What I've thought all along - Steinbuch should lose

Not to beat a dead horse, but Half Sigma posted about the whole tort of "public disclosure of private facts," which Robert Steinbuch is suing Jessica Cutler over, and which I think is pretty much bullshit, to use a highly non-legal phrase. The Supreme Court of Indiana apparently refused to adopt the tort. Right on!

[W]e do not discern anything special about disclosure injuries. Perhaps Victorian sensibilities once provided a sound basis of distinction, but our more open and tolerant society has largely outgrown such a justification. In our "been there, done that" age of talk shows, tabloids, and twelve-step programs, public disclosures of private facts are far less likely to cause shock, offense, or emotional distress than at the time Warren and Brandeis wrote their famous article.

Seriously, I fail to see how we can look at a case like Steinbuch's and not consider the fact that we're in the age of un-privacy, which I've posted about here many times. Cutler, like Monica Lewinsky before her, to my mind, engaged in girl talk, albeit she did so on a blog. I have a hard time believing that most women her age have not shared similar facts amongst their friends...using people's full names.

Half Sigma had previously posted something I fully agree with (except I like Jessica, and think she looks hot eating a beef patty):

The more I think about Steinbuch's lawsuit, the angrier I get. I really hope that the court makes him pay for her legal fees. This is not because I like Jessica, but because I strongly feel that people shouldn't be forced to pay six figures in legal fees for what they write in their personal blog about their personal life experiences. No blogger is safe from losing their entire life savings Steinbuch is allowed to get away with this.

Which is why I bristle when being told things I write here are "fucked up." They're my version of events and, sad to say, pretty fucking true. I'm so glad to see Half Sigma connect the fate of this case to any blogger who writes about their personal life. Seriously, this case is way bigger than Robert Steinbuch's dick.

for the record

If I Did Him
Originally uploaded by candiedyams.

What I'm writing below is solely my personal view of the situation. Yes, I am moderating the Mediabistro panel on bloggers who've gotten book deals.

BUT...I can't say I agree at all with Fishbowl NY blogger Dylan Stableford's take on Jessica Cutler dropping out of the panel (which just made Page Six). And I don't say that only because Jessica is my friend. I would say the same even if I didn't know her. She is being sued by Robert Steinbuch, which I've probably blogged about more than anyone cares to read but it just infuriates me so much - and believe me, not all of the most ludicrous details have been made public yet. He is claiming all sorts of damages, from not being able to find a job to not being able to get laid as easily, and trying to pin that on Jessica. Part of the consequences of that suit affect her ability to support herself and have impacted her life. I'm not saying let's all feel sorry for Jessica Cutler - she'd be the last person to want that - but to not assume that she is just being flaky and flighty when she did give ample notice about the panel.

I think, firstly, that you often have to take what Jessica writes on her blog at least a little bit tongue in cheek (her donate button says "I need money for slutty clothes and drugs!" and her one-line bio reads "I am a published author who jumps out of cakes for money."). That's one of the things I love about her. But the fact is, she didn't know it was being videotaped and that was an issue for her regarding the lawsuit. Also, she now (sadly for us New Yorkers who miss her fun energy) lives in Florida, which I found out about on Thanksgiving. I think the lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous and I understand why Jessica had to pull out of the panel.

Also, I think it's gonna be a kick-ass panel, and I'm not just saying that cause I'm moderating it (cause really, the moderator is more a conduit for the panelists). The bloggers on the panel have diverse stories and reasons for starting their blogs (and are at various points in their writing careers in relation to their books' publication), and I'm sure will have lots of interesting things to say. So I don't think it's all that damaging to the panel at the end of the day that Jessica dropped out and I think this is a case of Dylan joining many other people in being overly harsh toward Jessica because of some kind of prejudice that I've yet to fully understand. Taking sex for money, in whatever form that occurs, seems to set off people's ire in a way few other sex acts do. Really. I see it in the way people talk about porn stars, prostitutes, strippers, etc., all the time. I see it in the way people imply that there's something "wrong" with sex writing, that you must be damaged somehow to do it. Maybe I need to pitch an interview with Jessica to $pread.

I can't say I side with Jessica on the payment issue. I think plenty of authors agree to do media events, panels, appearances, etc., without getting paid, but I think that's a side issue here and is not her main reason for dropping out of the panel - if she were in New York and not being sued, I think she would still be doing it. (I feel I must disclose here that I am getting paid, but I will also say that I would totally have agreed to moderate it even if I wasn't.)

This photo was inspired by a freewheeling, rather ridiculous conversation over Thanksgiving dinner at the home of one of the replacement panelists, Michael Malice (co-author of Overheard in New York, evil genius website mastermind, and generally schemer).

Links

Dr. Sketchy on Metafilter (also the super sexy coloring book goes into pre-order mode tomorrow)

Robert Steinbuch is allowed to add Ana Marie Cox as a defendant in his lawsuit against Jessica Cutler, but with reservations (via Eric Goldman)

Paris Hilton would rather eat than have sex (and once again I must defend Paris - haven't all of us felt this way at some point? I think this really needs some qualification. I mean, are we talking Canteen Mac and Cheese over some really lackluster two-minute humping? Or microwave popcorn vs. up-against-the-wall-with-your-clothes-on fucking? I could go on.)

Boo hoo all the way to the bank

I've only occasionally read her blog and haven't read her book, but apparently (via Viviane's Sex Carnival), Girl With a One Track Mind author Abby Lee has been outed.

My initial reaction to the "poor me" defense is the same one I have to celebrities complaining about the papparazzi. It's one thing to be an anonymous blogger, anyone can easily do that, but you take a huge advance from a major publishing house, and isn't it a no brainer that people will be out to identify you? This is totally different than a Robert Steinbuch situation, and you know how I feel about that. This is not, in my opinion, someone being outed so much as someone trying to cash in on their anonymity. And, again, my reaction is really the same as Steinbuch's; why are we so fucking scared of sex that we can't say these things openly? And yes, I'm not stupid, I know why, because we live in a culture that judges us based on our sexuality, but how will that ever change if everyone's racing to hide behind the false security of "privacy?"

It's not that I'm arguing that anonymous bloggers should be outed, only that it does sortof seem to become a game. You start an anonymous blog, get a book deal, and get outed or out yourself. Jeremy Blachman, Melissa Lafsky, Nadine Haobsh, Alex Balk, etc. etc. So why is "Abby Lee" so different? Because it's about sex. It's just not clear to me, except perhaps that instead of a coordinated media campaign, her name was published by a newspaper. I wonder what Eurotrash would think of this.

