Spitzer's Whore & the Role of Women in Western Civilizat

Post Reply New Topic

I'm surprised that no threads have been started on this topic:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080315/ap_ ... _call_girl

Anyway, I understand that in many ancient and/or primitive religions, the reverence of the woman as the source of life figured prominently. The ancients worshipped the Goddess in various forms: Aphrodite, Venus, Ishtar, Astarte, etc. Some religions featured ritualized prostitution, where fornication with temple prostitutes was a genuine religious experience

http://www.ishtartemple.org/history.htm

With the advent of Judaism, God created Man in His Own Image, and the woman had absolutely nothing to do with it. God created Woman from the Man's rib, so that the Man could have someone to cook for him and pick up after him. The Woman was the one who created all of the trouble, by convincing the Man to eat the forbidden fruit. That caused God to be furious and to kick them both out of paradise. If it hadn't been for the Woman, then everything would have been fine between Man and God.

With Christianity, it was "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost", all personified as male. The woman was not a part of it: Jesus' mother was a Virgin of all things. The adoration of the Virgin Mary gave Catholics the opportunity to revere a female image once again. However, she is a virgin. Sex is regarded as something dirty and ugly. Catholic priests have to remain celibate, and can not sully themselves through sex.

So, now a man who has money and power would like to experience a bit of the old-time religious ectasy and euphoria that only a woman can provide.

But, being caught at it, given our cultural context, brings him unbridled shame.

And, now the woman suddenly has opportunities worth millions of dollars.

Although our religion has very much suppressed the woman, women do have amazing powers over men. They learn, shortly after puberty, that they can use their sexuality to make men do just about anything they want. Even buy them expensive rings and houses. Women can be quite dangerous in the work setting.

If prostitution were legal, then what the Governor did would have been no big deal. Because prostitution is illegal, there are many risks. As in any business, exposure to risk brings the possibility of rewards. Due to its illegality, the business of prostitution is very risky--deadly diseases, violence, arrest, imprisonment, etc. But, if you can service a governor, and then arrange for it to become public knowledge, then the payoffs are fantastic.

So far, she is playing it coy, which is just perfect. If she jump at the Hustler offer (and many women of her profession would do anything for an offer like that), and shows her twat to the entire world, then, I am afraid that she will have nothing to look forward to but roles in low budget porno filmso. She would be better off holding out for a spread in Playboy, where the photography would be slightly less gynecological, and then writing books and going on the talk show circuit. If she plays her cards right, she could become the next Jenny McCarthy.

I don't think Spitzer and others like him are so scandalized because they pay for sex but because they are hypocrites. If Spitzer was gunho on paying for sex then he should have advocated legalizing prostituition in NY instead of prosecuting others for a crime that he engages in. That being said one of the main reasons politicians are so hated in the first place is because they put themselves on a pedastel and pretend that they arn't gay, don't do drugs, or don't sleep with whores in order to get votes.

What worries me about the Spitzer scandal and American society is that sex isn't private anymore. It is like the country is regressing back to the fifties where the government is way too concerned about who is screwing around with who. I see a correlation with this particular story and the controversy over the Sex Offender Registry which pretty much labels any sexual contact deemed inappropriate by society as a sex crime and than brands them as a sex offender for the rest of their lives.

spitzer is nothing but a hypocrite and a scumbag. if he supported prostitution instead of being a politician against it(until now) then i'm sure less would be pissed off about it. also, the guy cheated on his wife and kids, so that right there is enough to make someone a scumbag.

Two scarlet letters for ol' Spitzy: A for Adultery and H for Hipocrite. Anyone who commits these kinds of moral crimes should be branded or tattooed with the names of their sins somewhere on their flesh.

Pedophiles and sex offenders in particular, IMO. Why brand someone as a freak or pervert figuratively when we can do it literally? In lieu of having to tell everyone that they are freaks and perverts door-to-door, let's just give them a special tattoo with the letter P. And make every tattoo as distinct as bank notes, impossible for anyone but the federal government to reproduce. And it must be removable only by a secret government process, at the discretion of the penal system.

In the movie Amistaad, Morgan Freeman's character had been given a mark against his will by a society that hated him, probably because of his pigmentation. This mark was an actual hot-poker brand, seared into his flesh just below the colllarbones on the right or left chest. That's a good spot, I think. Better still would be just above the man's genital area.

