A fool too late bewares when all the peril is past. – Queen Elizabeth I
It seems that politicians just can’t help making asses of themselves; yesterday I discussed three such cases who probably still don’t realize how stupid they look to rational people, but today we’ll look at one who destroyed his reputation and his political career through actions which appear to display a complete inability to foresee the totally foreseeable. Of course, that would presume than Congressman Chris Lee was thinking with the big head rather than the little one, which he obviously wasn’t. Here’s the story, condensed and paraphrased from one which appeared on Gawker last Friday (February 25th):
Three hours after Gawker’s February 9th publication of a photo of Chris Lee standing in the mirror shirtless, along with the story of the married Republican congressman from New York’s attempt to pick up a woman via the Craigslist personals, he had resigned. His sudden exit took many people by surprise, but apparently Lee’s rapid retreat may have been intended to cover up something more scandalous: two D.C.-area transgender women contacted Gawker, each with a separate story about exchanging emails with Lee. One produced an ad that Lee allegedly posted on Craigslist in search of trans women; the other sent us a never-before-seen photo that she says Lee sent her after they started chatting by email.
The first report came from a pre-op transgender woman from Arlington, Virginia whom Gawker called “Fiona”; she said she had replied to a “casual encounters” ad on Craigslist in mid-January and used the “e-mail this posting to a friend” function to send a copy to herself:
Sexy Classy guy for passable TS/CD – m4t – 39 (Cap Hill)
Date: 2011-01-14, 8:55PM ESTNew to area. Very fit classy, successful guy. 39, 6ft 190lbs, blond/blue. smooth hard body. Looking for a sexy ts/cd that i can spoil. I promise not to disappoint.
Craigslist personals are removed within seven days of posting, but since Google caches Craigslist index pages Gawker was able to confirm that an ad with precisely the same headline was posted on the evening of January 14. The headline and ad itself are similar to the previously-revealed flirtation, such as the words “fit” and “classy”, and dates to the same evening; it also featured the same shirtless Blackberry picture, though cropped to hide Lee’s face. Yes, that’s right: a member of Congress posted a personal ad seeking transsexuals and crossdressers and even included a picture of himself, all without thinking twice, apparently. Like the woman in the first incident Fiona is 34 and black, and she discovered his identity in the same way the first woman did: “I copied and pasted his email into Facebook, and that’s when his picture of him and his wife and his little boy showed up. Then I clicked on the link and realized he was a politician from New York, and I was like OMG.” She emailed him a few more times before telling him in an email on January 21 that she knew who he really was, and he never replied. But that same day, Lee sent an email to his staff saying that his Gmail account may have been hacked.
The second report came from a transvestite prostitute Gawker called “Holly”, whose Craigslist ad Lee allegedly answered. “Holly” demanded money from the site for email transcripts, but did provide a new picture before backing out of the deal. This photo clearly resembles Lee; the man in the photo has the same physique, is standing in the same pose and is holding the same red Blackberry, although the photo was clearly taken in a different setting and he’s wearing different pants.
Lee has not yet spoken publicly about the incident, except to say in his letter of resignation that he made “profound mistakes” and “regret[s] the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents.” But if Lee was using the Internet to meet up with transsexuals and cross-dressers his rapid resignation makes sense; he may have thought if he quit immediately he could avoid having his kink exposed.
Lots of politicians hire prostitutes, and lots of them have a queer streak, but most of them have the sense to hire professionals from a discreet, upscale agency rather than trolling Craigslist or, even worse, placing their own ads to attract liaisons! But Lee didn’t stop there; no, he used his regular email address instead of setting up another one for his “hobby”, and then he sent real pictures showing his face not merely to one person but to at least three! It’s impossible to pass this off as a momentary lapse of reason; his actions delineate a clear pattern which every experienced whore should recognize. As I’ve discussed before, men tend to get very weird when they’re sexually frustrated; their fantasies get steadily kinkier and they are wont to take bigger and bigger risks to fulfill them as control over their actions shifts from the top of the torso to the bottom. Most public figures have the sense to hire discreet professionals long before reaching the point of total loss of judgment, but obviously Lee did not and the results aren’t pretty. I don’t feel sorry for any politician’s self-made messes, but I do pity his wife and the people of his congressional district whom he hurt with his spectacularly poor judgment. Perhaps if our society were to grow up enough to stop persecuting harlots, men like Chris Lee would find it easier to deal with sexual tension before it causes a very messy public scandal.
