Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, April 21, 2009
Sex Why Eliot Spitzer Did It: My Theory
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:12 AM
Because it made his dick hard.
The end.
In the cover story in the latest issue of Newsweek ("The Confessions of Eliot Spitzer"), Jonathan Darman trots out the usual imbecilities, the usual pseudo-psychoanalytic bullshit that gets kicked around when a powerful man "risks everything" with an intern, a hooker, a house page, an airport toilet, etc.
Among the many odd traits of political animals is that while they tend to find themselves fascinating, they have little aptitude for, and less interest in, analyzing themselves. Spitzer is no exception. I asked him recently if he'd read any of the theories why he was so reckless with Ashley Dupré. "No," he said, clearly not wanting to say anything more. I started to recite some of the most commons ones—that with the chaos of his governorship, his illicit sex life was a last refuge he could control; that he had been reckless and risked punishment because a part of him felt a need to be punished for never measuring up.
Oy.
Why can't we ever tell the truth about male sexuality in public?
Spitzer was horny. And like a lot men out there, he had the means to hire someone to act out a "difficult" fantasy—choking, apparently—that either his wife wasn't willing to indulge or that he was too ashamed to ask the wife to indulge. And, like many men who go to pros, when Spitzer weighed the benefits—getting off—against the risks—getting caught—he miscalculated. And lots of men are terrible at monogamy (women aren't much better), and it's possible that Spitzer's wasn't just after choking action, but a little variety as well. And about the choking action: Many men have sexual fantasies that involve ritualized sexual violence, and it's often difficult for these men to incorporate their fantasies into their marital sex lives—their own madonna/whore hangups; their wives' inability to see incorporating kinks as a kind of lovemaking—and many of these men seek the services of pros. And in most cases, the services of pros aren't a threat to these men's marriages, but rather the thing that makes it possible for these men to remain content in their marriages.
In short, Spitzer was horny for something he wasn't getting at home—perhaps he was refused, perhaps he never asked—and he did what most men (and women) do when they're not getting something they desperately need at home. He went elsewhere. Which doesn't excuse his hypocrisy—as NY's attorney general, Spitzer prosecuted people for running the kind of prostitution services he patronized himself—and, yeah, he was taking enormous risks... something the rich and powerful and the poor and penniless have been doing for tens of thousands of years. The big difference: We don't hear about it when the poor and penniless get caught.
Spitzer, to his credit, comes pretty close to admitting what he was really doing in his response to the clueless Darman's moronic attempts to psychoanalyze him. See if you can read between the lines:
He was silent for a moment and then, without further prompting, offered an explanation: "I'm not going to say anything that... should be thought to be an excuse for anything. But there's got to be some element to its being a result of tension and release. And that builds up."
Yeah, it might have had something to do with the build up of tension and the need for release. That just might be it.
1
Now if he'd just say what he should. That prostitution should be safe and legal. Naw, that would require too much courage.
2
He should say that prostitution should be safe and legal AFTER he is charged with engaging in it?
No, that wouldn't help him. He ought to just suck it up now and fire his pr agent. Although that agent is working overtime now to clean up Spitzers image and the effort will probably pay off...which makes Spitzer the King of the Whores.
But, why should he be the exception? We are all a bit whorey, aren't we?
Speaking of which - DAN - the This American Life - LIVE event is being shown in scores of Cinemark Theaters all over the country - predominately in California.
You may recall that the CEO of Cinemark gave $9,999 to the Yes on 8 campaign and that there is a boycott in place (remember: http://nomilkforcinemark.com/ ).
What's the story here? Why is TAL associated with Cinemark?
What are you going to do about the fact that a sold out audience has been drawn to watch YOU in a Cinemark theater in San Francisco?
Isn't this odd...upsetting...whoreish?
No, that wouldn't help him. He ought to just suck it up now and fire his pr agent. Although that agent is working overtime now to clean up Spitzers image and the effort will probably pay off...which makes Spitzer the King of the Whores.
But, why should he be the exception? We are all a bit whorey, aren't we?
Speaking of which - DAN - the This American Life - LIVE event is being shown in scores of Cinemark Theaters all over the country - predominately in California.
You may recall that the CEO of Cinemark gave $9,999 to the Yes on 8 campaign and that there is a boycott in place (remember: http://nomilkforcinemark.com/ ).
What's the story here? Why is TAL associated with Cinemark?
What are you going to do about the fact that a sold out audience has been drawn to watch YOU in a Cinemark theater in San Francisco?
Isn't this odd...upsetting...whoreish?
