Risky behavior among the rich and famous
Richard Fernandez speculates on why DSK may have risked it all to rape a hotel maid. His conclusion is that DSK didn’t perceive the behavior as having much risk at all:
For most of people in the world without influence or power, the probability of suffering punishment for rape is such that few would risk their liberty and fortune for the dubious and disgusting thrill of chasing a hotel cleaner around a room. That discount rate, even absent any morality, makes cowards of us all. But if a particular person believed that his individual risk of being punished was virtually zero then it would make perfect economic sense for that person to gratify his monstrous appetites. If in fact such a person did not believe he was risking anything by chasing the cleaner, nothing would deter him from doing it, excepting of course, his own character.
If this is true—and it makes a great deal of sense to me—why did DSK think there was so little risk for him? Apparently he had gotten away with risky sexual behavior many times in the past, although perhaps not this exact sort of behavior. After a while he probably thought himself immune to any consequences.
The same sort of thing explains Arnold Schwarzenegger’s sexual acting-out, and Bill Clinton’s, plus John Edwards’s and…well, you get the idea. There’s a lot of this going around among the famous, power-driven, and egotistical. It also makes perfect sense that the behavior would escalate over time. As the man feels safer and safer, and the need for sensation grows with age and repetition and perhaps boredom, he will cry for madder music and stronger wine.
This subject was addressed and explicated at length in the South Park Sexual Healing episode.
There is probably nothing more that can be said on the subject.
Being French and head of the IMF, he treated her like she was a poor African country.
^ Ray wins the thread.
A new report says his victim rented an apartment in a building that is supposed to house only AIDS victims. As a precaution, in the event he’s been exposed to AIDS, he is being held in isolation away from the general prison population. Presumably, some in the general prison population might want to do to DSK what he allegedly did to his victim.
Karma.
How beautiful and cute, Scott.
Now what do you tell falsely accused but innocent men who are later cleared men who were the victims of multiple rapes while in jail?
The presumption of innocence is demanded only of those involved in THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
If I had stated what Scott stated, I wouldn’t even have used the word “allegedly.”
Curtis:
Nice way to dodge the question. It wasn’t directed at you, but if you are going to comment on it, consider it so directed.
There is another aspect to “celebrity immunity” – people who can get affirmation and admiration from a wide audience, anywhere and any time, tend to stop investing in ordinary ongoing relationships. The work of trust and deep connection is too hard, the gratification from the crowd ubiquitous.
After a while, the celebrity can no longer rely on their perceptions of what people are thinking and feeling, they’ve been deprived of the normal feedback for so long. When you add this emotional stunting to perceived immunity from consequences, trouble is a predictable outcome.
I suppose DSK could have had a version of celebrity, handing out UN money on his say-so, either for UN business or his own. Who wouldn’t be interested in his every mood?
Clinton, Kennedy, and Edwards, were given breaks by the media. Don’t know about Ahnold. I recall the LAT trying to frame a guilty man before an election some time ago.
When you can do something and get away with it, your view of the rules of the game change. True in sports, true in other things. So, yes, he figured he could get away with it because he had. See the female journo whose mother encouraged her not to report the assault because she and DSK were politically connected and agreed on many things.
Quite rationally he could deduce that the rules were that he could get away with it.
Just as, for example, a ref doesn’t call any but the most egregious cases of slashing in hockey or lacrosse and the players come to conclude–either by getting away with an offense or finding themselves slashed with no penalty called–that slasing is okay. Nothing pathological about it. I suppose you could say the system, regarding DSK et al and not sports, is pathological.
Brad: I have no idea why you think that my comments require me to address the horrible circumstance of innocent men being raped in prison until they’ve been exonerated.
All I did was supply additional details about the case that neo-neocon did not include in her original post. To reiterate: 1) there’s some reason to believe the alleged victim may have AIDS; 2) DSK is being isolated both for his own protection and the protection of other inmates who may take particular pleasure in raping a famous and privileged member of the ruling class such as DSK; and 3) if DSK did contract AIDS from raping the alleged victim, then that’s a sort of justice in and of itself — or karma.
You’re a troll who gets a rise out of antagonizing people and trying to put them on the defensive.
Don’t bother addressing me with additional comments. I won’t respond. I’m done with you.
Scott-
he thinks it because it changes the topic to one where he feels he’s in control. Normal behavior when a topic is uncomfortable for some folks.
Hey Scott:
You seem to be a defender of prison rape.
I wanted to get you on the record as defending the practice. I think you did.
I’ve posted here from time to time over the past 9 months. I don’t recall ever addressing you until today, so I don’t think that talking to someone who defends prison rape is high on my list of priorities. I’ll just stick to holding my nose whenever I see your name.
Foxfier, as usual you can’t back up anything you say. I provide links, you provide insults. That may not be trollish behavior on this blog , but it is where I come from. Why do you think I mostly never address you and instead suffer your stupid snark in silence?