What is amazing to me is this politico seems to have absolutely no idea that his penchant for trannies could be a problem for his public life even before this episode erupted into public view.
Just think of actor Rock Hudson, who was homosexual. He knew the problems his sexuality could have been for his acting career and public life. He kept that carefully controlled (though not exactly hidden) and everything was pretty okay for him.
This idiot, on the other hand, did everything that even heterosexuals who aren’t famous wouldn’t even dream of doing. And “these” people are public figures who wield massive influence over the lives of “us”…
Something to add to my Dictator List: so something scandalous just before I retire, so everybody will think that’s why I retired.
🙂
I’ve said these things before, and I’ll say them again:
1) I wish I could argue with you; about any of it. 😐
2) Because of my incredibly deep religious brainwashing during childhood, it’s taken me a long time to see for myself that Abraham, Jacob(this fool had SISTERS), David, Solomon, Samson, Judah, and I’m sure many more had concubines. They never really talk about that in church.
Also, that the Apostle Paul talked about sex as an unmarried man.
3) The Middle East, Southeast Asia, Asian Pacific, and Far East is not the West. They don’t seem to fight these truths as much, but unfortunately, they tend to punish *women* for the male sex drive.
4) I never thought that I’d be able to understand the…societal need…if you will….for escorts. I guess that’s the brainwashing talking.
5) It’s impossible to explain to a woman why this is so, she’d have to have ten times the testosterone in her body than the average woman does to experience it, much like it’s impossible to explain cramps, labor pains, and the hormonal emotional extremes that can go with them to men.
6) Um. I’m kinda in tears as I write this, because it once again makes me realize how screwed men are in today’s American society, but not in the good way. Also helps me to understand many of the foolish mistakes I’ve made in my life.
Dear TheHumanScorch, I’ve heard preachers talk about the concubines. I think that’s great as it NEEDS to be talked about.
Don’t feel sorry, Scorch. Mr Lee’s actions are not evidence that “men are screwed” in general, only that he was imprudent. In a country that enjoys the Darwin awards, mocking Mr Lee for — all in all comical — lack of forethought is not overly surprising.
Or if you feel that the male sex drive is “embarrassingly” strong… I think that this is again the result of standards (curiously also set by males) about what is “proper.” I don’t think there is anything in principle wrong with how much men desire sex, and specifically with how much specific individual men desire sex (since I’m not a big believer in “men” in the abstract… generalizations are only that: generalizations, not essences). To think that men should be different, that they should like sex less, that to me is just misguided moralism.
Sex is usually quite celebratory, and there is a lot to celebrate in the sexual impulses of both males and females. Societies tend to make things more complicated by inserting unwelcome expectations, and many would-be social reformers only make things worse by inserting other unnecessary expectations… but if we get right down to it, sex is an affirmative force of life, a drive that makes us feel proud of being alive. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the way it is.
What’s sad and disgusting to me with this whole thing is that he has to HIDE what he’s doing. Why can’t people just judge him politically by his NON-bedroom actions/words? I’m so tired of this. Why couldn’t people still vote for him even if he came out and said he’s into this kind of thing? But, at the same time, I can understand his hiding out. I’ve had a few look at me like I literally killed people when I mentioned I have an arrangement or said some do and that they work. Things shouldn’t be this way! I hate it! So, I can understand to a degree his hiding. I’m wondering if he was afraid to tell his wife he’s into this? If so, that’s also very sad. There’s so many bitches out there who if a man even SAYS what his fantasies are act like he’s a serial killer, etc. Disgusting! If things were the way they should be, he should have been able to level with his wife and not hide any of this.
