Sympathy for Spitzer

I'm a 52-year-old man with sexual issues, and all I feel for Eliot Spitzer tonight is sympathy.

I wonder how many other guys my age can identify with his lusts, and how many of the male journalists reporting on his troubles have similar feelings that they are guiltily suppressing, or have struggled with, even as they wring every detail they can out of his misery. That is the worst hypocrisy here, a lot worse than Spitzer's for having once prosecuted prostitution: the widely-upheld pretense that bourgeois American marriage resolves sexual life for all men.

No, I don't think most women get this. The conversations I had with women today were fake and vaguely insulting, while the conversations I had with men were real. One guy wondered if Spitzer was getting laid. Another said another New York governor, Roosevelt, had sex outside his marriage and maybe this will finally allow the country to have a genuine conversation about male sexuality. When I say insulting, I mean the derision there is for male sexuality in the culture: the condescending or mocking columns we are about to be flooded with, about bad judgment and male sexuality. I'm not going to the barricades, but I do hope this case opens up awareness. Gays had their liberation, women had theirs, what about straight married guys?

The only guy I could respect on television tonight was Alan Dershowitz. Execrable on Palestinian human rights, he was eloquent on Spitzer's. In the end this was about a man and a woman having a consensual relationship, he said. Our society is primitive about these matters compared to the Europeans. Good for you, Dersh. A friend of mine pointed out that our society is now so uncorrupted, i.e. innocent, Spitzer couldn't turn to procurers. JFK had procurers, so did Clinton as Arkansas governor--the state police, who felt used by him. (Maybe that's when the culture was turning.)

But Spitzer had to go to the ATM by himself, apparently, and do the emails by himself. In Europe his needs would have a place. Not a place of honor, but a place. In the U.S. we make marriage a sexual stronghold in the midst of a hypersexualized culture, then stoke the men with Viagra like hormone-fed cattle, stroke them with internet porn, politicize married sex as a kind of covenant of citizenship. When sex is actually a dirty thing. "Love has pitched his tent/in the place of excrement," Yeats said. Or read Disgrace, the modern classic by Coetzee. I'm not complaining about marriage, it's the best thing in my life. I'm saying that sex and marriage are not congruent entities. There's privacy in a marriage, or ought to be. Read Rilke:

questions of love, even more than everything else that is important, cannot be resolved publicly and according to this or that agreement; ...they are questions, intimate questions from one human being to another, which in any case require a new, special, wholly personal answer

I feel like Spitzer's case may open up the discussion and pull us forward. It couldn't happen with Clinton because the guy was such a pig and the cases were so messy. The Supreme Court was justly involved, 9-0, I remind you, on a question of a woman's civil liberties, and Clinton gamed the law at every turn, and the women were threatened. This time it's clean. So let people snicker. I feel that other men will join Dershowitz and me, and there will be a little progress...

Comments

[The Sword of Gideon]

Somehow the idea that Phil Weiss has some sort of sexual hang up isn't exactly shocking. Two points though. He ran around on his wife and three kids. Not exactly the actions of an honorable man. Second, we still have organized crime here in NY. Maybe the mafia, the Russians, the Albanians, who knows. But there is no way that a high end escort service like this runs without kicking upstairs to somebody. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed. And yes, Ed, Keating, MM, and all the rest. I know that the Mossad has pictures on everybody and is blackmailing well everybody. Because the Mossad knows everything about everybody all the time. Missing Egyptian and Syrian war plans in 1973. Well that was just an oops.

[Charles Keating]

I'm not sure what happened to Phil, exactly, but he's picked a pretty strange moment to become a sexual revolutionary. Men who pay for sex in our modern society are not the same as men who have affairs. If Spitzer had an affair, and it was revealed, he'd survive. But when Mr. Clean is involved in a prostitution ring . . .
Phil's complete confusion on this makes his own sexual issues (namely, his erotic and unrequited love for terrorism) more understandable.

