"Involved in a prostitution ring"

[nancylebov]

Dammit, Spitzer hired a prostitute. This is not the same thing as being involved in a prostitution ring.

When the news came out with that pseudo-euphemism, I thought Spitzer was running a prostitution ring in his copious spare time, though I suppose investing in one would have been more plausible.

In any case, the story is considerably less interesting, though the hypocrisy and political consequences are extreme.

Related language complaint: I wish English had one word for advocating a rule you don't obey and another for enforcing a rule you're not obeying.

Addendum: madfilkentist recommends "hypercracy" (above the law) for enforcing rules you don't obey. Pass it on.

Aside from enforcement, there's the shame thing. If you advocate a rule with a tone of "almost everybody lives by this rule, and those who don't are vile" while not obeying the rule, that's problematic enough to deserve some harassment.

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I noticed much the same thing; the NYT article said "linked to", which far more easily translates to his having been a customer, rather than an operator.

Though, to be fair, when I noted that he'd prosecuted two prostitution rings, the possibility that he had been stomping the competition did present itself.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I agree about language. Humans aren't perfect, so often we advocate a rule we aren't obeying, but know we should, and maybe we are working on it. But enforcing the rule on others while disobeying it ourselves is something else again--especially when it involves, as it often does, using one's own position of power to evade having it enforced on oneself.

[redbird]

Yes. I may advocate something I don't always manage to do myself (which isn't always rules--I don't floss my teeth as often as I think I should, and knowing that other people may floss less often doesn't improve my teeth). But it's different if either I think the rule should only apply to other people, or if I think that while everyone should do X, other people should be punished if they don't, and I should just get to say "Sorry, I'll try to do better." The issue is the imbalance--if we all get to say "Sorry, I'll try to do better" that's not imbalanced, though it may or may not actually create better dental health.

[I'm deliberately using an example unrelated to both law and sex.]

[madfilkentist]

How about "hypercracy" for the latter? Etymologically, it means "above rule."

Button

[(Anonymous)]

"I wish English had one word for advocating a rule you don't obey and another for enforcing a rule you're not obeying."

You know, I would buy a button with that slogan.

David Bellamy

Re: Button

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I'm planning on a slogan to promote madfilkentist's "hyperacy" for the latter.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

A modest word in Spitzer's defense (more a mitigation really).

The prostitution rings that Spitzer prosecuted -- one which organized sex tours and another more standard ring -- where essentially human slavery/trafficking in women prostitution rings. Spitzer, by contrast, as using a service at the upper end where willing buyers go to willing sellers.

No, I do not defend law breaking by a state governor. But if we are to chastise him for hypocrisy, that criticism needs to take into account the differences in the situations. Most of us regard speeding at 70 miles an hour in crowded urban areas as reckless, while treating going 70 miles an hour in a 65 mile zone as a trivial offense. Both are "speeding" and thus both are breaking the law, but we recognize proportionality and degree.

I see Spitzer's conduct as entirely inappropriate for a state governor or a lawyer (we are bound, as officers of the court, to respect the law). And it shows incredibly stupid judgment. But I recoil from the idea that it retroactively makes it wrong for him to have broken up two enterprises that enslave women and young girls in the very real sense of that word.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I agree with that. I am in favour of legalising prostitution (treating it as any other job, as they do in the Netherlands) but very much opposed to prostitution 'rings' and similar forms of slavery. Just as I am in favour of sweeping chimneys but opposed to people forcing children to do it. It's a matter of force versus informed consent of adult individuals.

I don't know whether he was involved in prosecuting prostitution in general. If so, and he was using the services of one at the time, then his behaviour would have been very hypocritical and he should be treated the same way as he treated his employees.

[madfilkentist]

Legalization would help to mitigate slavery. Right now, if a woman who's forced into prostitution complains, she has to admit to breaking the law; and the lawbreaking pimps have no competition from legal businesses. Making it illegal to offer something people want selects for the worst kind of people, even if it attracts a few noble lawbreakers who act ethically.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. It would improve health and safety issues as well. In the Amsterdam's "red light" area the women have "panic buttons" in their rooms which connect to the local police in case a customer gets violent, refuses to use a condom, or whatever. And they pay national health insurance just as any other worker (and get on-the-state checkups). They can also complain about unsanitary or unsafe buildings, rental rates, etc.

And as a bonus[1] the government can collect tax from them...

[1] for the government...

[atomicat.livejournal.com]

I think Brad Hicks has a good take on this. Personally I don't see why someone in that position has to pay for it. After all, as Kissinger said... power is the ultimate aphrodesiac.
http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/382717.html

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

I said the exact same thing!

I even deleted am LJ post I made on the assumption.

well done

[(Anonymous)]

thats for sure, brother