Laura, I’m with you on this score. Chris Lee’s political actions should logically be separate from his bedroom ones. A person’s sexual proclivities often have no connection with that person’s integrity or professionalism or discipline. But the fact remains the rest of the world are not as clear-thinking about this as you and some of us here are.
I’m not in the USA, so I can’t vouch for Chris Lee’s political standing – he may be good politician for all I know. I’m not calling him an idiot because of his politics. But I am calling him that because he should’ve known how the rest of American (or any) society would view his sexual activities – and his lack of discipline to keep it under wraps because of how society interprets his public life in light of it. Yes, it is a shame that we are fixated on the lowest common denominator, but we have to be realistic.
Thank you, I think you have made some good points here.
Yes, I think that’s the issue. It’s not so much why he fell, but rather the fact that he KNEW such activities would mean the end of him and he did them anyway. He exercised incredibly poor judgment, and that reflects on him as a leader. Anyone who sets himself up as an authority must be held to a higher standard, and though they usually are not one must remember that nobody forced him to be a public figure. If he had been an accountant or a small businessman, nobody he sent his pictures to would ever have known who he was and we wouldn’t ever have heard about it.
Indeed, these are two independent issues: whether or not Mr Lee is a good politician with good ideas for the country, and whether or not Mr Lee was stupid in his pursuit of pre- or post-op transsexual playmates.
I share Laura’s feeling that it is sad America cannot simply judge politicians by their politicking (in many cases, that would be already enough to make them look horrible), but that they feel it’s necessary to judge their sexual mores. Things get even worse for right-wing politicians, since they make sexual mores (the so-called ‘family values’) part of their political action; so one can claim that they can even be legitimally criticized for not respecting their own political statements. But this is still sad, since people’s private lives should not be part of the public arena of political life.
Mr Lee should indeed have seen the obvious, and his failure to do so show either desperation (years and years and years without satisfying his desire for transsexuals) or his naiveté. Maggie bets on the former; I hope she is right, because if it is the latter, this would mean that he may actually be a good guy. When good guys try to do something ‘risqué’ or ‘criminal’, they often leave clues everywhere… because of lack of experience.
Asehpe, I don’t believe there is such a thing as a “good politician”. People who want to be in charge are by their very nature morally corrupt, and I’m always pleased when they get their comeuppance no matter what the reason. They want to have superior control of others while lacking even basic control of themselves. 🙁
That’s indeed the common wisdom, Maggie (much more so in my country, Brazil, where there’s even a genre of jokes about politicians, their schemes, and the people who believe them). I certainly agree that there is a lot of evidence to support your viewpoint. You won’t get any logical arguments from me against this.
Just a feeling. Maybe I’m ultimately a romantic, but… I’d like to believe there are people, no matter how few, who want to be in charge because they actually want to help others and make the world a better place, not just because of their thirst for power. (You would accept a position as Dictatrix, wouldn’t you? :-).
Accepting such a position if offered, and trying to win such a position by any means necessary, are two TOTALLY different things. 🙁
The latter may be necessary for the former. Alas, one does not go to the moon without a rocket. I agree the latter makes most good people go away, but — again I claim only my status as a romantic as a basis — I’d like to thnk not all.
Some emperors committed hideous crimes to ascend to the throne — and ended up being good emperors nonetheless.
Dear the nakedlistener, thanks for your kind words. The only time I think any sex thing should matter with a politician is if he has a pattern of lying, etc. If Lee did this repeatedly and lied about it OR he was always saying for people to not have this kind of sex or ANY kind then it would be different. I just thought of another 1: if he were a true pervert molesting kids or covering up information on that type of crime in any way OR a rapist of any kind. 1 of my names for Bill Clinton is “sex liar” because he showed a pattern of lying about it. He did enough other evil acts for me to never support him unless he showed true change/repentance anyway, but his sex lies just added to that. I’ll always think it’s sad and disgusting that Lee has to hide what he’s curious about from anyone. I know 1st hand how some can be when you even mention anything unconventional in the sexual area. It’s 1 reason for when you DO use personal ads you have to use some discretion in some things. Very sad. I agree with you on being realistic, but it’s disgusting that this has to BE the reality that Lee and others have to deal with. Thanks again for your kind words.