[Richard Witty]

Phil,
Preserve your dignity. You don't need to confess in public.

Compassion is wonderful, and appropriately in the public sphere. Preserve the ability to publicly express compassion for others.

Save the confessions for confidential settings.

[Chuck]

Sex with a hooker? Yuck. How does the male ego really get fed when you have to pay for it. I'd be more inclined to believe they should pay me.

Last week I ran into a woman with whom I am a little bit acquainted socially. She rammed her boobs into me...hard and whispered that I should buy her a cocktail sometime. I was flattered enough to laugh about it with a couple pals. But all I have to do to remove every bit of temptation from my sometimes intemperate head is to remind myself as to what that would likely do to my relationship with my 2 adult and 2 in college kids and all interest dissipates.

The most essential element of leadership is setting a good example. As the male chauvinist pig head of my family, being caught with another woman would contradict everything I've taught my kids about the sacredness of family.

And yes, I expect the same standard of leadership to be met by politicians. Only one candidate clearly meets that standard - Ron Paul. Neither Hillary with her towering pyramid of lies nor Obama who writes letters on behalf of Rezko even come close.

[cooper]

Phil-

Nice Jewish. QED.

Cooper

[cooper]

PS:

Phil, when you wake up and remember writing
this- or when some sad bastid from your past
calls you up to gloat about it- remember
that its never to late to stop drinking.

Yrs,

Cooper

[Cooper]

PPS-

Phil, I was asked to pass this along:

In vino veritas....Signed, M. Gibson

[neocognitism]

"Men who pay for sex in our modern society are not the same as men who have affairs."

I agree. The men who have affairs are lying to themselves, and to whomever they are having a tryst with. The men who go for pros are being honest with themselves, and to the pro who is also being honest. Honesty gets the ethical square in this comparison.

Affairs are for cowards who could care less about who they hurt. A pro is a lot safer and localizes the pain to the unsuspecting spouse.

Who cares if Spitzer is seeing a pro? I blame it half on his wife, if you want to place blame. But in this lying society where the escort business and human trafficing business are booming, nobody in the elite class has any moral standing to say anything, since they're the biggest consumers by far.

For instance, it's an open "secret" that Wall Street guys, Spitzer's nemeses, are the worst. Not only do many of them have a wife and kids, and a mistress or two, they also see prostitutes to do drugs with. I'm not even exaggerating.

Spitzer should continue to do as he is doing and just move on. He apologized to his wife in public, now they can go home and discuss why they aren't having sex and what they are having is boring. Perhaps together they could watch "Eyes Wide Shut" by Stanley Kubrick, or rewatch it. Everybody who is up in arms about his sex life should.

[neocognitism]

One thing to add. Given the love affair the country has with series like Sex and the City, and Desperate Housewives, is it really appropriate at all to cast Spitzer's wife as "wronged?"

For all we know, she could have a guy on the side, and be totally comfortable with it. Maybe she told Spitzer he should look elsewhere in the first place, and that it was perfectly fine!

All the people finding themselves offended by this are projecting their assumptions and morals on the situation just a tad too much, methinks.

[Jewlatto]

"Israeli at center of Spitzer scandal"

Published: 03/10/2008

The alleged procurer in the prostitution scandal surrounding New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has an Israeli passport.

A federal magistrate in New York ordered Mark "Michael" Brener held without bail after his arrest last Thursday related to allegations that he headed the Emperors VIP Club, described by police as a high-priced prostitution ring.

The Associated Press reported that $600,000 in cash and an Israeli passport were elements in the denial of bail to Brener, 62. Brener's lawyer said he has been a U.S. citizen for 20 years.

The New York Times has reported that Spitzer is the "Client 9" described in the search warrant that led to the arrests of Brener and four alleged colleagues.

