Blogfight! Blogfight!

I've got a little friendly cyber-sparring going today with Bruce Tomaso, a former editor of mine (he was Religion editor at the Dallas Morning News for much of the time I wrote for the paper.) In a profile of me on the blog Locusts and Honey, all I did was to, admiringly, comment on Bruce's snarky style, but he didn't appreciate the compliment.

I stand by my original claim. Bruce could write a snarky lead for an obituary and get away with it.   

But now I've got to take issue with a post by Jeff Weiss, who sat right next to me when I worked at the DMN (and whose desk is even messier than mine - I've been accused of channeling Jeff here at UMR) and with whom I usually agree.

Regarding New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer's involvement with a prostitution ring, Jeff asks:

Would it have been worse for (Mrs. Spitzer) -- emotionally and morally, not politically -- if he'd had an affair? Would it have been more wrong if he'd allowed himself to become emotionally and/or sexually involved with another woman? Rather than simply using the high-priced prostitutes for physical release? Does this make it more or less likely that he'd be able to salvage his marriage?

From an XY chromosome perspective, I think it would be worse if he'd had an affair. But as I've been reminded, guys are supposed to be able to separate sex and emotion moreso than women. So maybe my question would make no sense to Ms. Spitzer?

Totally, totally disagree with you on this one, Jeff.  Affairs can happen - still wrong, still no excuse - but it takes a measure of proactivity to track down a prostitute (and figure out how to do it without being caught). Affairs are immoral; prostitutes are immoral AND illegal.  And given that Spitzer is an elected official, I think "illegal" adds another layer of moral culpability here. 

And - in my book, there's something that ain't right about a man who can order up a woman like a pair of pants. Did it ever occur to him that each of these women he "purchased" was somebody's daughter?  That tells me he's able, at some level, to dehumanize women. What does that say about his ability to govern 50% of the population he's vowed to serve?

Comments

[Salmon]

Right on! This is just about the best commentary I've read on the subject since the story broke.

[KMC]

I agree with you completely. But I would take it one step further. I think Spitzer's serial lifestyle of using a prostitute not only demonstrates an ability to dehumanize women, but to dehumanize all people. His wholesale disregard for the values he espoused exhibits an attitude, whether he articulated as much to himself, of everyone is less than I am. Whether she stands by him or not is her right and a private decision that no person should judge. My heart goes out to her and their daughters. And I pray the man is completely and utterly humbled by both this experience and any remnants of love the people around him still bear him. I pray that they all get the necessary counseling.

[Sophie]

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Another friend, in NYC, suggests that considering how much he was spending on prostitutes, he clearly wasn't fiscally responsible enough to be governor, either.

[Mary Jacobs]

Jeff's post, and my riposte, started an email debate between the two of us. Here it is, for your reading pleasure:

Jeff Weiss, Dallas Morning News: But no kidding — Whether one has an affair or hires a hooker, it’s a matter of choice and intent, no? The difference in an “affair” is the degree to which the man (in this case) considers the relationship to be emotional. I realize some affairs are strictly physical, but leave that aside. And I’m not excusing (or condemning) either choice. I’m wondering if one is worse than the other and if so, why?

Mary Jacobs, United Methodist Reporter: OK - I suppose someone could have a purely physical affair, and maybe there are affairs where the woman isn't exactly paid but she gets money in one way or another (baubles, etc.) (And I suppose it could be a boy-toy getting the baubles - don't want to be sexist.)

But an affair that involves a measure of emotional involvement at least has something to do with the other person's humanity, no? And maybe springs out of a human need (loneliness, for example) that's understandable. Still not excusable but understandable. I suspect Spitzer didn't get to know these women as people before he decided to have sex with them. He may have picked out their photos online but I doubt he had any conversations with them.

I advised my son, "Treat your girlfriend in the same way you'd hope a boy would treat your sister." I think my son understood and honored that. He's 18. That doesn't seem too much to ask of the grownup governor of New York .

Jeff:
Well, yes to all of that. But — marriage involves a pledge of emotional *and* physical fidelity. Stipulating for purposes of discussion to what you say about the relationship of the john to the call girl — I’m more wondering about the effect on the relationship between the husband and the wife. Is it more ore less harmful to the relationship if the man in unfaithful emotionally *and* physically? (And is this a question about morality or emotions?)

Mary: My point is, if a man can treat women like consumer products - aside from some flukey occasion (say, he was drunk, or "enjoyed" a stripper at a bachelor party) - likely that will tell you a lot about how he treats his wife. Maybe someone can hire a prostitute and keep emotions out of it and in that way it's not emotional infidelity. But viewing another human being as something at your disposal is more immoral and even more destructive than garden-variety infidelity, imho. That's a man with a "withered heart" (To quote George Eliot, re: her villain in Daniel Deronda.)

[Daniela]

Jeff:
To make it more simple and from a woman's perspective:
A man who hires a prostitute is gross, disgusting. The act of your husband hiring a prostitute is more emotionally humiliating since, in my opinion, he is simply horny and completely in disregard of the consequences to his family emotionally and physically (STD's). An affair, to me, is rooted (most times) in an emotional and/or physical need that is not being met. As a woman, I'd be more forgiving because I believe there's always two to blame for an affair. There's no excuse for paying a person for sex and risking your wife's health as well as embarrassing her in such a horrible way.

[gavin]

agreed, i'd say worse to order up prostitutes because of the dehumanizing of a person. illegal part makes it hard in the public opinion. still no excuse for either, both are coated with "yes" answers to compromising ones conscience