Politics

The Manhattan Madam On DSK

|

The sexual assault case against former head of the International Monetary Fund Dominique Strauss-Kahn is still slowly shuffling forward.

Here's Kristin Davis, the "Manhattan Madam" and former candidate for governor of New York, dishing on her dealings with DSK:

He was brusque, businesslike and grunted more then he spoke. He wanted "fresh faced younger American girls" for his two sessions. He paid a rate of $1,400 an hour for his time with these women. [The call girl who had introduced me to him] had warned me prior to referring him that he was a bit aggressive and to send him girls who could handle this behavior – and I let both girls know this prior to booking him.

In his first session, the woman stated that he was semi rough but it was not a problem, she could handle it. The second woman complained after their appointment about DSK's abusive and brutish behavior and excess roughness. She said he "tore at her flesh" and left a few bruises the size of thumbprints on her arms. She said it started out as role play but DSK took it to another level. I knew then he had the proclivities of a sexual deviant and would never be allowed an appointment with the girls that worked for me again….

DSK's defense attorneys have already admitted that a consensual sexual encounter occurred. Why aren't the papers asking for more details? Where are the "sources" DSK may have spoken too? Lets hear exactly what happened from DSK's perspective. If the maid is subject to scrutiny based on her accounting of the facts then we should hear DSK's version of the story….

The defense has already admitted to a sexual encounter- why is it difficult to believe that it was one that was forced?

Read the whole thing, an interesting meditation on sex, power, and the media, here.

On a side note, Reason.tv viewers will recall that Davis' platform for governor contained basically four planks: Legalizing gay marriage, legalizing casino gambling, legalizing marijuana, and legalzing prostitution. Who would have thought that half her platform would practically be realized by now in the Empire State? Gay marriage passed legislative muster and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) is taking a long look at non-Indian casino gambling.

Reason.tv interviewed her in June 2010 about her political goals, her background in finance, her dealings with former Gov. Eliiot Spitzer, and the power differential between men and women in legal proceedings. Check it out:

Advertisement

NEXT: Foreskin Bio-Colonialism?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When a NY madam says you are a deviant and fires you as a client . . . .

    1. you know you are in trouble. But just how are you/they defining “deviant”?

      1. Why didn’t Kristin Davis just send the first escort, who said it was not a problem, back to DSK again and charge him more money?

        That’s what a smart business woman would have done.

        1. Risk? I imagine it’s a profession where caution and good instincts are crucial.

          1. I agree, but apparently this caution and good instincts didn’t rear its head until after she sent the first lady who didn’t have a problem with DSK.

            IMO, I think the pimp is just trying to drum up business. How better to say, for no expense, that we are open and ready for business and we don’t service men like DSK.

        2. “Why didn’t Kristin Davis just send the first escort, who said it was not a problem, back to DSK again and charge him more money?

          That’s what a smart business woman would have done.”

          Uh, no, actually smart business people are careful with their inventory.

          $1,400 an hour call girls don’t grow on trees. …and there’s no law prohibiting them from moving to a competitor–competitors who don’t send girls to Johns who they know are physically abusive.

          Even street pimps are smarter than that with their inexpensive merchandise–that’s what pimps are for… To protect the girls from abusive Johns.

          1. I’m sure there are services that specialize in kinky sex. We know there are pro dominatrixes, for instance.

            I have to wonder how they manage pro-submissives though. Maybe a pro-dom runs the whole thing and has to be in the room the whole time. Curious …

            1. I’m certainly no expert on such things, but…

              I imagine there are more pro dominatrices than pro submissives out there. My understanding was that a lot of dominatrices don’t have sex with their clients. I bet there are more gay submissives for hire than females…

              I’m sure there are social clubs and get togethers for people who are into that sort of thing–and you’d probably do better finding female submissives who were looking for that in a non-professional setting…

              From a business perspective, though, there must be plenty of money out there to be made for doing stuff that doesn’t involve them getting beaten up. And from a proprietor’s perspective? It’s the Pottery Barn rule for sure! …except how do you compensate a madame for someone who makes $1,400 an hour?

              …and let’s face it, pimps are the difference between a brothel and places like in that horror movie Hostel.

