Men Pay A Steep Price For Lust (Or Lack Thereof)

Everyone knows that men often think only with their ****s. Especially men who are powerful enough to believe their lewd actions won't have major repercussions on their marriages, their careers and their lives.

Obvious recent examples of over-sexed, self-destructive men:
*Bill Clinton, who demolished his presidential legacy and forever tarnished his reputation.
*Tiger Woods, whose escapades as a man-whore practically overshadowed his legendary (but now-fading) golf prowess, and drove him from the sport, sponsorships and, of course, his wife and kids.
*John Edwards, who ruined his political life and probably helped to loosen his wife's already-tenuous hold on life.
*DSK, who lost his IMF chairmanship and checked into Riker's Island for a few days.
*Elliott Weiner, who thought his own wiener was so photogenic that he lost his Congressional seat and handed it over to the House Republicans.

But maybe you didn't know that men also pay heavily for lacking a strong enough sexual appetite.

In France - yes, France where male ardor is a matter of national pride! - a 51-year-old man was recently socked with paying his ex-wife 8500 Euros for his lackluster performance in the bedroom. Not just for a few months, either, but for 21 years, which I think is a mighty long time for any self-respecting woman to wait for some serious attention. A little Viagra along the way could have saved the thin-blooded Jean-Louis B. a pile of money. It could have saved his marriage, too, since his failure to satisfy his wife was grounds for the divorce.

Damned if they do it (with someone else), damned if they don't do it (for a really really long time) with their wives. There's a lesson there, guys.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html

Women Must Sacrifice Career for Family? Really?

I'm so sick of the assumption that women - women attorneys in particular - can't hack working full-time and having a family. That women - the masters of multi-tasking - require reduced hours and telecommuting in order to raise their kids while holding down a job.

Oh really?

Guess that means that successful women who work their butts off full-time are, ipso facto, utterly incapable of having equally rewarding personal lives. Or that working women are destined to be either professional slugs or crappy wives and moms.

Pul-eeze.

And what role, pray tell, are men supposed to play in this absurd scenario? I guess, circa 1955, they're the real professionals, the bread-winners without shared family responsibilities. The ones who bring home the bacon to the "little woman" changing diapers while she's wearing her apron, cooking dinner for the family before going back to her part-time telecommuting job.

Here's the link to an ABA Journal article I just read with total disgust, that perpetuates this kind of ridiculous, last-millenium mindset.
At 50 Best Law Firms for Women, Policies Allowing Reduced Hours and Telecommuting Are the Norm - News - ABA Journal

How Screwed Are We?

Two weeks ago, I compared the morons in DC to bad divorce lawyers screwing up a case- obsessed by self-interest, indifferent to the greater good, controlled by belligerence, hostility and contempt for everyone with a different opinion.

My comparison was dead-on.

And now? The proverbial brown stuff has hit the fan. World markets have plunged. Savings and retirement portfolios are dissolving. Our nation's credit rating with S&P is worse than France's - although I fail to see why S&P has any business weighing in on our political wrangling.

Congress went on a five-week vacation immediately after dumping this mess on us. After they scoffed at warnings that their bs would lead to a bloodbath in the markets, and would hurt US credit standing enough to cause an increase in our borrowing costs (and a resulting increase in our debt). After they left us with an under-funded FAA that left airport construction crews stranded. They left, for vacations longer than any of us ever take. So now, they have lots of free time to put fingers at the other guys, blame them for the repercussions of months of ineffectual, blowhard politics.

Maybe they'll pay the price at the polls and not get another chance to screw us after the next election. Maybe they'll be looking for a real job then - although I suspect they'll be more successful than 9.1% of Americans.

Meanwhile, no one has a clue when the markets will bottom and how much more money we'll be losing. The only thing that's certain is, the bleeding can't last forever.

Bad Divorce Lawyers Are Running The Country

Nightmare divorce cases. Unlikely that anyone who's had the misfortune of enduring them can ever erase them from their memory banks.

The torturous negotiations that dragged on endlessly. The pain-in-the-butt lawyer who dug his or her heels in, who refused to answer telephone calls. Who sent letters in which every other word was in italics or in bold lettering or underlined. Who constantly badgered and bullied and postured and flailed around, instigating a fight when everyone else already agreed to the bottom line. The passive-aggressive or over-aggressive spouse on the other side.

Belligerence just to make a point and look "tough." Ridiculous demands that were made, knowing they were totally unacceptable, so the other side would look bad or be forced into a potential disadvantage. And then, even after getting everything they wanted, upping the ante yet again by insisting on more capitulation to things that were never discussed, or inventing new issues to be disputed.

What a colossal waste of time, energy and money. What enormous risks to, and tolls taken on, the physical, emotional and financial health of everyone involved.