I'm sure this won't be a very popular opinion amongst the sex blogosphere, but I think that you can't really have it both ways. She's got links to all kinds of press, numerous Fleshbot pieces, major British newspapers, giving interviews, a book deal I'm sure most bloggers would die for, and yet it's as if her life is over. Would she have said/written those things without the cloak of anonymity?

The Times article even feeds into the idea that anyone who writes or thinks about sex in such a way (hello, prurient interest!) should either shut the fuck up or embrace anonymity. This is why we are so fucked up; publishers want to make money off these types of books, the public wants to buy it, but nobody wants to fess up to being interested. If they did, then I think much of the need/desire for anonymity would disappear.

Her character Abby asks: “Does thinking about sex all the time mean there’s something wrong with me? It’s a question I ask myself on an hourly basis . . . Is it common to look at men’s crotches as they walk down the street?” With such a shameless interest in sex it is no surprise Margolis has gone to great lengths to try to conceal her identity.

I guess perhaps I've just seen the New York blogosphere desperately trying to unearth anonymous bloggers here that I'm not that shocked and don't see why someone would be surprised that people are curious about their identity. Of course they are!
I'm sure this comes off as really mean, and I don't have anything against the blogger in question, and while I don't know precisely how the paper went about ascertaining her identity, until I do, I really don't see how it's all that different from what Gawker and other gossip blogs do all the time: try to get information about people, especially when they want to hide it (and make money off of it).

I guess, ultimately, what I'm asking is why we can't talk about about orgasms, butt plugs, BDSM, wanking and tight pussies as honest, open, consenting adults. Maybe we can't, maybe we crave and need anonymity, but if you ask me, the mad dash for privacy, the lawsuits against people whose lives are supposedly damaged because the world knows a few facts about a few moments of their sex lives, actually serve to further the shame people feel around sex. It's secret, meant to be secret, as if your friends, neighbors, family members, etc., weren't having sex or thinking about it.

Please note: I'm not saying there shouldn't be anonymous bloggers. I'm saying that you shouldn't go all Bill Clinton or Robert Steinbuch on us, especially if you have a big ass book deal that's filling your bank account, and act all astonished that people are interested in your identity or want to deny parts of your sexual self once they become known. Especially in a case like this. You wrote it, you put it out there, you courted press and a publisher; it just seems a little unrealistic, not to mention disingenuous, to then act like a journalist is the freaking devil who deserves to rot in hell (see the comments about wanting to slap her, etc.). I don't hate her, I don't even know her and in fact, I'm sure she'd make a fascinating interview and I definitely want to read her book now, I just don't think it's the end of the world or that surprising that her real name surfaced. I quite often wonder about the many anonymous bloggers seemingly courting book deals if that's not the plan all along. Maybe not for her, but for some, it just seems like it has to have been what they were hoping for when they started their blogs.

p.s. Little snippet from The Independent on women sex bloggers. (it also says her book deal was for an "undisclosed sum")

Abigail has been overwhelmed by the response from her readers. "I regularly get women writing to me, saying that I have helped them feel better about themselves because they connected to something I said, or that I have enabled them to have a better sex life. Getting emails like these makes me immensely proud."

For a few minutes' typing a day, then, the sex blogger receives as much free therapy as she needs, an adoring audience, a huge new potential dating pool and the possibility of a book deal - and she even gets to remain anonymous. Another aphorism of Tallulah Bankhead's was: "If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes, only sooner." If she had to live her life in the 21st century, no doubt she would also post her mistakes on a blog.

Slate readers like the First Amendment and so do I

Wow. The readers of Slate totally do not agree with Robert Steinbuch. One, Merritt30, attacks the inanity of the whole "public disclosure of private facts" and one totally nails it on the head:

To my non-legal mind, at least, it seems like there is a crucial difference between Cutler describing something she may have heard about Steinbuch and something that she personally experienced with Steinbuch. She was not merely repeating gossip that she heard from a third party or describing something she had seen through a hidden camera; she was talking about her own experience.

It seems to me that one should be free to talk about one's own personal experiences pretty much without legal restriction (except perhaps if the event were specifically intended as a set-up to embarrass someone, e.g. a candid-camera type situation). Otherwise, say, it would be possible for an abuser to sue his victim if she were to publish an account of his "private" behavior. One's right to publish a memoir or autobiography of any sort would be in question.

And right below that someone basically asks why it's only political speech that gets the utmost protection. This is like with obscenity law where, in addition to meeting 2 other (also completely subjective - "community standards" and "patently offensive") tests, a work is obscene if it meets these criteria:

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. [Pp. 24-25.]

I know I was too stupid to make it through law school, but my book is still going to have a chapter called "In Defense of the Prurient Interest," because I have absolutely no idea, other than the total sex-phobia and sex-negativity and hypocrisy of our culture, why "sexual value" is not a value. Why we don't value arousal as much as we value literature, art, politics and science. Note I didn't say more than, but as much. But we don't, clearly, it's right there in the law and if you pay a scrap of attention to what's going on in the world, you'll see it there too.

And it reminds me of this case because talking about our lives, as people do every day, is not acceptable. Well, lock me right fucking up because I've disclosed private facts plenty of times. I've done it in the Voice and I've certainly told my friends intimate details about people I've fucked. Now, granted, telling my friends may not be private, but they could easily disseminate information to the effect of, "Hey, I know something about what this person does in bed." I talked about it at True Confessions Night. Yes, it's one thing for me to talk about my night of unprotected sex. Did I out the person? No. Would I by name? No. But as I polish that piece for publication, I have to give some details to make the story make sense, and someone might figure out who that person is and my response, ultimately, is what many Slate readers wrote: if you absolutley cannot stand the idea of people knowing about something you've done, don't do it.

That being said, I take my responsibility to the people I write about very, very seriously. I'm in the process of figuring out whether I'm even going to write about Friday night in my column. I want to, it's a great story and, paired with the porno cupcakes, would be really fun to tell, but if I have to leave out so many details I end up with just a very vague picture, I won't run it because it would be boring and pointless. So we'll see, and if I don't get to write about it, that's fine. I can always fictionalize it for an erotica story if I want to, or just not write about it. And believe me, the hottest sex, I either don't write about or use a pseudonym. Speaking of which, um, well, hot sex and cupcakes may be headed my way, and I'm both excited and utterly unprepared and overwhelmed, nervous and beyond excited. Pinching myself to make sure I'm still here kind of anticipation because surely afterwards I will just be able to die happy. And that really is all I can say on that note.

