Thinking About Prostitution

Whenever a politician gets caught up in a prostitution scandal, I do need to return to the fact that at the end of the day I don't really think the exchange of sex for money is serious wrongdoing in the sense that justifies criminal sanctions. Obviously, in most cases such conduct will be a form of private wrongdoing against one's spouse, etc., but that's not a matter of public concern. For a public official, however, there's an unusually large dose of hypocrisy involved here. It would be within the power of Elliot Spitzer to propose changes to New York State's prostitution laws and, indeed, Spitzer probably ought to propose such changes. But insofar as a politician isn't going to take that kind of stand, it's only right and proper that he be punished for violating laws whose justice he himself has, in his public role, proclaimed faith in.

Comments

It's even worse than that, Matt--Spitzer prosecuted prostitution rings when he was AG! Talk about hypocrisy!

Posted by Claudius | March 10, 2008 3:42 PM

Maybe it will turn out that Spitzer was just operating under cover.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 3:44 PM

Actually, since Spitzer appears to have facilitated the transportation of persons across state lines for purposes of prostitution, he's fallen afoul of federal statutes which he doesn't have any power over. In other words, he's not a hypocrite!

Posted by neil | March 10, 2008 3:45 PM

Matt, this post is kind of dumb. Why don't you ask yourself why Pot is illegal or Pornography is routinely condemned while you're at it?

We have a very strong puritanical streak evident in a large percentage of our population. Hell, our national myth essentially ignores Virginia and its rough-and-tumble history in favor of a minute colony of religious zealots.

Posted by Greg | March 10, 2008 3:45 PM

"But insofar as a politician isn't going to take that kind of stand, it's only right and proper that he be punished for violating laws whose justice he himself has, in his public role, proclaimed faith in."

Unless you're a republican, of course, in which case you just issue a tearful apology with your wife standing at your side, and slightly behind, gazing adoringly at you. Then it's ok, and everything's forgiven.

Posted by Markg | March 10, 2008 3:47 PM

I'm a bachelor, I live in Nevada, and I've never been to a prostitute. I figure, a guy who can't get laid without paying for it is pretty damned pathetic.

That said, I still think it should be legal. Some guys just *are* pathetic, and they've got to go somewhere.

Posted by Joel | March 10, 2008 3:48 PM

One should ask what the good senator from LA, David Vitter (R) thinks about prostitution laws...

Posted by afferent input | March 10, 2008 3:50 PM

Am I the only one who find the total self-immolation of Eliot Spitzer to be sad and depressing? He was really one of the best state AGs in US history but his reign as governor's been a total clusterfuck.

Posted by Philly | March 10, 2008 3:51 PM

Well, there is one thing we can be thankful for, at least it was girls.

Posted by SLC | March 10, 2008 3:54 PM

Still a little less worrisome than the head of our intelligence getting caught up in an underage prostitution scandal.. not that anybody paid that much attention.

Posted by SAO | March 10, 2008 3:54 PM

I wish prostitution could be legalized because I think it would be a safer and more equitable transaction for the sex workers.
Call me puritanical, but while I don't really judge a man who has crippling social or physical problems seeing a sex worker, I'm actually really disgusted by men with looks, power, and/or wealth who do so. In the later case, where arguably consensual, non-economic affairs are possible, it seems to me that the patronage is driven by an ugly attraction for the abuse of power aspects.
So, for me, Joe the Aspberger's sufferer, knock yourself out; Spitzer or Charlie Sheen disgusting.

Posted by cxs | March 10, 2008 3:59 PM

Exactly why does Mr. Yglesias think that prostitution ought not to be a crime?

It corrodes the morality of each one of us when we begin to see sexuality as a commodity. Really, for someone who fancies himself 'on the left' to encourage the legalization of prostitution is really shameful. More proof that there's nothing particulalry Left about American liberals, nor ever was.

Posted by Hector | March 10, 2008 4:01 PM

It's worse than that. He's prosecuted people for this.

Posted by jayackroyd | March 10, 2008 4:01 PM

Matt,

I think you're taking the whole anti-hypocrisy thing a bit too far. For Spitzer to try to change the prostitution laws is a lost cause, politically. If he believes that prostitution is ok, then his only realistic options are to obey the law and let it be, or to break the law and try to get away with it. Its a question of which is the worse sin: to repress your natural desires, or to be a hypocrite.

Basically, I just don't think hypocrisy is that big a deal. To the extent that he has harmed his family, that's a big deal but its basically private, and should only be judged publicly by the voters.

Posted by Jim W | March 10, 2008 4:02 PM

I don't think prostitution is a huge ethical transgression, but I think violating one's wedding vows is. Even if it is a personal issue, it speaks to one's character.

I think Spitzer's done a great job protecting the interests of the consumer and the rights of the less than well-to-do, so I still think he comes out way ahead on the ethical balance. I'd really respect him if he chose to resign, though. Personal responsibility, being a man about your choices and all that, what what.

Posted by Adam | March 10, 2008 4:02 PM

Wait, how does it make ME less moral if Spitzer was paying some girl for sex?

Posted by Monster | March 10, 2008 4:05 PM

Re Hector

I take it that Mr. Hector avoids the State of Nevada (except for Las Vegas and Reno), where prostitution is legal, like the plague.