Sounds like a micro-version of the current debt ceiling negotiations. Like a bunch of nitwit matrimonial lawyers dithering around, overwhelmed by multiple-trillion-dollar issues that they're treating like hyper-personal allocations of marital assets or parenting times. Cripes.

Every day for the past few weeks, escalating over the past few days, our political leaders in Washington (and the wannabes running for office) have been playing reckless games with the debt ceiling issue. Many of these people seem positively clueless about who are really the potential victims of their stupidity - not just the recipients of government checks, but everyone who has direct and indirect market exposure, i.e., just about everyone. American politicians with power and influence, who are either inept or damgerously indifferent to how underlying market and economic currents react to any ripples in our financial strength that emanate from their embarrassing political ditherings.

And they ARE embarrassing. Democracy at its worst, partisanship at its most divisive. The level of venom has attained heights not seen since the worst days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Only this time there's a lot more at stake than the moral malfunctions of a randy middle-aged president and semen stains on the dress of a dim-witted intern.

I swear, the current debt ceiling impasse reminds me of some of the worst divorce cases I've seen. Same pointless posturing, same foolish risk-taking, same poor leadership, same insane brinksmanship - but with the entire country, no, the world economy - held hostage to these fools.

Gotta Be Nuts to Marry a Politician

Right off the bat, all PC aside, it always seems to be the politician-husbands who get themselves embroiled in sordid scandals. You never hear about a woman pulling down her panties for a quickie behind the office, like Bill Clinton. Or soliciting a stranger for sex in an airport bathroom, like Larry Craig. Or flying to a foreign country to sleep with a "soulmate," like Mark Sanford. How about having a secret love child in her own house, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or while her husband staves off death, a la John Edwards? Or forcing herself on a clueless hotel staffer, like DSK? Or Twittering naked crotch shots of herself to an Internet "friend" half her age, like Anthony Weiner?

Not saying women never screw around, not saying they can't subject their husbands and kids to immeasureable embarrassment. But how many woman politicians and business leaders engage in the kind of utter crap described above? I can't think of any. Too much common sense, maybe.

Except for those women who marry politicians or men who hint that politics their career goal. These women have no common sense whatsoever. Those women, to quote Jim Cramer, have got to be "NUTS, THEY'RE NUTS, THEY KNOW NOTHING!"

Given the abysmal track record of the political man, one would think that a woman would say, as her boyfriend asks for her hand on bended knee, "Yes, but only if you get out of politics/never go into politics." But they don't try to establish those conditions, from what I can tell. Instead, political wives encourage, or at least accept, their husbands' political ambitions. And then later, they quietly bury their growing unhappiness with the life they've chosen in alcohol and mysticism (e.g., Betty Ford and Pat Reagan).

I'm not even going to go near all the men who had "issues" long before politics was on their minds, and the women who foolishly thought they could cure their men of their problems...That's a whole other set of psychoses...

Can a political wife be truly surprised to be standing under the glare of the cameras a few years later (maybe not even that long), after her husband 'fesses up in public to unleashing his one-eyed monster on other women or men? No shocker there. See the HuffPo's list of the mortified women who "stand by their men" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/politician-sex-scandals-w_n_872821.html#s288764&title=Bill_Clinton.

Marry a politician, you know damn well what you're getting into. Chances are, it'll ultimately be a lot less power and glamour, and a lot more squalid humiliation. Thank God for the women who don't bother to show up for the weepy press conferences. I suspect they knew the odds when they exchanged wedding rings.

Sex and Self-Destruction

What is it about powerful men and uncontrollable sex drives? Why do they go hand in hand, along with utter contempt for the law and for the personal havoc that results?

My friend Ali Leotta, sex crimes prosecutor, has also posted about DSK on her blog, Prime-Time Crime Review. Is it just a lawyer thing to be more fascinated by DSK's downfall than the latest celebrity sex scandals?

Here's Ali's extremely well-written article:

What’s His Defense?
By Allison Leotta on June 8th, 2011

Whether it’s a Kennedy cousin, a professional athlete, or the head of the International Monetary Fund, it’s always shocking when a wealthy celebrity is charged with rape. Could that man in the suit really have been that beast in the bedroom? Why would a millionaire risk trading his life of champagne and yachts for three hots and a cot? What will his defense be?

By now you’ve seen the footage of the head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, being led on a perp-walk by the NYPD. Until last this week, DSK was the French politician most likely to challenge Nicolas Sarkozy and become France’s next president. His reputation as a womanizer had also earned him the nickname of the “Great Seducer.” On May 18th, he was charged with sexually assaulting a maid at a posh Manhattan hotel, where he was staying in a $3000-a-night suite. According to news reports, the maid went into DSK’s suite to clean it; he allegedly emerged naked from the bathroom, grabbed her, forced her to perform oral sex on him, and tried to further assault her; she escaped, ran from the room, and reported the incident to her supervisor.