3
I'm just waiting for people to start blaming gay marriage, as if there had never been sex scandals before gay marriage.
The "This American Life" event is from Fathom Events, not Cinemark theaters. Some Cinemark Theaters are are participating with Fathom, but they are one of many, many theater chains, and independent theaters around the country carrying the program. Not to mention it's not a Dan Savage show, it's This American Life, presented by Fathom Events, which happens to have Dan Savage as one of the guests.
http://www.fathomevents.com/theatres/Thi…
The "This American Life" event is from Fathom Events, not Cinemark theaters. Some Cinemark Theaters are are participating with Fathom, but they are one of many, many theater chains, and independent theaters around the country carrying the program. Not to mention it's not a Dan Savage show, it's This American Life, presented by Fathom Events, which happens to have Dan Savage as one of the guests.
http://www.fathomevents.com/theatres/Thi…
4
There some hidden meaning or reason why you're spelling 'Spitzer' incorrectly five times in this blurb?
Or is this a trial balloon for making 'Sptizer' some new kinda catchphrase?
Or is it just because no one in their right mind can spell at 6:12AM?
Or is this a trial balloon for making 'Sptizer' some new kinda catchphrase?
Or is it just because no one in their right mind can spell at 6:12AM?
5
He was just horny. Like all the others...
Also Wall Street had it out for him and hoped that his political demise would distract from their impending crash. He was proposing legislation that would have restricted some trades and products on WS. Newsweek wants you to believe that WS, corporations, and the Bush justice department wouldn't conspire against their political enemies, no never happened!
Most, if not all, politicians have skeletons, it just depends when their enemies decide to strike.
Also Wall Street had it out for him and hoped that his political demise would distract from their impending crash. He was proposing legislation that would have restricted some trades and products on WS. Newsweek wants you to believe that WS, corporations, and the Bush justice department wouldn't conspire against their political enemies, no never happened!
Most, if not all, politicians have skeletons, it just depends when their enemies decide to strike.
7
It is considered politically incorrect to say that we enjoy pleasure. That is the most reasonable explaination for Spitzer's actions. What he or Clinton did was not the result of pathology or a sign of addiction. It was a sign of being human.
Even when we talk about real adddictions we deny that people use substances because they bring us pleasure. Instead we get the dubious idea that addiction is a disease that can ony be cured by going to a faith healing program like 12 step meetings.
Even when we talk about real adddictions we deny that people use substances because they bring us pleasure. Instead we get the dubious idea that addiction is a disease that can ony be cured by going to a faith healing program like 12 step meetings.
10
Spitzer should have followed this Congresssman's example: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/co…
12
Tension and release would give the impression that what he did was nothing more than an impulse, a jerk reaction but it's far away from that because he deliberately went out of his way to have encounters with the same prostitute and he deliberately and repeatedly saw to it that the terms of payment were ones in which he could not be traced (at least he thought so), so that implies that his state of mind and his actions did not correspond to a mere unconscious lapsed reaction but of a cool and calculating mind who was fully aware that what he was doing was not only dishonest, harmful and disrespectful to his wife and kids but also illegal.
13
"pseudo-psychoanalytic bullshit"
There are multiple redundancies in that phrase.
Notice how the word 'addiction' is encroaching on daily life? Who decides how much is too much? Nurse Ratched?
There are multiple redundancies in that phrase.
Notice how the word 'addiction' is encroaching on daily life? Who decides how much is too much? Nurse Ratched?
14
Meanwhile, the WA legislature just passed a huge education reform bill. But you won't see that anywhere on the Stranger. No, far more interesting to deconstruct an already resigned Governor of a state on the other side of the continent.
15
#3 - Rob in Baltimore
I never said it was an exclusive Cinemark event nor do I say that it is Dan's event, just that he is participating in it.
Also - it is entirely possible (if not quite likely) that Dan has no idea where the thing is being shown. I know he wouldn't be made aware of every detail about every event he partakes in.
But he ought to know about this and do something about it. That action can range anywhere from not participating to raising a stink while he is performing. Either way, he needs to say or do something, don't you think? Wouldn't you feel a bit conflicted or dirty about this if it were you? I sure would. I'm sure Dan is being paid, right?
What good is a boycott against a contributor to Prop 8 if one of us helps that contributor attract business that helps him fund the next campaign against us - likely to be the fight to stop a repeal of 8?
Dan wrote about this himself right here at SLOG a few months ago:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"In the wake of Prop 8 millions of gays and lesbians all over the country have decided that we're no longer going to play by the old rules. We're not going to let people kick our teeth down our throats and then run and hide behind "Nothing personal—just my private religious beliefs!" That game's over."