Back to the prurient interest question, I guess this actually is why I had to leave law school, even though that means I'll be bottoming to girlfriend Sallie Mae til I'm barren (well, hopefully actually just until 2008 or 2010 or something like that, but really, my best days are when I mail them huge checks, and will be until I see the number zero in my account). I just couldn't accept a lot of these totally ingrained biases in the law. I didn't like it and think that both Steinbuch's case and the whole three pronged test are utterly ludicrous. But I will write more about both of them in Sexual Freedom for All, don't you worry. For now, it's back to the ever-expanding to do list. Once I get through it, maybe I can kick my own ass and make my proposal into something an editor might want want to toss in the garbage can actually read.

"Are you a ho or do you just want others to be?"

(FYI, this is part of this freewriting I'm attemping to do every day. So far, in July, I think I've done 4. Won't be posting them all but on occasion I will be. Hopefully it'll get me at least writing something every day. I also took a cue from probably my favorite piece of writing by Tristan Taormino, this old Boston Phoenix "Rear Guard" column entitled "Shocking the unshockable," about going on Howard Stern.)

Johnny emailed me on MySpace not once but twice yesterday to ask me “Are you a ho or do you just want others to be them? While I know I should probably ignore anything that comes into my MySpace inbox, I feel compelled to answer. My first thought was an indignant “no,” and of course, that’s the easy answer. Does he mean “ho” as in “slut” or “ho” as in “whore?” The first is debatable, the second, well, no. But not only are some of my best friends whores, who have taught me so much and who struggle with issues I’ll never know, but we’re meant to protest, to deny, to distance ourselves so far from “those women.”

But if he means “ho” as in “slut,” well then, there’s another unanswerable question. There’s no winning that game, despite what The New York Times might say, because people are going to make up their minds and answer that for themselves no matter what. There really is no magic formula to become a slut, and it’s not just about numbers. Look at the scorn that was heaped upon Monica Lewinsky—and she could at least say she did it for love! But still, under the desk? Flashing her thong? One can be a virgin and still get labeled a slut, yet many women still try to win at that game, to protest against the slur rather than the question and the division.

We all have to draw those lines for ourselves and figure out what makes us feel good about ourselves, what our goals are, and when and how we want to have sex. It’s been a huge learning curve for me, especially in the last two years; trial and error, emphasis on the error.

As for the second part of the question, I don’t want anyone to “be” anything or do anything sexually—other than what they want to do. That’s what I’m going to look at in Sexual Freedom for All, in terms of how people’s sexual options are constrained, whether legally, through laws banning owning a given number of dildos or vibrators and the inherent anti-sex nature of our obscenity law, which puts “prurient interest” on such a low rung it may as well be “murderous interest,” to social shaming and other ways in which we don’t promote a truly sexually free society. I don’t think defending the right to make our own choices regarding when and how we have sex means that I’m necessarily saying that people should have a certain amount of sex or with a given number of partners. But, for instance, the practice of sleeping with exes solely to keep one’s “number” down, I do find that sad, because it’s playing right into the hands of a question like this.

It’s letting others dictate how you perceive yourself. The problem is, though, they very likely have already decided. So yes, I’m a slut in that I’ve had sex with probably more people than this person would find “acceptable.” You can find naked photos of me online. I’ve written about sex acts I enjoy. But do I feel like a slut? Most of the time, no, and when I do, I try to watch whether it’s in a good or bad way. I can get off on “acting slutty” when the circumstances are right, but most of the time, I’m not dating or having sex and right now don’t plan to for a long while, so no, I don’t feel like a slut at this very moment in time. And what I’ve had to grapple with on a personal level is the consequences of “acting slutty,” and those have given me a lot of pause. Poor choices have meant that I’ve slept with some people who make my skin crawl, who make me want to vomit, who make me want to die. Who make me wish I could be anyone else than the girl who slept with those people. But I’m not and I can’t change the past, only the present.

I might turn the question around to him though. “Do you feel like a ho or do you just want others to be them?” Because I think men rarely ask themselves any of the questions that I’m pretty sure most women grapple with at one time. It’s not just guilt, but confusion, because on the one hand, we are often rewarded for “looking” or “acting slutty,” but on the other, we are castigated. I have a chapter about Monica Lewinsky and Jessica Cutler (and other women too) which will explore this in more depth. There’s that cultural fascination and yet revulsion, within the same breath practically. And from their former lovers, even quite explicitly; one need only look at the responses of Bill Clinton and Robert Steinbuch to see the allure of a girl who wants them and then their quickness to distance themselves.

So my real answer is not that it’s none of your business, but I don’t know, but I can’t live my life in such a way as to try to escape the slings and barbs of someone who’s already predisposed to judging me, because I’ll always lose that game. I could very likely never have sex again and go to a sperm bank and become a mom, and truly, if I had the money, I might do that right now (well, maybe not never have sex again). But there’s no way to “atone” for one’s sluttiness; it’s a mark that stays with you forever, and I think the answer has to be deciding for ourselves whether we will let the word or the judgments matter, whether we will try to live our lives for other people, or for ourselves. That doesn’t mean there aren’t countless factors to consider when deciding whether to have sex with someone; sometimes I’ve ignored every one of them and just jumped in headfirst, and now I probably err on the opposite side. But those are such personal and complex decisions, ones that nobody can dictate for us.

Just say no/quick links

Just a general fyi, and for once, hopefully I can stick to it, starting right now. I cannot possibly go out as much as I have been and still pretend to be a writer. Just not possible. So in the interest of making a dent in the $85,000 in student loans I still owe and just generally feeling good about myself, I'm going to be staying in as much as possible this summer to attempt to kickstart this writing thing. I know my "big book" may never happen, and I'm okay with that. I kindof expect it might never get off the ground but I'll truly despise myself if I don't try. But before I can even think about it, and stop telling people I'm writing a book and feel like an idiot when they ask what my mythical book's about, I have a bunch of other projects and articles that need completing. It's to the point that I could spend every night and weekends on this stuff and still not feel "caught up" so in an attempt to do something about it, even as I attempt to acquire more freelance gigs, I am gonna have to severely limit my outings. Please don't be offended if I can't go out as much as I once did, but I'm 30 and need to grow up sometime. It's one of the hardest things for me to do, to say no, but I feel infinitely better when I actually turn something in or make a little progress. I guess it's good that there feels like an overwhelming amount of work, but I need to find some way to balance it so I can actually be working on the projects I want to be, rather than the ones I'm just so-so about. But instead of just blathering here about writing/editing, I'm trying to actually do some of it. I have many things I want to accomplish before I head off for a weekend in Costa Rica at the end of this month, so hopefully I'll be able to do everything, or at least come damn close, and then maybe even sell my work, fancy that. Results TK.