Since his arrest, we’ve heard a couple of different theories of his possible defense. 

He’s got an alibi:   Hehad checked out of the hotel and/or was lunching with his daughter when the alleged crime occurred, so he couldn’t have raped the maid. Gee, what a terrible mix-up this all must be.

The Vast Global Conspiracy: Sarkozy’s cronies set up Strauss-Kahn to eliminate him as a political rival. Dan Brown, start taking notes!

I doubt he’ll go with either of these two defenses. I was a federal prosecutor in D.C. for twelve years, specializing in sex crimes for the last eight. I’ve seen countless sex-assault cases, although admittedly few involving French diplomats. But this isn’t how such a case is typically defended.

An alibi defense is simply too risky (unless, of course, it’s true!). With credit card receipts, ever-present security cameras, and GPS cell phones, there are too many ways authorities could disprove a false alibi. And advancing an alibi squanders one of the few great advantages that a defendant has at trial – the prosecutor’s heavy burden of proof. Sure, technically the prosecutor still has to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt even if she can poke holes in the defendant’s alibi, but in practice the jury is likely to think they’re picking between two theories. If the defendant’s alibi is wrong, the prosecutor’s theory must be right.

As for the conspiracy theory – I’m a thriller-writer, but it’s too far-fetched for me. New Yorkers are a skeptical bunch. I don’t think they’ll buy a story where French politicians use the NYPD to carry out a grand conspiracy. If this were a set-up, it’s a risky one. Could the alleged victim maid hold up under the spotlight that all the media in the free world is about to shine on her – not to mention cross-examination by experienced defense attorney Benjamin Brafman? Michael Corleone did it much better with the dead girl in the Senator’s hotel bed.

Instead, I predict Strauss-Kahn will go with the usual defense that powerful men opt for:

Consent.

This has been the defense of choice since there have been sex scandals. It’s powerful because it often could be true – whether an alleged victim consented can be a blurry concept, and mistakes can be made. As a strategic choice, a consent defense takes advantage of two enormous challenges prosecutors face: (1) rape usually happens with no witnesses, aside from an often vulnerable victim, and (2) the government has the burden of proving every criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard in American law. This defense also plays into the biases and prejudices in our culture. Someone on the jury might see a woman who had sex with a wealthy man, and think she must have wanted it.

These days, DNA testing often proves that the sexual contact took place. That leaves a defendant unable to claim – for long – that he never had sexual relations with that woman. But who is to say that she didn’t consent – except, of course, for her? The consent defense sets up a he-said / she-said situation, which is difficult to overcome by a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.

Not impossible to overcome, of course. Forensic evidence such as vaginal tearing might demonstrate that the sex was forcible. But that kind of evidence is quite rare, and it seems even less likely to exist here, where there may have only been oral contact. Prosecutors will look for other injuries on the maid and DSK consistent with a struggle. They’ll also search for any other corroborating evidence. Did she immediately call the police or family after the alleged assault? Did he flee the scene? Did anyone else see or hear anything during the encounter? Has he done this before? In the absence of such corroboration, a lot will ride on the victim’s sheer credibility – a heavy burden for any woman to carry.

Meanwhile, the defense team has no obligation to state DSK’s defense until after the results of the DNA testing come back. In fact, they don’t have to say anything until trial – or even during trial. Every defendant has the right to sit back and simply hold the prosecution to its burden. But if history is any guide, DSK’s attorneys will say this was just another case of the Great Seducer wielding his famous charm on a willing woman.

The prosecution will continue to work the case from every angle, searching for any evidence that goes to this question. The men and women of the NYPD and the Manhattan DA’s Office are excellent law enforcement authorities. If they believe the charges cannot be proved, they will dismiss them.

And if this really turns out to be a vast global conspiracy, it will launch a new generation of political thrillers.
****************************

I have commented on Ali's post as follows:

I'm so glad you weighed in on this one, Ali. I posted on my blog about DSK's various alibis, too, but as usual, I was far more unkind than you are! :<) Funny how this story disappeared from the headlines in the wake of the Ah-mold/Maria soap opera and, now, Rep. Weiner's teary sext-mess. Just one more powerful man in self-destruct mode because of an unbridled sex drive and utter disregard for the consequences of his actions (both legal and personal)... Sigh...

There has been a great deal of information dug up about the maid's immediate actions following the alleged (ahem) attack. Apparently, the shell-shocked maid, after being found cowering in a hallway right after DSK forced himself on her (allegedly, sorry), reported a consistent story to both hotel security and the NYPD. Versus DSK, who was far from consistent: he was dining with his daughter at the time; ummm, no, it was consensual (his defense only after his fingernails were scraped for DNA evidence, coincidentally).