              I mean, if one out of every hundred guys is abusive in the general population–and I suspect it’s higher than that–then what percentage of guys out there who want to pay women to abuse them are likely to…go way overboard?

              Honestly, I can’t say I can draw the line between getting off on abusing women and misogyny. …and I can’t say I can draw the line between a woman who enjoys being abused and a psychologically disturbed female.

              But it seems to me that psychologically healthy women who don’t enjoy being abused–but are happy to do it for the money? Are probably very rare. It also seems to me that guys who thought that because they paid a prostitute, that meant they could do whatever they wanted–including abuse?

              They belong in jail.

              “The second woman complained after their appointment about DSK’s abusive and brutish behavior and excess roughness. She said he “tore at her flesh” and left a few bruises the size of thumbprints on her arms.”

              If that’s true? …and the prostitute wanted to press charges, then maybe this sicko should have been indicted on that charge alone.

              The man’s a reptile.

              1. Ken,
                I mostly agree with you on your statement that
                If that’s true? …and the prostitute wanted to press charges, then maybe this sicko should have been indicted on that charge alone.

                But that’s not what has happened. She didn’t file a criminal complaint.
                Instead this woman’s (as she may not even exist) pimp is making hearsay accusations in the press that are impossible for anyone to refute.

                1. Point stands that it is entirely possible to batter a prostitute.

                2. One good reason that prostitution should be legalized: prostitutes are essentially without legal protection when assaulted or defrauded when prostitution itself is illegal.

          2. Uh, no, actually smart business people are careful with their inventory.

            Sounds like you keep your pimp hand strong.

            I understand that what these women did is illegal, but that is no reason to refer to them as “inventory”. If they were black you’d have done more damage to them than DSK, he just wanted to love on them (if the allegations are true of course).

            1. I think that the reason for calling them “inventory” has to do with the fact that the product that the “madam” is selling is the company of young women. “Inventory” may not be the most delicate term to use, but it is fairly accurate. And I bet some of them are black.

              1. Don’t let the IRS catch you depreciating “inventory” when you are actually selling a service.

            2. “I understand that what these women did is illegal, but that is no reason to refer to them as “inventory”.

              If what I wrote had been completely without context, you might have some kind of point…

              However, I wrote that in response to someone who claimed that a smart businessperson would have doubled the price–and sent the abuser a call girl who didn’t mind the abuse.

              My response was that no “smart” businessperson damages their “inventory”. Taking good care of your “merchandise” so that “customers” will want to buy it is fundamental to each and every kind of retail business there is–whether it be selling fine dinner ware at Pottery Barn or a madame selling call girls for $1,400 an hour.

              The point stands.

              No “smart” business person destroys their “inventory”–regardless of your inability to read things in context.

              1. “I understand that what these women did is illegal, but that is no reason to refer to them as “inventory”.

                Just for the record, I’ve come out here at Hit & Run probably a dozen times against pornographers and pimps–and prostitution over the years.

                I don’t think it should be illegal, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s morally acceptable to treat people like “inventory”.

                It’s just that…just because I don’t think it’s morally acceptable doesn’t necessarily mean I want to use the government to inflict my moral sensibilities on the rest of society…

                That being said, just because I don’t think people should be thought of and treated like inventory–doesn’t mean pimps and madams don’t think of sex workers as their “inventory”. Whether I like it or not–that’s what they are.

      2. “But just how are you/they defining “deviant”?

        I’ve never looked at the cleaning lady and thought, “Maybe she’d like to be my sexual partner!”

    2. what happened to her face?

  2. Blech. Reason goes down the tubes with TMZ-type gossip.

    1. This wouldn’t be happening if Postrel was still editor.

      1. I’m at work, dammit. I can’t start drinking yet.

        1. You should hide a bottle in your desk drawer for occasions such as this.

    2. Reason tried the upskirt-photo strategy but realized that it doesn’t work with dumpy Washington politicos.

    3. Blech. Reason goes down the tubes with TMZ-type gossip.

      Are you referring to this blog or logical thinking?

  3. He wanted “fresh faced younger American girls”

    yeah what kind of perv would want that…

    1. He wanted to slap around “fresh faced younger American girls”

      Oh, that kind of perv.

