Maybe I'm being whimsical here but....

"Hmm. I'm paying money for sex with a prostitute. I'm the governor of New York state. Am I potentially risking my career if I get caught doing this?"

I kind of wonder if he was thinking, "Am I potentially risking my relationship with my wife?"

I know, silly of me.

Henry Kissinger will tell you all about power as the ultimate aphrodisiac if you ask him.

;-)

Just as was true for moral crusaders David Vitter and Larry Craig, there is unquestionably a healthy chunk of hypocrisy in Spitzer's case

Because I love this quote, and will jump at the merest hint of an opportunity to use it, I present A Disquisition Upon Hypocrisy, by the Equity Lord Alexander Chung-Sik Finkle-McGraw:

“You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others-after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?

Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour-you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

Because they were hypocrites,” Finkle-McGraw said, after igniting his calabash and shooting a few tremendous fountains of smoke into the air, “the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves-they took no moral stances and lived by none.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age

In Amsterdam, a city I love, they decided to regulate prostitution. The results have been that women are still exploited by pimps and "loverboys". Few are enjoying a great, high paying profession. It's the same brutal, degrading crap as anywhere else.

Isn't the solution, therefore, to go after the brutality and exploitation, and make the activity more equitable for the women? Because fraud and other white collar crime accompanies every business field, should we illegalize business?

At least you are honest about wanting to make hardcore porn illegal. How many other uses of one's own body, or consensual activities between adults, do you think the state should be allowed to criminalized?

LWM:

I'm clearly implying that there is no principled difference, but I'm leaving it open to others' suggestions. Don't you punt on me!

Not that anyone is likely to pay me for sex, I closely resemble Homer Simpson these days and I was never what you would call attractive.

Ron Jeremy managed it. Though I don't watch a great deal of porn, I have read that nowadays they do attempt to find better looking men when possible, but actually men who can have sex in front of dozens of people are actually not that common.

Alexander Chung-Sik Finkle-McGraw had his head up his ass.

It is no mistake that Jesus the Christ most often and vigorously denounced hypocrites..

Do you wish to claim that the Christ had no moral code?

I enjoyed _The Diamond Age_ by the way, extremely inventive book.

I think _Snow Crash_ was better though, Hiro Protagonist was a great character.

Spitzer didn't fashion himself as purer than pure -- his actions led others to do so.

This is not to excuse either his violation of law or his hypocrisy in engaging in activity he's prosecuted. But he did not campaign on a sexual moralist.

My friends and I have been arguing this paradox at cocktail parties for years.

Pornography is considered speech, protected by the 1st amendment while Prostitution is a category of behavior that has always been regulated. The contradiction makes perfect sense under the law but shows the arbitrary nature of the morality that underlies it.

Not to be snarky, but apparently you didn't argue it enough, because this begs the question. Would prostitution therefore be constitutionally protected if you videotaped the prostitute with the john and sold that?

Don't you punt on me!

-- DCLaw1

The pr0n industry is booming so obviously this legal theory failed, so far...

Reckless behavior. This guy fails on many levels. As a governor, as a husband, as a father, as the member of a poltical party that trusted him...

I'm amused by all the posters here that try to pull Republican scandals into the fray, or to equate his behavior with a president who has helped keep us safe since 2001.

It's much simpler than all that: nothing justifies what he's done to the people in life.

I believe the legal difference is that people who act in porn movies or photos are not being paid to have sex, they are being paid for having it filmed and sold. The customers are those who buy movies. There's no direct payment for sex. It's viewing a sexual act which is not illegal.

Prostitution involves the direct payment of money for sex.

Professor appeals to the cynic in me:

I think prostitution is illegal because a woman is making money off of her body. Pornography is OK because it's usually a powerful corporation making money off of her body.

Alecsmom:

I believe the legal difference is that people who act in porn movies or photos are not being paid to have sex, they are being paid for having it filmed and sold. The customers are those who buy movies. There's no direct payment for sex. It's viewing a sexual act which is not illegal.

Prostitution involves the direct payment of money for sex.

My point exactly. Why does the moral and legal dimension of the activity change by adding a commercial/procedural step?

I'm sorry if I seem to be enjoying this too much.