Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Meet Kristen

1

Four, maybe four-and-a-half diamonds.

Dan: Do women in Seattle regularly charge $1000 or more per session, or is this a NYC / Washington DC thing?

Posted by six shooter | March 12, 2008 6:27 PM
2

Why, oh why, do sites like Slog post links that require signing up for access to news stories?

Note to newspapers: Either post the news, or don't. Stop putting up barriers to information.

That's what's going to kill you.

Posted by Wolf | March 12, 2008 6:27 PM
3

Not so cute. Surely not "high class" hooker hot. Maybe she does let him shit in her mouth Dan.

Posted by nut gallery | March 12, 2008 6:29 PM
4

Wolf -- log in with tinlc / tinlc

Annie got there two hours before you, Dan.

Posted by Fnarf | March 12, 2008 6:32 PM
5

Also, their mobile site (m.nytimes.com) doesn't require registration.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 12, 2008 6:38 PM
6

Does Kristen remind anyone else of Spitzer's daughters?

Posted by YO | March 12, 2008 7:00 PM
7

BTW, for those of you keeping score (like you, Fnarf), Clinton picked up 8 more delegates today (7 from Colorado and one more from New York); Obama got 3 more from Colorado. These were previously uncommitted delegates.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 12, 2008 7:06 PM
8

I'm glad she spells her name with and en instead of in! heh :)

Posted by Kristin | March 12, 2008 7:14 PM
9

I'd hit that. But definitely not for $1,000

Just sayin.

Posted by Reality Check | March 12, 2008 7:30 PM
10

Yo - title of story "woman at center of downfall"
Don't like it. Sptitzer himself is at the center of his OWN downfall. The story title just subtly gives just a tad of blame to the prostitute.
The only reason this is a crime is that HE busted OTHERS for exactly the same thing. Just hypocrisy, and Kristen isn't party to that.

Posted by onion | March 12, 2008 7:31 PM
11

I agree with onion- the story title is subtly sex-negative and misogynistic. It goes back to the old stupid warning- beware of women, they'll bring you down!

Posted by east coaster | March 12, 2008 7:43 PM
12

That's not an interview.....it's a rehash of her myspace page. Also, yes, boring misogyny in the article title. Way to get that scoop, NYT! Pardon me while I vomit on myself.

Posted by Irene Kaoru | March 12, 2008 9:46 PM
13

For the record, she totally *is* cute, and doable without a doubt.

$4k? Depends on the circumstances, I guess.

Posted by S | March 12, 2008 9:59 PM
14

For the record, she totally *is* cute, and doable without a second thought.

$4k? Depends on the circumstances, I guess.

Posted by tasty | March 12, 2008 9:59 PM
15

Leave this poor girl alone. First, the NYT linked to her MySpace page, now the Stranger, who claims to be sex-worker friendly, link to her profiles and interviews . . . leave her the hell alone.

Oh, and 5280 - this might be a post about a woman inadvertently caught up in something way over her head, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate forum for you to talk about Clinton.

Posted by Ziggity | March 12, 2008 10:05 PM
16

My heart goes out to this girl- she became an escort in order to finance the progression of her music career, and because of one famous john she'll be branded a hooker forever...

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | March 12, 2008 10:14 PM
17

YES! This helps fill my insatiable appetite for the dirty, filthy sex lives of others. Those whores! Tell me more! I can't stand it! Those disgusting and lewd sexual acts, I need to hear more about them... so I can masturbate to them... er, I mean so I can decry their depravity! Did he fuck her in her bottom? I need to know so I can describe it in vivid and deplorable details to my yenta friends and then talk about how horrible it is... but I HAVE to talk about it.

People are not, I repeat, NOT an evolved species. People are just apes, giggling at other apes fucking. How sad. Whatever.

Posted by GS | March 12, 2008 10:42 PM
18

if there are no nude pix - who cares

it is a welcome break in the clinton - obama bickering

sexual stuff is very bonding, universal, feels good, cheap thrills, good news

and is a mind fuck to the puritans who abound in America

too bad rates just went up for good whores all over America, sorry gals and guys. Oh, you did not know lesbians pay for sex? They do.

Posted by Leyland | March 12, 2008 10:59 PM
19

#16: Well, she has national name recognition now. Remember when people thought Vanessa Willimas' career was over because she posed for Playboy? It totally helped her career.

Not that I'm saying this person is nearly as talented a singer as Vanessa Williams, but still.

Posted by me | March 12, 2008 11:29 PM
20

If she does something that hotter women won't do, then she can ask for whatever the hell she wants.

Posted by Gloria | March 13, 2008 4:27 AM
21

1. the NYT did NOT get an interview with her - or at least they didn't report it - they simply too everything off her myspace page, as noted.

2. reply to #15: i'm sure the woman is fine w/the publicity - it's not she hasn't already advertised publically on the internet (re: myspace page)

Posted by kat | March 13, 2008 6:12 AM
22

1. the NYT did NOT get an interview with her - or at least they didn't report it - they simply took everything off her myspace page, as noted.

2. reply to #15: i'm sure the woman is fine w/the publicity - it's nothing she hasn't already advertised publically on the internet (re: myspace page)

Posted by kat | March 13, 2008 6:13 AM
23

@22: Read the article. It says, "In a series of telephone interviews..." So either they made that part up, or you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

Posted by Greg | March 13, 2008 8:15 AM
24

Picture #2 is hot. Pictures #1 and #3 are 'not' and 'meh,' respectively.

Posted by Greg | March 13, 2008 8:16 AM
25
the story title is subtly sex-negative and misogynistic.

Well by all means, lets all take a minute to examine the subtly sex-negative misogyny of this story. It's not like we have anything more important to worry about. Like, a war. Or the price of gas. Or a looming police state. Or -- you know -- pretty much anything.

Posted by Judah | March 13, 2008 8:32 AM
26

judah - you know better than to discount a small problem just because there are larger problems. this is a thread about a prostitute and a governor caught paying for sex. attitudes regarding sex and misogyny would seem more than appropriate. that doesn't mean we don't care about all those other important issues.

Posted by infrequent | March 13, 2008 9:16 AM
27

Infrequent:

I was addressing the criticism that the article is "subtly" sex-negative (really, who cares) and misogynistic. Frankly, I do consider criticisms of "subtle" misogyny to be counterproductive to addressing meaningful expressions of misogyny, much like accusations of "subtle" or "unconscious" racism undermine the credibility of those working against meaningful manifestations of racism. Basically, it reduces important societal concerns with meaningful economic and political consequences to a question of whether someone gets their feelings hurt, which is not only counterproductive -- it's self-indulgent and stupid.

Alas. I was, as usual, too oblique in my criticism. I'll work on that.

Posted by Judah | March 13, 2008 9:28 AM
28

i see what you are saying now, and think you raise a valid point.

it seems the older generations harbor more sexism and racism than the younger. especially regarding the democratic nominees, i hear too many comments that seem be these subtle digs at race and sex. digs that don't mean much to the younger people, but that very well might mean something to the older. because of that, i think i've set my focus too tight recently, and applied a similar standard in this case, where it may not apply in such a significant way.

Posted by infrequent | March 13, 2008 9:56 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).