Spitzer, a Jewish lawyer whose office conducted serious investigations of at least two Jewish organizations when he was state attorney general, made a brief statement to the media Monday admitting he had let down his family and the public. He did not offer any details.

SOURCE: http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107452.html

[americangoy]

Well, interesting post. What is not interesting are the "huzzah lets get him!" comments on this post.

Phil yet again does the brave thing and tells us his view, which in this case in the puritan, anti-sex, anti-pleasure America that perhaps WASP type sexless marriage is not the end all be all of sexuality in human beings.

Going off topic now, Phil's blog post was submitted on DIGG and the following comment appeared, obviously written by a very confused errrr "intellectual":

"Calling the desire to live in the Promised Land Zionism is just insane."

:-)

This made my day:
http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2008/03/unintentionally-funniest-post-on-digg.html

[Jim Haygood]

Wow ... Phil cuts to the quick again, going far beyond the superficial comments seen elsewhere.

Fifteen years ago, a New York State Senator told me frankly about being offered sexual favors. His compromise was to accept blow jobs, but decline intercourse. Apparently, Bill Clinton had received the same advice, or reached the same conclusion.

Policy-wise, I deplore the prosecution of victimless crimes. Prostitution is a victimless crime. So are the phony derivative offenses of money laundering, structuring, mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy, which involve perfectly legal activities which, associated with a nexus of crime, mutate into felonies.

In principle, Mr. Spitzer has committed no crime at all. He was ratted out by his bank, underlining the deplorable fact that your banker is now a government spy, not a discrete custodian of your funds.

On the other hand, as a lawyer who made his political ascent on the broken lives of people he prosecuted (including for prostitution), Mr. Spitzer doesn't inspire much sympathy when prosecuted under the same unfair laws he championed. You can certainly hear the omnipresent envy, derision and demands for payback.

The issue of how men, who universally crave sexual variety, can confine themselves within a monogamous marriage contract, is way beyond my pay grade. Probably more women in Europe are willing to overlook some straying, as compared to the U.S. where it's considered obligatory to precipitate a crisis.

To summarize: I don't have any problem with Mr. Spitzer being hoisted on his own petard of "gotcha" laws and savage penalties. Yet, if I should be summoned onto the jury, I will refuse to convict on the basis that the law itself is flagrantly wrong. "Structuring" is a nonexistent, bullshit offense. Do yourself a favor -- tell all your friends and family about the Fully Informed Jury Association, and learn about juror nullification of sinister, fascist federal "laws."

http://www.fija.org/

[Interested]

I'm surprised by a lot of the comments above. This remark is typical: "Affairs are for cowards who could care less about who they hurt. A pro is a lot safer and localizes the pain to the unsuspecting spouse."

I don't have any experience either with affairs or prostitutes. But I don't see how this follows. My guess is that Spitzer didn't want his wife and kids to find out, i.e. didn't want to hurt them. That's presumably why he went to the hooker, so he could pay her to simply go away and keep quiet about it. Much different from a relative of mine some years back, who simply dated a mistress openly and with his wife's humiliated knowledge. (They're still married.) Isn't the secrecy point why all those gorgeous hollywood types keep going to hookers instead of starlets when they could - so the women will just go away and keep mum about whatever embarrassing proclivities their clients have?

[liberal white boy]

Sorry to hear you are having problems Phil. Perhaps you should try one of my Marsha Blackburn blow up dolls (only $19.95). So far they are outselling the hell out of my Norman Finkelstein bobble head figures. But neither is doing as well as my new CD "Who Was The Lord Of The Dinosaur".