Posted by SLC | March 10, 2008 4:08 PM

No good for Hillary. Brings up all the same issues of the late 1990s. All the press has to do is ask both Bill adn Hillary what Eliot should do.

Posted by jake | March 10, 2008 4:09 PM

No good for Hillary. Brings up all the same issues of the late 1990s. All the press has to do is ask both Bill adn Hillary what Eliot should do.

Posted by jake | March 10, 2008 4:09 PM

Hector,

Aside from offending or corrupting your personal sense of morality, why exactly should prostitution be illegal? If two adults want to enter into a money for sex contract, why should anyone stop them? People get married for money all the time, should the state intervene to stop as a great Onion article called the "sex for security" scam of marriage? Watch any DeBeers commerical for futher confirmation of the socially acceptable way to purchase sex. Or how about people having sex for any reason other than pure spiritual, romantic love? It may offend you personally, but to put someone into the hell on earth that is the American prison system, don't you think a threshold higher than "corroding" your personal sense of morality should probably be the standard?

Posted by dearleader nyc | March 10, 2008 4:11 PM

Also, Spitzer's wife is absolutely smokin'. She looks 35. A hot 35.

Posted by Joe | March 10, 2008 4:11 PM

Call me puritanical, but while I don't really judge a man who has crippling social or physical problems seeing a sex worker, I'm actually really disgusted by men with looks, power, and/or wealth who do so. In the later case, where arguably consensual, non-economic affairs are possible, it seems to me that the patronage is driven by an ugly attraction for the abuse of power aspects.

The more powerful and well-known is an individual, the more difficult it is for him to have a consensual, non-economic affair which provides the degree of discretion, privacy, anonymity and emotional predictability necessary for a person in his position. A less powerful person moving in a smaller social orbit can seek a private affair for sexual gratification outside his social circle. For a prominent politician, the circle in which he is well-known extends out to the far horizon. That's probably why so many of them seek out professionals, for whom discretion is a best practice.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 10, 2008 4:14 PM

Hector said:

It corrodes the morality of each one of us when we begin to see sexuality as a commodity. Really, for someone who fancies himself 'on the left' to encourage the legalization of prostitution is really shameful. More proof that there's nothing particulalry Left about American liberals, nor ever was.

Wow, best political non-sequitur on matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com ever.

Posted by cmholm | March 10, 2008 4:17 PM

Attorney General, now Governor. Broke the law. Gone.

Whether it is a stupid law is neither here or there.

Posted by James | March 10, 2008 4:17 PM

I'm a hack Dem partisan if there ever was one and I think this goes way beyond hypocrisy, nor is it merely private. The Governor has compromised himself and his office; take all of 10 seconds to imagine the type of people who run/finance/provide security for a big$$ interstate prostitution ring. Spitzer, for no good reason beyond getting his rocks off, chose to make himself extremely vulnerable to them. He compromised himself as a public official and as an advocate for the causes he was elected to pursue. We're better off with him getting caught, and we'll be even better off when he's gone.

And yes, of course Vitter should have resigned too. I would like to think he is not our benchmark.

Posted by Tanner '08 | March 10, 2008 4:18 PM

Is it known at this point whether whether Spitzer paid for the service? Given that he is a politician, a class of people known for taking advantage of various kinds of freebies, one wonders if he was cashing in the prostitutional equivalent of a gift certificate in exchange for some kind of service rendered.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 10, 2008 4:22 PM

"It would be within the power of Elliot Spitzer to propose changes to New York State's prostitution laws and, indeed, Spitzer probably ought to propose such changes."

The thing is, it's too late for Spitzer. It'd just look like he's changing the law so that he can indulge without risk.

A male politician would have to be a saint to get such laws changed, or risk coming under suspicion of making the change out of narrow self-interest.

The best person to get reforms passed would be a female politician.

Posted by Jon H | March 10, 2008 4:22 PM

Sorry, anyone that thinks prostitution should be legal can't be trusted. Matt shouldn't have to explain why prostitution should be legal. Anyone with a brain can see WHY it should be. Can you explain why it shouldn't be outside of "it corrodes the morality." So what? And while we're at it, we should get rid of seat belt laws and helmet laws, which offend me as a freedom-loving badass.

Posted by Stacy | March 10, 2008 4:23 PM

Re: Hector and "The Left"

Real International Leftists know that exploiting the worker is wrong, even if that worker consents to said exploitation. Hence all prostitutes and drug dealers and others involved in consent crimes should be hanged because they devalue their own labor at the expense of the real proliteriat!

Seriously tho, I never understood the International Socialist-types objections to legalized drugs and prostitution.

What's the problem? Too libertarian?

Posted by DSG | March 10, 2008 4:25 PM

Everyone's missing the big point here: Spitzer would have made a very interesting presidential candidate and a top AG choice. The Democratic party seems to have lost a big-time prospect.

Then again, does anyone else notice how much he looks like a Star Trek alien?

Posted by Klug | March 10, 2008 4:27 PM

of course, he may be choosing to ignore the prostitution laws, because well ... they're inconvenient and besides could you imagine deporting all those with links to prostitution? Talk about jobs that Americans just don't want to do.

Agree with MY -- get rid of those laws; underage sex and all abuse laws still remain.

