Sex Lessons from Eliot Spitzer
Size Matters
A man’s sophistication about women is inversely proportional to the size of his sex budget: the more he disburses, the less he knows. Whether he spends lavishly for sex on his girlfriend, mistress, wife, or prostitute, his mere purchasing of sex is proof of ignorance about the female libido. Given what we’ve learned about the magnitude, complexity, and logistical deployment of Eliot Spitzer’s sex budget, it’s clear that the ex-governor of New York is sexually naïve.
I got my first clue about Mr. Spitzer when he resigned publicly and tragically, on March 12, 2008, from the governorship. He displayed no emotion whatsoever. All that he had built, personally and professionally, was in tatters. Yet, with his disgraced wife by his side, cold as stone, he informed the world that he would step down from office. Contrast that with Brett Favre’s 20 minutes of blubbering while resigning from professional football just the week before. I’m not saying that Eliot Spitzer should have wailed uncontrollably like that — thank you for sparing us — but, to show zero emotion suggests, in fact defines, repression.
Why Eliot Spitzer saw infidelity as his only solution to sexual gratification is anyone’s guess. Perhaps his wife no longer satisfied him. Perhaps, like many men, Spitzer suffered from the Madonna-whore complex, where a man is unable to view his post-childbirth wife as a sexual being. Actually, I don’t know or care why he chose to stray. In my view, if any aspect of one’s marriage breaks down, he should fix it. If that becomes impossible, he should end the marriage, not betray it. But, if a man sees cheating as his only option, his style of pursuing sexual conquests implies much about his view of himself, of women, and of sex.
Positions of Servitude
In Under the Clitoral Hood , I teach that women are more sexual than men — and that men needn’t ever pay for sex . Men who pay for sex never learned this fact of life. Why? They were raised with immature, idealized, glorified views of women, and to believe that men are more sexual than women (a lie). They put women on pedestals and never know them — in fact, are unable to know them — as peers. Such men find highly sexual women threatening and won’t get involved with or marry them. Instead, they will marry sexually bland, virgin-like women — perfect as controllable moms and wives — while pursuing hot extramarital sex. This behavior is a sign of deep insecurity.
Observe some men around women, and you will notice puerile, sycophantic, deferential behavior. Always from positions of servitude, their pickup lines are in the vein of What can I buy you? Where can I take you? How can I make you happy? They would — and do — crawl through fire and broken glass, and pay any price, to get laid. Pathetic. The more money a man is willing to pay a woman for sex, and the more he brags to her about his possessions, the less he values himself.
Eliot Spitzer — real-estate scion, graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law, Manhattan district attorney, New York attorney general, New York governor — has to pay to get laid, with hookers and wire transfers? Give me a break! Nonsense. Women throw themselves at desirable men. Women are dying to get laid. Do you think they buy vibrators to mix concrete?
Given that, according to Susan Shapiro Barash , more than 60% of married women cheat on their husbands, Mr. Spitzer could have found many discreet, high-profile, unhappily married female counterparts for his trysts. Furthermore, these unfaithful women, who are hornier than the men they find, are not paying for sex! Let this be a lesson, gentlemen. Instead of hooking up with one of them, Spitzer chose high-risk, high-priced, low-esteem sex from whores. How sad. It’s bad enough that he devalued his marriage by cheating. But, he compounded that devaluation by unnecessarily enriching his female accomplices.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
A man who truly understands the power of the female libido pays nothing to get laid, ever. Eliot Spitzer, by purchasing sex, proved he doesn’t understand the female libido and has low self-esteem. As a result, he destroyed a career, a family, and many friendships.
Eliot Spitzer humiliated himself at that news conference on March 12th, when he resigned as governor of New York. But, prior to that fateful day, Eliot Spitzer did something worse: he humiliated himself every time he paid for sex — and that is his lesson for every man.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor .
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com .
Copyright © 2008 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
March 15th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Marc-
outstanding work on Fox News. I saw your new Fox News segment “He Said/She Said” both on Tuesday and Friday this past week on The O’Reilly Factor. (Everybody-It will be on every Friday). You kicked butt on both of these and O’Reilly gave you support for your positions. I’ll tune in every Friday and send O’Reilly emails in your support also.
Also, your segment on Cavuto’s show was great.