I never said it was an exclusive Cinemark event nor do I say that it is Dan's event, just that he is participating in it.
Also - it is entirely possible (if not quite likely) that Dan has no idea where the thing is being shown. I know he wouldn't be made aware of every detail about every event he partakes in.
But he ought to know about this and do something about it. That action can range anywhere from not participating to raising a stink while he is performing. Either way, he needs to say or do something, don't you think? Wouldn't you feel a bit conflicted or dirty about this if it were you? I sure would. I'm sure Dan is being paid, right?
What good is a boycott against a contributor to Prop 8 if one of us helps that contributor attract business that helps him fund the next campaign against us - likely to be the fight to stop a repeal of 8?
Dan wrote about this himself right here at SLOG a few months ago:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"In the wake of Prop 8 millions of gays and lesbians all over the country have decided that we're no longer going to play by the old rules. We're not going to let people kick our teeth down our throats and then run and hide behind "Nothing personal—just my private religious beliefs!" That game's over."
17
@12: "not only dishonest, harmful and disrespectful to his wife and kids but also illegal." But were I in his shoes I would do the same thing--as would most men in his shoes, as most men in his shoes do.
18
12 - I think that's a good point, but I don't think it necessarily contradicts Dan's point. You can both be right. "Tension and release" doesn't necessarily mean a one-time, impulsive event, plus Dan also explains why Spitzer would engage with this woman more than one time.
(I hope that makes sense.)
(I hope that makes sense.)
19
@17:
If you were governor of NY, you would choke a hooker? What?
Most men don't cheat on their wives.
But were I in his shoes I would do the same thing...
If you were governor of NY, you would choke a hooker? What?
--as would most men in his shoes, as most men in his shoes do.
Most men don't cheat on their wives.
20
@19: Were I a man a his means with his unmet desires, or other unmet desires, yes I would hire the sort of hooker that he was able to hire. That is, after all, the whole point of being a man of means.
Most men not cheating on their wives? Perhaps, but I'll bet more than their share of men of means are cheating and pretty much all that have otherwise unmet desires.
Most men not cheating on their wives? Perhaps, but I'll bet more than their share of men of means are cheating and pretty much all that have otherwise unmet desires.
21
I think it is a corollary to the Great Man Theory: 'great' men are not brought down by such base issues as horniness. There has to be something deeper, more complex at play...
23
@20: neither you nor I know if the rich cheat on their spouses more than the poor. Anecdote doesn't help us: my Dad is poor, and serially cheats on his spouses. I'm pretty well off, and as I got wealthier I didn't feel even a twinge more urge to go to a hooker, and have never cheated on my wife.
All we *do* know is that the majority of men don't cheat on their wives. I would submit that we *all* have unmet desires. So this means that there are tons of people out there who have unmet desires but yet somehow manage to honor their marriage vows.
Message: Spitzer is a douchebag.
All we *do* know is that the majority of men don't cheat on their wives. I would submit that we *all* have unmet desires. So this means that there are tons of people out there who have unmet desires but yet somehow manage to honor their marriage vows.
Message: Spitzer is a douchebag.
24
@22: oh, bullshit. I am super, duper attracted to women other than my wife. But I don't fuck any of them. You want to know why? Because I DECIDED that having a loving, stable marriage to someone who is unlikely to drive her car off a cliff or beat my children is worth more than random fucks (which grew old very, very quickly.)
All of us guys- any of us- can go out and get laid easily. Particularly when you get to be 40, there are *tons* of sad and lonely women who are willing to fool around with a guy, married or otherwise. But most of us don't make that choice.
I have the utmost respect for guys who make another CHOICE- who don't get the same answers from the equations that I do, and need an open relationship, or stay single or whatever. Just as long as they're not lying to the people that they claim to love. If tomorrow I met someone that I simply couldn't not sleep with, I would work it out with my wife and either move to an open relationship or get a divorce.
Get married, or don't. Be monogomous, or not. But don't live a life of deceit because you want to have your cake (hot sex with strangers) and eat it too (a loving spouse to build a life and a family with.)
All of us guys- any of us- can go out and get laid easily. Particularly when you get to be 40, there are *tons* of sad and lonely women who are willing to fool around with a guy, married or otherwise. But most of us don't make that choice.
I have the utmost respect for guys who make another CHOICE- who don't get the same answers from the equations that I do, and need an open relationship, or stay single or whatever. Just as long as they're not lying to the people that they claim to love. If tomorrow I met someone that I simply couldn't not sleep with, I would work it out with my wife and either move to an open relationship or get a divorce.
