You might think I'm strange, but I know I am.

Wonder no more, America. Photos of Elliot Spitzer's high-priced prostitute Kristen have been posted on The Smoking Gun.

MARCH 12 - Meet "Kristen," the high-priced hooker who trysted with Eliot "Client-9" Spitzer last month at that Washington, D.C. hotel. The 22-year-old prostitute's real name is Ashley Alexandra Dupre (though she was born Ashley Youmans), according to a New York Times report. On the following pages you'll find an assortment of photos that the young prostitute previously uploaded to a music web site and her MySpace page, which describes Kristen/Ashley as an aspiring musician who left home at 17 and has been in New York City since 2004.

The story says Spitzer spent $4,300 on her, which ironically violates the Mann Act, an archaic statute that, though rarely invoked, has Spitzer pinned because it forbids "transportation of a person across state lines for purposes of prostitution." "It's an undeniable Mann Act violation," says Judd Burstein, an attorney whose history with Spitzer dates back to their facing off on opposite sides of the 1992 Gambino "mob tax" case.

What it clearly does not violate is the man act, which says that men will do just about anything for sex. However, it says here that $4,300 is a ridiculous sum of money to pay for sex with anyone regardless of celebrity status, looks, blackmail information or physical prowess. I'm funny that way, but I think of $4,300 as something that has high value and disappears rather quickly, while my desire for sex re-appears as quickly as my appetite. Spending that much money for something that will not provide a lasting sense of satisfaction is my idea of throwing money away. Sadly, I realize I am in the minority.

It says a lot about a lot of things. It says that people with money (theirs or the state's) have lost touch with reality. It also says that some women realize that there is a disconnect between men's sexual desire and their common sense and are more than willing to take advantage of it. Think about it. $4,300 means more to the woman than the man spending it. That means it has value, and the fact that the man is willing to dump it on an hour of fun says that he has lost touch with reality.

"Oh, man, I'd do her for twice that!" some men would say, in a half-assed attempt at sounding both manly and ridiculous. Whether it's your money or not, spending that much on a recurring appetite is something worth having a long think over. For the record, I don't spend a lot of money for food, either. Expensive restaurants are for suckers.

When you consider the fact that the repercussions of Elliot's actions have a far greater impact than the short-term effects of the act itself, one cannot logically argue the point.

I suppose I'm an idiot, but the act itself has value, and placing that large a dollar amount on it cheapens it somehow. Odd, I know, but the higher the monetary sum the less emotional value it has. I'd place a much higher value on catching someone's eye in a darkened room, chatting for a few minutes and falling into each other's arms without regard for where we are or who we are than I would if the woman asked me for five-grand for the privilege.

In the instance of a real emotional investment I'd be both flattered and excited. If she asked me for money, I'd feel as though I was nothing more than a way for her to make another car payment.

Where's the fun in that?