The plight of former NY governor Spitzer has engendered a ton of discussion, not only on the news, but around the water cooler as well.

As one of my female co-workers noted, why didn't he just have some little bimbo on staff to take care of his "executive needs"?

Precisely...

It is apalling that a woman (or man) that directly asks for and receives reimbursement for sex is legally termed a prostitute and can be prosecuted as such.

Yet the same type of person using the same "favors" often gets away with it in an office setting.

I believe that folks like Spitzer eventually see no real difference in the two. In fact, unlike the paid-off call girl or escort, the office whore will stick around as long as possible to derive the greatest benefit from the affair.

Even the term "office affair" whitewashes the real nature of what's going on. The term "affair" conjures up visions of a nice, pleasant get-together, not of hurried illicit humping in a supply room, roadside hotel, or on top of a desk. 

Just like "real" prostitutes, the office whore often comes from a difficult past, and may have abuse in their background. They also may have delusions of grandeur (the Sleazy Secretary claimed she wanted to be a movie actress; Spitzer's call girl has aspirations as a singer). Hooking up with a powerful John feeds those delusions.

If it can be shown that such a relationship is going on in the office place, similar charges should be levied against the parties involved. "Solicitation of Undue Reimbursement or Promotion by Sex" could be one name for it. If a co-worker has been fired or denied promotion or a raise because of the relationship, their damages should be covered as well as the company that provided unwarranted raises, perks, or promotions.

Years ago, I read a book by a CEO that was hired to turn a large car rental company around. In the course of reviewing payroll levels, he discovered that an executive VP had granted across-the-board $5,000 raises to all executive secretaries.

After some investigation, the CEO discovered that the VP was having a torrid affair with one of the secretaries. He wrote that if he told the VP about what he knew and the VP got mad, he might have come to the wrong conclusion. If the VP sheepishly asked who had told him that, he was right.

Sure enough, the cheating VP stared at the floor and said, "I need to know who said that..."

The VP was ordered to transfer or else. His secretary quit in a rage. When the $5,000 raises were withdrawn from the others, not a peep of protest was uttered.

The CEO noted that a senior accountant had quipped, "thank God he wasn't doing a keypunch operator"...