And just in case anyone thought the Sofitel in Times Square was the only scene of sordid sex crimes, the elegant Pierre Hotel on Fifth Avenue was the scene of a sexual attack barely two weeks later, in a case so eerily similar that when I first saw the headlines, I thought the reporter was two weeks behind the DSK story. Turns out an elderly Egyptian businessman thought another maid was fair bait, too:

"The former chairman of one of Egypt's major banks has been arrested on charges of sexually abusing a maid at a Manhattan hotel, just weeks after the arrest of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn on similar allegations. Mahmoud Abdel-Salam Omar - the 74-year-old former chairman of Egypt's Bank of Alexandria - allegedly groped and "gyrated" against the maid in room 1027 at The Pierre hotel on Fifth Avenue, a law-enforcement source said."
http://www.news.com.au/world/egyptian-banker-arrested-over-manhattan-hotel-maid-assault/story-e6frfkz0-1226066568076

The Smell Test

The decision and order are out. Your lawyer flips to the last page, the only one that really matters.

Who won the motion? How much will you be paying for support, and for how long? Is your company going to be drawn into your divorce case? Is the trial going to be delayed again? Who gets stuck with the tax penalties? Are you going to lose the house? Where are the kids going to live?

Pretty bizarre, leaving decisions that are so critical to your life in the hands of some stranger in black robes. Who the hell is that judge anyway? Is s/he so quick, so intuitive, so brilliantly analytical, to be uniquely qualified for such a demanding and important job? Umm, I'll punt on that one, at least here on HuffPo. (You can take a look at my blog for my thinking on this subject, if you're so inclined.)

No, I want to talk about what's behind judicial decisions: What makes the results practically inevitable in so many cases. Why you, or your spouse, may never have had a fighting chance from the get-go. How you were able to turn your case around from a total loser to a hands-down winner, or the other way around. And yes, this can be something that only you control.

Forget about gender bias arguments, claims of corruption in the legal system, or how the "old boy" network supposedly operates. Maybe those arguments have some merit. Maybe they're just paranoid. It doesn't matter. Because for the vast majority of cases, those issues aren't at the crux of court decisions. What is?

I call it The Smell Test.

Okay, the judge considers what your lawyer presents to the court. And what your spouse's lawyer says and writes about you which, chances are about a zillion to one, is extremely unflattering. Let's not forget the experts, either, who, in their inimitable wisdom, opine about your finances, your psyche, your motives, and your conduct. Never underestimate their power to sway the judge.

Or the witnesses, judges might consider them, at least to some degree - please, you need to put a lid on that family member who refuses to mind his/her own business, and get the human resources lady to turn over your pension stuff before she goes on her honeymoon. Witnesses for the other side? Not much you can do about them, so don't pester them. Bad idea.

Lord knows your spouse will be going after you hard, maybe s/he's out for blood. Maybe s/he will be so nutty, so unreasonable, so vile, that, assuming you're not equally horrible (justifying a "plague on both your houses" mentality by the judge), s/he will self-destruct.

But when all is said and done, even in this cacophony of information, it's up to you to make or break your own case. So what you say, what you do, how you look -- both in and out of court, right now, during the case -- that's just about all you can control, but cripes, it matters. It seriously matters. You can't change the past, and you can't change who you are. But you can control how you handle yourself in your greatest time of need. Of course, any hint of insincerity or opportunism, any contradiction of your true intentions -- well, most people (even judges!) aren't so utterly clueless that they won't detect you're trying to pull a fast one.

Whether it's because you remind the judge of a favorite cousin, or your spouse has the same first name as the judge's sworn childhood enemy, or you cuss out the judge's favorite court officer, one of you glares at the other lawyer across the courtroom at the preliminary conference...you name it. That first impression counts. But then there's the next court appearance, and the next, and the next. Plenty of time and ways to build on or demolish that first impression. Like the forensic evaluations. And your compliance with court rulings, Your cooperation with your spouse during the case. Your body language. The information filtering into court about your dealings with teachers, therapists, the cops, the kids.

Every case gives off a certain vibe. Every human being reacts to another with a visceral, gut feeling of sympathy or distaste. A judge who has the power to affect the rest of your life is no different. In fact, his/her antennae are overly sensitized - it makes decision-making that much easier. Yes, a good lawyer will help you to maximize and capitalize on the positives, and minimize the negatives. But you give off your own vibe.

Which of you is going to pass The Smell Test? Because, unless lofty Constitutional issues are involved that transcend personality, whoever passes it will find that the law has been pushed, pulled, shoved, squeezed, pressed, rolled and stuffed into the facts of your case. Yep, it all boils down to The Smell Test.

From my May 11, 2011 article in the Huffington Post-Divorce
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terri-weiss/the-crux-of-divorce-decis_b_860368.html