The US government should never have prosecuted Deborah Jeane Palfrey

The US goverment undertook a three-year investigation and prosecution of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, no doubt costing millions of taxpayer dollars.  She was the Washington, DC madam who was convicted of setting up sex for men in the DC area, including one Senator and several high government officials. 

She was convicted, not of prostitution, because that is a state crime rather than a federal crime, but of financial reporting and various other violations.  Facing years in prison, she committed suicide.

Even in ordinary circumstances, it seems odd that the federal government would devote its supposedly scarce crime-fighting resources into a massive investigation of this woman who hooked up escorts with guys who were willing to pay for sex.  But for the past seven years I’m told that the federal government has been going full-tilt to investigate people who are keen to explode bombs in our crowded cities, killing thousands of us at a time.

Given these other, and vastly higher, priorities for federal investigative resources, it bogles my mind that so much federal time and money was spent investigating and prosecuting this woman for arranging consensual sex for money.

I’m positive my conclusions on this matter are not shared by the following groups: bluenose prudes, hard-core law and order types whose mantra is “it’s a crime, prosecute it, end of story”, and most wives (who have a strong interest in being their husbands’ sole outlet for sex, and don’t mind one bit if any government agency expends vast resources to keep it that way).

Some of you will no doubt say prostitution is a crime.  If you want that changed, go to the legislature.  But that’s not the point.  The point is the federal government shouldn’t be expending these vast resources to punish what is really a minor violation of state laws.

And another thing that should worry those few of us left who worry about the increasing power of the federal government, the strict financial reporting requirements faced by banks and credit card issuers, and the draconian new laws, have made it much easier for a powerful federal government to prosecute people. 

This is pretty much how Elliot Spitzer, until recently Governor of New York, was caught. 

I wouldn’t mind these reporting requirements and laws as much if they were reserved for use against those people who seem likely to kill lots of us, i.e., terrorists.  But the government has demonstrated that when it gets powers such as these, it will use them indiscriminately.    

Will Massachusetts make it a crime to lie to get sex?

If this bill becomes a law in Massachusetts, it might be a crime to inflate your income on your online dating profile.  If you put your income in the “over $150,000″ category when actually make 125,000, a woman searches for guys who make over 150,000, the two of you meet, date, have sex, and she eventually discovers you make less than 150,000, will she be able to get the District Attorney to send you to prison for life?

Cheating on One’s Lover = Future Felony in Massachusetts?

That’s what would happen under a proposed statute that’s being promoted by Massachusetts state representative Peter Koutoujian…

I suspect that this isn’t the goal of the drafters, but that’s what the language would call for, when (as I’m pretty sure happens quite often) the cheater has sex afterwards with the regular lover without disclosing the cheating. Here’s what the proposed law says:

Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a person having obtained that person’s consent by the use of fraud, concealment or artifice, and who thereby intentionally deceived such person so that a reasonable person would not have consented but for the deception, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or any term of years. As used in this statute, ‘fraud’ or ‘artifice’ shall not be construed to mean a promise of future consideration.

hat tip: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_05_04-2008_05_10.shtml#1210012100

It’s a violation of first-date etiquette to tell your date you want to tie him up

Articles about dating often contain advice on such questions as do you kiss goodnight or merely part with a brief hug on the first date.  Opinions seem to vary on this topic, so I don’t think it rises to a dating etiquette rule.  But I’m pretty sure it’s a violation of dating etiquette to ask your date whether you can tie him (or her) up on the first date.

Last year I was matched with a woman using an online dating service.  It was one of those services that matched couples up itself rather than letting users browse and email those people who interested them.  After several less-than-happy first dates I was excited.  This woman seemed so normal.  I know that doesn’t sound like high praise, but after a bit of a streak dating women who didn’t seem so normal, encountering someone normal was cause for joy.

She seemed completely normal and friendly over the phone.  She had a good job that required regular interacting with a lots of professional people.  In fact, having a presentable appearance and a good personality are job requirements in that field.   In addition, she coached cheerleaders in her spare time.

We made a date for dinner.  We met at the restaurant, had a great dinner with good wine and fun conversation.  We enjoyed it so much that we walked to a nearby martini bar.  Things continued to go very well.  We spent some time there and then left.   The drinks had lowered her inhibitions.  We left the bar and found our way to a park bench, where we kissed.

Then she looked me in the eye and posed a question that took me by surprise.  She asked, “are you dominant or submissive?”  I answered “dominant”.   She repeated the question, and told me she wanted to tie me up. 

I was not comfortable being tied up, and even less comfortable being tied up by someone I had met only a few hours before (notwithstanding her pleasant and cheerful mien), so I politely told her no.  Things got a little less happy after that, but we continued to talk.  She asked what happened when two dominants got together.  I responded that I didn’t know. 

We parted company and never saw each other again.

