|
March 18, 2008
What gentlemen don't discuss!
Glenn's reference to the "reticence and hypocrisy of the Victorian era" (in reference to New York's latest governor's extramarital heterosexual outing of himself) made me wonder about something. Most of us realize that people in the Victorian era had plenty of sex (otherwise we wouldn't be here). However, they were known for not talking about it -- even when they were supposed to talk about it! One of my favorite examples comes from the play "Life With Father" (a family memoir) in which Father Day begins a fatherly conversation with his eldest son with "There are things about women I think you ought to know!": He solemnly closes the doors to the room, sits beside his son, hesitates, and then advises him that women aren't the angels he might think them; men have to run the world, a woman doesn't think at all--she gets stirred up. He adds that if a man knows how to handle women he will be all right, and that Clarence now knows all about women. Clarence, however, eagerly questions further, and Father realizes, with something of a jolt, that he is expected to be more specific. He closes the conversation abruptly: "There are some things gentlemen don't discuss! I've told you all you need to know. The thing to remember is--be firm!"But what gentlemen did not discuss, gentlemen nevertheless did. And it wasn't always with their wives. Victorian men especially loved to do what they didn't discuss with prostitutes: At no time in history has prostitution been as prolific as at the height of the Victorian era. London, a city of 2 million in the mid-19th century had about 50,000 working prostitutes. That's about one prostitute for every 12 adult males. New York at this time had a similar ratio, leading Robert Dale Owen, a social reformer, to estimate the half the male population visited prostitutes three times a week.While the above seems a bit salacious and I haven't confirmed the numbers, the information in the Wiki entry on Victorian prostitution isn't much different. This was not new to Victorian times; it was estimated in 1797 that there were 50,000 prostitutes in London (approximately 10% of the total female population)." Prostitution was frowned on, but generally legal, and allowed to continue by polite society. Discretion was the word. Of course, the conditions were appalling, and led to the rise of modern feminism. (Timeline here.) Moralists have been condemning prostitution since antiquity. Today, engaging in discreet extramarital sex (whether with a prostitute or not) is not the best way to stay out of trouble, it's the best way to get into trouble. If a guy wants to get laid and doesn't want to establish a paper trail, he'd better not send any emails, because emails are more forever than diamonds. If he goes to a massage parlor or escort service, he'd better not pay with a credit card, and it's probably not a good idea to use an ATM in the neighborhood, lest questions be asked by the Spitzerites. I suppose he can still pick up someone and go to a hotel, but there might be a paper trail there, as hotels now require ID. If he drives, his license plate or EZ pass information might be recorded. And if he's of any importance, and either holds political office or is even thinking about running for office, he'll be living in constant fear that somehow, somewhere he left an incriminating bit of electronic data. Beware! Paying money for sex can lead to money laundering charges, conspiracy charges, and other charges, because nearly everything is now illegal. This situation has become intolerable. No wonder New York's new governor began his new term by outing himself. As I said earlier, "the best defense is a good offense." If you have ever had sex, and want to hold public office, better admit it now publicly, or they'll be after you. Except for those willing to take the initiative and yell "FVCK you, I've had sex!" sexual intercourse will be an ever-increasing liability. (Except for eunuchs, or the flagrantly promiscuous.) OUT OF THE CLOSET! (It isn't just for gays anymore, it's now a strategy of preemptive self defense.) Seriously, I'm wondering whether there's an emerging rule about sex along the following lines: Promiscuous sex is OK, but discreet sex is forbidden. Discretion is the road to personal destruction. MORE: Right after I wrote this post, I heard Governor Paterson say that he didn't want to be "outed." Earlier, he specifically mentioned blackmail: Paterson said it was time to make the infidelities public so the information couldn't be used to try to compromise him as governor.Got that? Regular sex makes people subject to blackmail. MORE: Maybe it's the season for sex scandals, but the Detroit City Council has asked the Mayor to resign because he lied about a sexual affair, as evidenced by "steamy text messages": Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy is investigating whether the mayor and former Chief of Staff Christine Beatty lied under oath when they testified in a whistle-blowers' lawsuit that they had not had a physical relationship.Mayor Kilpatrick has a lot of other problems, of course, and the overall picture is one of profound corruption. So that means he should be run out of office over sex allegations? Why? Simpy because they can? Is sex just another tool in the endless "everything is illegal" prosecutorial arsenal? posted by Eric on 03.18.08 at 07:19 PM
Comments
TarasBMW: [url=http://www.bmw.secretfree.info]BMW 530i:[/url] www.bmw.secretfree.info TarasBMW · March 19, 2008 06:41 AM It's not sex that's becoming a liability, it's sex outside the boundaries of social norms. Promiscuous sex is frowned upon, but tolerated. Visiting prostitutes is both frowned upon and generally not tolerated (even where it's legal). Adulterous sex is frowned upon and not tolerated, especially in a public official, as it's seen as a character flaw (which it is). Here's a thought; don't engage in sex outside of a committed relationship, and you won't get into trouble. Learn to keep your pecker in your pants. Chris · March 19, 2008 02:39 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
March 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2008
February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Obsession 101
Keeping politics out of religion A Little Exchange Turn Up The Heat A bad year for change? "Giraffes on Horseback Salads" Closing The Deal shameful MSM silence about latest addiction Not hell? SOFT SWAT (for kinder, gentler, wrong-house drug raids!)
Links
Site Credits
|
|
There is some tension in public attitudes toward sex, but there's no tension at all in the conviction that one who seeks a position in the trades of making or enforcing the law should not be discovered cheerfully breaking the law as if he were above it.
Prostitution, like most other "morality" crimes, has been made into an instrument of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors are no less rapacious than other political creatures, and will use whatever discretion arrives in their hands to enhance their resumes, in preparation for their mayoral, gubernatorial, or presidential campaigns. People have been denied altogether too much information about the prosecutorial hijinks of Rudolph Giuliani...or have forgotten what they knew.
Perhaps the Spitzer affair and the Paterson denouement will open a few more eyes.