The Merry Drinker

For once I am breaking my own rules. I am discussing a wine I have only read about and may never have the chance to enjoy. If this distresses you, by all means write to complain.

The week’s liveliest news story was the resignation of New York’s governor, Eliot Spitzer, who was caught frequenting prostitutes. One detail of the story held my attention. Apparently each of Mr Spitzer’s visits cost between $4000 and $5000. Shortly after reading this, I learned that a bottle of 2005 Château Pétrus also costs around $5000. For anyone who is keen on wine, the coincidence is bound to prompt some reflection.

Would Mr Spitzer have been wiser to spend his money on the Pétrus? In career terms, undoubtedly. But in aesthetic terms? I suspect most people discussing the subject will end up in one of two camps:

(A) It is absurd to spend $5000 on any passing sensual pleasure, whether it is a bottle of wine, a restaurant meal or a bout of sex. We should only spend such sums on things of lasting value.

(B) Everyone spends money on passing pleasures. Some pleasures cost more than others, and the best of anything is usually expensive. As for which pleasure is preferable, that is merely a matter of personal taste.

If you believe (A), then there is no need to compare the 2005 Château Pétrus with Mr Spitzer’s purchase. In your eyes both payments are ridiculous. End of discussion.

But I don’t think any enthusiasts for fine wine can possibly believe (A), if they think the matter through. If you believe that some wines are better than others, you must accept that prices will vary accordingly, and that the very best wines are bound to cost a fortune.  The Merry Drinker is obliged to join the (B) camp, but not entirely happily.

In purely market terms, Mr Spitzer’s purchase and the 2005 Château Pétrus are of equal value. But are they really? This is the question that has been nagging me. Prostitution has always struck me as inherently squalid, its practitioners people to be pitied. Could I be wrong? Might the pleasure for which Mr Spitzer paid be as superior in its class as the Château Pétrus? The only way to be sure would be by buying and consuming both. Sadly, I do not have $10,000 to spare for such an experiment. We must seek third-party evidence.

In the case of Château Pétrus there is plenty to be found. Critics usually discuss this wine using superlatives. By general consent it is the greatest wine of Pomerol. Some call it the greatest wine on Earth. It is made almost entirely from the Merlot grape, in soil that is almost pure clay. Critics rhapsodise about its ripe, creamy odours, its richness, unctuousness and complexity. Although the neighbouring Château Le Pin now commands higher prices, it does not enjoy the same unanimous approbation. The reputation of Château Pétrus remains unique.

Never having tried it, I can offer no comment of my own, save that I do not think this is an instance of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Even allowing for people’s herd instincts and the tendency to inflate and mythologise, I am willing to believe that Château Pétrus is exceptional. One of my few ambitions is to drink at least one bottle before I die.

Now, what of Mr Spitzer’s purchase? The comparison with wine is difficult, because the act of sex in itself has no special value. It is gratifying, but no more than many everyday pleasures. It becomes special by virtue of its circumstances: the events that lead up to it, its timing, location and so on - and above all, whom one does it with.

That is why some prostitutes charge Château Pétrus prices while most others are in the Blue Nun category. It is why the reputations of great courtesans - the de Pompadours and du Barrys - were not founded merely upon sexual prowess. These women were appreciated for their wit, charm and erudite conversation. Kings and princes were proud to be seen with them. If the more expensive prostitute models herself on such women, one can begin to see how her company might indeed be worth a great sum.

Was Mr Spitzer’s purchase in this class? If she was, the issue is settled. Luckily we do not have to speculate. Until recently the lady in question, 22 year-old Ashley Youmans, kept an entry on MySpace. Before she took it down I managed to copy a brief but wholly representative sample. Its spelling, grammar and punctuation are unchanged.

If you are in relationship, and it is “doing absolutly nothing” for you, makes you feel bad about yourself or situations, just causing unessesary drama, and ruining things that you may actually care about…why would you want that in your life?? you need to surround yourself with the people that make you feel good, and that will help you get to that next step in your life. that is what a relationship is all about…growing and moving forward.

Surround yourself around people that are making moves, and doing what “they want and love” with their lives, positive energy….thats what life is all about…living. Because if you dont, misery loves company, they will only try to bring you down with them…but the question is, are you strong enough, to not let that happen?

That does indeed settle the matter, at least as far as the Spitzer case is concerned. It is always comforting to see one’s prejudices confirmed. But on reading Miss Youmans’s musings, I felt another, unexpected emotion.

Am I the only person in the United States who feels sorry for Mr Spitzer? One can picture the fellow handing over his $5000 and expecting some intelligent conversation by way of a preamble. Instead, what did he have to listen to? Inarticulate sub-Californian drivel about “making moves” and “positive energy”.  Poor Mr Spitzer. He paid for Château Pétrus. He was served Coca-Cola.