She Withholds Sex from her Husband as Punishment and Gives it as Reward

When I wrote my “BJ as Reward” post several days ago I had not seen the following article by Leslie Bennetts on MSNBC.  It’s very much in this same vein, only she uses both the stick and the carrot.  She withholds sex from her husband if she thinks he doesn’t do enough around the house and she gives him sex if she determines he has earned it by doing enough around the house.  If I made this stuff up many of you wouldn’t believe it, but here is the story, straight from the horses  mouth:

Maintaining some semblance of parity in your marriage requires you to deploy the same kinds of nasty tactics you swore you would never stoop to as a parent but nonetheless found yourself using the minute you actually had a kid. Bribery and punishment work; so do yelling and complaining. Threats are also effective, as long as everyone knows you mean business. With husbands, tender blandishments and nooky are particularly useful, as is the withholding of the aforementioned.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24206284/

Hat tip: Dr. Helen at http://www.drhelen.blogspot.com/

As I said in my previous post, this is like treat-training a dog, giving him treats as a reward when he does something you like.

And here is a picture of Leslie Bennetts, whose consent to have sex with her husband is considered the granting of a reward:

A BJ as Reward

I discovered some funny stuff about wedding rings and other jewelry from Rachel Lucas, parts of which reminded me of my post several weeks ago about how much should one spend on an engagement ring.  She has several entertaining stories and some interesting thoughts on the subject, so I recommend going to her site to read the entire piece, but here is just one:

Had another coworker named Lisa when I was about 25. She was dating Mark for three years when he bought her a Valentine’s Day gift that was a diamond tennis bracelet. She told me one morning, all giggly and embarrassed, that the night he gave it to her, she was so moved with delight that she gave him the first, uh, what rhymes with joe blob, of their relationship. And then she said, “I hope he didn’t get used to it ‘cuz that’s only happening whenever he gives me jewelry.” Spoken like a true hooker.

http://rachellucas.com/index.php/2008/02/14/diamonds-schmiamonds/

Sadly, it seems to be common that women reward their boyfriends/husbands in this way.  Well, I don’t mean it’s sad to have it done, but it’s sad that it’s used as a reward.  It reminds you of treat training dogs.  When the dog has done something you like, you give him a treat so he’ll keep doing that thing that you like. 

And conversely, if he does something you don’t like, you say the word “no” sharply to him (or in some versions you hit him on the head with a rolled-up newspaper).  Guys who have ever been married or even had a long-term relationship with a woman will recognize the corollary to this as well: if you do something she doesn’t like, she will yell at you, or make nasty comments to you, or ostentatiously give you the silent treatment, slam doors, etc.

Why Can’t You Accept Me For The Way I Am?

Do you remember when Airline Attendants were hot?

Me neither.

The only reason why I ask this question is to illustrate another difference between men and women.

Women think: “It’s nice to see that an older woman has the ability to handle such a demanding job.”

Men think: “Why do I always get stuck with these ^&%#$ squat walruses on my flights?”

The same thought process occurs in relationships. For some reason, women tend to go into “change this man” mode whenever they think that a relationship has a 0.0001% chance of going somewhere. Men just want sex.

A couple of examples:

The girlfriend states that you need a dog (if you don’t already have one). The guy wonders why he needs to spend the next ten to twelve years picking up some animal’s shit… when he’s not thinking about banging this chick.

The girlfriend indicates that you need to get more furniture to replace the junk that you already have. The guy thinks that he’s just broken in his Salvation Army rescued couch to fit his favorite reclining position…meaning that he can still see the television with his girlfriend on top.

The girlfriend starts criticizing your choices in clothes and friends…while you’re thinking about better uses for her mouth.

What do you think would happen if we start to suggest way to “improve” certain areas of our women’s lives? Like how they dress? Or how they fix their hair and makeup? Or how much they weigh?

The moral of this story centers on why women go to such lengths to change their men and yet demand that we accept them in their current state.

I used to work with a woman a few years ago who could not understand why a guy couldn’t accept her because she weighed 150 pounds.  (Let’s overlook the fact that she was a shade over 5 foot tall.)

She loudly and proudly proclaimed one afternoon that she would rather die alone than conform to some Barbie doll image.

I understand that the Paramedics were rushed to her home that night…

…apparently she had gotten her face stuck in a gallon ice cream container.

The Male Pill Is Coming

No, I don’t mean Viagra.  I mean a contraceptive pill for men.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/NATION/657226903/1002

How common do you think taking this pill will be?  Guys, would you take it?  One argument in favor of taking it is to avoid the risk and expense of paternity.  Child support based even on a fairly modest income would add up to over $200,000 over 18 years.

Women, would you insist that your boyfriends/husbands (or both) take it if you’re now using female contraceptive pills? 

Guys, if your girlfriend/wife is not taking the pill and you have to wear condoms, would this be preferable to wearing the raincoat?  (note to women: sex isn’t nearly as enjoyable when you’re wearing one).

How would your decision be changed if you weren’t in a monogamous relationship?

