Risking Everything for Sex

By Peter D. Kramer on March 10, 2008 in In Practice

New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer Why would a politician endanger everything—family, career, and reputation—for naughty, illicit sexual excitement? I know nothing particular about Eliot Spitzer. Sometimes seemingly obvious situations come to reveal complexities: mental illness, substance abuse—people have a way of surprising us. Still, I thought it might be timely to link to a brief essay I wrote in 1998, when Bill Clinton was making us ask the same question. Titled “Why Someone Would Risk It All,” the piece appeared in the February 1, 1998 issue of U. S. News & World Report.

Share/Email

Comments

Spitzer a Narcissist?

Submitted by Anonymous on March 11, 2008 - 11:57am.

Although he might have been making a deposit on future trysts, Client 9 allegedy paid more than $4000 for his hour of risk. Perhaps the price grandiosity must pay for a lack of charm?

maybe not that complex (for most)

Submitted by speeds3 on March 11, 2008 - 5:02pm.

why is it when a political figure or someone of authority is caught up with having affairs, some psychiatrists will start speculation about mental illness ?? substance abuse?? i'm pretty sure a way lot more people who are of the same status as bill clinton had sexual affairs, but they didnt get caught. prof. kanazawa and the field of evolutionary psychology has a very good theory on that. check it out.

sex, complex and simple

Submitted by twinkling on March 11, 2008 - 7:51pm.

Risk it all? What is being truly risked and against whose rules?
I must admit i thought I had it all figured out when I was in my 20's,now it is much more complicated. The reasons for sex are almost as many as the stars in the Milky Way. Truly each individual encounter has to be judged in that way. We can't just throw each *news item* into a categorical box, it just doesn't work.
Surprisingly very normal people, with no drug abuse or mental illness often enter in to *shocking* sexual deeds. There has to be a lot more honest talk about human/mental/physical needs before any sort of judgment in relation to "normal" can be formed.

what your really saying Peter is

Submitted by david Petropoulos on March 13, 2008 - 9:42am.

Peter is in my observation asking a question he knows the answer to.And anyone who follows the masters work knows the answer. The ''D'' word. Risking what one has- is to not appreciate what one has, hence a dimming of emotion via depression.From my observation of depressives,they feel little to no embarrassment,for that is a reflex of emotion(caring how others see you). It strikes me that him being able to convince others of his goodness with his government position also intensified his already fermenting self hatred to the point of self destruction.The depressives overriding compulsions for excitement blazes their path as if on cruise control.That main driving compulsion is- being important to someone when they inside feel worthless.And who better a someone, than a call girl whos values are as few as his(and with the same mental condition)and who's eyes and stare will not see him ,reveal him to himself for who he really is ''nothing''.Unless of course he takes an anti-depressent and restores some emotion ,reinstituting human prefrontal cortex behavior.And lets not forget about the spouse who will have the painful realization that for years she's been living with an emotional apparition.Unless she herself is also a depressive,since as peter tells us they tend to pair up.All anyone wants is for others to have a common shared emotional reality ,one that mimicks our own high ethical standards.For some to be content and share our emotional reality, medicine is the only way!......long live Peter D..along with his wife and children of course. with a hand shake in thought,David Petropoulos ''a stay at home dad-artist-antique dealer- with a.d.d.''

Sex and power

Submitted by Austin W on April 6, 2008 - 6:48am.

I just watched The Other Boleyn Girl last night, a well-acted and photographed bodice-ripper (one wag said the bodices must have been held together with velcro). It offers a picture of a supremely powerful figure creating serious risks to king and country for sex. In contrast, the royal court views liaisons only as political contracts and discussions of royal dalliances as legitimate topics of conversations as one discusses terms in a contract.

The relationship of sex and power is strongly portrayed in the film. It seems we are fascinated with it, on both sides of the gender divide, for obvious evolutionary biological reasons. A relationship with a prostitute vs a relationship with a political intern has significant differences in the power equation. Whether it is a high-priced call girl or a streetwalker also needs to be factored in. It may be time to find a copy of Klute and re-watch it for background.