Posted by seneca falls | March 10, 2008 4:31 PM

This isn't just about violating NY or DC prostitution laws. It's also about Client #9 (Spitzer) arranging for a prostitute to travel from NYC to DC. That's a FEDERAL CRIME, not just some run of the mill prostitution beef. He's in a lot more trouble than a simple "caught with a call girl" situation.

Posted by Claudius | March 10, 2008 4:31 PM

In fact, Spitzer recently signed into law increased penalties for patronizing a prostitute in NY State.

Seriously, if it were revealed that Nicholas Sarkozy had used a prostitute, would he have to resign?

All-American puritanism and hypocrisy on display.

Posted by bob h | March 10, 2008 4:31 PM

Am I the only person here who's not okay AT ALL with legalized prostitution? It's horrible for women.

Posted by C.Michol | March 10, 2008 4:32 PM

This is EXCELLENT news for Hillary!!!

Posted by It always is | March 10, 2008 4:33 PM

I figure, a guy who can't get laid without paying for it is pretty damned pathetic.

You don't pay for the sex. You pay to get them to go away afterward.

Posted by calipygian | March 10, 2008 4:35 PM

Unfortunately, you are not the only one on here that disagrees with it, but you should be. I fail to see how its terrible for women. Having that view just shows how YOU view sex. I think it would be great for women. They would get paid better and even have benefits.

Posted by Stacy | March 10, 2008 4:37 PM

Am I the only person here who's not okay AT ALL with legalized prostitution? It's horrible for women.

Not as horrible for women as illegal prostitution.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 10, 2008 4:38 PM

Hector, now that I've gotten the cheap shot out of my system, let me respond seriously.

I think a couple of the policy cornerstones of "the Left" would be to 1) represent the interests of working people, and 2) decouple public laws from moral standards that are at variance from social norms.

Sex workers are (usually) citizens or legal residents who have as much need of political representation and legal protection from harm as the next person. There is a long history of prostitution in the US, and for most of that time it has been either de-jure or de-facto legal in most jurisdictions. So, it's a norm.

In general, people already treat sex as a commodity. At the same time, people, often the same people, use sex to cement the bonds within their relationships and marriages. Legalizing paid sex isn't going to change the dynamic one bit.

Personally, I don't have a problem leaving leaving the paid sex situation the way it is, since I don't avail myself of it. As a matter of public policy, I can see the public health and law enforcement benefits of legalization and regulation.

I realize that many - maybe most - people don't favor legalization, and therefore it ain't gonna happen in most locales. But, to lambast someone as not being left wing when they support it is just daft.

Posted by cmholm | March 10, 2008 4:41 PM

I expect Spitzer is dreading his tour in the pen about now.

-Hey, Eliot, remember me?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 10, 2008 4:44 PM

Sorry, but to suggest that you have to be pathetic to get a prostitute is not accurate. I don't have too hard of a time getting laid here in the States, but that's really not the point. As somone who has paid for whores in S. Korea and the Dominican, it was more out of convenience. Sure, I suppose I could have put in the time and effort to woo a female back to my quarters, but why bother? I would have never seen them again anyways. Anyone who suggests you have to be pathetic to pay for sex probably is a massive tool who used to date rape chicks in his fraternity house.

Posted by Douglas | March 10, 2008 4:44 PM

Why can't men be satisfied with giving away half their assets for a few years of bad sex? It's not really unusual for women to marry men because of their money. So how is that better? Maybe we should take the advice of Sharia Law, which allows for "temporary marriages" as short as one hour.

Posted by fostert | March 10, 2008 4:44 PM

Dan Kervivk, you took the words right out of my mouth!

Lots of things are bad, making them illegal to placate our sense of moral outrage doesn't make the bad thing any better for the people involved.

Drug addiction is bad, being in dire economic straits where you have no choice but to turn to sex work is bad...putting people in prison because their life sucks is worse, for them and for public policy in general.

We all agree, we don't want to encourage prostitution or drug addiction, but in 100 years, the only thing we've been able to come up with to persuade people not to do it, is prison?

Posted by DSG | March 10, 2008 4:46 PM

The real crime here is that he paid over five grand an hour! This is what happens when you put sex on the black market. How much money does he make? Or is he like every other independently wealthy? Well I guess if John Edwards can pay 500 for a haircut...

Spitzer is only guilty of private stupidity, (though aside from getting caught, he risked being blackmailed as well) and for being a hypocrite. Of course it should be legalized. Really what is the point of attaining success if you're stuck having with your middle-aged wife.

Posted by JeTed | March 10, 2008 4:47 PM

It corrodes the morality of each one of us when we begin to see sexuality as a commodity.

Do you ever watch TV, or look at billboards, or read magazines? Sexuality has been commoditized for quite a while now.

Posted by justinb | March 10, 2008 4:48 PM

I don't have a problem with theoretical prostitution. However, I'm not so sure about actually existing prostitution, which, like actually existing socialism, often turns out to be worse than the theoretical concept.

I haven't yet developed a fixed position on this matter. If I devoted myself to it really hard and put in a few days worth of research, maybe I could -- then again, maybe I still couldn't -- but so far this hasn't been a high enough priority for me to think about it more intensively.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure I'm against laws prosecuting prostitutes. Laws prosecuting johns, though, I'm sort of on the fence about. In this case, of course, we're talking Spitzer-as-john, not Spitzer-as-prostitute, so opposing laws targetting prostitutes doesn't get me very far.