I definitely agree with Laura. I refuse to celebrate when a politician’s career is ruined this way, even though I detest politicians in general. He did nothing wrong here other than giving in to social tyranny by resigning.
Every time some similar political sex scandal arrises, I always hope desperately that the politician will use the Grover Cleveland defence– I did it, I’m glad I did it, and I’ll do it again. (I know, that’s not actually what Cleveland said, but it’s close enough.) I want a politician to insist that he did absolutely nothing wrong, and to continue in politics as though nothing ever happened.
To insist he did nothing wrong,* without insisting that he did nothing. Yeah, Cleavland had the right of it.
* Or that it was wrong, but irrelevant to the job at hand, without the weeks of denial beforehand.
Spitzer went with high end discreet professionals and look what happened to him.
I’m beginning to think you have to be a closet queer to even run for office as a Republican anymore. They must have some kind of screening process that eliminates all those who are what they claim.
Disclaimer: My criticism of Republicans should not be taken to mean that I’m sympathetic to Democrats. There are very few politicians of either party that I would not cross the street to avoid if I saw them approaching while I was walking my dog.
Now that I think about it, he got his own “news” show on CNN. Not bad for a moral crusader who got caught violating the very code he used to ruin other people. Not that a spot on CNN is much of a recommendation when it comes to personal integrity and objective journalism…
Spitzer was a fluke, though, Dave; politicians at every level of government hire escorts (I’ve been with quite a few of them), and most never get in any kind of trouble.
Dave, the real reason why Spitzer was “outed” for hiring an escort is because he sought to regulate Wall Street, so Wall Street brought him down. But they couldn’t bring him down for trying to regulate Wall Street. That wouldn’t do. So Wall Street used sex-hysteria and moral-panic instead. Works like a charm every time.
Thanks for bringing up this information! I only heard it mentioned on alternative news (thank God for the GOOD alternative news hosts/reporters) which is no surprise. Thanks again for mentioning it as people need to know about it.
I was going to say what Susan said but she beat me to it. Indeed, Dave, hiring an escort is apparently only bad for a politician when his enemies find out about it. I imagine only politicians who have really a lot to lose — and whose enemies are powerful enough to find out about anything — really need to avoid escorts.
I left the Democratic Party a few years ago and am thankful I did every day. However, there ARE a few politicians I support in that party and also the Republican Party. Unfortunately, though, a big % of them I can’t support in good conscience.
BTW, that congressman in the article looks good without a shirt on. Maybe he should get an honest job in the sex industry.
There’s this place in Nevada that will hire him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shady_Lady_Ranch
NOTE at the end it says there’s a new man working there.
I agree with you on that! Plus the rest of him shown isn’t bad either.
Dear Asehpe, yes, history HAS shown there’s politicians who get into politics for GREAT reasons, i.e. to at least try to change evil things going on in society. A few: Ron Paul, William Wilberforce and John F. Kennedy. Thank God for even a few! Even politicians who show a pattern of evil do good things at times! Even Dubya (the younger Bush) did a few good things. I personally think he did them for the wrong reasons (to look good, get favor, etc.), but the things he did in and of themselves WERE good. As much as I hate Obama, I have to admit he’s done a few GOOD things. I’m so tired of hearing that all of them are evil, etc. Too many ARE but to say all are is as unfair as saying things like all men are liars and no good.
Human beings are indeed complicated, and assuming politicians are bad simply because they’re politicians (as people in my country, Brazil, do) is indeed logically flawed. As a rule of thumb, however, it certainly is true that being false and manipulative are things that tend to help politicians get along — call them professional hazards. I end up thinking that if someone is a politician s/he has to prove to me that s/he is honest, because s/he is definitely part of a high-risk group.