A few quick links:

Why You're Still Single - it's a book and a website

Joan Kelly's (The Pleasure's All Mine) new blog, Sexblurt

A penis museum (via Maccers)

Sex blogs galore (which are part of my reasoning that in this day and age, Robert Steinbuch is not necessarily the reasonable person in that case - with people clamoring to share every detail of their sex life, in certain communities that is seen as perfectly acceptable)

Win a copy of M.J. Rose's sexy new novel Lying in Bed at The Happy Booker

A Write-a-Thon!

Vidocity

Sober hipsters

Reasonable person, my ass!

Yesterday, Wonkette linked to a Legal Times article about law professor Robert Steinbuch, who is suing Jessica Cutler, as well as to my reading series, In The Flesh, where Jessica read about a gross yet highly entertaining story about a tampon.

The most interesting part of this recent article is that, contrary to anything in the original lawsuit, Steinbuch is now claiming not only humiliation and invasion of privacy, but factual error. As a friend said, who is going to testify, people he’s slept with? How could it possibly be proved that Cutler was or was not telling the truth? I'm not a lawyer, but applying those old LSAT reading comprehension skills, this seems like the biggest difference between his strategy then and now:

It’s hard to know why anyone would care to set the record straight about whether he is able to ejaculate with or without a condom or whether he likes to spank or be spanked. But Rosen says that’s exactly what Steinbuch intends to do.

“There are graphic and intimate details which are not true,” he said in a telephone interview. “Those are facts that are going to be litigated.”

Furthermore, and what I’ve been trying to get at all along (see last year's Village Voice column "Spanking Jessica Cutler"), is that spanking, per se, is not "unreasonable." For that matter, premature ejaculation is quite common as well.

And he must show that the contents of Cutler’s blog are highly offensive to reasonable people.

If, as a society, we are going to claim that the allegation that someone likes to spank and be spanked is “highly offensive,” I think we have a long way to go toward acknowledging the diversity of sexual expression. It's not that he should have wanted her to post these things, but is the worst part that she posted them, or that they were happening? Read carefully and the word "scorned" comes up in various articles, along with a sense of betrayal, hurt and anger. All perfectly valid emotions, but enough to warrant a successful lawsuit? I hope not.

Now, several people have asked me, “Well, wouldn’t you be offended/upset if someone posted such items about you on a blog?” But that is really not the question here. It’s not that Steinbuch could have been expected to jump for joy at reading Cutler’s blog, it’s whether Cutler has a right to post about her own life (and, by extension, I would ask that of all the sex bloggers and other bloggers out there posting personal accounts of their lives). I would recommend taking a gander at Tucker Max’s legal wranglings with Miss Vermont, Katy Johnson. If Tucker won the right to name names, I do not see why Jessica should be retroactively punished for using initials.

I see this as both a cultural issue, in terms of people's comfort level with their sexuality (a little tip: if you're going to do something you would absolutely die of shame if people found out about, don't do it - for instance, I could tell you about the person I had unprotected sex with who I read about at In The Flesh, and a few people know who that is, but I haven't done so here. I don't know what the legal consequences of naming him would be, but at the end of the day, it happened, and if you really don't want anyone to know, don't do it.) as well as a First Amendment issue. I think every blogger should be very concerned about this case as well (read the Legal Times piece for the bit about how when you post on your blog you are "publishing" your entire blog again, not just that specific entry, which is what Steinbuch is claiming, thereby affecting the statute of limitations). Reading both the article and the original suit, it seems clear that it was Cutler’s actions that offended him the most. Here's Steinbuch's lawyer, with extra emphasis for absurdity (have you ever been on MySpace, Livejournal, Blogger, etc.?):

“People’s behavior is only based on actions that are enforced,” Rosen says. “That’s what defines right and wrong. The whole point of this case is to maintain Rob’s privacy, but not just for him, for everybody — that you can’t just start dating some girl and suddenly it’s on the Internet.”

If she had only been sleeping with him, I don’t think this lawsuit would be happening—then again, the entire “scandal” stems from the multiple partners and the cash angle. As Wonkette hints at, if she had said what a huge stud he was, with a great cock who made her come a million times, I doubt this case would be proceeding.

Going back to the fact vs. falsehood angle:

The private facts include . . . spanking and hair pulling during their sexual activity (but conveniently leave out Cutler’s request of both) . . .

So if it’s false, why was this included? Something can’t be both a private “fact” and a falsehood. The original cause of action talks about “emotional distress,” “outrageous conduct,” and the defendant acting “reckless.” These are highly different claims than that the allegations are false. So which is it? Because if suddenly what was on her blog is "false," that to me would indicate he should be suing her for slander. I know I'm not a lawyer, but this distinction just screams out at me and wasn't really addressed in the Legal Times article.

Also, hadn’t picked up on this before. Item 22 of the original suit: “Cox hired Cutler to write for her website.” Is that true?

The never-ending Robert Steinbuch lawsuit

Lawyers in the house: how do you add an unknown person to a suit? This is one of those times I wish I'd finished law school and perhaps knew the answer. How is anyone ever going to be able to find out who tipped Wonkette off? What is she found out herself through googling or there were multiple sources? Would she even have those records thousands upon thousands of emails later?

From The Washington Post's Reliable Source column:

Steinbuch's Suit Has Room to Grow

The bitter and messy lawsuit against Capitol Hill sex blogger Jessica Cutler by a former paramour is snaking its way into the highest echelons of D.C. blog royalty. In a federal court filing late last week, a lawyer for Robert Steinbuch said he will seek to add Ana Marie Cox , founder of the popular political-gossip Web site Wonkette, as a co-defendant.

Cutler's explicit online "Washingtonienne" diary, detailing escapades with several unnamed men, blew up into a mini-scandal after Wonkette publicized it in May 2004. A year later -- after Cutler lost her Senate job but gained a book deal -- Steinbuch sued, alleging invasion of privacy and emotional distress. Cutler responded that she only shared her blog with four friends and did not perpetrate its broader airing. So Steinbuch is now seeking to add Cox and the as-yet-unnamed person who turned her on to Cutler's blog to the suit. Cox, now a columnist for Time, declined comment last night.