I voted on:
http://www.foxnews.com/yourworld/index.html
Everybody-
Marc Rudov can use your vote in his latest debate against Feminist and Entitled Princess Lis Wiehl at Fox News. He’s up 51% to 49% but a much bigger margin is obviously better. Usually Marc is beating Wiehl by very large margins.
Spitzer is screwed up big time as a man. This guy was born into a very wealthy family. He had all the advantages as you say. Princeton, Harvard Law. NY DA. NY Governor. He was a politician which means he was a dirty bastard but it means mainly that he had power. Women are attracted to power. And he was secretly into hookers for maybe 10 years??!!! WTF??!!
I believe the inherent conflict between chivalry, manginaism, and men’s rights, that exists in this culture is keeping males psychologically suspended. It is like the magnetic pull of opposites that prevents either side from advancing. How often do we MRAs get attacked from chivalrist’s and mangina’s? About as often as getting attacked from feminists. Keep in mind also that this conflict among these three groups of men does not occur in isolation. It occurs within a world where women have great influence over men. One has to throw that force into this witches brew. Perhaps this same conflict is happening within men themselves-including Spitzer himself.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
It’s quite silly for wealthy powerfull men to have just one wife.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:41 am
it is shameful how men grovel for sex. i have done it too. stopped that stoopit approach and now am much more content.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:59 am
I’m left wondering if we do too much to categorize behavior. There are plenty of salesmen out there who?s answer to how much does it cost is how much do you have to spend? It’s been done in Hollywood a few times; typically with a poor (financially) guy with no scrupples taking advantage of a child. But I?ve certainly seen the fed. paying billions to develop something (the child support tracking system for example) that I?m sure I could make a healthy profit from for under a million. They have the (our) money and an interest in spending it. I doubt this observation is outside Marc?s general message ? knowledge and common sense can be valuable in many circumstances.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Marc hits the, er, mark on Spitzer’s press announcement. It was so cold, from both him AND his wife, that it was material for classic parody. I think this was simply a misstep on his part. He’s been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and he doesn’t know how to react.
I agree with his point about men like Spitzer not needing to pay for sex. Sexual celebrities of EITHER gender don’t have to pay for sex. But… there’s the old saying about getting what you pay for. Marc writes: “Mr. Spitzer could have found many discreet, high-profile, unhappily married female counterparts for his trysts.”
Agreed BUT in this day and age of sexual harassment lawsuits and gossipy workplaces and Manhattan social scene, that may be more easily said than done. In addition, having an affair with a married woman introduces a while new dynamic: the other husband. And “high profile” may have been the LAST thing he wanted.
Of course, all this is moot because it appears that Spitzer just blew it. It wasn’t rational.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Wow. Yet another great article from Marc Rudov.
I just got published widely with a similar article, an example of which is here:
http://www.commonconservative.com/guest02.shtml
It is all over the Internet that the most disgusting thing about the Spitzer Scandal is the amount of money a powerful man felt he had to pay for such a level of attention from a woman (whatever happened to fawning interns? They are kept away be feminist minders whom the idiot politicians feel they need in order to keep the women’s vote).
But Marc and I are, unfortunately, the chief instigators in making that point.
It is crucial that we all keep repeating that thing about the Spitzer scandal for the next year at least.
This scandal is a real boon to us and I hope it does not leave the public’s mind like when Bush’s Anti-Sex-Trafficking Czar was caught with a Venezuelan prostitute last year.
The most IMPORTANT lesson about the Spitzer case is that Spitzer was the biggest supporter of radical feminism out there…and he turned out not only to have been a hypocrite who was quickly abandoned by the feminists…but it appears that members of the FBI and Wall Street were happily able to hate him enough to make sure they set him up and drove a wooden stake into this vampire.
Are there powerful men in the FBI and on Wall Street who will now help us frame or set up (if necessary) and bring down the rest of the misguided chivalrists manginas in government?
If we are going to be losing democratically for the next 4 years (none of the 3 political candidates are on our side) then we can maybe hope that whatever is left of the old boys network will work hard to skewer the chief pro-victim-feminist male protagonists out there (may I suggest that Sam Brownback be setup for sex with a gorgeous young intern?).
Democratically…we are being set up by those who believe that a majority vote can take other’s rights away…in this case the rights of white hetero males.
