I’ve been obsessing over Spitzer, but 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 scandalizing 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, mostly from people who I could imagine being in a similar position one day.) The weirdness is not just about sex. It’s a weirdness having 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 public officials, 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, at the very least, 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, definitely possible that he would get caught. Maybe Spitzer needed that sex, in that form, because he was too anti-social to get the ladies, as one Times editorial argued (by that middle aged brown hair 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. Did Mr. Spitzer become a John because he wanted to indulge in something he believed evil? This is like saying that he didn’t believe in the values he made into law and did so rather maliciously, as a way to manipulate the public into giving him the power he wanted. Only a monster would do these things. Regular people do not intentionally do things that they know are wrong, they do them out of desire and though this desire may be confusing and incoherent it can point out the ways in which their value judgments were too absolute — like all of the value judgments that scandalize sex and make it wrong. 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.

Mr. Spitzer must have, to some extent, considered himself right, even if the right came from a masochistic desire to undermine the values he put into place and revealed the an under appreciation for the life that he earned; even if the fact that he did it shows a certain amount of spoiled-bratness and an arrogance which made him feel that he was above the law. Perhaps Mr. Spitzer’s act demonstrated a deep seated resentment against all of the people who he let down in his administration and specifically those with whom he had worked for in order to create legislation that cracked down on the commerce of prostitution. Perhaps it also demonstrated resentment for himself, who went from prosecutor to prosecuted. Perhaps Mr. Spitzer believed both in legislating against prostitution and in hiring prostitutes at the same time. Perhaps he was trying to prove himself wrong. Perhaps he had an uncontrollable urge to purchase a fancy prostitute that he couldn’t explain. Of course the public will denounce Elliot Spitzer in terms it has used to denounce other people in the public light who have underwent sex scandals and it makes sense that those same values will to some extent become reiterated when people see Mr. Spitzer getting what he deserves. But Mr. Spitzer does deserve what he got; he betrayed the public trust in a deep way. He is unappreciative.

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, but between what is true, that prostitution is wrong because it treats humans as commodities and what is true, that those who participate in this trade are not malicious. And 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, its that I’m not supposed to have it because it is too expensive, but I want it anyways, 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 I decide to do it anyways, 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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts
Madeleine Dash, Sex Workers Action New York (SWANK), 877-776-2004 x 2 swank@riseup.net

Audacia Ray, 718.554.1714
Sarah Bleviss, Sex Workers Outreach Project NYC (SWOP-NYC), swop.nyc@gmail.com
Prostitutes of New York (PONY), pony@panix.com
Desiree Alliance, http://www.BoundNotGagged.com

Sex Workers Blow Spitzer a Farewell Kiss

New York, NY – In the wake of former Governor Spitzer’s resignation, sex workers and human rights advocates remain concerned about the representation and future of “Kristen” and other sex workers, who do not have the legal and social privileges that will be afforded to Mr. Spitzer. The identity of the sex worker implicated in this case has already been made public, a situation mirroring many a sex worker’s worst nightmare. “Kristen’s” exposure may entail not only bring her legal repercussions, but invasion of privacy, financial hardship and social opprobrium.

Rather than continuing to sensationalize Spitzer’s actions and those directly involved, we urge the press and the public to shift their focus to the legal climate under which sex workers operate, while respecting “Kristen’s” agency to have chosen sex work as a viable source of income. “Everyone wants to know how high her rates were, all the salacious details, but the real issue at stake here is that the hypocrisy of criminalizing sex work has been exposed! It’s a part of our society, of every society, and we need to take this opportunity to stop with the value judgments and start coming up with policies that respect the human dignity of all people, sex workers and all workers. ” says Dylan Wolfe of SWANK (Sex Workers Action New York).

Former Governor Spitzer took a lead role in developing the NY State Anti-Trafficking Law as well as other initiatives that stigmatize sex workers and their clients. It is the stigma of sex work that leads many individuals like “Kristen” to keep their occupations a secret, creating further isolation and opportunities for exploitation. This same stigma compromises the safety and well-being of people like “Kristen” when their private lives become public knowledge. Sex workers are then forced to work further underground, rendering them more vulnerable to abuse, while denying them access to the basic civic participation, health and social services available to other people. “Hopefully Mr. Spitzer’s unfortunate public decline will send a message to all like him who pass laws that endanger the safety of sex workers while indulging in the service themselves,” Sarah Bleviss of SWOP said, “Sex workers clearly provide them a very valuable service; it’s time for lawmakers to return the favor.” Too little attention has been paid to what the repercussions of this case will be for those most directly concerned, sex workers, and more generally to the impact of laws and attitudes that marginalize them. It is time for a change.

