A common question being asked on the Internet recently is: did Silda Spitzer know that her powerful husband, Eliot Spitzer, was spending huge amounts of money on prostitutes over many years?
Let us assume that she did know this. What might her response have been, say three years ago when she first found out?
I think the obvious answer is that she (as a Harvard educated feminist lawyer) would have then had the perfect opportunity to completely control one of the most powerful prosecutors and later on of the two most powerful governors in the United States. If she had an anti-male or anti-sex agenda, she would have had the perfect opportunity to work her agenda on the world.
Let us look at Spitzer’s behavior as Governor of New York for the past year (he thankfully leaves office tomorrow):
With full knowledge that feminists inside and outside government believe that “sex trafficking” includes all forms of prostitution (and innocent dating services that introduce foreign women to American men), Governor Spitzer last June signed an anti-trafficking law saying: *Human trafficking is modern day slavery and among the most repugnant crimes*. The link is http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/0606071.html. At the time he was knowingly violating the already existing federal Mann Act that prohibited paying for women to borders for *immoral purposes*. He wasn’t alone. It seems all his Republican opponents could find nothing but praise for legislation that included penalties for apparently just promoting tourism for men or women who might just want to get laid on vacation outside the country (still not a crime if it is with an adult but give the feminists time to broaden the federal Protect Act to include paid sex with all adults in other countries and maybe any sex at all with any adult woman from a designated *third world* country).
Now that above legislation may have been hypocritical for client number 9 to sign but it was only anti-male in its characterization of sex tourism as if Americans should get involved in the private lives of its citizens overseas.
It is unquestionable however, that Spitzer was being anti-male and suicidal when he signed a new law increasing the jail term for being a man who visited a prostitute from 3 months to 12 months. This kind of law sets males up for sting operations which are already being done to ruin men’s lives in San Francisco. Swedish men know what it now feels like to have lots of gorgeous young female policewomen on the streets trying to coerce them into committing a felony that was not a felony until feminists said it was.
Seeing policewomen doing this type of sting operation makes a man feel like he has been castrated.
Now prostitution may be illegal in a few countries, but with the exception of Sweden and the USA, it is virtually unheard of for a country to go so far as to prosecute males for just being potential clients of the oldest profession on Earth.
Prosecuting the men for being weak is anti-male. No man with a backbone should respect the argument that, after 6000 years of prostitution being on-again-off-again illegal, that being a weak male seduced by the scene should suddenly become, in addition, illegal.
I know Christian men who pay prostitutes in order to spend an hour trying to talk them into having a better life. These men can be, and probably already have been, sent to prison for their good deed.
I believe that the reason why New York State suddenly got more serious than ever about punishing men who visit prostitutes, is because Silda Spitzer had her “husband” the governor wrapped around her little blackmailing finger.
If this turns out to be true, Silda Spitzer should be prosecuted for extortion.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Robert Stevens said,
He wanted to keep his cushy little job, so he passed a bunch of man hating, unconstitutional laws to get feminist to support him.
I do believe his little feminazi wife is part the reason for the unlawful behavior, ie the unconstitutional laws passed and the visits to the hooker. He had to live with that woman and she was undoubtedly a influence on him, A BAD INFLUENCE!
We need to get rid of guys like Sitzer, not because they go to hookers to get their jollies, but because he is atypical of the man hating and freedom loathing parasites that most politicians today are.
The real reason for his downfall is NOT… NOT the hooker thing. NO.. good ole Elliot pissed somebody off…. somebody very powerful. These people, don’t give a rats ass how many bad habits he has, but if he hurts them or cost them money, they will get rid of him.
On the hooker thing, I don’t care what he does with his personal life, a lot of men go to hookers, because women today are basically selfish. If a man need some sexual favor and the wife won’t do it, he can go to a hooker.
The old thing about a woman getting upset if her husband does ” the nasty” with some other woman is not half as upsetting as the fact she nolonger has the control she once had.
March 16, 2008 at 10:58 am
anti armchair generals said,
I was surprised to read in your column that Sweden which used to be euphemisim for free sex, has gorgeous female police officers trying to get men into committing a felony.
Also, does the New York law apply to men who go to Nevada where prostitution is legal in rural counties, make a man criminal for visiting a prostitute or does the long arm of the law apply only in New York?
http://www.usatourist.com/english/places/lasvegas/sex.html
March 16, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Jim Peterson said,
I assume that Spitzer violated New York State law when he PAID for the sex in advance while inside New York State. Because if he PAID for the sex while doing it in Washington DC, he would come under DC law for that.
Does anyone know the details on that?
Spitzer did violate a federal law, which needs to be partially overturned, called the Mann Act…because he paid a prostitute to cross state lines to be with him and have sex. The wording of the law says “immoral purposes” and this wording needs to be overturned.
Sweden is big on pornography but the feminists are dead set against MEN being johns while I think it is OK to be a victim (prostitute).
But to Sweden’s favor: their government rejected the first Swedish IMBRA law as unconstitutional.
The government report stated that men had the right to search for wives outside of Sweden.
March 16, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Jim Peterson said,
Sweden is big on pornography but the feminists are dead set against MEN being johns while THEY, the feminists, think it is OK to be a victim (prostitute).
March 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm
steven deluca said,
When women see that a man can lease a boat, car, or a woman, they know that he might not want to pay full price for her … or he may try to get out of the deal for something new and different. How to keep a husband under control sexually, or if you can’t, how to make sure that everyone sees male behavior as flawed so that in court you get the house and custody even if you stopped being much of a wife or lover… easy, keep control of the supply of sex - so you are the only option, and make sure the laws burn his ass if he strays … and keep putting out messages that to boys and girls that men are flawed and don’t deserve the care and consideration bestowed on women.