Take a look at the radical feminist blog that discusses Marc Rudov in this thread:
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/03/12/oreilly-guest-bleats-about-the-female-agenda
Marc asked all his readers to go there to defend him, but either nobody bothered to do so or (more likely) the blog moderator Margaret decided to only allow me to be set upon there like a bull in a ring with 40 hyenas.
You can see how arrogant the Gays and Lesbians there are in saying that we Heterosexual White Males have no right to talk to women without background checks because we might be rapists or stalkers.
One gay even said that Eric Blair should not have been allowed to send his novel “1984″ to women strangers while identifying himself with his penname George Orwell. He said that this anonymity could have allowed Blair to send “rape pornography” to the woman which would upset her eyes.
Marc Rudov should be proud that he stirs up such fanatics.
Marc is a genious even though he hasn’t been talking with me because I begged him too much to start talking about actual legislation on TV. He had stated, possibly correctly, that American men who watch Fox News are probably too scatter-brained to want to listen to the intricacies of a law like VAWA. My view was: “If they don’t want to listen to this and would rather talk about Britney Spears, then America deserves to lose its superpower status”.
That being said, a mangina like OReilly is not going to let Marc talk about anything that is not preapproved. OReilly may have come around recently, but two years ago he was condemning all men who would leave the US to meet a woman.
I agree with 95% of what Marc says. Here are too minor disagreements:
1) The reason why I personally disagree on the Ladies Night theory is the leading argument in support of IMBRA is that “marriage brokers” are sites that have an unequal fee structure for introductions (men pay $15 per contact and women pay NOTHING). The feminists have, so far, successfully argued that this fee difference causes men to think they own the women they meet.
2) If he just said that women should reject their husbands (leave them) if the man cheats, he is violating my strongest principle for marriage and that would be that the woman has to love me enough not to leave me under ANY circumstances.
A huge reason why men go overseas for potential marriage partners is because of the way so many American women will use any number of reasons to abandon her husband and then cash in on half plus of his assets.
A German man once told me that he would never marry an American woman because “they would divorce a man if his lip broke out in a cold sore” (Herpes attack). He said that German women tend not to reject their husbands if the man comes down with a real STD.
Although I do not plan on ever coming down with an STD, I value extremely the concept that, if I did, for instance if a dirty jacuzzi or towel gave me something, I would not lose the love of my life and half my assets as a result.
In 2003 I was dating a gorgeous young woman in California and we were spending around our 12th romantic weekend in a cabin on the ocean. I got sick on something I ate and before I went to sleep I made the remark on would she ever leave me if I got cancer. The next morning we broke up because she said that, along with the fact that she could not stay with a man who did not share her love for the Democratic Party, the concept that she should be forced to stay with a terminal cancer patient bothered her.
If I cheated on my wife, I would want her to beg me to tell her what she did wrong so we can fix it. Seriously.
That being said, I agree with Marc Rudov on 95% of the rest of what he says.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:20 am
If you have gorgeous young female friends, ask them to go to Washington and seduce Sam Brownback and Joe Biden (and garner proof of the affair).
We cannot use violence to fight the enemy in this war against men.
But we can use sex and, if we were actually willing and able to organize such a program, we actually would win.
Sam Brownback seems to have a thing about men “living out their sexual fantasies with naive foreign women”. This means that HIS FANTASY is probably to be with a naive foreign woman.
Think about it.
Eliot Spitzer, like Brownback, hated “johns” and talked a lot about how horrible “sex trafficking” is while defining it as all prostitution. His wife was driving him to do this (possibly in payment for her not leaving him for what she knew he was doing?).
Spitzer’s first act as governor of New York was increasing the penalty for visiting a whore from 3 months to 12 months.
Spitzer clearly had an S&M fetish.
Anyway, back to our need to frame our enemies:
If the mangina target is gay, that might be a problem because, as I will write in another article soon, gays are generally not on the side of men’s rights. But that would only be a temporary problem and gays would help us bring down a gay Republican mangina.
Then again…Senator Larry Craig of bathroom buddy fame was NOT brought down. The gays are so powerful that they made sure that Craig could REMAIN a senator as long as he tacitly agreed to vote in their favor for the rest of his term.
I am sure a lot of Senators are under direct blackmail from the feminist-gay community right now.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:05 am
[...] Sex Lessons from Eliot Spitzer. [...]
March 16th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Jim
“If you have gorgeous young female friends, ask them to go to Washington and seduce Sam Brownback and Joe Biden (and garner proof of the affair).”
