lol Client-9!!!!!

Oh man. I was so not going to blog about this but I hardly made it 24 hours. IT IS JUST TOO GOOD.

I don't have much to add to the gloriousness that is this fiasco except to say that if you have not read the NY Post Coverage... YOU HAVE NOT HEARD THE REAL STORY.

This morning I woke up and I thought, "OMG I can't wait to see the Post headline." And there it was, peeking out of newstands and propped up in front of faces on the subway for 19 million commuters to see, in 999999999999999-point font... "HO NO!"

NY Post, I have to love u because you are just SO CLASSY. If you're like me, you want your real news to be just like reading People Magazine so today I knew I was in for a treat. And the Post did not disappoint! 11 pages of SPITZER SEX SCANDAL and that's not counting the continued's!

Really the best piece overall was the page 4 "His Tryst with Kristen: The seamy, steamy details of lusty night in Room 871" (penned by none other than special Post correspondent Rita Skeeter). Yikes, cover the kids' eyes!

She was waiting for him near the king-sized bed in Room 871, a stunningly sexy, petite brunette who called herself "Kristen." She knew Client-9 had paid good money--$4,300--for what would be their few hours of steamy sex together...

No, srsly, I could not make this stuff up. NY Post, I have to love u because YOU ALWAYS KNOW WHAT THE IMPORTANT ISSUES ARE. The gems, they continue: for anyone who didn't see it the front page headline, it bore a subheading that read, "Gov in romp with hooker Kristen" and similarly, the page 2 headline, "Gov nailed in hooker sex." Truly, does anyone love the word hooker more than the New York Post? THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING NO. NY Post, I have to love u because you consistently show SO MUCH RESPECT for sex workers, women, poor people, queer people, people of color and PRETTY MUCH ANYONE ELSE whom you find to be titillating.

NY Post, I also have to luv u because we all know we can't count on the stupid Times to print a screenshot of the Emperor's Club website! w00t! And I quote:

Daniella is natural beauty and refinement. The elegance of an educated culured woman coupled with gaiety and fun... With the light-hearted feminism of a fine Merlot* and the sweet, floral finish of a splendid Riesling you'll agree that moments with Daniella are the ultimate in unrestrained luxury

(wtf??!@$#) Were it not for you, NY Post, ne'er would I have had the joy to read that.

OK even though I hate to be redundant, I have to emphasize that, NY Post, I have to love u because you FEEL SO DEEPLY THE SUFFERING OF (ahem, white-het-bougie) WOMEN. A few pages in there is a truly moving op-ed entitled "STEAMROLL THIS LOUSY BUM, SILDA." You go, girl! (OMG how could that pig do that to her on Valentine's Day?)

Some get women roses. Others get Lewinskied.

And I'm glad someone pointed out that Mrs. Spitzer is "still smoking hot." Otherwise people might start speculating that she drove Client-9 to prostitutes by not meeting a man's needs!

Neway, I could rly go on, and yet...

ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE: I CAN HAS SCHADENFREUDE???

kthxbai.

OK srsly ppl. Exploiting women is bad, mmkay?

But silver linings are teh rox00r because AJ is admittedly experiencing a bit of satisfaction at watching the sexuality of a powerful straight white man get opened up to public scrutiny for a change. Actually, this is something I do a little bit like the Post for, srsly because they're totally going to be at the forefront of championing the lascivious details of the wiretap as they emerge... only the Post would make it a point in their pg 2 headline to note that Spitz was described as a "difficult john." But I mean srsly, what an unimaginable sleazebag. And as several of my coworkers AND THE NEW YORK POST(!) pointed out... he put her on the regional train! Also he haggled and wanted to do stuff that wasn't "safe," boo. Counterpoint: my gf has a confessed sleaze-fetish and thinks the whole thing's kind of hot.

AJ has legitimate concern, however, for the feminist blogosphere, by which I mean one post on Feministing.** I really did not realize that so many young feminists are anti-sex workers' rights. When I started reading the comments, I thought, "feminists here will raise valid questions about the issue of consent as it pertains to sex work but surely I will not encounter the opinion that receiving money for sex is somehow inherently degrading" but onoz I wuz wrong. I tried to respond but then I wuz liek, wait a minute I sound like Diablo Cody... that's how bad it was!

Interestingly enough, I find I turn into a raving Marxist when I try to talk about sex work to people who think it should be criminalized (weird!). I get flustered and then I'm all... sexuality... labor... bleurr!!

Possibly I should not be surprised at young feminists having major hang ups around selling sex but this is a mainstream feminist movement that has all kinds of things to say about bodies and choice when it comes to fetuses. I mean wtf. Also I feel like a main rejoinder to arguments in favor of decriminalization has been to be like, "TRAFFICKING TRAFICKING TRAFFICKING TRAFICKING!" Also, wtf.

Other silver linings include: NY's first black (and blind) governor?

Oh also NPR has an edifying article on the history of the Mann Act, which has been invoked in some of the news coverage, and which I guess he could theoretically be charged with but does anyone really believe he'll be prosecuted for any of the sex crimes?

btw I get extra awsum points for this cuz this evening I wuz liek wtf he put her on a train across state lines... that's white slavery! and my gf wuz liek, no wai that law can't exist nemore. RIGHT AGAIN AJ!

*WHAT DOES THAT MEAN


**Note in particular the end of the OP: "And let's be real, $5500 dollars is still not enough for a woman's body." Regrettably, AJ is not an expert in the politics of sex work (haha but its my blog u still have to read my ideas), so I am kind of surprised that we have not yet agreed that this is a troubling way of thinking about selling sex? Can someone (srsly) explain to me what the deal is that even in a post that appears to be pro-sex workers' rights it seems to be such common parlance to equate the sale of sex with the sale of one's body (soul/being/humanity/dignity/etc) somehow?