I know of two former professional campaign managers, one of whom posts regularly here; both of whom share my opinion on politicians. What does that tell you?
There are two ways to attain power: you can seek it, or it can be handed to you. However bad those who seek power may be (in general, with noted exceptions), I see nothing in history to make me think that those who are handed power are any better (again: in general, with noted exceptions).
In systems where people choose their own leaders, they can also get rid of said leaders when they turn out (as they far too often do) to be bastards, and can do it without bloodshed. In many cases there are recalls, there are impeachments, and there’s always the next election in which people can vote for somebody else. In at least some cases there are term limits, so that somebody can hold power for only so long.
The campaign managers confirm how many bad 1’s ARE out there. But, that doesn’t take away from the fact that there are a few good 1’s and always have been through history.
The only rule to which there are no exceptions is the one which states that all rules have exceptions. However, anyone who assumes that a tiger stalking toward him just wants to play is a fool.
I say thank God for the exceptions! Imagine how much worse the world would be without them. Things are bad enough so even 1 exception gives us hope which is very needed.
Take all the fools out of this world and there wouldn’t be any fun living in it, or profit. -Josh Billings
Ladies and gentlemen, whether or not a politico is honest or dishonest by degree or turns is unimportant. Most of the time, people in political jobs tend to fluctuate or even mix the two extremes because that is the nature of the arena.
The point of Maggie’s piece is that this particular politician, Chris Lee, displayed an astonishing lack of foresight about his sexual proclivities with regard to his political activities – a foresight than any other regular/normal/sensible person would take one or two sensible steps to (shall we simply say) to keep it relatively more out of the limelight.
Most of us (everywhere around the world) are relatively conservative about Chris Lee’s sort of thing. I have an open mind that is so open that my brain practically falls out – and even I personally find it a bit hard to swallow when faced with this sort of thing if my local politician came out with a stunt like this.
So, I should think Maggie’s piece is less about the honesty/dishonesty of this particular politician, and more about his judgment calls for something that has foreseeable consequences.
(Maggie, please tell me if I’m reading you right.)
You’re reading me exactly right. The politician’s honesty and the ignorance of public beliefs about sexuality are immaterial here; what is important is that Chris Lee knew what the consequences of his actions might be and went ahead anyway, which casts serious doubt on his judgment in other matters. Public figures MUST be held to a higher standard, otherwise we get…well, look around.
Thank you, M, for that confirmation. With all the comments going on, I thought I was starting to lose it.
Okay this may not be the right column, but I have several questions…they have probably been answered before elsewhere, but:
1) The question for me is percentages. Out of the vast pool of women, how many women, percentage wise, want “an arrangement?” Out of every 100 women let’s say, how many of them want to have like one main boyfriend, but several men that are just sex only relationships?
2) Maggie: a) Doesn’t that prove that the ‘wanton woman’ is not really a myth, just a rarity?
b) Same question about escorts Maggie; I know that you’ve stated two things repeatedly: That escorts aren’t any different from other women, but that it also takes a certain constitution and mental fortitude to be one. So then percentage wise, out of 100 women, how many c an or will become professional escorts?
1) Extremely low, vastly less than 1% (I’m sure Laura will agree).
2) Not remotely. The “Myth of the Wanton” is that women’s lust is greater than men’s and that prostitutes are “more lustful” than most women. Neither of those are remotely true.
3) In historical times 5-10% depending on the time and place, in modern times when women have many other options about 1% over their whole lives, roughly a third of that (0.285%) at any given time.
It sounds like maybe “arrangement girls” and “aptitude for escort girls” occur in similar numbers, and in both cases the number is low enough that neither is a threat to the other.
Truth be told, and again, you might have told me this before Maggie, but I’m surprised that the numbers are actually *that* low.
