I Oh hai. I can haz bj? Via Azipaybarah @ Flickr
Gentle readers, sometimes we harpies come across displays of such howling stupidity that we feel honor-bound to share it with you, if for no other reason than to make you feel better about yourselves as you contrast your own native intelligence and common sense against that of the post’s author.
To wit: Rick Smith’s HuffPo article “On Martha Stewart and the Psychology of Prostitution” in which Mr. Smith challenges us:
Here’s a simple quiz.
Are married, well to do men more or less likely to practice unprotected sex with prostitutes than their less established counterparts?
The answer is surprising. According to a study by psychologist Dieter Kleiber, those men living the most stable and successful lives are significantly more likely to practice unprotected sex when patroning services from ladies of the night.
Upon first examination, this is completely irrational. These are the people with the most to lose. The risk/reward equation is clearly tipped in favor of playing it safe. And yet, stability is now known to increase the propensity to take on unnecessary risk. How can this be?
The reason, it turns out, is that stability and success over time lead us to falsely conclude that we are invincible. “The more secure and orderly a man’s life is, the more he believes in his own invulnerability,” Kleiner summarizes.
That answer is surprising to no one here at Harpyness, nor to women in general or Silda Spitzer, Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Larry Craig or Mrs. Ted Haggard in particular. It’s always the Masters of the Universe, the alpha dogs, the pillars of their community whose money and power lead them to falsely believe they can get away with murder, or, in this case “assignations with ladies of the night.” (Quoth sarah.of.a.lesser.god: “Ladies of the night? Really? They’re still using that one?”) It has ever been thus, and the fact that this seems counterintuitive to Rick Smith is only a reflection of how lousy Rick Smith’s intuition is.
But wait! It gets better! Because the next line is:
Which brings me to Martha Stewart.
O rly? Do go on…
Mr. Smith then explains how Martha suffered from the same overconfidence as those men who enjoy barebacking with “ladies of the night”, thus leading her to commit securities fraud. Never mind the obvious comparison fail: those condom-averse johns are almost never prosecuted, let alone convicted and jailed as Martha was. It was worth it for that one segue–perhaps the most ham-handed and giggle-inducing that I’ve ever read, even on the interwebs. Plus, you know ol’ Rick got a naughty thrill out of juxtaposing Martha and prostitution in the title–in fact, I suspect the entire article was crafted so he could have the excuse to do just that.
Thanks for the lulz, Rick. And the boost in my self-esteem–I feel smarter already.
Sincerely,
BeckySharper
*Special thanks to the wit of fellow Jezebel commenters westvillagegirl and nessalicious for the title.
Honestly, reading the whole article, I was thinking, “why is he even writing this?” Not only is it painstakingly obvious, its not even timely. Honestly its like, news at 11, people who take risks are sometimes rewarded sometimes punished for said risk. ???
Duh, Rick Smith, I’ve seen Mad Men.
I also came up with the right answer by assuming that these guys were out of the habit of using condoms. They are probably the captains of the “it doesn’t feel as good” ship o’ bull.
But I’d also guess that those men are the same men who would commit securities fraud, too. So, uh, the sex/Martha combo was indeed unnecessary and wildly pointless. Thanks, Rick!
(I don’t read HuffPo, but I do wonder how this made it through an editor….)
Danger Mouse, I thought the same thing, why not choose one of the thousands of powerful men who have committed securities fraud over the years? Again, if Martha was on trial RIGHT NOW or something…but no. This is why I don’t read the HuffPo.
“Why did she do it?” –in italics no less! As if being convicted and serving time proves that she “did it.” The Feds went to extreme lengths to justify the publicity and huge cost to the taxpayers in going after Martha. There was no way she could escape. She handled it with more grace than any effing Bernie Madoff or any other corrupt male fraud could ever pull off.
I’m disappointed that there are no comments on the huff po article.
Let’s be honest: Spitzer never stood a snowball’s chance in hell of being tried, because the culpability always falls on the sex workers. Women who are abused and exploited are totally the only ones who should take responsibility for the mens’ crimes! Pardon me while I retch.
