Guest Post: Secretly Serviced

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Azizonomics

Secretly Serviced


I don’t understand the furore around Obama’s secret service handlers being (ahem) secretly serviced by Colombian hookers.

To writers like myself who specialise in salacious analogies, the incident was a gift. To the rest of the press, who don’t normally get to write about such matters, it was an excuse to shoot off pent-up sexual frustration. So I can understand the press pushing the story just the way Bill Clinton pushes expensive cigar cases (enthusiastically, by all accounts).

The worry, apparently, is the potential to compromise the President’s security. Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House committee that oversees the Secret Service, says the key question is whether the prostitutes could have accessed “any data or information that could have compromised the president of the United States or made an enemy force aware of the practices and procedures of the Secret Service.”

But surely this applies to all sexual relationships, not strictly ones for money? Surely prostitutes are absolutely the safest kind of liaisons? After all, why would a foreign agent trying to sequester intelligence information try and charge the American agent for sex? If you were setting a honey trap, why would you create some barrier to entry, such as a fee? There’s playing hard to get, and then there’s playing easy to brush off, and that would be the latter.

And certainly there does not appear to have been any breach of security, or danger to the President’s life. The agents were on their downtime, spending their own money. So isn’t this really a personal matter for betrayed spouses?

Doesn’t the government have better things to worry about than the sexual conduct of their employees? Like — oh I don’t know — the $15 trillion national debt? Or spiralling long term unemployment? Certainly there is no suggestion that any of the women involved were forced, or were trafficked.

The outburst that comes to mind comes from Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano who claimed their actions were “inexcusable”. Really? Engaging in consensual sexual acts for money is inexcusable, but blowing up innocent women and children in drone strikes in Pakistan is just fine?

This just seems like more encroachment by big government into the sex lives of individuals. Here’s some news for you Sec. Napolitano: men sometimes like having sex with hookers. Hookers like the money. Voluntary transactions between consenting adults make the world go round.

Deal with it.