Get married, or don't. Be monogomous, or not. But don't live a life of deceit because you want to have your cake (hot sex with strangers) and eat it too (a loving spouse to build a life and a family with.)
25
Dan, thanks for saying this!
I grow wearly of our inability to talk about male (and female) biology with any sense of reality.
Why do powerful men cheat? Why do powerful men "risk everything" for sex?
Because men are biologically wired to seek sex. We have placed men's sexuality into a box that cannot contain it. It spills over. That drive is so powerful that even men who are in impossible situations, men like Elliot Spitzer, are unable to keep it inside the box.
Period.
I grow wearly of our inability to talk about male (and female) biology with any sense of reality.
Why do powerful men cheat? Why do powerful men "risk everything" for sex?
Because men are biologically wired to seek sex. We have placed men's sexuality into a box that cannot contain it. It spills over. That drive is so powerful that even men who are in impossible situations, men like Elliot Spitzer, are unable to keep it inside the box.
Period.
26
"No no judge, I understand what it means when I tell you this, I got sick of jerking off to sub par porn and wanted the real thing. Considering the enormous amounts of money the state was giving me I saw it to be within my budget to pay some teenager thousands of dollars so I could have my way with her. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, unless you find a way to change millions of years of evolutionary signals in my brain that tells me sex is what I'm supposed to do I'm 100% likely to think with my cock again"
27
Wow. Hard not to see why Dan Savage is considered a sexpert after a deep and penetrating analysis like that. He.was.just.horny. Amazing.
28
I've tried I really have. And I want to keep trying, but it's just so damn difficult to perceive men any other way than they absolutely suck.
29
Good Morning Dan,
I agree. I believe most people don't fault him for his rendezvous with Ashley Dupre. What they fault him for is his hubris, hypocrisy and deceit. The fact that he went after the prostitution ring is absurd. Like you, I believe prostitution should be safe and legal. And his extramarital liasons are a private matter.
@24 Big Sven,
I agree. Deceit is the greater sin. I believe Spitzer did more damage to his wife and kids than to the people of NY. I don't know if they (he and his wife are still together).
I agree. I believe most people don't fault him for his rendezvous with Ashley Dupre. What they fault him for is his hubris, hypocrisy and deceit. The fact that he went after the prostitution ring is absurd. Like you, I believe prostitution should be safe and legal. And his extramarital liasons are a private matter.
@24 Big Sven,
I agree. Deceit is the greater sin. I believe Spitzer did more damage to his wife and kids than to the people of NY. I don't know if they (he and his wife are still together).
30
@Sven: The study linked to on Wikipedia, which you linked to, correlates adultery with income, so, um, why link to it to try and contradict him?
31
30: because I posted that link @19 to address whether "most men" do it (they don't) and he brought up income @20. Which is, you know, later and stuff.
Also, can you point out which of the many, many studies mentioned in the Wiki article show adultery correlating with income? Because the Wiki article itself mentions no such phenomenon.
Also, can you point out which of the many, many studies mentioned in the Wiki article show adultery correlating with income? Because the Wiki article itself mentions no such phenomenon.
32
Hi Dan--this is interesting but I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees.
People should be allowed to explore their sexuality, yes. If there are weird kinks and things that are awkward that give us secret thrills (like having a centaur in a sub role with a quizno's toaster oven) it's definitely important to find ways to navigate those kinks.
And if Spitzer, public official or no, had a choking fantasy, and was too ashamed to ask his wife (or was told "no"), then I think figuring out a way for him to safely explore that fantasy is still on the books, but (and maybe I'm misinterpreting your past advice), that the person who would be the recipient of any potentially harmful kink (whether its choking, cutting, or whatever) is under no obligation to give it a shot... and if there's going to be an outside contractor brought in (either professionally or polyamorously), that the person seeking outside relief has a duty to behave in a responsible manner while satisfying that need elsewhere.
And that's when you look at ALL of the evidence, there's a picture of a man who a) likes choking women while he fucks them, b) wants to bareback her while he's choking and fucking her and c) is more likely than not going to throw the dirty slut in jail when he's done fucking and choking her so that he can look like a big bad prosecutor (ok, not her precisely, but you get the idea)... this isn't just simple horny-ness, this is simple misogyny. And that's a different beast than a simple kink, and it's dangerous.
