Patriarchal Privilege: Will We Ever Stop Protecting Johns?

Yesterday Manhattan federal judge Jed Rakoff ruled that prosecutors who investigated Emperors Club VIP -- Eliot Spitzer's source for prostitutes -- must make public all wiretap data.

Except the names of the club's other 66 rich male patrons.

Will I live to see the day when rich men are treated fairly by the criminal justice system. Why is it that when a prostitution ring is busted as was Emperors Club VIP, suggestive press stories are riddled with biographical details and photographs of obscure, poorly-educated, young women, defaced by cheap plastic surgery. But the women's clients-- the men who fuel the industry-- are protected and their identities kept secret.

In this case, we did get one name: Eliot Spitzer was caught with his pants down and high-profile scandal ensued. (I wonder if his shrink's telling Spitzer he was looking to get caught.)

Surely, journalists must realize that revealing bold-face names of men who patronized the Emperors Club VIP would really elevate their work to a muckraking level.

Judge Rakoff and a lawyer for some of the anonymous clients exchanged smugly false pieties. In his ruling, the judge said that there was a strong and obvious public interest in the disclosure of the documents, but not the names of clients. Richard Roth, lawyer for some of the men, said that he was glad his clients' names would not be made public. "While I don't condone their conduct, this should scare them enough to learn from their mistakes."

That's double-talk.

The fact that rich clients are protected from any publicity only confirms their privileged status--and shows them that they can keep doing what they do.

Comments

[ESerafina42]

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Maybe it should be a legal, regulated, and taxed industry, but as long as the women's names are being made public, so should the men's. I agree with others, however, that at least these days it's more an issue of class than of gender.

[Cach]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Cach]

Better yet. Don't release any names what-so-ever. In fact, don't even arrest them. In fact, take these archaic laws off the books all together and make prostitution legal.

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

[mydwyf]

It does seem very strange that it's okay to sell your babies (i.e. surrogacy) but not to rent out the body that made those babies unless it's being used as an incubator . . . personally I find the idea of selling babies to be extraordinarily disturbing . . .

[lisa12345]

Great article, I agree-and so do many others, who are tiring of these narcissists and their sense of entitlement.

The reason so many men in power keep getting caught--let's face it, they are risky, and you wonder how such smart people could act so foolishly--is because they are narcissists. They think: normal people would get caught, but we won't because we are somehow too special for that to happen.

Creepy, and the same mindset that helps explain their ludicrous behavior in other areas, from politics to Wall Street

[sanfranciscofeet]

Agree with Romulus. It's a red herring to complain about John's getting special privilege over Prostitutes. Neither party is doing anything wrong. If it's legal to have sex, it should be legal to sell sex, plain and simple. Most of the real crime that surrounds prostitution is because it's illegal in the first place. Same thing with drugs. If it was legalized, it could be controlled and regulated, is it is in many countries. As far as Eliot Spitzer, he got what he deserved for the hypocrisy of going after call-girl rings while he was a regular customer.

[LeftRight]

HuffPost's Pick

I agree with Zanti here, it's not a matter of MALE, it's a matter of RICH. In Seattle there was a big stink about 15 years ago when they started releasing the names of men arrested in the "red-light district" for solicitation. They are still releasing the names, and still showing pictures, etc.....

[Romulus]

Why don't we just decriminalize the sex trade instead? If women (or men) want to sell their sexual favors it should be up to them. If men (or women) want to buy sexual favors, it should be up to them.

[Cach]

This is so true and obvious.

The real feminist cry shouldn't be 'release the names of John's', it should be 'free the prostitutes'. The John's aren't criminals any more than the prostitutes are.

[Zanti]

I suspect their privileged status is more a thing of rich, rather than male. Around here (central Ohio), men arrested for engaging in paid sex have their handcuffed selves featured on the local TV news. The camera-people love it when they try to hide their features--that calls for a zoom shot and extra tracking.

And there are the teachers who "touch" female students. And sex offenders living too close to "citizens," which they, apparently, are not. The other ten minutes are used for weather, sports, robbery, and inane jokes.

So I strongly suspect it's mostly an issue of social status.