Though it's more complex than I could do it justice in such limited space, I still stand by my "Spanking Jessica Cutler" column. The way my non-legal mind sees it, trying to rectify your loss of privacy by splashing your name all over the world doesn't seem to make much sense. However, I do see the fault of the explosion of the original Washingtonienne blog lying more with Wonkette than with Jessica. Surely there are countless blogs that, were they to "blow up," would cause anguish and/or humiliation, etc., for their subjects, but they never go any farther than a few people. Let's recap via Privacy and Security Law Blog:

As Steinbuch further observed, in her blog, Cutler gave “widespread publication” to very intimate facts about their affair, including “the number of times Plaintiff ejaculated, his difficulty in maintaining an erection while wearing a particular condom, spanking and hair pulling during sexual activity (conveniently leaving out Cutler’s request of both), . . . physical descriptions of Plaintiff’s naked body, the physical details of the sexual positions Plaintiff assumed during sexual activity,” and other highly embarrassing and confidential facts about their sexual activities.

Here's a sample snippet about him from the Washingtonienne blog:

RS looks just like George Clooney when he takes off his glasses. I am serious.

Has a great ass.

Number of ejaculations: 2

He likes spanking. (Both giving and receiving.)

I put the moves on HIM. That is, I brought him back to MY place, I was the one who jumped on HIM.

Do you think it would have changed his suit in any way if Jessica had left in her own "request of both?"

and another:

So it turns out that RS cannot finish with a condom on. He can barely stay hard. So he ends up taking it off and humping away at me. Maybe I forgot to tell him that I'm on the Pill. Note to self...

I also learned that he was a cop, so he has scary police shit like handcuffs in his closet. He implied that we would be using them next time, which is intriguing, but I know I'm going to get scared and panicky. (Which would probably turn him on.)

A lot of people have asked me: but don't you think these are things the average person would want to keep quiet? Perhaps, but . . . there's a difference between not wanting something to be made public and suing someone for damages for revealing it. I know certain thngs about people I've slept with, and I try to be judicious about them, but they also know things about me. It's a give and take, a tricky balancing of trust. Also, many of my friends know things about me. If we have a fight and start hating each other, they could conceivably blog something mean or "private" about me. But then wouldn't it be my fault for telling them that? It's not a lie, and I don't see why the truth should not be an absolute defense. That's in my world, I have no idea how this lawsuit will turn out.

But as the literary world recovers from the James Freys, Jayson Blairs, and Kaavya Viswanathans of this world, all of whom seem to have profited from lying in some form, I feel like we need to question the way we seem to put sex on such a pedestal that any mention of it seems to make us feel "dirty" or exposed. It's just not such a big deal, I'm sorry. I'm getting all these emails like "wow, you like to give blowjobs." Firstly, I so rarely get to do it that it's almost like a dream or something when I do. Secondly, news flash, it's not the rarest thing in the world. Some women and men like to suck cock, some don't. Just as some like or don't like spanking, hair pulling, etc. It's not right or wrong or anything, it just is, and the sooner we stop sensationalizing it and realize that everyone probably has something "freaky" or "kinky" or whatever going on in their bedrooms, the less I think we'll care about what everyone else is up to. I wasn't saying that I'd want everyone in the world to know if I couldn't get it up, but more that it's totally common - erectile dysfunction, spanking, etc. Common enough that no one's career should be ruined, in this day and age, by sex-related "revelation of private facts." Come on! We know that President Clinton, a married man, was getting his dick sucked under his desk. If we can deal with that knowledge, we can deal with a little spanky-panky on Capitol Hill. The question, I think beyond the legal one, is not "would you want these facts revealed?" but "do people in intimate relationships with you have an obligation not to reveal them?" And I'm going to vote no, they don't.

It's so funny to even talk about this case, for me, in such abstract terms because now I'm friends with Jessica, and can even get her to publicly spill disgusting stories. Look out DC - we are invading BEA next week and I intend to let go of my New York blues and really have a fabulous time.

The "humiliation and anguish" of Robert Steinbuch

Once again, law professor Robert Steinbuch is in the news, as his lawsuit against Jessica Cutler has been allowed to proceed.

He's suing her for "invation of privacy for public revelation of private facts" which he claims "constituted a gross invasion of his privacy, subjecting him to humiliation and anguish beyond that which any reasonable person should be expected to bear in a decent and civilized society." Read the whole complaint at The Smoking Gun.

And as we all know, splashing your name with a lawsuit all over the news is the best way to reclaim that much-missed privacy.

See also my Village Voice column "Spanking Jessica Cutler."

"Judge OKs case against sex blog author," CNN

"Are Accounts of Consensual Sex a Violation of Privacy Rights? The Lawsuit Against the Blogger 'Washingtonienne'" by Julie Hilden, Findlaw

"Steinbuch v. Cutler: When is a Personal Blog Considered Publicity?," Privacy and Security Law Blog

Notes on Sexual Freedom

Some notes as I get ready to really dig into my book proposal next weekend while on vacation. (Yes, I think better when I'm not in the midst of the day-to-day rush of things.)

I get a little tripped up sometimes in writing/thinking about this book proposal, because sometimes I think it’s so fucking simply why would anyone want to buy it as a book? Everyone should be able to do what they want sexually as long as it’s consensual. It seems so straightforward. And yet...it’s not. I know it’s not, much as I wish it were, because we are not even given, or don’t grant ourselves, the mental freedom to explore. It’s the unspoken, though sometimes spoken, ways we’re shamed into wanting this or that, into having to choose-gay or straight? Top or bottom? This or that? There is no room for those moments of desire that sneak up on you, catch you unawares, that maybe don’t have a name, or at least one you know what to call it.

I don’t buy the story going around that there’s one sexually acceptable script. Take one teensy tiny peek, you don’t even have to go to girls with colds or whatever, you can find communities full of real people who are into everything from fat women to men wanting to be slaves and worship women’s feet to everything else under the sun. But I think we can all look a little deeper inward and examine the ways our own fantasies veer from the accepted scripts.

Here's one example of a guy I'd rather forget but since I can't totally . . . “You’re a top!” he said to me, this look of absolute wonder in his eyes. It was like I’d suddenly turned into an alien, and yet . . . he liked it. He seemed to think this was some crazy feat, especially because I don't "look like" that's how I am. In fact, what were his words? "Meek and docile." Yup, that's me (NOT), but anyway, I guess that's the impression he got. The only thing I can say about me being meek and docile is that I don't like to upset people. I do try to smooth things over and defer to people for the most part, even when I'm upset, but I'm still upset. But I really think how I am in my daily life isn't going to be much of a barometer of how I am in bed, and to me, that's kindof the point. Why wouldn't I want to let go of all the nonsense swirling through my addled brain and just enjoy whatever I want in the moment?