Pedophiles and sex offenders, for these individuals there really ought to be no sympathy. Justice should be rough, and love tough, when the situations merits.

Who is with me?!

Adultery is forbidden in the Seventh Commandment, but this does not apply to a married man having relations with an unmarried woman. Only a married woman engaging in sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband is considered to be adultery, in which case both the woman and the man are considered guilty. So, as far I as can tell, the ex-governor is not guilty of adultery.

May I bring your attention to Proverbs 5-7?

In this section, a father warns his son against adultery, by which he means being seduced by married women.

"Don't be tempted by their beauty, don't be trapped by their flirting eyes. A man may hire a prostitute for the price of a loaf of bread, but adultery will cost him all he has."

That was a mighty expensive loaf of bread that the former governor paid for.

I think that it is a sad state of affairs when a governor hires a prostitute, and it costs him the price of thousands of loaves of bread. We have obviously drifted much too far from the teachings of the Bible when the market price of a prostitute is roughly the equivalent of 2000 loaves of bread. This just demonstrates that our economy is in a shambles, and we are suffering from a market failure.

We obviously need to get ourselves right with the Lord, particularly as we approach the end of times.

Religion has nothing to do with this! It's Spitzer's hypocracy that has become the issue.

Spouting off scripture from a sexist doctrine isn't making you look any better.

Religion and hypocrisy are both intertwined in the Spitzer controversy, as is simple economics.

Spitzer worked to drive an economic wedge between suppliers and consumers of vaginas. This results in market failure, economic inefficiency, deadweight loss, and an overall loss in economic welfare.

If unmarried women and men were free to rent their vaginas, the market price should (according to scriptural evidence) be roughly equal to the price of a loaf of bread.

By tinkering with the supply alone (i.e., only prosecuting the women), this would tend to reduce the number of women in the market, and increase the price (and profits) to the women willing to enter the trade, because the women would insist on increased pay to compensate themselves for the risks involved.

Increasing the penalties to men also increases the risk to men, which would tend, I think, to shift the demand curve such that men who enjoy risk on top of vaginas would be willing to pay more for the experience, while, at the lower end of the demand side, men would cut down on their frequency and save up for the occasional occasion, thus making it special, and more costly.

Hence, the market shifts markedly to benefit the suppliers of vaginas who are willing to assume the risk (and to adjust the price upwards in compensation of the risks). Risk-averse suppliers and consumers of vaginas must suffer reduced economic surplus.

Thus, I think that the elevated risks for men that Spitzer initiated were a part of the sexual turn-on for him. He was willing to pay $4000 not just for the sex, but also for the added turn-on of risking being exposed as a hypocrite, and thus ending his career as a politician. It must have been quite a rush.

You are so small. So very, very small.

Not all women are beautiful; not all women have men at their fingertips. Figure that into your calculations.

Beautiful people, both female and male, run the world. Not just beautiful women. And men always ultimately have more power.

And what makes you think "women" (a vast demographic encompassing billions of individuals, all with their own individual dreams and desires; body types both ugly and beautiful, minds both brilliant and dull, and ideals both conventional and idiosyncratic) want to be forever reliant on men?

Would you make such a hideous generalization pertaining to your own gender? Lump yourself together into one category of being containing all men in existence?

Sh*t weasels to the lot of you.

I don't think that all women are interested in entering the world's first profession. But, I don't think that this economic activity should be turned off to them, either. There is demand, there is supply. Prohibiting the profession only causes the price to skyrocket, which increases the returns to women who are willing to face the risks. And, shuts off possibilities to women who are less risk averse.

The social welfare losses associated with outlawing prostitution could be estimated, given some empirical guesses as to price elasticities of supply and demand, current market prices and current demand.

It would be interesting to see how the market prices would change if prostitution were to be legalized.

Probably very few would continue to command $4000.

I don't think that all women are interested in entering the world's first profession. But, I don't think that this economic activity should be turned off to them, either. There is demand, there is supply. Prohibiting the profession only causes the price to skyrocket, which increases the returns to women who are willing to face the risks. And, shuts off possibilities to women who are less risk averse.

The social welfare losses associated with outlawing prostitution could be estimated, given some empirical guesses as to price elasticities of supply and demand, current market prices and current demand.

It would be interesting to see how the market prices would change if prostitution were to be legalized.

Probably very few would continue to command $4000.