MCA. I heard about a college age male who attended a joe biden lecture, and he said Joe biden touched him innappropriattely, and he’s thinking about going public!!
March 16th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Marc and Denis are both (not surprisingly!) spot-on with respect to Eliot Spitzer paying for sex.
I visited the pandagon website to read just how the feminazis are attacking Marc……………..
………. and after sampling post after post written by women that I can only characterize as “stupid bitches”, I quickly had enough.
Marc is one of the leading MRA’s, and deserves our support. Get your friends to sign up for his email newsletter.
The mere fact that America’s feminazis feel as threatened as they do by his appearances on Fox means that he’s obviously doing something good for men!
By the way, somebody ought to tell Glenn Sacks that there’s a poster on pandagon with the login name of Amanda Marcotte who freely admits that she’s a “feminazi”.
As for Spitzer, he screwed up, big time, not only getting caught paying for hookers, but for ever feeling the need to resort to buying women in the first place!
Women tend to crave, fame, money, and power. As Governor, Spitzer already HAD power, so there was no reason to have to PAY women for sex.
And he REALLY screwed up by not divorcing his wife, if she was no longer satisfying him sexually. Staying in a marriage and cheating on your spouse is just plain stupid.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:59 am
I agree with everything that Marc says (as usual).
The only disagreement I have is that the link he provides about female lying (Susan Barich or whatever) doesn’t really make that strong a case.
Susan placed an ad on Craigslist stating: “women interested in explaining about the lies they tell…..”
This is what (I believe) is called a SLOP: Self-selected Listener Opinion Poll.
Ms Magazine frequently uses this technique like so: “Women who have had problems with family court please go to this website to tell us about…..”
Then use the slop as proof that 100% of women have “issues” with family courts, proving the courts are biased against women. But they don’t tell you this is from a “pool” of women responding to invitations to voice your complaint about family courts.
I could do the same thing to show 100% of criminals were abused, 100% of male initiated divorces were due to abuse/addiction/infidelity or prove most anything you want.
We have to make sure we don’t lower ourselves to feminists’ tactics in this fight.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Marc, as usual, makes a lot of sense and draws up several sound lesson plans for today’s men. He is a little like Rolf Harris and his paintings with six inch wide brushes. Broad brush strokes are good for seeing the picture from a long distance.
We must also look at the fine detail needs, and we have seen none as yet. Human beings are complex. Their motives for this or that disasterous action are manifold and deep. Maybe Mrs S had become less attractive to Mr S or maybe he had simply succumbed to the St Neots Margin problem that besets us all. Either way, speculation is simply that. No facts are available and frankly are not likely to see the light of day.
But Marc’s points about women’s sexual needs are lessons that all men should become well acquainted with by age 18. It is a REAL insight. It is for older men to explain it to them, over and over, simply to counter the young men’s basic insecurity developed during early teens as he discovers the ‘power’ a girl’s simple presence can achieve.
The solution offered to married men by Marc, however is dangerous. The unhappily married woman may well be ubiquitous, but she is no sexual saviour as a possible sin partner. Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire. Steer clear, is better advice. Clear of her and clear of the occasions of sin.
Spitzer didn’t ‘have to pay’ for sex, as Marc puts it. He chose to. He chose to disregard sense and thoughtfulness, mindfulness and morality, and chose to be a Moth to the flame. He did, because he could. And he had the monetary power to be profligate. It always astonishes me that any man, any rich man, would pay thousands of dollars for an hour or two of dipping his member into the dark, wet private parts of a female stranger. In his case he had a very good idea of what her private parts has been up to and it wasn’t guaranteed clean!
Marc rightly talks of men’s own sense of self-worth. Most men, in my experience, don’t even get around to properly examining their self-worth. There is a self-esteem problem of huge proportion in society; in all of its players, male and female. Men like Spitzer definitly don’t consider the worth of the females they pay. They don’t consider them at all.
How one ought to behave – what demeanour to adopt – when publicly confessing sin or even simply telling the truth, is an age old problem for some people. Spitzer, as a politician, is so used to lying as a work-skill that he probably cannot distinguish the appropriate demeanour or even facial expression for a truth. He probably hasn’t seen an example in the last 30 years. The poor bugger was buggered decades before his decade of sexual sin.