But he seemed so shocked, I think in part because I was acting like that, and was so into it, and because he was really into it, immediately. It was this really weird revelation, I think for both of us, and if you ask any woman who sleeps with guys, and has even hinted at female dominance in bed with them, they will likely tell you that it’s been like a light switch going off. Now, it’s not my job or place to be standing up for the sexually submissive men of the world, but every time I see another book or article or whatever all about WOMEN and sex, I just can’t help think there’s more to the picture. It's not that people are all top or all bottom but that there's a give and take, sometimes we might want to be more one or the other but I don't think there's much room for men to claim their submissiveness in our culture, at least, publicly. And while being public isn't all that matters, if there is zero cultural space to reveal one's proclivities, and no examples of your sexual m.o. for you to identify with, I think that does create a problem in terms of self-esteem and acceptance. It means, maybe, that submissive guys don't know how to ask for what they want, fear that women will think they're less masculine, are confused because they don't want to be submissive or deferential in their daily lives. I mean, come on - if more men (and women) were comfortable with male submission and female dominance, wouldn't men visit pro dommes less and explore that within their marriages/relationships? Not everyone, and there's nothing wrong with pro dommes, I'm just saying that it's a sign that we are not free and if I get this damn book deal, I will be scouring the country for these submissive guys so I can interview them and explore this further, because what I don't want my book to be is "sexual freedom...for women." I'm not claiming women don't bear the brunt of our country's prudery but men get screwed by it, so to speak, as well, just in different ways.

Or look at the way we harp on women who have fantasies that are not in line with what we, collectively, seem to have deemed okay. We’re all jumping in line to castigate Sara Dekeuster for daring to portray her rape fantasies, but what I want to know, and didn’t get to explore in my column on the topic, is what about guys who are acting out rape fantasies with women? What happens there?

I am trying to think broadly, but not too broadly so I never get this done, but I keep coming back to the need for sexual FREEDOM in all senses of the word. Not just legally, but socially, mentally. Otherwise the freaky girls, and a few guys, who are “out there” with all this will continue to be portrayed as the slutty, dirty, whores while everyone else, who is either doing pretty much the same thing or thinking about it, is safely tucked away in their little houses. I’m so happy to see this round of "wild mom" books because these women do not want to be associated with the modern-day June Cleavers. The Brett Paesels and Stefanie Wilder-Taylors and Jenny McCarthys are going there, and of course there’s Susie Bright and Lisa Palac and other moms who are too. We don’t treat dads like they should never be sexual again, but we do treat moms that way.

It’s really the categorizing and shaming of anyone who speaks honestly about their sexuality that I have a problem with. That’s why the whole boobiesexual thing appealed to me. Yes, it’s fun and slightly silly to say “boobiesexual,” but on a deeper level, it points to this really flawed way we have of evaluating and informing our own sexuality. I think from an early age we learn to tune out a lot of our sexual desires because they “don’t fit” into the image of who we want to be. Hello, closeted, married gay people who know they’re gay but don’t want to “be” gay in the world. Or whatever your thing, whether it’s crossdressing or being dominated/humiliated or public sex or whatever. Or even if it’s something totally “normal” and I really hate to use that word but you know what I mean. It’s that very lack of a language around sex that I have to call anything “normal” that is the problem. People will totally start conversations and talk about “those people”–you know, the kinky ones or exhibitionists or poly people–without once stopping to think that the person they’re talking to could be one of “those people.”

As much as someone like Dr. Laura is an easy target, there are probably a whole host of people out there who still think that sex is something men want and women grudgingly provide, and hey, sometimes they might even like it, but still, it’s a “duty,” and I don’t think it has to be like that.

It’s really easy to sit in judgment of other people without ever revealing a thing about your own sexuality. I’m not saying every blogger or journalist has to, but when covering these issues, I think it does help to lay your own biases on the table.

Michelle Malkin links to a Washington Times essay that is really just a rehashed version of Wendy Shalit’s A Return to Modesty:

We can embrace the old habit known as "custody of the eyes." This involves simply not looking at anything that offends our sense of modesty. Custody of the eyes extends to men as well as women and can do enormous good when we are in uncomfortable situations at work or walking down the street.

The biggest weapon against impurity is our will power. We cannot expect ourselves to be chaste on a date if we are not chaste in all other areas of our lives. When we go on a date, rather then using the time to kiss and to touch, why not work on building a relationship? Work on a hobby, go on a nature walk, or get involved in group activities with other like-minded couples. Sit down and have long discussions with one another. There's more to compatibility then sex.

We should view dating as a way to get to know a potential spouse and save sex for when we are wed.

But from reading things like this, I never get the sense of sexual desire emanating from these people. Sex is not just “everywhere,” “in the culture” and “out there” in the big bad scary world. “Sex” is not just Jenna Jameson or porn stars or some sexual act du jour. “Sex,” meaning our sexuality, is inside us, is what we make of it, whatever that is. I could get a little more behind this, and why I admire writers like Lauren Winner and Anna Broadway, if these writers acknowledged that our actual sexual impulses stem from our own twisted little minds. It is not about looking outside ourselves for “tips” or advice or one secret special skill. It’s not about trying something cause you heard everyone else is doing it. It’s not about wearing skimpy clothes because that’s what’s “in.” It’s about letting go of all the cultural bullshit, from the pressures to have sex all the time to the pressures never to have sex, and figuring out what you want to do with your own body. What turns YOU on, which may be more than one thing. I think we fall into this idea that we’ll meet this one soulmate who will do everything right, that everything they do will send us into the throes of orgasm, we’ll never want to look at anyone else, blah blah blah. That’s such a false notion of desire and I think everyone knows that. This doesn’t mean monogamy is impossible, but mental monogamy and devotion? I don’t know why we have this idea that looking, thinking, fantasizing, is wrong, but clearly we do.

Furthermore, Girls Gone Wild is not the only thing out there. I was on the radio this week with Dottie Lux, Nasty Canasta and Veronika Sweet of Red Hots Burlesque, and they are just three examples of the wide world of burlesque that is bumping and grinding out a different, but also exhibitionistic, take on sexuality. Yet some would lump them all together.

On Jessica Cutler, Ana Marie Cox, and the salaciousness of blogs, Michelle Malkin wrote:

But blogs can also serve as exhibitionist outlets that highlight the worst of America's tell-all and show-all tendencies . . . I'm sick of the skankettes and their pimps in my business and I'm not alone.

Whose “business” are these people in? I find it a bit curious that people are so up in arms about Jessica all the time. Did anyone say you have to watch her? Or the Kid Rock video? Or the Paris Hilton one? It is not mandatory that you partake in what people are exhibiting, and if sex weren’t so popular, Jessica wouldn’t have gotten a book deal or a TV deal. Furthermore, if, say, Robert Steinbuch and the other guys hadn’t wanted to sleep with her, there would have been no story. What I think we’re missing in all this is that GGW is a big business because lots of guys want to see that! Sure, there are some men who are whooping it up against this “raunch culture” too, but there are plenty more who are perfectly sane, smart, normal people who also like a bit of sexual entertainment. There are plenty of women who do too. People are conflate porn with real life and that’s the problem - it’s a fantasy, a vacation from reality, something to enjoy and stimulate but is not real life.