Spitzer pushed through penalty enhancements against clients of all sex workers. Sex worker advocates fought against such provisions because these policies drive people who need help further underground. Often prostitution is wrongly conflated with trafficking and vice-versa. People are trafficked for many kinds of work, be it domestic labor, farm work or other jobs, and this kind of exploitation undoubtedly needs to be addressed. The majority of men, women and transgendered people working in sex work, however, are ’normal’ members of society who have used their own intellectual agency to decide to make a living in a sexually-oriented way. Laws, like the Mann Act (against inter-state transportation for the purposes of commercial sex), are too often used for punishing sex workers and their clients rather than those who profit from their exploitation.

Sex workers make a living in an industry with the potential for high risks and little by way of protection from abuse. The stigma surrounding our work can be lethal at its most extreme: we are often the targets of notorious serial killers, like the Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway who targeted prostitutes because he thought he “could kill as many of them as [he] wanted without getting caught.” If sex work were decriminalized and legitimized as a form of paid labor like any other, or seen simply as an intimate exchange between consenting adults, the associated harms would be greatly diminished. Furthermore, sex workers could access their basic human rights and social services without fear of legal reprisal or personal upheaval. “Eliot Spitzer has represented himself to the public as a law and order man, and ironically, has been in the vanguard of further criminalizing sex workers and clients. . . However, it’s a shame that so much time, energy, and tax payer resources are being spent to criminalize consensual sex between adults. It’s time to decriminalize prostitution.” says Sarah Blake of Prostitutes of New York (PONY).

Incoming Governor Paterson and other law-makers need to create policies that actually reflect the realities of their own lives and those of their constituents, including sex workers, rather than the harmful legislation of morality, whereby private matters become public scandals.

I’m rooting for my homegirl; she reminds me of a lot of girls I saw on the boardwalk.

SIDEKICK

[Back-formation from next.]

1. A companion or close associate; spec. an accomplice or partner in crime; a subordinate member of a pair or group. More loosely, a friend, a colleague.
1906 H. GREEN At Actors’ Boarding House 85 The Red Swede..sat over a pint of champagne with Dopey Polly..and his side kick, the Runt. a1911 D. G. PHILLIPS Susan Lenox (1917) II. xvii. 394 ‘Now, what d’ye think of that?’ said Black Mustache to his ‘side-kick.’.. ‘Guess we’d better run her in, Pete.’ 1927 J. M. SAUNDERS Wings iv. 173 ‘I want two of you,’ the Major said, ‘who is your side-kick?’ ‘Armstrong,’ Johnny admitted unwillingly. 1934 Bulletin (Sydney) 25 July 47/1 Snowy was good at soft things; as a rule, you could trust him as a sidekick to help you to a clear getaway. 1956 M. PROCTER Pub Crawler viii. 102 He’s Frank McGeen’s sidekick. They team up together in jobs of this sort. 1960 Times 14 Oct. 18/7 Miss Moira Redmond, as an ex-wife.., made a takingly crisp and sub-acid side-kick. 1976 New Yorker 23 Feb. 82/3 Christopher Lloyd was funny as a drug~ridden sidekick of the defunct singer. 1981 ‘J. MCVEAN’ Seabird Nine xiii. 154 It was the White House… And not just some little cotton-tail sidekick either, but counsel to the President.

2. Criminals’ slang. = SIDE-POCKET 1. U.S.
1916 Lit. Digest 19 Aug. 424/2 Pockets range from ‘side kicks’ to ‘double insiders’. 1935 Amer. Speech X. 20/2 Side-kick [formerly] one’s pal. In modern argot a side pocket in the coat; it is doubtful if there is any connection. 1955 D. W. MAURER in Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc. XXIV. 125 The outside pockets in an overcoat are called side kicks (from which we get a venerable American idiom).