![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
It's not like Spitzor raped someone
On NPR's "Morning Edition", a reporter who'd covered Sptizor since his A.D.A. days echoed uncritical sentiments about prostitution that I've been hearing elsewhere in the news: did she she have any incling of this scandal from Spitzor's early days? No: Spitzor was a family man devoted to his wife and kids, and seemed to genuinely love them.
Extramarital affairs don't necesarily make someone unfit to lead, incapable of loving their partner, or less devoted a father. The fact that Spitzor paid money for sex is illegal in D.C. (but let's not forget it is legal in at least one US county). However it doesn't make him any less capable a husband or father than someone who gets their extramarital sex for free.
We also need not assume he cheated on his wife; we don't know for sure that his wife had not given him tacit or explicit leeway for a non-monogamous relationship. Open marriages are not unheard of in this day and age, (Warren Buffet is a famous example of someone who openly has a mistress) and yet the media assumes this isn't the case.
A third assumption made in the media that I find especially troubling is the unchallenged double standard between prosecuting prostitutes, and letting clients walk. So on the one hand, they are saying that Spitzor did something beyond the pale of morality, that calls into question his ability to be part of a familly unit, and on the other they are saying that what he did generally doesn't even merit prosecution. No big deal. Unless you happen to be a prostitute, in which case you deserve to go to jail.
Extramarital affairs don't necesarily make someone unfit to lead, incapable of loving their partner, or less devoted a father. The fact that Spitzor paid money for sex is illegal in D.C. (but let's not forget it is legal in at least one US county). However it doesn't make him any less capable a husband or father than someone who gets their extramarital sex for free.
We also need not assume he cheated on his wife; we don't know for sure that his wife had not given him tacit or explicit leeway for a non-monogamous relationship. Open marriages are not unheard of in this day and age, (Warren Buffet is a famous example of someone who openly has a mistress) and yet the media assumes this isn't the case.
A third assumption made in the media that I find especially troubling is the unchallenged double standard between prosecuting prostitutes, and letting clients walk. So on the one hand, they are saying that Spitzor did something beyond the pale of morality, that calls into question his ability to be part of a familly unit, and on the other they are saying that what he did generally doesn't even merit prosecution. No big deal. Unless you happen to be a prostitute, in which case you deserve to go to jail.
Comments