60 percent of the French think DSK was set up! Well why not? He is a great Robin Hood and we the big bad sheriff. Our stimulus money, 100 billion of it, went to the IMF and was considered a “victory” for Obama who pushed the measure through.
1. Good grief, who added nasty to the drinking water?
2. Neo writes, There’s a lot of this going around among the famous, power-driven, and egotistical. It also makes perfect sense that the behavior would escalate over time.
This also applies to the financial bubbles (housing, Internet, etc.) brought to us by the brightest people from the best schools.
Richard Aubrey says, “I suppose DSK could have had a version of celebrity, handing out UN money on his say-so, either for UN business or his own. Who wouldn’t be interested in his every mood?”
Not to quibble, but DSK is with the IMF. Still, UN or IMF, its largely a US taxpayer debt obligation (a few hundred billion more dollars of Greenspan’s & Bernanke’s & Geithner’s fiat currency) either way.
“When you can do something and get away with it, your view of the rules of the game change.”
Yes, it comes with the territory. Elitist socialist swine assume the rules do not apply to them, and usually this is a valid assumption. BTW, I have no way of knowing if DSK has committed the crime of rape or not; that’s why we have trials by jury. If he’s found guilty he should go to jail for 20-30 years, if he’s innocent he can resume his career as an elitist socialist swine.
1. Good grief, who added nasty to the drinking water?
Good question!
Parker. wrt UN/IMF. I tend to conflate all those organizations. I should be more accurate.
My point is that these clowns assume they can get away with such crap because it’s proven empirically true. Not only for them, but for similarly-situated acquaintances.
Don’t know if they thought that at age, say, twenty. By forty, probably, and because they had gotten away with things. It’s not an irrational view of the way their world works. Should work. Until it doesn’t. Problem is, most of us had never heard of him and we haven’t heard of ten times as many of his ilk who similarly escape sanction.
“Problem is, most of us had never heard of him and we haven’t heard of ten times as many of his ilk who similarly escape sanction.”
Are you referring to 90% of the government bureaucracy? 😉
One of the commenters on the Belmont Club thread used the phrase “droit du seigneur”, and that’s precisely the phrase that popped into my head when I first heard about this story. Not because he’s French, but because he’s a member of the international aristocracy.
“… he’s a member of the international aristocracy.”
AKA: Elitist Socialist Swine.
While this seems like a straightforward case of attempted rape, I saw something today that made me wonder:
We know that Geithner is slimy as hell. Does anybody know anything about this Lipsky fellow?
Parker:
A Socialist in charge of the International Monetary Fund. That fact alone speaks volumes.
Projected accusations generally follow, since the same folks who want to change the subject know that accusing others of what said folks do will generally derail the conversation. Even when the accusation is flatly ludicrous.
Scott– you got it quite right.
rickl –
The phrase sure has been going around a lot!
Little Miss Attila has a post about power and what it lets folks do, although one of the quotes promotes the legendary “Droit de Seigneur.” (Slanders on the “dark ages” get really tiring…possibly because of the circles I travel in. :^p)
The Straight Dope’s final comment rather covers the topic:
None of this is to suggest that men in power didn’t or don’t use their positions to extort sex from women. But since when did some creep with a sword (gun, fancy office, drill sergeant’s stripes) figure he needed a law to justify rape?
For that matter, EVERY bloody show that mentions rape these days will have Obvious Statement Character say something like “rape is about power, not sex.” (I think it’s more complicated than that, but true enough for a sound bite.)
“We know that Geithner is slimy as hell. Does anybody know anything about this Lipsky fellow?”
John Lipsky is originally from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. His family is (modesty compared to the east coast) ‘old money’ in these parts of flyover country. Overall, we could fare far worse at the head of the IMF (which I would prefer to see abolished) than Lipsky.
If Time is right, the power thing is a big consideration– the difference is, the US doesn’t ignore accusations of sexual assault just because it’s a famous blooded man vs a menial immigrant woman.
I disagree to a large extent with this premise.
Men very frequently engage in risky behavior because it IS, indeed, risky. DSK, if he did the things he did, was most likely not engaging in what he felt was risky behavior. I’m sure he has been attuned to getting his way and that this has framed his actions.
Schwarzenegger, Clinton, Edwards, et al., however, are different stories. They know very well that they are entering into a risky situation and that this risk is what drives their excitement. Not a single one of them would have thought that they could get away with what they did because we do not let things like that go unnoticed when a politician is involved. If they did, then they would be stupid individuals and I really don’t think that’s the case with any of them.
Risk is an aphrodisiac for many people.
Strauss-Kahn may not have expected any risk at all. Assuming the woman didn’t just accept what happened, he probably figured a few hundred-dollar bills to her and the hotel manager would be sufficient to make it go away. And if she was actually mad enough to go to the police — well, surely the New York City district attorneys and police would never actually charge the head of the IMF with a sordid little crime! A phone call to Mayor Bloomberg — or President Obama — would make it all go away.
They never ironed out something called self-discipline.