For Marsha
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/04/hey-dudesget-your-own-marsha-blackburn.html
For Norman
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2006/12/hey-kids-get-your-own-norman.html
For "Who Was The Lord Of the Dinosaur"
http://www.isound.com/liberal_white_boy/

[Charles Keating]

It's been my experience that some men think nothing at all of
buying a piece of tail, while others, my self included, have never done so, and never will--whether engaged, married or not. I'm not religious. I'm not sure why I've always felt the same about this matter either. I don't feel righteous. I've been tested. When I turned 18 two of my friends gave me a birthday gift. She was a young prostitute maybe a couple of years older than I at most. In the room alone I gave her the gift money and talked quietly with her. After some time, I remerged out the door. That's all. I then pretended we had sex. My pals never doubted it simply because I emerged all smiles (because I didn't want to seem ungrateful). They cheered me like I was part of a football team and had just made a touchdown. A month later, on my first pass off post during army basic training, I went with a bunch of recruits to another whore house. After awhile (everybody boozing it up, gradually picking out a girl, etc) I picked out the youngest girl
& went to her room. Once again I paid her and just talked with her. Then I reentered the main room. Before I left, I was pretty drunk--I impulsively gave the same girl another gift--my favorite sweater. In those days, clothing was very important to me.

Looking back on those incidents, I felt sorry for the girls, and curious about their motivation. I had two sisters near their ages.
Girlfriends too.

Even now, it seems to me there's just no dignity in the situation.
At best, perhaps the whore and the john represent two predators
meeting, each empowered, one by money, the other beauty and/or sex. Each spends what they have to offer. Is it just a barter exchange?

I've long known a trio of good guys with respectable jobs and families with kids who prowl upscale bars and dance spots. They get girls and have double lives. It's like a private club of their own. One's a Greek HS coach, another an Italian businessman, the third, a Jewish psychiatrist employed by the city. Sometimes they just get a blowjob in the car, sometimes they have extended relationships. I never heard an ounce of regret from any of them.

I know other men in the professions who are always on the prowl, both during and between their many marriages. They are always intensely involved with someone new after a time--& always they have one eye out as they go about their daily business, "marking their turf."

I can see the POV that being a john "keeps it clean." No entangling relationships outside the nuclear family. Not really in their minds breaking the marriage vows; will never get caught so
no role model issue.

In some marriages there's an understanding, tacit or express--the deal is for father to be a (darn) good provider and keep the family image a success. In return he can vanish sometimes, usually on business pretext--either to his latest fling (usually some employee or minor agent) or to a good clean call girl.

None of the women I've personally had a relationship with in my life would ever put up with either type of extramarital affair. Their trust would be broken forever. I'd feel the same way. But I'm vain and not economically desperate or addicted to an expensive life style.

If somebody in a political policy position or similar corporate role plays around on his wife, how does this affect his governing role? Any differently than if he justs periodically pays call girls?

Is the ability to "compartmentalize" a blessing or a curse? The direct barter, money for sex, seems to require a high degree of such ability, at least for that transaction... A vamp spy often works.

It's hard for me to imagine anyone with kids, especially girls,
viewing a hooker as just a hooker, an hourly wage earner. What seems missing is the insight: "There but for the grace of God or Chance, go I--or my little girls."

On the other hand, a woman scorned or a cuckold confronted with "the other woman" or "the other man would demand to know, "Do you love her/him?" Abused faith of a higher order, it seems.

I'm not incensed about this sort of thing (unless it's a clear case
of abuse of power, of exploiting obvious vulnerability), but also it's hard to chuckle about.

[charlottemom]

HELLO??? This is not a victimless crime. Ask Spitzer's family. At the very least it opens up the potential for blackmail...not a good thing when you're a crusading politican. I'm no fan of Spitzer but how did Garcia get approval from Chertoff to review bank records of Spitzer? "They" say bribes but bribes flow into a bank account not out. "They" say suspicious bank account activity but why not notify client
rather than FBI. The media is not telling giving us the full story. Who is leaking the embarrassing details?? Nothing leaked on Vitter and Craig for months!!
Oh and yes I did see the JTA article "Israel at Center of Scandal."

Mondoweiss -- Get off the couch about this and stop beating yourself up. This is not a cut and dry "Man with Sexual Failings" story so don't internalize this.

