Hooker, Line and Sinker

The infamous D.C. Madam is releasing the names of people who may have dealt with her prostitutes in the past.

Here's a clip from the story:

WASHINGTON: For months, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called DC Madam, has said that her voluminous phone records contained some
powerful secrets. Within hours of their public release, a Republican senator
acknowledged he was on the list.
In a statement, David Vitter said his number was included in Palfrey's records dating from before he ran for the Senate in 2004. He did not say whether he used the escort service, referring only to a "very serious sin in my past". He also said he had "asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counselling". He added that he would "keep my discussion of the matter there".

My main question is, So what? Granted, I believe that prostitution should be legal -- too long to go into right now -- but really, do you care if anyone else visits a prostitute? As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business.

I was one of those people defending Bill Clinton, by the way, in the whole Monica Lewinsky mess -- I didn't like the fact that he was mixing business with pleasure, but ultimately he was just a guy messing around with a willing girl, and that's no big thing in my book. He's a guy, and that's what guys are engineered to do. (And, I'll say it - Monica was really, really easy.)

I think expecting men -- designed by nature to want to do sexual things with women -- to suddenly not want to do those things because of a job title is just silly.

A normal man looks at women and wants to do things with them. Whether or not he does those things is solely a matter of morals, and I'm not passing moral judgement because it's not my place to do that. But I certainly am defending Clinton's -- and Vitter's, and anyone else's -- motives. I don't advocate infidelity -- but the desire itself should be celebrated, not looked at sideways like some weird perversion.

News organizations will present this tawdry info to you, sometimes for political reasons, sometimes just for titillating ratings boosts. But, a guy that visits a prostitute is not automatically a sexual deviant.

(Just for the record, no, I have never utilized the services of such working women; I'm too afraid of disease and also like to think that I don't have to pay for it. But, I will admit, making it a business transaction probably does have its benefits in terms of efficiency and overall long-term costs.)

Here's a newsflash -- normal heterosexual men find women attractive and want to do sexual things with them. They're supposed to want to. Nature drives us to be that way. Monogamy and morality dictate whether it's "right" for the person to actually do those things, but, plainly speaking, it's the guy who doesn't want to do those things that you should worry about.

How do you think we all got here, anyway? Do you really think guys truly want a screaming little human that does nothing for a year but yell, eat and shoot foul liquids out of every available orifice? No. I think it's nature's trick -- the Creator knew that men would run screaming from such an option, preferring instead to build things and then destroy them, and the population would die out. So, He (or She) made procreation the result of something that we all really like to do. The fact that we can still do that without the procreation part is just a bonus.

Leave these poor guys alone.