Sex vs politics: CLINTON VS SPITZER

Two powerful politicians. Two sex scandals exposed. Two different photographs taken in the immediate aftermath. What do their expressions tell us about the sexual behavior of these men? This is one columnist’s opinion.
Let’s start with the eyes. Eliot Spitzer’s are glassy, hushed. There’s emptiness in his eyes, distance. He’s physically present, but mentally, he’s a million miles away.

What does that say about his sexual behavior? It says that he wanted impersonal sex. He wanted the carnal act. He didn’t want what follows. Pillow talk. Relationship stuff. He wanted the physicality of sex. The disconnect in his eyes is the disconnect of prostitutional sex. If you wonder why Eliot Spitzer didn’t opt for an affair, his eyes reveal all. He didn’t want the entanglement.

Bill Clinton’s eyes are defiant, loud. There’s a “truth or dare” effect.

What’s the dare? He’s staring someone down. He’s challenging someone. It’s a diversionary tactic. Creating the stare of intimidation may alter the fact-finding mission of the interviewer. You better be pretty confident to answer a stare like that.

In the SheKnows archives, I found out about other diversionary tactics used to cover up adulterous behavior. Check out How to spot when your partner is lying.

What’s the truth? In his stare of intimidation there’s a hint of something else. The hint of recall. The hint of replay. Bill Clinton, though staring down someone, is watching his own sex act with Monica Lewinski. He’s watching himself stick a cigar up Lewinski’s birth canal. He’s noticing just how far he could push the cigar. Then he’s putting that same cigar in his mouth. He’s tasting the cigar. He’s flicking a match and lighting up.

His eyes here read both resistance to someone and self-indulgence. His eyes read both insolence and sexual satisfaction.