Girls, Beware the Best-looking Guys

I’ve been reading two interesting posts on the Psychology Today website from the evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa.  There is a lot of material there.  For now, I’ll just focus on a few of the research findings he discusses:

 

[H]andsome men on average make bad husbands. Men can maximize their reproductive success by pursuing one of two different strategies: Seek a long-term mate, stay with her, and invest in their joint offspring (the “dad” strategy); or seek a large number of short-term mates without investing in any of the resulting offspring (the “cad” strategy).

 

 

 

All men may want to pursue the cad strategy; however, their choice of the mating strategy is constrained by female choice. Men do not get to decide with whom to have sex; women do. And women disproportionately seek out handsome men for their short-term mates for their good genes…

 

 

 

Thus, handsome men get a disproportionate number of opportunities for short-term mating and are therefore able to engage in the cad strategy. Ugly men have no choice. Since women do not choose them as short-term mates, their only option for achieving any reproductive success is to find one long-term mate and invest heavily in their children — the dad strategy.

 

 

 

Consistent with this logic, studies show that more attractive men have a larger number of extra-pair sex partners (sex partners other than their long-term mates). Interestingly, more attractive men have more short-term mates than long-term mates, whereas more attractive women have more long-term mates than short-term mates. Most importantly for our current purposes, handsome men invest less in their exclusive relationships than ugly men do. They are less honest with and less attentive to their partners. McNulty’s new study of newlyweds confirms this. Their data show that the more physically attractive the husbands are, the less supportive they are of their wives in their interactions.

 

 

 

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-handsome-men-make-bad-husbands-ii

 

One of my friends came up with this theory, although it was supported only by anecdotal evidence rather than the presumably more rigorous methods used in the studies on which these conclusions are based.  His theory was that a great many women are attracted to the very best-looking guys and would sleep with them.  Those guys (the cads) would rarely want to settle down with any of these women, because they were in high demand and could sleep with lots of different women. 

 

The women, most of whom wanted relationships with these guys, were disappointed and wondered why guys were interested only in sex (cads).   It wasn’t that all guys were this way; but almost all the guys they were interested in were this way. 

 

A lot of you readers have undoubtedly observed the very same phenomenon.

 

It occurs to me that a lot of heartache could be eliminated by better selection. 

 

 

Avoid a Mismatch in Sex Drives

Michele Weiner Davis, a prominent marriage counselor and author of several books on marriage, among them “The Sex-starved Marriage” http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Starved-Marriage-Couples-Boosting-Libido/dp/B0000CAR60/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207691787&sr=8-3, recently wrote an interesting article in Time magazine.  She wrote:

… it is very, very common for people to be mismatched in their sexual desire. That in and of itself is not a deal-breaker and is not necessarily a problem. How couples deal with that really becomes the issue. We discovered in the survey, and it bears itself out in my practice, that the person with the lower sex drive controls the sexual relationship, not out of a need to manipulate or control, but because they have veto power. If they’re not in the mood, it doesn’t happen. There’s an unspoken agreement: the person with the lower desire expects his or her spouse to accept it, not complain about it, and also to be monogamous. In my years in working with couples, that’s pretty much an unfair and unworkable arrangement…

 

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1728520,00.html

Those of you who are contemplating marriage would do well to remember this (I’ll address this to guys bc guys mainly read this blog, but it applies to girls as well).  After the marriage, your spouse is your only legitimate outlet for sex.  If she’s not in the mood, you can’t have sex.   That’s not much of a problem; everyone has a stressed day now and then.  The problem arises if it’s not just an off day or an off week.  If she’s not in the mood for a year, you can’t have sex for a year.

And the problem isn’t limited only to that situation.  Power in a marriage accrues to the partner who wants sex less.  She can then use sex as a reward for your behavior that she likes and as a punishment for your behavior she doesn’t like.  It’s easier than dog training.

She also discussed an problem that a lot of married people have: their partner lets herself go after marriage:

Men are more visually oriented when it comes to arousal. So women can debate that, but the truth is, if they really want their husbands be more interested in them, they should pay more attention to how they’re taking care of themselves physically.

 

We’ve all seen this happen. In fact, one of Mr. Practical’s friends told him that a guy could expect only five thin years from a wife.  After that …

And there is very little most husbands can do to persuade their wives to work on shedding the fat.  They’re mostly just stuck with things.  At that point their only option is divorce, which is drastic and expensive.

Rule #1 About Meeting Women on the Internet

My buddy Bill and I were talking the other day, and we kind of figured something out. You see, we are both on MySpace, and he’s done some dating websites before, so we’ve obviously had many chances to look over thousands of women’s profiles over the years. In all this time we have learned one very valuable lesson:

If a girl posts picture after picture after picture of nothing but her face…

…she’s fat.

This rule is right 100% of the time. How do I know this? It’s simple. If a girl has a rocking body, she’ll want to show it off. If she has an average body, she’ll still want show pictures of herself in clothes that flatter her. But if she’s fat, well hell, no one wants to see that, so she won’t show it.

Just another tip for you, fellas.