    Sadly, much of our "correctional system" is now outsourced to for-profit corporations.

    And non-violent criminals are easier to maintain, which is an important issue in an environment where corrections officers may be less than completely qualified. Therefore, the non-violent criminal is more profitable.

    This is a subject deserving of a great deal more thought.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/12/2008 @ 08:43am

19. "However, it does seem to me that you have some sort of added issue with Spitzer because he is a man, or because he is a governor, etc."

    Posted by ZERO 03/11/2008 @ 8:38pm

    Gotta disagree with 'ya, Zed.

    Peter has made it clear that Spitzer's hypocrisy is the issue.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/12/2008 @ 08:46am

20. The reason the Spitzer case is different is that the very premise of his rise in politics was based un an unforgiving prosecution of "anyone" regardless of their position in society.

    What METTAYA actually meant is that "The reason the Spitzer case is different" is that he backed Hillary. Anyone think that if he had backed Obama, METTAYA would be calling him a martyr?

    Posted by brunowe at 03/12/2008 @ 10:08am

21. I agree that much of the main article is gratutious male-bashing. The idea of this being an abuse of "masculinist" power is ridiculous as is the idea that being arrested for prostitution is somehow a form of victimization.

    However, Spitzer deserves the public humiliation for a few reasons. As has been pointed out, when he prosecuted a prostitution ring he had no trouble waxing self-righteous. Indeed, much of his reputation has been built on his intense self-righteousness. That quality also seemed to animate his actions as governor, leading him to burn several bridges in his first year. To do what he did, given that, is, to quote Talleyrand, "more than a crime, a blunder."

    I think actions like that disqualify a politician more on the basis of stupidity than because of criminal acts.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/12/2008 @ 10:14am

22. Posted by MARKCANYON 03/12/2008 @ 03:48am

    Agree or disagree, this was a reasonably thoughtful post.

    (I fear MARKCANYON has been the victim of identity theft.)

    Posted by bwindrip at 03/12/2008 @ 10:30am

23. Wouldn't any charges under the Mann Act, ridiculous though they may be in a sane world, be felonies and not misdemeanors?

    Before he bought himself the Attorney Generalship, Spitzer had always been just another arrogant little pisher, a rich man's son trying to buy his way into public office. For the family, this may be a trajedy, but for the rest of us, this is like watching a Greek comedy where the gods have pulled down a puffed up, strutting, preening hero.

    It couldn't happen to a nicer guy, I feel no sympathy for him, but the laws are awful and what he did shouldn't be a crime. Plus, I do wonder about this being a Bush Justice Dept. hit job.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/12/2008 @ 11:04am

24. Posted by BWINDRIP 03/12/2008 @ 10:30am

    Ask him if he still considers the Holocaust "one bright moment in history" to make sure?

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 11:44am

25. During that week, your plumber, car mechanic, accountant, and nephew all visit prositutes and nobody notices even if they do get arrested.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/13/2008 @ 3:13pm

    Just last night, on the front page of Local section of Hou. Chronicle, shows a photo of several lower bodies of males chained together after a sting....cops bagged 11 Johns last night in a sting!

    Posted by Happy at 03/13/2008 @ 3:25pm