I guess my impression is that, even where legalized (Nevada, the Netherlands, etc), prostitution often involves human trafficking, drug abuse, and entrapment of the prostitutes through fraud. I've read some prostitutes and ex-prostitutes say that their experiences aren't/weren't so bad. I'm just not sure about prostitution as a whole.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 10, 2008 4:49 PM

Is it known at this point whether whether Spitzer paid for the service?

Yup. $3,000. TPM has all the gory details.

I agree with others that this is a terrible disappointment. Despite some missteps Spitzer had the makings of a great governor. Sad.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | March 10, 2008 4:51 PM

who knows if it even would have gone public but for the feds being able to bonk him with the mann act.

dedicated to governor spitzer, a little advice he never should have taken, graham parker with "local girls."

Posted by dbreger | March 10, 2008 4:53 PM

This isn't just about violating NY or DC prostitution laws. It's also about Client #9 (Spitzer) arranging for a prostitute to travel from NYC to DC. That's a FEDERAL CRIME, not just some run of the mill prostitution beef. He's in a lot more trouble than a simple "caught with a call girl" situation.

Apparently, the U.S. attorneys prosecuting the case are part of the Justice Department's public corruption unit. That suggests that this is not a case of Spitzer just happening to come up in an investigation targeting the prostitution ring, but rather as part of an investigation specifically targeting public officials.

I wonder if this means that Spitzer had a long-term relationship with either the agency or the woman.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 10, 2008 4:53 PM

I am also not at all ok with prostitution. I have some sympathy for the side of the debate that says making it legal is the best way to protect the women involved (although I'm not sure I agree) but I do not buy that this is an automatic part of the keep-the-government-out-of-the-bedroom fight as it pertains to things like birth control or homosexuality.

Posted by Kerry | March 10, 2008 4:54 PM

>Of course it should be legalized. Really what is >the point of attaining success if you're stuck >having with your middle-aged wife.

What a shitty excuse for humanity you are.

Posted by C.Michol | March 10, 2008 4:55 PM

Hector thinks there is one true (Christian) morality and that the (socialist, antiliberal) state ought to be in the business of aggressively legislating it. Also, he's fairly prudish. There's not a lot of point trying to argue with him about it. To his credit, he's pretty upfront about all that.

Posted by guyx | March 10, 2008 4:57 PM

look, we are talking about sex amongst consenting adults -- why would the government be involved? if one party isn't consenting then there is something that the government needs to get involved in. Imagine the resources we could free up to fight real crime.

Posted by seneca rises | March 10, 2008 4:59 PM

Hector- Lighten up a bit. I think he was joking. And if not, you should still lighten up.

Kerry- If you don't buy it, would you please explain why? Why should the government have any say as to what a woman does with her parts?

Posted by Stacy | March 10, 2008 5:01 PM

I would guess that actually the majority of men, and certainly the majority of men over 40, are too "pathetic" to able to easily and conveniently find a sexual relationship without paying for it. There are actually a lot of unattractive men, men who have bad social skills,fat men, men with disfigurements etc. etc. And then a lot of normal men who could have a sexual relationship with an average to below average woman, but their standards are too high and they think they're entitled to "something better." A lot of these "pathetic" men are probably married - but no longer have fulfilling sex lives with their wives and are too lazy or bored to fix the problem inside the marriage. Prostitution seems like a better outlet for sexual frustration than violence or the creation of a massive and dehumanizing porn industry.

If it's any consolation, the majority of women are in the same boat, they just don't seem to care as much.

Posted by vanya | March 10, 2008 5:02 PM

Matt, perfectly said.

Posted by tt | March 10, 2008 5:04 PM

I wonder if this means that Spitzer had a long-term relationship with either the agency or the woman.

Judging from the complaint, he had used the agency before but was not familiar with the woman.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | March 10, 2008 5:11 PM

I realize this is a thread about Spitzer and his heterosexual dalliances with a prostitute, but as it devolves into a debate (again!) on whether prostitution as whole should be legalized, folks would do well to remember that men, both gay and straight and gay for pay, engage in prostitution as well, not just women.

I'm just sayin'...

Posted by DSG | March 10, 2008 5:14 PM

I suppose what would be persuasive to me is to have a survey of prostitutes who have either 1) worked as prostitutes in areas where prostitution is legal and worked as prostitutes in areas where prostitution is illegal (e.g., in Nevada and in New Mexico), or 2) worked as prostitutes during a time when the law transitioned from one approach to another. (e.g., working in the Netherlands before and after legalization)

Anyone have links to such a survey, or perhaps a collection of testimonies by prostitutes who have been on both sides of the law?

Posted by Julian Elson | March 10, 2008 5:17 PM

Hmm,this was way back there, but regarding Dan Kervick's pointing out the difficulty of powerful men needing the discretion, well, I just don't really buy that,although I know that's what these guys argue. In reality, you are a lot more likely to have discretion from a woman in your peer group at that level than some unknown woman. Honestly, I think imagining that $5,000 buys you discretion is a fool's game especially for a politician. But I suppose you can argue either way and certainly that's the ostensible rationale for high price sex workers.
Nice archaic assessments of marriage as prostitution above. By the way, you don't have to be a "total loser"to patronize a sex worker; like I said, Joe with Asberger's certainly isn't if he does.