So, if you have a boyfriend or husband you can control sexually but he has easy options, a mistress, hooker, girl friend, you make sure that every one in society sees him as the worst sort of pig so that he is entirely dependent on sex from just hte women he works out a “deal” with. Then you write up sexual harassment laws so that he is afraid to go fishing for something new. Write up laws about spousal rape where she can falsely accuse him, or easy DV laws for restraining orders, so all the sexual power, legal power, social power to control male behavior and sexuality is all in women’s favor - make men into worker bees serving queens and make sure that every women today hears that her gender should be “revered” as Godesses, and men should line up and bow down. Most men seem too afraid to tell women to back off …
And it’s getting worse each year.
In societies where prostitution is legal there is price fixing and women who sell too cheap are targeted. Why would a man pay one woman 200 for the same thing another is giving up for free of for 40$ they tell he one who doesn’t follow “the rules.”
“How to keep a man on short leash” will be the next popular book. Don’t let him bargain with foreign women who simply want a male provider and who are willing to cook and fuck often out of appreciation for what they get from him. Modern American women want it all and they want to feel powerful and in complete control. Imagine living with a women who wants complete control… Some men get tired of jumping through feminist hoops or women’s hoops and they take risks to get what they want. Women’s goals seem to be “don’t be easy” “don’t be cheap” make him earn “it” and it’s not that much different than hookers price fixing.
Other goals , make sure women get paid the same amount for unequal work — so woman can have the fun jobs, or jobs that suit them, without men getting higherr pay for the riskier or dirty jobs… Make sure men won’t make more money and be in position to bargain over sex, or other issues.. Women, get all your body hair removed and talk about “women are more evoloved” - protest commercials that make women look beautiful and sexy while delighting in their own beauty and sexiness - knowing it’s a tool to get what you want from men - get breasti implants, chubby libs, botox, 200 dollar haircuts, spend of money on clothes, look like someone from another planet compared to the male gender, have sit-coms where men are seen as idiots and pigs, make fun of “Hairy, stupid, inept fathers, boyfriends, ” … and then bring up boys in that culture telling them that their natural sexual feelings are bad. Increase the perception that women have more value and men owe women a great debt just to be with us.
This formula is making a mess of many men… we are going to have more men “acting out” then we do now and it will all be exlpained by feminist women as “testosterone poisoning” as if women didn’t have a part in bringing up boys in such a way that they become hurt, angry, which leads to problems and failures. Boys treated like inferior girls will not be good men … going to hookers is a form of “acting out” - or a form of sexual release and a very high risk event. Few look to understand the real problems men are having, they just make a list of the way men act out and show that list as proof that men are a mess, as a way of controlling and humiliating boys and men. This game is not working out for males or females. Boys are replacing dating and sex with cyber port and with animated women. The year 2050 is going to be a place so odd … castrated males harnessed to serve the queens.
March 16, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Jim Peterson said,
They seem to have a pecking order where the absolute most gorgeous 19 year old will know she can command $500 and will not negotiate. While saying she will not negotiate, she will actually point at her best friend and say “If you want to pay $200, my friend Svetlana here will do it for that”.
They apparently don’t know how shocking it is to openly value their friends at less than half they value themselves, but then again they are not valuing their friend’s worth as a person but physical appearance.
And I would say they are spot on. They know the market cold for exactly what each individual can get. So, if an ugly friend was willing to go to a man’s hotel room for an hour for $50, they would be happy for her if a guy chose her at that low price.
EXCEPT: The prostitutes in the Ukraine HATE the international matchmaking services!
A $500 woman I talked with was furious about that competition because she knew that many of the women who are serious about marriage and family would otherwise be worth MORE than $500 for an hour. She said that these women caused men not to want to see prostitutes and that was a bad thing for her.
March 16, 2008 at 4:51 pm
amfortas said,
The arguement for promoting and excusing prostitution - it is the oldest profession - is flawed from the start. Murder was the first crime (Cain vs Able) and that doesn’t get a free pass. Prostitution could be virtually eradicated, or at least made rare, like murder, if prostitution was criminalised and prostitutes were heavily sentenced. Again, face it, look at it; men are the victims in prostitution.
There is a huge hypocricy at work. An almost universal psychosis. Can you imagine the furore if women were expected to pay for sex and men were the extortionists? Can you hear the Feminasties screaming with rage if prostitution were slated for criminalisation? Can you see the look of complete confusion in women’s eyes if women were prosecuted for their day-to-day sex crimes, their ’spousal rape’. Perhaps we can start by a hefty fine for ‘lying back and thinking of England’ as a sub-section of the fraud/consumer protection laws.
Perhaps this is the human norm. Neurotic women, and the up-to-date, empowered, psychotic women leading the mad pack. Weak men who ‘act-out’ while kicking their male friends in the slats. Oh for the day when a guy can point to his nerdy friend and suggest to some woman that she can shag him for $50 but his own fee is “$far-too-high-for-you, Slapper”.
Did Spitzer cave to blackmail? Supposition. Show the evidence. A supposed possible motive is insufficient. Let’s not join the madness.
March 16, 2008 at 7:14 pm
anti armchair generals said,
Because your comments are well reasoned, I respect them. But your remark,” Let’s not join the madness”, leaves the public at tender mercies of MSM. What are the facts?
NJ Governor
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E4D6143FF930A2575BC0A9629C8B63
NY Governor
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03162008/news/regionalnews/the_mcgreeveys_secret_102260.htm?page=0
March 16, 2008 at 9:58 pm
anti armchair generals said,
NY Governor
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112008/news/regionalnews/spitzer_has_used_hookers_for_6_years__so_101444.htm
March 16, 2008 at 10:05 pm
amfortas said,
March 17, 2008 at 4:09 am