[Jim Haygood]

Blogger Arthur Silber, citing an earlier article by Joshua Frank, reminds us that "Spitzer was one of the chief architects of the New York version of the fear-provoked PATRIOT Act. The Act sanctions 'roving' wiretaps of US citizens, expands the definition of terrorist activity to include money laundering, and eliminates the statute of limitations for all 'terrorist' offenses. The Act also permits the prosecution of suspects despite a pending or prior federal prosecution."

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01012007.html

Unfortunately, high-profile cases such as Spitzer's do not result in the repeal of such abusive laws. He will simply be regarded as "collateral damage" in pursuit of the larger cause of comprehensive monitoring and control.

Waiting around to explore his options for political survival, rather than making a clean break with a prompt resignation, looks ugly. Probably he's negotiating a "McGreevey settlement," meaning offering his resignation in exchange for charges being dropped.

[peanut]

Female comment: To slightly modify a Frank Zappa quote: What's the ugliest part of your body, isn't it your mind?

[Oarwell]

I assume when Alan Dershowitz speaks, there is a consensual relationship occurring between his brain and his mouth (or at least an implied covenant), but sometimes it's hard to tell whether it's really date rape.

[Charles Keating]

Oarwell--LOL!
Funny. I saw him on TV jump to the defense, saying the act, if true, was a minor infraction and applied with political discrimination. He added that it was such a nothing Europe would have it on Page 60. Since when has Dershowitz used Europe as a guide? Funnier, a half hour later, on a different channel, I learned that it was on page one of many top European papers.

If you want night and day, here it is: Dershowitz and Phil.

[Anonymous]

If Phil is indeed married without children I think he should think about his situation as either a sublime state of mutual devotion or else a completely pointless exercise.

[Richard Witty]

Phil's married but with no children.

His wife is charming, attractive, friendly, intelligent.

[Ed.]

Israeli at center of Spitzer scandal

JTA Breaking News -- The alleged procurer in the prostitution scandal surrounding New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has an Israeli passport.

A federal magistrate in New York ordered Mark "Michael" Brener held without bail after his arrest March 6 related to allegations that he headed the Emperors VIP Club, described by police as a high-priced prostitution ring.

The Associated Press reported that $600,000 in cash and an Israeli passport were elements in denying bail to Brener, 62. Brener's lawyer said he has been a U.S. citizen for 20 years.

The New York Times reported that Spitzer, once seen as a strong candidate to be the first Jewish president, is the "Client 9" described in the search warrant that led to the arrests of Brener and four alleged colleagues.

Spitzer, whose office conducted serious investigations of at least two Jewish organizations when he was state attorney general, made a brief statement to the media Monday admitting he had let down his family and the public. He did not offer any details.
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107452.html

The last paragraph seems to suggest Spitzer was burned for investigating "Jewish organizations," but if Brener burned him, why is he in jail himself? I suspect the whole bunch of them are starting to get burned by "rogue" American patriots in the government who are starting to get fed up with Jewish hypocrisy and Jewish Zionist primary loyalties to Israel.

[Anonymous]

"His wife is charming, attractive, friendly, intelligent."

May he never do any wrong to such a heavenly gift.

[neocognitism]

I just want to remind everyone, 2/3 of marriages end in divorce. If that isn't bringing a measure of reality to what you think married people do, yet cannot accept, I don't know what will. It seems people want to live three of four lives these days, with how fast society moves.

Personally, I just don't think anybody really understands what marriage really means, and they just jump into it. That's why so many split apart just as easily, even if it's 20 years later.

The first, last, and only real meaning of marriage is that you commit to someone for the rest of your life. That means you do not let anything split you up, and you make sure your partner feels the same thing. Divorce is simply not an option. It sounds pat, but that's it. If you or she messes up in whatever way, all thought is put toward determining a process by which you could be back in harmony again, period.