I’m both confused by the suggestion that this is all mandatory and continually appalled at the shockingly judgmental notions that are being flung about across the sexual spectrum. Sexual judgments that really have no place in 2006 America.

I totally want to interview Sara DeKeuster and find out more about what’s happened with her story (she’s the UWM Post photo editor who caused an uproar there with her photo essay about her rape fantasies) but for now, I will leave you with some of her words on sexual freedom:

Me being a woman, I have the right to express myself, sexually, physically, emotionally and artistically. I think it’s hard for people to look at something and be forced to think about themselves, their past, their secrets, their very own sexuality. It’s a touchy subject for most people...

I am not sorry for my art! It would be like saying I’m sorry for being a woman and that I like sex (or to be fucked rather).

Are we a sexually suppressed society?

Oh, are we ever, especially female sexuality. Why is it so hard to understand that it is in fact OK to talk about or express our sexuality as women? I think this whole ordeal just proves that female sexuality is still being repressed — it makes me want to scream. ... Women have freedom of expression, and I choose to express my sexual wants and needs. Is that OK? No wait, I don’t care, I am who I am.

(Updated) Sexist and sex-negative much, TV Squad (and WaPo)?

So I just reread this short blurb on TV Squad about The Washingtonienne, the TV show, and it was more offensive on second reading.

Not only didn't author Richard Keller bother to ask Jessica for a comment, he not-so-subtly inserts his own moral indignation over her sexual behavior. Memo to Ariel Levy: Female Chauvinist Pigs are NOT ALWAYS APPLAUDED in this society. Case in point.

Two years ago, Washington D.C. Senate aide Jessica Cutler shocked citizens inside and outside the beltway when she blogged her sexual exploits with an apparently large amount of men.

"Apparently large?" Why not just go all-out and say what you really think? She was a huge slut, perhaps the hugest in DC, so why the fuck is she getting a book deal? Or does that work better as subtext? Of course it's going to be a matter of opinion, but I do not think sleeping with six guys is necessarly a "large amount" - yes, it's more than one, or two, but I also don't think it's my business to judge the number of people someone else is fucking. I know how crazy that sounds, but I just don't really think it affects me all that much. Others apparently differ. There's no objectively "large amount," despite what Oprah or whoever may think. It's a personal choice, though clearly some people want to shove their shock and horror over women actually getting it on back in their faces.

Let's move on. Cutler, who had spent years naming names and how much she received when she got together with 'Mr. X', is now being very shy and declining to comment about the project. Perhaps a case of the embarrassing guilts has caught up with her.

Update: It was pointed out to me that this part of the post was culled from a link I hadn't seen to The Washington Post's article "Sexcapades in the City" so they can also take some of the blame for their catty tone and Jessica's declining to comment to them (though the "shy" wording is still suspect to me):

Look out, all you Washingtonians who ever had sex with Jessica Cutler, proposed having sex with Jessica Cutler, discussed sex with Jessica Cutler, or ever brushed up against Jessica Cutler -- the infamous Senate aide whose sexual antics scandalized/enthralled our fair city a couple of years ago.

HBO is plowing ahead with a sitcom based on "The Washingtonienne," the D.C.-set novel inspired by Cutler's blog of same name in which she discussed her exploits with a boatload of men around town in such glorious detail...

You'll get a kick out of this: Cutler, who less than two years ago was telling anyone who could use a laptop that she "just took a long lunch with X and made a quick $400," has gone all shy and reticent when we e-mailed her to try to talk to her about the HBO project. She declines to comment, a rep told The TV Column.

Again, I feel they're remiss in not mentioning the lawsuit against Cutler, as if she's just skipping away merrily to the bank. Also, there is a BIG difference between blogging anonymously about your sexploits and doing so with your real name out there, which might be why you don't see her going into quite as much detail. If his lawsuit is successful, think what a chilling effect that will have on an entire culture on the internet in which people freely discuss their sex lives-anonymously. the show is BASED ON her life, not about her actual life in every detail, just as Candace Bushnell's was, and the people she wrote about were outed and survived, didn't they? It just seems like this story is a chance for lots of media outlets to further gang up on her and make it seem as if she's the only party to this - yes, she took money from these guys, but they offered it to her. Back to my original post...

I guess 2 does equal plural, but it hasn't exactly been ages and ages since she started her blog. If TV Squad had asked Jessica for comment and she'd declined, that'd be one thing, but again, this is speculation. But then it closes with another dig, like she should feel guilty. Yet, we're told over and fucking over again, that we live in this postfeminist sex-mad society where anything goes, heaven forbid. Um, I don't think so. The moralizing in part makes me laugh and in part makes me realize just how far we haven't come. Better cash in while you can, ladies, because there's apparently a very fine line between fuckable and way too slutty for that quite prudish blogosphere.

And let me not forget...please point out where she named names. Please, show me, or is it because that wasn't her but Wonkette or The Calico Cat doing so (in great investigative detail)? Or is that whole lawsuit thing being filed by Robert Steinbuch not enough punishment for the non-existent "embarrassing guilts?" (Because, lest we forget those immortally poetic words that should bring tears to the eyes of lawyers everywhere: "It is one thing to be manipulated and used by a lover, it is another thing to be cruelly exposed to the world.")

It's kindof like when that loser guy said to me "I know you're not a bad person." Pot, kettle? We can judge Jessica's 6 lovers without ever bringing ourselves and our behavior into the picture, when in fact, making judgment calls like that in a piece about a TV deal really only makes sense if you put your own sex life in there as well to make it clear where the judgment/condescension is coming from. Instead, the minute you put even a fraction of your sex life into the public eye, anonymously or not, it's fair game for others to tell you how fucked up they think it is even when they could perfectly well be doing the very same thing (see loser above).

I'm sure this is just the tippy tip of the iceberg for the Jessica-bashing, and all I have to say is...thanks, it's gonna beef up that chapter in my book which, if you must know, is called (working title) "Monica, Jessica and Me" and is an homage to Jill Soloway's chapter in Tiny Ladies in Shiny Pants called "Monica, Chandra and Me." I keep getting waylaid and down on myself for not working on it cause I'm broke and need to earn real money not fake someday-maybe-I'll-hit-the-jackpot money, but with stuff like this, the book will practically write itself I think.