      1. He wanted [to slap around] “fresh faced younger American girls”.

        There, I fixed it for you. I didn’t want people to think you were a reporter boldly misquoting someone.

        1. The accepted convention is that strike throughs are deletions and bolds are additions.

          Tow the lion, dude.

          1. Not when you’re quoting.

    2. Given that French women typically stink of armpits and ashtrays, who can blame him?

  4. Kaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnnnn!

    It needed to be said.

  5. Where’s the KHAAAAAAAAAAN troll to go apeshit on this thread?

    1. …I’ve hurt you. And I wish to go on… hurting you.

      1. I give you…sixty seconds.

        1. Huh. I’m beginning to wonder if the bulk of pause ellipses in that script might not have gone to Montalban and not Shatner.

  6. He was brusque, businesslike and grunted more then he spoke.

    Why would you describe a grunter as businesslike?

    What did he grunt more than, prior to his speaking?

    This leaves more questions than it answers and if anything supports some peoples’ claims that his “victim” wanted money.

    After all prostitution is legal in France and this could just be wacky cultural differences, like in a sitcom.

    1. I would parse the sentence as saying that greater than 50% of the noises he made were grunts rather than words.

      1. When you really think about it, isn’t all speech nothing more than a series of grunts?

        1. Mm-hmm.

      2. I would parse the sentence as saying that greater than 50% of the noises he made were grunts rather than words.

        In that case, I guess the journalist fucked up and and should have used “than”.

        Your assumption would then cast doubt on the pimp’s story that DSK was “businesslike”. It would be more fitting for her to describe him as “pervertlike” when he placed an order for his companions.

  7. The defense has already admitted to a sexual encounter- why is it difficult to believe that it was one that was forced?

    Actually, the question is more “why is it plausible to believe that it was consensual?” The guy is a rich, but nobody is claiming that he flaunted wealth and goodies to woo her. His story is that he walked out of the shower and the maid who is there working was so overwhelmed by his old manhood that she just had to give him a hummer. Really?

    I could see it if there was some tease of a relationship, however implausible – like Clinton/Lewinsky – but just flash your junk and the serving girl bows to her knees?

    No, I don’t buy that at all…

    1. The only plausible thing to come out of the defense is that she was a prostitute. But they havn’t been willing so far to actually make that accusation directly. They’ve been doing it sleaze-style via unnamed sources in the tabloids.

  8. Here’s Kristin Davis, the “Manhattan Madam”

    Well, if you can’t trust a pimp…

    1. Given a choice between a madam and a tranzi bureaucrat . . .

      1. The word is “pimp.” Why are female pimps treated with kid gloves and called “madam”? Because they’re women? They’re running a prostitution business. They take a cut of the proceeds. They’re pimps.

        1. Why are female pimps treated with kid gloves and called “madam”?

          Because they’re white and don’t look like Snoop Dogg.

        2. Given a choice between a madam pimp and a tranzi bureaucrat . . .

          That actually works better. Thanks.

  9. Ickes or no Ickes–the man is a reptile.

  10. Why aren’t the papers asking for more details? Where are the “sources” DSK may have spoken too? Lets hear exactly what happened from DSK’s perspective. If the maid is subject to scrutiny based on her accounting of the facts then we should hear DSK’s version of the story….

    Valid point. There are certain “inconsistencies” in the maid’s story, but DSK’s story so far is full of holes.

    He has not done much more than smear her as a hooker. Indirectly, of course, via his friends in the media. He hasn’t had the courage to actually make a public statement to that effect himself, which he knows would expose him to liability.

    Which really opens the question of why he’s engaging in those sorts of dirty backroom character assassination style tactics if he’s an innocent man. If the woman really is a prostitute it should be fairly easy to prove it.

    1. There are certain “inconsistencies” in the maid’s story
      WTF?
      I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you haven’t heard some of these so-called “inconsistencies” and list a few for you:

      She falsely accused someone else of rape to get asylum in America;
      She was recorded on the phone telling her incarcerated boyfriend that she has a plan to make a lot of money;
      She cleaned several rooms before making the accusation;
      She had over $100k in a bank account for which she couldn’t account. (My theory is that after a consensual sexual act, she would attempt to extort men who were staying alone in these $3,000-a-night rooms for the equivalent of 1 or 2 nights room expense as a “tip” for her to not accuse them of sexual assault); and
      Her claim that she was afraid she would lose her job if she came forward is untrue, since she came forward and made the accusation.