It’s always the Masters of the Universe, the alpha dogs, the pillars of their community whose money and power…
I disagree; it’s always these guys who get the headlines. When Joe Blow (heh) gets nailed (hehe) for patronizing a prostitute (or as Mr. Kleiber would say, “patroning services”), nobody hears about it. Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure the grey people, the Servants of the Universe, the beta males…I’m pretty sure they have unprotected sex with prostitutes too. “Gosh, ma’am, I’d really love to do it without a condom, but prostitution is illegal, and since I’m neither powerful nor wealthy, I believe the risk/reward ratio is not in my favor” — I just don’t see that happening.
I would also note that any man who is willing to say to a psychology professor “why, yes, I do have unprotect sex with prostitutes” is…well, let’s just say there’s a selection bias.
For the record we ‘ladies of the night’ don’t refer to ourselves as ‘ladies of the night’. Makes me think of vampires, and the Phantom of the Opera, not whores.
I enjoy that Mr.Smith finds this so surprising. This is old news. When I first started taking clients I had one who was a doctor, but not just any old doctor, a doctor who specialized in communicable diseases. So after we get the chatting and ego stroking out of the way I bust out my fun bag with 8 different flavors of safety, and he makes the sad puppy dog face. REALLY?! REALLY?!
I got him to put it on, of course, and then half way through he commences begging. REALLY?! And it’s not just the super rich ones, the ones who save up for a night with us beg too. It’s all of them.
I secretly think they may have all been in the same frat, or at least share the same genetic defect that makes them morons. But thank god for the morons, otherwise I’d be unemployed.
I also think that men with more money assume that the sex workers they patronize (heh), are more “high-class” and therefore “cleaner.” The ol’ “if someone is attractive and well put-together, clearly they can’t have any diseases” argument. (Sorry about the profusion of scare-quotes in this comment, I have a sarcasm problem).
@uncommonwhore: Thanks for giving us the sex worker perspective! Question: do you think it might also have to do with age? It’s the over-40 dudes who seem to hate rubbers the most, in my experience, and the over-40 crowd is really the one Rick Numbnuts is talking about here.
or at least share the same genetic defect that makes them morons
…must…resist…sexist…chromosome joke… :p
@Bagelsan: You must mean the Y chromosome!
(there, I said it for you.)
Wow, not only is HuffPo behind on Martha, but that study was from 1994. I looked it up because I was curious after Epsilon’s question as to whether they asked the clients or the prostitutes (knowing that one of my friends regularly interviews prostitutes for economic research).
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-buy-sex
“In a survey published in 1994 psychologist Dieter Kleiber of the Free University of Berlin had some 600 johns fill out the Freiburg Personality Inventory and found no particular abnormalities. The only correlations he found applied to risk taking and unprotected sex. For example, the men who demanded sex without condoms tended to score higher on aggression, and married and well-to-do customers practiced unprotected sex more frequently than others did. “The more secure and orderly a man’s life is, the more he believes in his own invulnerability,” Kleiber concludes.”
I wonder if Rick Smith’s article was actually meant for HuffPo years ago but got lost in the ether and was only posted now, given the fact that neither topic of discussion is new. Maybe he had it hiding on a 3″ floppy in a drawer somewhere and couldn’t make his deadline this week but happened to be cleaning up when….
Maybe he’s also an idiot who related two completely unrelated things.
The SciAm article is good so far though, if people are interested… I’m only on page 2.
@BeckySharper It’s hard for me to say really. I think it has more to do with whether the men are just dabbling with escorts or are full blown hobbyist. But I’ve really never met a hobbyist who was under 40.
The hobbyists make me whacky. I think they sort of like to push the envelope and try to see what they can get us to let them get away with.
On hobbyist websites where they rate escorts there are sections which list whether or not the escort gave them a blowjob without a condom, or even let them have intercourse without one. Frankly it’s an unfair rating system as I don’t get extra points for not giving you AIDS.
All joking aside I think it probably hinges more on how much experience the man has with escorts. If it’s his first time he’s less likely to question the rules, whereas if this is his tenth time he starts to question the boundaries with more vigor.