Maybe I need Laura to explain to me again why she has an arrangement but yet her lust is not greater than a man’s(to use your words).
Sailor: I suspect the number of “arrangement girls” is much lower than the number of prostitutes.
Scorch: Why does her lust need to be greater than a man’s in order to have such an arrangement? It doesn’t even have to be similar to a man’s (though obviously she would have to say whether it is or no); merely having the unusual outlook that she does would more than suffice.
To be honest, I’ve never thought of the % of what I call “wild women”. That’s what I like to call the women like me. I actually have “met” a new 1 in the past few weeks! 😀 This is a woman I was already friends with and I’m very thankful! I put “met” in quotes as I’d already been friends with her for a few months before the subject of wildness was brought up during our conversations. Dear Maggie, when you talk about the % of prostitutes, where did you get that information?
The historical percentages are derived from Nickie Roberts’ Whores In History and Thaddeus Russell’s Renegade History of the United States, both listed on my bibliography page. The modern percentages derive from a New Zealand government study, as explained in my column of January 24th. 🙂
“Scorch: Why does her lust need to be greater than a man’s in order to have such an arrangement? It doesn’t even have to be similar to a man’s (though obviously she would have to say whether it is or no); merely having the unusual outlook that she does would more than suffice.”
Because remember Maggie, I can only think like a man…if it’s just the *idea* of the arrangement that turns her on, I can’t relate to that completely. Maybe that’s not a man thing, maybe that’s more just a ‘me’ thing.
I’m not sure I follow you; let’s see what Laura says. 🙂
Well, if I need to be blunt to communicate it better;
..If she’s not hot in the bloomers, why the hell else would she want to fuck a bunch of different men?
Dear thehumanscorch, I’ll be glad to answer you when I can. Dear maggie, your percentages are interesting and I plan to ask about/talk about them when I have time also. It’s great to talk about these things online openly!
Dear thehumanscorch, the reasons I wanted an arrangement are listed in the comments for the post on “Harm Reduction”. If you have any other questions, you’re welcome to ask. Also wanted to say that if you have an arrangement that doesn’t automatically mean you’re with a lot of other men. I only had 1 friend the last time I saw anyone else. I haven’t seen anyone else for about 8 years now. There’s a few reasons for that. Even during the years I was the most wild, some would say I was very boring with it and not very experienced overall. Some would be disgusted by it and say I’m an evil slut, etc., from what I’ve already done plus from just having an arrangement.
Dear Maggie, how do you do the emoticons on here? I wanted to add 1 to the quote about fools I put up to show I posted that to be funny and NOT to keep going on about the same thing (1 of my faults online and off). I tried to figure it out on my own but wasn’t able to. Thanks!
They display automatically when you enter a certain sequence of characters.
If you enter colon dash close parentheses adjacent to each other you get this 🙂
Colon dash open parentheses 🙁
Semicolon dash close parentheses 😉
Colon capital D 😀
I think those are all the ones it’s programmed to do.
Thanks! :-()
I put the sad face by mistake. I wanted to put this: 😀
Dear Sailor Barsoom, thanks for your comment about both groups being a small #! I hate it and always will that there’s a small # of wild women. Please note I’m speaking only here from my own experience in regard to how many I’ve met, read about, etc. But, I say thank God for even a few! Men have been put through so much HELL that even a few of us can help by NOT being part of the evil dating “rules” plus not use men, judge them only by how many $’s they have/make, etc. and also keep things in the sexual area as free as possible.
Dear maggie, thanks for the #’s. Am curious: do you think it’s possible some women have held back on telling others who are getting these #’s, etc. they’re prostitutes? I’m thinking of things here like the #’s on alcoholism. Please note: I’m not saying all prostituties are alcoholics. I’m just wondering if you think it’s possible the social stigma about alcoholics who are currently drinking might be like the social stigma about prostitution? Where some hold back information because of the social stigma?
It’s certainly possible, Laura, but the numbers are close to estimates from prostitutes’ rights organizations so I suspect they aren’t extremely off.