If we were to pretend that Spitzer's wife wrote or called you and described how her husband wants to choke her (not diaper play, not try out the reverse cowgirl, but actually choke her and possibly endanger her if he didn't know what he was doing), and she really wasn't comfortable with this, and maybe there was some sort of tangential anxiety that he would visit prostitutes and not wear a condom because he hates condoms, I'd be hard-pressed to imagine your advice not involving some sort of exit strategy.
More...
People should be allowed to explore their sexuality, yes. If there are weird kinks and things that are awkward that give us secret thrills (like having a centaur in a sub role with a quizno's toaster oven) it's definitely important to find ways to navigate those kinks.
And if Spitzer, public official or no, had a choking fantasy, and was too ashamed to ask his wife (or was told "no"), then I think figuring out a way for him to safely explore that fantasy is still on the books, but (and maybe I'm misinterpreting your past advice), that the person who would be the recipient of any potentially harmful kink (whether its choking, cutting, or whatever) is under no obligation to give it a shot... and if there's going to be an outside contractor brought in (either professionally or polyamorously), that the person seeking outside relief has a duty to behave in a responsible manner while satisfying that need elsewhere.
And that's when you look at ALL of the evidence, there's a picture of a man who a) likes choking women while he fucks them, b) wants to bareback her while he's choking and fucking her and c) is more likely than not going to throw the dirty slut in jail when he's done fucking and choking her so that he can look like a big bad prosecutor (ok, not her precisely, but you get the idea)... this isn't just simple horny-ness, this is simple misogyny. And that's a different beast than a simple kink, and it's dangerous.
If we were to pretend that Spitzer's wife wrote or called you and described how her husband wants to choke her (not diaper play, not try out the reverse cowgirl, but actually choke her and possibly endanger her if he didn't know what he was doing), and she really wasn't comfortable with this, and maybe there was some sort of tangential anxiety that he would visit prostitutes and not wear a condom because he hates condoms, I'd be hard-pressed to imagine your advice not involving some sort of exit strategy.
33
@26: It's more like, "Your honor, we're talking here about two consenting adults engaging in an exchange of monies for professional services. And thank you for recommending her services at that New Year's party."
I'm not saying he was right, mind you, just that he is no different from most of us guys.
I'm not saying he was right, mind you, just that he is no different from most of us guys.
34
@28 Women who think like you, refuse to see the way most women behave. Just like men! It takes two to tango as they say. A woman who sleeps with a man she knows is married is no less culpable and no more responsible. And he was with a woman WHO SELLS SEX! Get your head out your ass.
36
I just looked up and asked my spouse if he was getting all of his kinks fulfilled, and whether we were fulfilling them often enough.
He said, "You've been reading Dan Savage again, haven't you?"
He said, "You've been reading Dan Savage again, haven't you?"
37
speaking of ritualized sexual violence, i'd like to note for the curious that i never even dreamed of having violent sex until a girlfriend i had at 19 asked me for it. and many more since. hunh. go figure.
38
Yes but who are all his mea cuplas aimed at? Men? Nope, they're either amused, envious, or probably both. Black women in the 'hood? Nope, sounds totally typical to them. Clueless middle-class white women who are scared of and uncomfortable with sex in general, and male sexuality in particular? Yep, gotta keep 'em pacified and petted, and wrapped up in their romance-novel fantasy of how the world is, sure that they're always right and everyone else is wrong. The dirty little secret, among many others, is that men in positions of power are typically screwing around like mad behind the scenes, and having a ball. For example we know about Monica Lewinsky, but we don't know about all the other women that Clinton was undoubtedly messing around with, but who had the good sense to keep their mouths shut at the right times.
39
@38:
Reagan cheated on his first wife. FDR loved two women in his life. Kennedy and Clinton *were* pussy hounds. But there's no clear evidence that George H.W. Bush fooled around on his wife. Or Bob Dole. Or Jimmy Carter. Or Jerry Ford. Or Richard Nixon. Or Dwight Eisenhower. Or Winston Churchill. Or Harry Truman. Or Barack Obama.
Your statement is not supported by the facts. It's just a lazy meme that people use to justify lying to their loved ones.
The dirty little secret, among many others, is that men in positions of power are typically screwing around like mad behind the scenes, and having a ball.
Reagan cheated on his first wife. FDR loved two women in his life. Kennedy and Clinton *were* pussy hounds. But there's no clear evidence that George H.W. Bush fooled around on his wife. Or Bob Dole. Or Jimmy Carter. Or Jerry Ford. Or Richard Nixon. Or Dwight Eisenhower. Or Winston Churchill. Or Harry Truman. Or Barack Obama.
Your statement is not supported by the facts. It's just a lazy meme that people use to justify lying to their loved ones.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (40) RSS