Posted by cxs | March 10, 2008 5:18 PM

"I don't have a problem with theoretical prostitution. However, I'm not so sure about actually existing prostitution, which, like actually existing socialism, often turns out to be worse than the theoretical concept."

Yes, actually existing prostitution is often terrible. But that's no reason to oppose decriminalization. Many of the terrible things about actually existing prostitution come from it being illegal. Decriminalization is a step towards making prostitution less terrible for the women and men who practise it.

Posted by Jeet Heer | March 10, 2008 5:24 PM

Having prosecuted prostitutes, how is Mr. Spitzer's hypocrisy different from Rush Limbaugh's with regard to drug offenses?

Posted by David K. M. Klaus | March 10, 2008 5:27 PM

Having prosecuted prostitutes, how is Mr. Spitzer's hypocrisy different from Rush Limbaugh's with regard to drug offenses?

Posted by David K. M. Klaus | March 10, 2008 5:28 PM

I smell rat. This was a sting. Under the National Security State I will hazard a guess that every significant Democratic politician is often under electronic surveillance.

Somebody catches on to Spitzer's use of a high priced call girl outfit so you launch an investigation into that service and low and behold, It's Elliot on the line.

How many investigations does the FBI usually undertake of class prostitutes in the Beltway? This might be the first one because it's just too hot. Did anyone folllow up on Dusty's parties with the hookers at the Watergate? I think not.

Spitzer should quit and I thought Clinton should have also. It is incredibly dumb to not figure that important forces are out to get you and to act accordingly. This should put ever Dem pol on notice.

Come January it's the Republicans who have to worry. You know everyone is guilty of something, which is why it is so important for the state to keep tabs on everyone.

Posted by rapier | March 10, 2008 5:30 PM

The difference is Rush is Republican, so it's hypocrisy. Spitzer is Democrat, so it's apparently tragedy.

I don't remember Limbaugh going on about prescription drugs prior to his getting caught - though if he did, he probably wouldn't remember either.

Posted by James | March 10, 2008 5:31 PM

I must preface by saying I completely agree that there is obvious hypocracy to this when he has overseen prostitution stings and signed related enforcement laws.

And the morality of prostitution is a separate debate I add no opinion to. Client #9 apparently broke a law.

That being said, the difference between being a federal crime and a state crime is really a matter of slight degree versus the major difference previous commenters have emphasized. Federalizing a state crime by adding a crossing state borders element may make the penalty worse but does not make the crime any worse by moral standards (it only gives the government a convenient tool to add the heavy of the feds). And, if the constitution were truly interpreted as the founding fathers settled upon, it may arguably not even be allowed as an additional on top of the state charge crime. It will however, not astound me how many "conservatives" will be calling to charge him with the federal tag alongs to any such crime.

Posted by Tom | March 10, 2008 5:35 PM

As someone who always thought Spitzer a heavy-handed and thuggish AG, and who was dissapointed that his attempt to use the NY state police as his private political enforcers wasn't enough to sink his career, let me just say: "Sweet, sweet justice!"

(For those of you who think that this is run-of-the-mill hypocrisy about sex, bear in mind that Spitzer threw the book at two similar escort services during his time as AG. He sought maximum penalties for everyone he could charge, and spoke of the defendants in terms one would expect from a televangelist in a ratings slump.)

Posted by heedless | March 10, 2008 5:36 PM

Attention, Moderator:

Since I accidently double-posted, would you please delete the second post of mine above, as well as this request?

Thank you.

Posted by David K. M. Klaus | March 10, 2008 5:36 PM

Hope Spitzer's got some other whores lined up 'cause his wife won't be putting out.

Posted by kafka | March 10, 2008 5:37 PM

Yup. $3,000.

I thought the complaint said $4,100, for about 2 hours.

Posted by Al | March 10, 2008 5:39 PM

Obviously, in most cases such conduct will be a form of private wrongdoing against one's spouse, etc., but that's not a matter of public concern. For a public official, however, there's an unusually large dose of hypocrisy involved here. It would be within the power of Elliot Spitzer to propose changes to New York State's prostitution laws and, indeed, Spitzer probably ought to propose such changes.

What a well-reasoned post. Good job, Yglesias.

Posted by Shinyk | March 10, 2008 5:40 PM

FWIW, Spitzer appeared on The Colbert Report the first day, Feb 12, that he was picked up by the wiretaps. So much for the Colbert bump.

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=156307

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/how_the_emperors_club_probe_st.php

Posted by matt | March 10, 2008 5:40 PM

Hope Spitzer's got some other whores lined up 'cause his wife won't be putting out.

Maybe Spitzer should consider hanging out with Ludacris, who (I'm told) has plenty to go around.

Posted by Al | March 10, 2008 5:48 PM

Like I said, the whole legal aspect is very fuzzy for me.

The moral aspect is not. I think that if a man hires a prostitute, that says something very unimpressive about either how he views women or how he views interpersonal relationships.* So while I guess I could understand legalizing prostitution as a libertarian type stance (but really, no more than I understand the concept behind wanting to abolish the minimum wage), or just on the principle of dear god, we do not need to be locking even more people up in our society, I do not buy that this is an aspect of normal and healthy adult sexual behavior...the way homosexuality or recreational sex in general is.

