There was no coercion and “enticemnent” is a judgement call. I’m sure you can at least agree that it’s a bullshit statute that shouldn’t be enforced.
NPR had an interesting interview on today re this. Some professor (sorry, don’t remember where) has studied prostitution. I’ll pause a moment for the jokes to flow.
Anyway, he says that 1/5 of American males have visited a prostitute. He thinks this seems like a low number–never having really thought about it, I’d say it’s kinda high. He went on to say that prostitution occurs in all SES levels, with corresponding rates and er, expectations (which make people like Hugh Grant kind of an anomaly of an anomaly, I suppose. Wealthy actor + street walker.) The reasons are as varied as the hookers, one gathers. I couldn’t listen to all of it, but for some men it’s the unavailability of sex through conventional social channels (what a polite way to say someone can’t get laid), the desire to er, novelty, the power trip, the possibility of shame also figures in.
I wonder what Spitzer’s “motive” was. He could get laid regardless–he didn’t need to pay that much money to have sex. So, I’m interested in why. Same as I was with Bill Clinton–why? What does this “method” of sexual release give them that other ways do not? Thoughts?
As a matter of fact, I believe that the hooker wouldn’t even transport herself until sufficient deposit had been paid. Would it be difficult for the feds to claim he enticed or coerced her when she was essentially refusing to travel to him unless he coughed up some bucks first?
Many men like to be in the company of, and/or have sex with, beautiful young women who seem to genuinely like them. In reading the site’s promotional material here it appears that the escort service indeed offers beautiful young women who are skilled in making their clients feel that they genuinely like them.
Also (and I’m only guessing of course 
), I would imagine that a high-priced service would be safer in terms of healthy prostitutes, no pimps hiding in the closet waiting to rob the john, and, unlike the case with Clinton, there isn’t much risk of emotional involvement on the part of the woman which could result in problems at some future time (hence the well-known phrase, “they aren’t paid for sex so much as to leave afterward”).
In the old days, you could. The Supreme Court ruled in 1913 that the law didn’t just apply to prostitution.
The law was often used in selective prosecution to harass people (often because of race or politics). Jack Johnson, Charlie Chaplin, and Chuck Berry were all prosecuted under it.
But there have been many prosecutions for Mann act violations that were similar to Spitzer’s case.
The original act read:
Clearly, Spitzer’s rendezvous caused the woman to be transported. That’s been good enough to get convictions in the past.
I wouldn’t call it a bullshit law – it can be used now to go after child pornographers – but it does have a checkered history.
Probably. The number of US men who visit prostitutes has been declining since the 60s. It used to be quite common and even borderline expected until then. But after the sexual revolution, it was easier to find a woman willing to have sex without a commitment, plus women were more willing to do things that used to be the province of prostitutes (oral sex, etc.).
I caught the latter half of that interview. (Or maybe the former - the half you didn’t, at any rate.) The professor (writer, whatever he was) speculated that Spitzer was probably tempted by the numerous crimes he "brought to “light” - in other words, he started asking himself: “Why are so many people tempted by such vices?” and wanted to taste them himself to see if it was really THAT GOOD. I don’t anything about the man but it seems plausible to me. Freud would probably say that Spitzer’s eagerness to catch other people doing naughty things was probably a way for him to deny his own desires to pursue said naughty things.
The professor in question seemed to think Spitzer was just unlucky as well - as in, a lot of guys do this kind of stuff, and Spitzer is probably not the worst of them. He was also going on about how men sleep with prostitutes because they don’t have to impress them in order to get in their pants. I would’t know.
You brought up some points that I had forgotten. One was fear of disease, and the other was the illusion that this relationship is mutual (ie, that the women like the man and want to have sex with him). I say the capacity for denial is large in both genders… The “seems” and the “appear to” are key. (hell, given that it’s a service industry, some of the hookers probably do like their a few of their clients.
I feel sorry for Spitzer. I don’t know if he thought himself outside the law or above it or he got weary from all that moral superiority and laid plans for his own destruction. He chose to take the path of righteousness–and that fall is hard, long and painful. There has to be an element of self-loathing here, no? This is a successful guy who is married and wealthy. Barring any extreme kinks (and I don’t want to know about them), he has to have wanted to have been found out. I will never understand why pols and others who live in the public eye can’t keep their pants on. Plus, I think he got cheated–that’s a lot of money. I also wonder how much the call girl got. :dubious:
Haze, I think I’ve found a way for you to stay in the country… and the pay is much better than teaching! 
Oh, God, rigs - don’t tempt me. 
Finally! A good place for this quote!
“‘Packing a Musket,’ by Jerri Blank.
When you work from your home and johns call on the phone, you’re a call girl.
When you walk ‘til you limp and give a cut to a pimp, you’re a street whore.
When they’re beggin’ you please to get down on your knees near their groinage,
Excusa me, but you see, don’t you touch where they pee without coinage.”
– Strangers With Candy
:eek: and :eek:
you kiss your Mama with that mouth, missy? :dubious:
Governor or no, he’s still engaging in an illegal enterprise - that means that if he stiffs the agency, they can’t very well sue for payment. They could go to the press, I guess, but that would trash their whole business - not a good option. Since they don’t have any recourse if they aren’t paid, the agency would have to demand a deposit up-front. That’s how I see it, anyway. IDNRAEA (I Do Not Run An Escort Agency)
**rigs ** - Hey, you suggested it first!
I take it this means you’re not offering to be my [del]pimp[/del] manager.
With the price tag, I suspect. When people don’t know much about a good/service they’re buying, they tend to use the price as a signal of quality. In this case - “Wow, $5,500! That’s a lot of money! These women must be smokin’, and enthusiastic!”
My thinking was that such transactions are usually paid for at the time but in advance of the actual act. (And Neither Do I Run An Escort Agency. 
) I didn’t know at the time, however, that the girl or agency would apparently be covering travel and hotel expenses prior to meeting with him, in which case I could indeed see the need of a prepaid deposit.
Still, I wouldn’t have expected that he would book under his real name, and as it turns out he didn’t. My comment was made mostly tongue-in-cheek.
Funny…I’ve been with several who were worth much more than that.
Thank god they didn’t charge.
Yes, occasionally they even fall in love and get married, though personally I would think that the potential for emotional involvement would be one of the greatest hazards in frequenting attractive and charming prostitutes. I can think of few things as emotionally wrenching as falling in love with one.
I don’t know about the self-loathing aspect of his motives, but I’d be more inclined to think that he just wound up with a high-priced call girl at some point - possibly after a row with his wife or upon the recommendation of a friend or associate - found out it was pretty damn pleasant, and got hooked. A guy I knew in high school owned and operated a successful wrecker service but he got hooked like this and pissed away all the money he made on prostitutes. He became ill and ultimately died because he continued to spend money on prostitutes rather than health care.
From what I gather reading about it, the girl and the agency split the fee 50/50 with the client covering expenses. I’m assuming the girls keep any gifts and tips for themselves.
CNN is reporting that he spent $15,000 on “several” encounters. Holy Buddha! By my calculations, over here that would get you 315 hookers AT LEAST. Man, the rich just throw their money away! They have no sense of economy. :mad:
Only if I get 20% of the gross, not net. 
And if you stick to the blowjob bars, you can double that number easily. Man, I just can’t understand rich people.