      This woman does nothing but harm the rights of women (for the first item alone) regardless of whether or not DSK is a pig.

      1. “This woman does nothing but harm the rights of women (for the first item alone) regardless of whether or not DSK is a pig.”

        I guess I have at least two issues there.

        One is that no one person can harm the rights of women generally and everywhere. The rights of women are what they are–regardless of what the justice system decides in this case. There certainly isn’t anything one liar can do to harm the rights of women–if indeed she’s lying.

        The second is more of a question of emphasis. You say “This woman does nothing but harm the rights of women regardless of whether DSK is a pig.”

        I say, “DSK is a pig regardless of whether this woman is lying.”

        If he wanted to avoid forfeiting his position as head of the IMF and having a decent shot at being the next President of France? If he wanted to avoid getting involved in some woman’s third world problems–there was an easy way to do all of that…

        Just try not to fuck the cleaning lady!

        1. “Just try not to fuck the cleaning lady!”

          I mean–seriously?!

          A socialist politician that looks to third world immigrant cleaning ladies for sexual partners is like a gay Baptist minister that patronizes male prostitutes.

          He had to know he was gonna lose his job! What did he expect?! If he’d paid her, I guess that would suggest that it might have been consensual at least–but either way? There’s no good way to interpret this that puts him in a good light…

          Even the reaction from some of his Socialist supporters in France–railing against the American judicial system for taking charges made by a third world immigrant cleaning lady seriously–that’s pathetic.

          Especially coming from Socialists.

          1. I say, “DSK is a pig regardless of whether this woman is lying.”

            That is a non-debatable point since it’s an opinion and I’ll even grant it to you based on the admitted adultery (even though we don’t know what arrangement he has with his wife and would be similar to me trying to enforce a contract on your behalf without knowing the details.)

            As far as the maid hurting the rights of women in general, I disagree. I’m not talking about hypothetical rights that should exist. I’m talking about the rights that exist in reality like the right to be believed when you are a victim of sexual assault.

            This case may cause the next victim to be believed a little less by law enforcement, which might mean the next victim has to show more proof than previously required.

            It also might cause some in law enforcement to be a little slower about investigating the assault or charging the perpetrator thinking that it’s a waste of time or that they are being used as an enforcer for a shake down.

            It might also cause a jury to believe the defendant’s claim of the victim having an ulterior motive requiring her to overcome an insurmountable level of proof.

            By lying at least once and probably twice, the maid has hurt women by placing a few more obstacles (no matter how small) in assault victims’ paths to justice. This is a diminishment of their rights.

            1. “He said, she said” isn’t going away until Jesus comes back.

  11. Tore at her flesh?

    Zombie DSK!

  12. The defense has already admitted to a sexual encounter- why is it difficult to believe that it was one that was forced?

    Because Nafissatou Diallo has a known history of filing false rape charges!

    1. “Because Nafissatou Diallo has a known history of filing false rape charges!”

      In this case, why would evidence of making false allegations be more persuasive than evidence of roughing up prostitutes in the past?

      You understand that even DSK isn’t denying that there was a sexual encounter–right? My understanding is that there’s physical evidence that there was a sexual encounter.

      I’m mean, she’s definitely not making a false accusation regarding a sexual encounter–isn’t that something that even DSK is conceding?

      Like I was saying up top, it may be hard to get a jury to unanimously agree that a prostitute was raped beyond a reasonable doubt–but that doesn’t mean a prostitute can’t be raped.

      Liars can be sexually assaulted too. …even if they’ve lied in the past about being sexually assaulted.

      I suspect even if there is a criminal trial, that DSK will be acquitted. On a preponderance of the evidence? Without knowing all the facts, I could go either way.

      In the court of public opinion, the guy’s guilty of at best being a slime dog pig slut–beyond a reasonable doubt. And this is as it should be.

  13. DSK may be a pig, but the idea that he physically forced Diallo to give him a blow job to completion stretches credibility. How would this even be possible, unless he were armed?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.