*Interpersonal relationships isn't the right word here, but I don't want to say traditional family values either because A) that's a conservative buzzword and B) there probably isn't anything more traditional than prostitution...except for maybe not treating women like coequal human beings. Let's just say that similarly to the way I would be troubled by someone who was able to divorce themselves from any emotional attachment to their children, I am troubled by someone who is able to reduce sex to a service for payment transaction....and that doesn't depend on whether you're talking about a man and a woman, two men, a woman and a man, or two women. Or a man and two women. Or you know, a thousand other possible permutations.

Posted by Kerry | March 10, 2008 5:56 PM

Stacy-

Like I said, the whole legal aspect is very fuzzy for me.

The moral aspect is not. I think that if a man hires a prostitute, that says something very unimpressive about either how he views women or how he views interpersonal relationships.* So while I guess I could understand legalizing prostitution as a libertarian type stance (but really, no more than I understand the concept behind wanting to abolish the minimum wage), or just on the principle of dear god, we do not need to be locking even more people up in our society, I do not buy that this is an aspect of normal and healthy adult sexual behavior...the way homosexuality or recreational sex in general is.

*Interpersonal relationships isn't the right word here, but I don't want to say traditional family values either because A) that's a conservative buzzword and B) there probably isn't anything more traditional than prostitution...except for maybe not treating women like coequal human beings. Let's just say that similarly to the way I would be troubled by someone who was able to divorce themselves from any emotional attachment to their children, I am troubled by someone who is able to reduce sex to a service for payment transaction....and that doesn't depend on whether you're talking about a man and a woman, two men, a woman and a man, or two women. Or a man and two women. Or you know, a thousand other possible permutations.

Posted by Kerry | March 10, 2008 5:57 PM

From today's "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/client-9.html

"Monday, March 10, 2008

Client 9

Or, as is likely to be said in the coming media Schadenfreude, Emperor's Club R. I. P.

The question will be asked repeatedly: How could someone of such seeming moral recititude, who seemed not only to base his career on such rectitude but to be driven to it, commit such an act?

In such a question, people make a simple but understandable error--they look at the fact that someone has embraced the mantle of morality--rather than the reasons for it.

There are many reasons why people adopt a particularly moral stance. For some, morality is method of controlling an otherwise fearful world, allowing one to keep a sense of predictability and control over what would otherwise be a rush of panic in the face of life's unpredictability and chaos. For others, morality serves a kind of tribal purpose, a tie to family and origins, maintaining a sense of stability and permanence through clansmanship. For others, it is a weapon of sheer opportunism, a way, among the human weapons seen across millenia, to evince power and dominion over others

.

None of these are, of course, mutually exclusive, and people will often display several of these forms and bases for morality.

For Spitzer, however, morality appears to have had a particular been powerfully yoked to twin and inextricably tied purposes: competition and ambition.

Driven from an early age, morality seems to have been inextricably yoked to Spritzers remarkable drive to indicate that he was stronger, better than his competitors. Spitzer went after morality with a relish--and a tendency, which he struggled to fight down over the years, to rub victories in the face of those he had vanquished --that suggests a drive to morality as a form of competitive victory and evidence of personal superiority--the relish of a perfect score against those who would do lesser--of winning.

This is not to say that Spitzer did not see his targets as morally wrong--indeed, their moral flaws provided the spark and impetus for battle-- nor that he did not wish to correct moral wrongs. However, it is to say that the most powerful and persistent motivation driving this each day, was Spizters drive to compete, to emerge perfectly victorious over those who were thus proven as lesser, and the division of people into rather simplistic and binary forms of good and evil to serve the sense ones own victorious perfection.

Such a moral stance--of victory and defeat, of good (Spitzer) and bad (his vanquished enemies)-- can lead to a particular (and likely rapid) form of inner moral accounting and comparison: One can feel that they are so far "ahead" in moral victories as compared to the vastly less moral and vanquished others, that they are allowed a structured, narrow, and quiet deviation. After all--they are still far ahead in the moral contest, with so many victories, as compared to those that they have turned out as far less moral. Given such a margin, one can be allowed a flaw--and still be winning. It is no wonder that many of Spitzer's enemies viewed him as, at times, embracing a double standard.

Regardless of how one may view such a standard, it is different than a morality that views moral failure as human flaw; where one recognizes that there are not good people who win (Spitzer) and bad people (others) who, in a rush of competitive self-enhancement, must be defeated, but that all people must fight against human flaw. In such a moral scheme, one includes themselves. As a reformer embracing this moral approach, one would work to expose immorality for its social harms, rather than as a route to personal and professional competition and victory--and would also recognize the tendency to such flaw within themselves.

This will burn like a brushfire. Spitzer, despite the desire to fight to the last, will, in the crush of revelations, and in the unending march of human hubris, irony, and folly, likely have to resign.

"

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/client-9.html

Posted by Robert Hewson | March 10, 2008 5:59 PM

Barring any shocking revelation of mitigating circumstances, Spitzer should resign. He's an elected official, charged with upholding the law, and he broke that law.