Lawsuits are much more interesting to me now than they were in 1996

I'd have made a terrible lawyer, but some aspects of the law still fascinate me. Just got this July 26th filing by Jessica Cutler's lawyers via my Google news alert on "Robert Steinbuch" and found it fascinating, especially this part (bolding mine):

Steinbuch’s complaint comes too late as to all but the last blog entry concerning
him. Leaving aside the one-year statute of limitations, Steinbuch’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because: (1) Steinbuch had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a sexual relationship he chose to have with Cutler; (2) Steinbuch waived whatever right of privacy he may initially have held in his sexual relationship with Cutler by consenting to Cutler’s disclosure of details of that relationship to their fellow co-workers; (3) most of the facts Cutler disclosed about Steinbuch in the blog were no longer private by the time they were described in the blog (the right of privacy with respect to the remainder having been waived); (4) the website Wonkette gained unauthorized access to Cutler’s personal blog and "publicized" its contents within the meaning of invasion of privacy caselaw; and (5) Cutler had a First Amendment privilege to discuss her own personal sexual experiences with Steinbuch, which have a logical nexus to the general topic of sex, money, and political power, matters of legitimate public interest, especially in Washington.

Steinbuch’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress suffers the same
infirmities with respect to the statute of limitations and the First Amendment privilege. Additionally, this claim is deficient as a matter of law because: (1) Cutler’s conduct was not so outrageous in character as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and neither was it so atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (2) Steinbuch’s allegations fail to satisfy the requisite level of intentionality or to establish causation; and (3) Steinbuch’s allegations of emotional distress are wholly devoid of particularity and are therefore legal conclusions masquerading as fact.

And finally, Steinbuch’s acquiescence to Cutler’s sharing of the intimate details
of his sexual relationship with her served to communicate to Cutler during the relevant period that he did not care who knew about such details. Steinbuch is thus now equitably estopped from complaining — more than a year later — about Cutler’s disclosures.

I got criticized by some S&M-ers for suggesting that privacy was a right created by the Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and that its value has been overrated and inflated to unreasonable levels. I was talking less in legal terms. I'm definitely pro-choice, but I think we've all seen that pinning reproductive freedom to such precarious legal grounds hasn't exactly been a surefire way to make it last. I'm certainly not a legal scholar, but I do think the right to privacy was established on shaky grounds, and, as has been argued by Catharine MacKinnon, is not necessarily a feminist victory for several reasons, which you can investigate on your own. So not only is the right to privacy not totally secure, but if we expand that out, how can we ever guarantee people total privacy? We can't, nor should we necessarily. Beyond that, we are living in an era when people are willing to give up all semblance of privacy for a shot at fame. Whether we like it or not, we live in a tabloid, gossip-fueled culture. The First Amendment protects our speech and expression about our public and private activities (see bolded part above). Additionally, the expectations for privacy as we go about our daily business have lessened as we as a society have opted for less privacy and more information. Tell-alls, talk shows, blogs and a general desire to report on everything we see and hear shows us this. How else to explain the rise of tabloid magazines and Gawker Stalker? To explain the differential treatment between JFK's affairs and Bill Clinton's? The rise of the roman a clef? To me, Bill Clinton is the prime example of that very thin line between the claim of sexual privacy and hypcorisy, and I recommend the anthology Our Monica, Ourselves for more about that. Steinbuch is claiming in many ways the same thing by admitting to the behavior in question and then asking for damages; he wants to have his pussy and beat it too.

The reason I don't condemn this is because privacy, in many ways, is a way for all of us to hide behind barricades, behind privilege, behind hypocrisy, especially when it comes to sex. With the New York magazine piece I see even more people clamoring to call Jessica names like "slutbag," and, as Girlynyc, said, Why hate on the easy girls? Even more so, it's easy to say those things from the guise of an anonymous or private setting, when we know nothing, or at least, not everything, about your sex life. I'm not saying that everyone needs to be as open as me or Jessica or any of the women interviewed, but that to expect privacy to stop at the bedroom door is foolish and, at this point, almost anti-American. We want our gossip, we want our scandals, we want our salaciousness. And I'm gonna be optimistic and choose the bright side of looking at this voraciousness: we want to know because we're curious about sex. We want sexual information in the forms of porn, books, columns, and media including gossip. We want the scoop, the dirty, the nasty, and to hide behind privacy while simultaneously calling people names, or to, say, be willing to indulge in things like spanking, brag about it around the office, and then sue for infliction of emotional distress is, to me, disgusting, hypocritical, and means that we've failed in creating a culture of real sexual choice.

All that being said, and perhaps this makes me slightly hypocritical, I'm actually not 100% exhibitonistic. I do enjoy and value my privacy, though the things I'm private about might be different than the things you are. I don't believe stating something like "I'm into spanking" really is so damaging, or that it even tells you anything much about me beyond that statement. It doesn't tell you what I'm like to hang out with, it doesn't tell you how I laugh, it doesn't tell you whether I can keep a secret or what kind of friend I am, in short, it doesn't really tell you all that much that matters to me about how I am as a person. We all have public and private sides, things we show and things we don't, and that's fine; but creating a culture that hypes sexual privacy does pave the way for sexual scandal, hypocrisy and name-calling. It makes examples out of some people while others are off doing the very same things without anyone being the wiser. Everyone wants to know "am I normal?" but we'll never know the answer and shouldn't care what everyone else is doing anyway, at least as a barometer for our own sexual desires. Instead of being so nosy about who everyone else is fucking, it would be nice if we all focused on our own sexual satisfaction. I'm not against the voyeurism, because I'm as nosy and voyeuristic as you get, but I also examine my own actions and motivations, and I try not to judge others, because at the end of the day, what you do in bed, unless I'm interested in or sleeping with you, really just doesn't affect what I do in bed.

Perhaps tangentially related: An editorial in favor of legalizing prostitution

Maybe it's time we stop feigning innocence and family values and open the legal doors to prostitution once more.

One need only look at the immense hypocrisy over sex work and adultery to see why "privacy" just isn't a cure-all. We seem to act like it's everybody else watching porn, hiring sex workers, working in the sex industry and committing adultery and yes, for some people, it is other people, but clearly not for everyone. At least some of us own up to what we're doing, and I will always admire a proud whore versus a cowardly lawyer. Just can't resist, via the last link to Bowen School of Law, bolding mine:

Professor Steinbuch joined the Bowen School of Law faculty in 2005 after several years in government and private practice. His government service includes clerking on the United States Court of Appeals and working at the United States Department of Justice. Most recently, he worked for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. His academic and practice interests include: commercial law, ethics, law and economics, criminal law, law and government and evidence.