Well, then maybe he should have married a chick who was into Scat play

March 14, 2008

I love Dan Savage, but I don’t always agree with him. That’s the case in his take on the Spitzer situation (or more exactly- his take on Dr. Laura’s take on the Spitzer situation) in a post titled “But What if Elliot Spitzer Wanted to Shit in his Wife’s Mouth”

Dan’s point is that some sexual needs are so kinky that it could be considered more loving to have them met by a hooker than to burden the wife with them.

And while I see his point, I don’t really agree. Because, in the real world, guys don’t suddenly wake up with a fetish. He wasn’t into vanilla sex when he got married and then, 20 years later, decides he needs to be dressed up like a little girl and pegged by a lady with a strap-on. No, he had that fantasy all along, but kept on trying to ignore it in an attempt to fit into the ideal of what people are supposed to find sexy.

If you want to shit in your wife’s mouth, then marry a chick who is into scat play. If there are no women who are into scat play then at least marry one who understands your needs and doesn’t mind if you get them met somewhere else.

Yes, these women do exist. We’re the ones who are told “you’re not the type of girl you marry.”


The Spitzer sitch: does marriage lead men to cheat?

March 12, 2008

Here we are on day three of hookergate, and the questions are all about why. I posted my own theory below, about it being related to the virgin/whore complex, but some well known people disagree.

No, they think it’s because the lovely Mrs. Spitzer wasn’t doing enough at home.

Dr. Laura was the first to bring up this twisted idea on the Today show, when she suggested that because the Gov wasn’t getting what he needed at home, he needed to get is somewhere else.

His wife just should have started charging him 1,000 dollar an hour and negotiate future price discounts with him. That would have fixed everything!

Read the rest of this entry »

This Virgin/Whore thing… it’s complex

March 11, 2008

Did you hear that NY Gov. Spitzer hired a hooker?

Of course you have. Everyone has. It’s the top story in every paper (my fave headline: “Ho No!”).

The main question I keep hearing people ask is “why?”. I mean, on one hand we all know why, the question behind the question is why a guy like this would need to pay for sex?

He’s married, to a really cute wife. Seriously, don’t judge her by the way she looked at that non-resignation resignation press conference. She’s actually quite cute, and has a great shape.

And even if he was tired of his wife there is no end to the number of aides, interns, and co-workers he could have used for a booty call. As sad as it sounds, an affair with a co-worker probably would have been better for his career than one with a hooker. We can forgive cheating (exhibit A: Bill Clinton) but we can’t get over the hypocrisy of a guy who used to punish hookers now frequenting them.

But he didn’t go that route. He paid an estimated $3,000 for sex, with another $1,500 going towards future visits. And that is what most people don’t understand.

The phrase “you get what you pay for” might be true for shoes, but not for nookie.

So, if there are a number of women he could have sex with, why did he need to pay for it?

I think it all goes back to our old friend the virgin/whore complex.

Read the rest of this entry »

This pretty much sums up my thoughts

March 10, 2008

This post on The Huffington Post pretty much sums up my thoughts on the Clinton/Obama thing perfectly.

Barack Obama in TampaBarack Obama in TampaBarack Obama in Tampa

I saw Senator Obama when he was here last year. I’m a pretty cynical person when it comes to politics, mostly because of my poly sci degree. I’m sure that biologists aren’t struck by the wonders of the human body, because they know how it works. I am never swayed by speeches or ads, because I know what goes into them.

But Barack Obama was different. Because when he talked, I actually cared. He wasn’t promising me 4 years of rainbows and sunshine. Hell, he wasn’t even selling himself. His message was that I could make a difference. That, as a group, we still had the power to change the world. But it would take work. Each and every one of us.

It was honest. It was motivational. And it sold me completely. It made me actually care. My whole life I’ve been told that we do our part for change when we vote, and then we leave it up to the guys in Washington. But Obama wasn’t saying that. He said that he wanted us to stay active after that. To get out in the community and the world and do good things.

That’s one of the big differences between him and Clinton. Barack is a community organizer. He believes that change comes from the people to the government. Hillary is a politician. She is saying that change starts with government and filters down to the people.

Here’s the one thing I learned from that Political Science degree. The President isn’t supposed to have a lot of power.. He doesn’t make laws (that would be the congress). He doesn’t determine what is right and wrong (that is the Supreme Court). He isn’t a King. His mission is to set the agenda. To set the nation on a course, and then allow us to follow through with the project.

History’s greatest Presidents (Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy) were the ones who gave us high goals to reach and then had faith that we could reach them. The perfect example of what a President is supposed to do is Kennedy and the space program. He set a crazy goal and then let us run with it until it was a reality. He didn’t micromanage the whole thing or come up with a specific plan on how to build the rockets. He just inspired us to do it.

Barack Obama is able to do that. To inspire us, to move us, and to lead us. I really hope that he is able to capture the nomination, if only so that more people are able to hear him talk and get inspired to have hope in this country. American’s are great people. We deserve a great leader.