I'm willing to accept an elected official breaking the law if they do so openly and publicly, such as in an act of civil disobedience. I suppose I can see the case to be made for forgiving an elected official for breaking a very minor law (such as getting a speeding ticket), or in accidental cases where the law is exceptionally technical and unclear and unrelated to the official's duties, or in cases where an elected official tries to conceal legal but embarrasing behavior so long as the power of the office isn't involved. None of those seem to apply here.

Elected officials have the responsibility to be far more scrupulous about avoiding or freely admitting to breaking the law than their constituents do. This is true even if the law is stupid, even if the law is stupid but politically unassailable. (Maybe even especially then.) And we can't make an exception for Spitzer simply because he's a promising Democrat, or because Republicans get a free pass for the same thing. Part of being the good guys involves being held to a higher standard.

(And I say this as someone who thinks prostitution probably should be legal. A friend of a friend is a public health officer who works with prostitutes; based on her experiences, she thinks that prostitution is often a victimless crime -- and when it isn't, the victim is the only person in any real danger of being locked up.)

Posted by cminus | March 10, 2008 6:08 PM

Jeet Heer says:
Yes, actually existing prostitution is often terrible. But that's no reason to oppose decriminalization. Many of the terrible things about actually existing prostitution come from it being illegal. Decriminalization is a step towards making prostitution less terrible for the women and men who practise it.

I'm not so sure. I've read conflicting things about legalization. Obviously, completely eradicating all prostitution isn't possible -- it'll exist at some level legally or illegally. However, that doesn't mean that the harms caused by prostitution in illegal circumstances are automatically greater than the harms caused by prostitution in legal circumstances. I'm not an expert, but I've read conflicting reports -- not comparing legalized prostitution to some hypothetical prostitution-free world, but comparing legalized prostitution to illegal prostitution (such as the Swedish system of patronizing prostitutes being illegal, but being a prostitute carrying no criminal penalties).

As I said, this isn't something about which I'm an expert, and my opinion isn't fixed. Overall, I think I'm tentatively pro-legalization, but I don't think it's at all clear-cut.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 10, 2008 6:09 PM

Kerry
"I am troubled by someone who is able to reduce sex to a service for payment transaction....and that doesn't depend on whether you're talking about a man and a woman, two men, a woman and a man, or two women."

Sorry, but no matter how you couch it, this still makes you a prig. And you can pretend that you've not been mislead by Christianity and Hollywood into accepting the "traditional" view that sex and love are the same thing, but you haven't really offered any logical reason for opposing prostitution. Even you're feminist take makes no sense. To pay someone for a service is not to debase. Lawyers, Doctors, extc all provide services that are as vital as they are intimate. And the fact that you personally may not like sex, or at least never considered paying for it is irrelevant.

The reason feminists hate prostitution is that it exposes one of the most absurd lies that feminists preach: that men and women have the same sex drive.

Posted by JeTed | March 10, 2008 6:29 PM

The problem with prostitution from the progressive perspective is that there is no easy way of gauging the element of coercion. It is not as easy as saying 'sex for money' not if most or all of that money ends up in the hands of an abuser who keeps control over his 'girls' with physical violence.

Similar issues arise when that money is exchanged for sex from someone who is using the money to engage in self-destructive life-styles. I support the legalization of some drugs but lets face it, meth kills, that skinny girl needs rehab a lot more than she needs $30 for a blow job.

People will boycott Nike for their sweat shops in Asia and yet give no thought to the working conditions in the sex industry. Sometimes there is no exit from the employment 'contract' and often enough not many options on the way in. That it all seems like a straight market transaction on the top doesn't mean there isn't a lot of ugliness under the surface.

Posted by Bruce Webb | March 10, 2008 6:32 PM

"It is not as easy as saying 'sex for money' not if most or all of that money ends up in the hands of an abuser who keeps control over his 'girls' with physical violence."

Which seems to me a symptom of prostitution being illegal, and a lot of this could be stopped if it was legal. I feel that it's the law that creates such poor working conditions, and not the industry itself.

Posted by JordanT | March 10, 2008 6:49 PM

>> Having prosecuted prostitutes, how is Mr.
>> Spitzer's hypocrisy different from Rush
>> Limbaugh's with regard to drug offenses?

> The difference is Rush is Republican, so it's
> hypocrisy. Spitzer is Democrat, so it's
> apparently tragedy.

My question was rhetorical. Both are equally "tragic", in the sense that a public figure left himself open for criticism and lost credibility in committing an offense against which he himself crusaded, and both are equally hypocritical. I infer from your comment that you condemn partisan attitudes with regard to this sort of crime. So do I.

> I don't remember Limbaugh going on about
> prescription drugs prior to his getting
> caught....

Whether he railed specifically about illegal purchase of prescription drugs, I don't know, but that would still come under the larger prohibition against narcotic use; and he certainly condemned all those addicted to any drugs to the point of violating prohibition laws (including those to which he himself was addicted, except caffeine and nicotine) in the most vicious terms.

Posted by David K. M. Klaus | March 10, 2008 6:56 PM

Legal and unionized.

Posted by Al | March 10, 2008 6:58 PM

Joel wrote:

I'm a bachelor, I live in Nevada, and I've never been to a prostitute. I figure, a guy who can't get laid without paying for it is pretty damned pathetic. That said, I still think it should be legal. Some guys just are pathetic, and they've got to go somewhere.

I am also a bachelor, 39 years old, I stand 5 ft. 6 in. tall and weigh 180 lbs., thereby probably meeting the stereotype of an unattractive loser who is pathetic, and must have some outlet.

I've also lived near, met, and gotten acquainted with several prostitutes over the years of living in seedy neighborhoods of major metropolitan areas (because they offered cheap rents and I don't make much money, another trait that characterizes "losers"), most recently in San Francisco's tenderloin, and I've never engaged the services of a prostitute, even when I was offered a discount rate (because the woman in question was particularly desperate for revenue that night). I don't think of myself as particularly righteous. I am completely against legalized prostitution because of what it would do to both the johns and the women involved.

Some things shouldn't be bought or sold. Both David Vitter and Spitzer should resign.

Posted by Brahma | March 10, 2008 7:01 PM

"The problem with prostitution from the progressive perspective is that there is no easy way of gauging the element of coercion"

Legalize it. Regulation is the default answer to such questions.

"meth kills, that skinny girl needs rehab a lot more than she needs $30 for a blow job."

Given the price range here, I'd say the labor involved can afford treatment for any conceivable medical problem.

Posted by Petey | March 10, 2008 7:01 PM

Brahma, exactly how could legalization make things worse for the johns and women?

Posted by AlanC9 | March 10, 2008 7:11 PM

Yes, actually existing prostitution is often terrible.

Chairman Mao loved actually existing prostitutes, which, if nothing else, means that the Maoist phrase "actually existing" should actually be banned from this blog once and for all. This means you, too, Yglesias.

I love how this Spitzer mess (that sounds like something he paid 5 grand an hour for) has morphed into an argument in the liberal blogosphere over the legalization of prostitution (Drum, Greenwald, and MY in favor by my last count). I'm all in favor of legalizing it, too, along with drugs. But somehow I get the sense that snorting coke off a hooker's ass would lose some of its appeal if it were legal. Most members of Congress are probably against legalization for this very reason.

In any case, Spitzer is going down -- and he should. He broke the law. Stop making excuses for him.

Posted by jim | March 10, 2008 8:28 PM

NO consensual acts between adults should ever be the subject of criminal law.

Coercion, by contrast, should always be subject to the severest penalties as crimes against the person.

Perfect world: where no one has to buy sex, via marriage, prostitution; or rent/lease it for or by the promise of promotion, power, etc..

Next best world: where both buyer and seller enter into the agreement willingly and with eyes wide open.

Worst world: where both violent criminals and politicians have an interest in legislating morality. $$ for one, careers for another.

Posted by Estrien | March 10, 2008 8:34 PM

Perfect world: where no one has to buy sex, via marriage,

Sex via marriage? You aren't married, are you?

Posted by jim | March 10, 2008 8:38 PM

"I don't really think the exchange of sex for money is serious wrongdoing in the sense that justifies criminal sanctions"

Do you have a problem with a boss asking his assistant for sexual favors, then? Even in exchange for a raise or promotion? I don't see much difference.

I'm open to the idea that we should find lesser punishments for the women (because the current incentive structure is not fixing the problem, it seems), but I think the law should reflect the fact that both the prostitute and the john are committing a serious wrong against the basic personhood of the woman.

"The problem with prostitution from the progressive perspective is that there is no easy way of gauging the element of coercion."

This is one problem, yes. But reducing the problem to coercion misses a lot. The other problem is whether sexuality can be sufficiently distinguished from someone's personhood as such that it is legitimate to sell sexual services, like some people think it's legitimate to sell body parts, organs, or even sell oneself into slavery. I don't think sexuality is sufficiently distinct from personhood. It is strange to me that a lot of left-liberals only seem to care about the legitimacy of economic transactions when they have a bad effect on economic inequality (e.g. minumum wage laws), but not when the transactions are inconsistent with a sophisticated conception of human freedom.

Posted by Colatina | March 10, 2008 8:47 PM

but I think the law should reflect the fact that both the prostitute and the john are committing a serious wrong against the basic personhood of the woman.

When I was younger and looked better I bartended at a place that was mostly 40-50 year old professional women. They tipped really well and if they met a pretty bare minimum attractiveness threshold if they gave me enough money I'd have sex with them. It was sort of sleazy but I just really, really don't think anyone was committing a serious wrong against my personhood.

Posted by anonymous | March 10, 2008 8:59 PM

"They tipped really well and if they met a pretty bare minimum attractiveness threshold if they gave me enough money I'd have sex with them. It was sort of sleazy..."

This is sort of a difficult counter-example, I admit. I don't want to say that sexual relationships must--in order to avoid being slavish--be long term, fulfilling, and free of any crass kind of exchange. But there are plenty of sleazy relationships that don't involve a quid pro quo cash exchange, just there are unsavory political and busniness relationships that don't reach the level of bribery. The distinction isn't impossible to make.

Posted by Colatina | March 10, 2008 9:22 PM

While it may be true that people in third world countries people are coerced into organ transplants, not understanding the consequence, but the reason organ-transplants are illegal here is that they victimizes poor people who need organs. It's a life or death issue, with real victims.

If you think having sex with someone you're not attracted to is the same as losing a