like, say, Russian or Irish immigrants.rnIn issuing his executive order, MayorrnGiuliani called the policy “indefensible”rnas a constitutional matter. His opinionrnwas validated a few days later, in thernform of a state supreme court ruling inrnfavor of one of several white male-ownedrnconstruction companies that had suedrnthe city after their low bids went forrnnaught. Justice Walter B. Tolub of Manhattanrnheld that the 10 percent pricernpreference violated a New York State lawrnrequiring government to accept the lowestrnbids for all contractual work. The citvrnhas canceled a number of the taintedrncontracts and is in the process of takingrnnew bids for projects that have not yetrngotten under way.rnGiuliani criticized the set-aside policyrnusing the rhetoric of fiscal restraint thatrnNew Yorkers have come to know so well.rnThe three million dollars in revenue lostrnlast year as a result of the policy, however,rnis a pittance in a city that currentlyrnfaces a two billion dollar budget deficit.rnMore revealing is the mayor’s statementrnthat he wants the city’s contract systemrnto be “ethnic, race, religious, gender andrnsexual orientation-neutral.”rnGiuliani’s recent rhetoric has heartenedrnhis conservative supporters, whornhad suspected he was secretly one ofrnthem. Though he twice ran for mayor asrna moderate Republican, he has occasionallyrnadopted since taking office inrnJanuary a notably hard-line stance on arnrange of social issues. He repeatedlyrnstresses self-reliance as the antidote tornthe culture of dependence fostered by arnrunaway welfare state. He is going aheadrnwith his “race-neutral” plan to lay offrn15,000 city employees, despite strongrncriticism from black and Hispanic legislatorsrnwho fear that their constituentsrnwill be disproportionately affected. Andrnhe has said that the role of governmentrnshould be far less expansive than hasrnbeen the norm in New York City.rnBut there is a dark side to Giulianirnand his politics that is as discouraging asrnthe above policies are promising. Duringrnthis summer’s Gay Pride festivities, thernmayor set a dangerous precedent by refusingrnto prevent militant homosexualsrnfrom staging an illegal parade. He hasrnalso not spoken out against the Board ofrnEducation’s latest proposed curriculum,rna watered-down version of the infamousrnRainbow Curriculum, which triggeredrnlast year’s parental revolt that toppledrnSchools Chancellor Joseph Fernandez.rnGiuliani’s position on the hot issue ofrnillegal aliens is equally cause for concern.rnHis chief of staff, David Klasfeld, wroternin a memo: “The Executive Orderrnwhich advises City agencies not to reportrnpeople to the Immigration and NaturalizationrnService is for the good of allrnNew Yorkers. We need to encourage allrnpeople who live here to seek necessaryrnmedical attention, social service help, orrnto report a crime without fear that theyrnwill be reported to the INS.” This statementrnleft the public wondering whetherrnthe mayor believes that breaking immigrationrnlaws is not a crime and that welfarernbenefits for illegal aliens are somehowrn”for the good of all New Yorkers.”rnWith mixed signals such as these.rnNew Yorkers are left wondering: “Willrnthe real Giuliani please stand up?”rn—Richard IrvingrnP A T T I DAVIS, Reagan’s little girlrnwhose nude body graced the cover ofrnthe July Playboy, has finally settled down,rngotten her act together—and written arnnovel about bondage. Yes, bondage.rnAnd it’s titled, well. Bondage. Discussingrnher book on the NBC Today show withrninterviewer Katie Couric, who noted thatrnit’s about people “totally out of control,”rnDavis explained that she wrote this novelrnbecause she’s always wanted to writernabout—get this!—”trust within the contextrnof a relationship.” Why? To examine:rn”What if that trust was so extreme,rnhow far would someone go?”rnDavis says her theory is as follows:rn”That if you could trust someone thatrnmuch to get into that kind of sexual exploration,rnin this case bondage, that itrnwould probably be the most erotic experiencernin the world—rather than therndanger being the enticement, that actuallyrnthat [kind of total] trust would be.”rnShe admits, however, that one of herrncharacters does “get involved” with anotherrn”who’s a bit more dangerous thanrnthose of us [?] would like.”rnWhy write about bondage? Well,rnDavis says she wanted to write a storvrnabout “dangerous people” becausernthey’re “fascinating and very attractivernand they’re out there”—which, indeed,rnthey are. I mean, just check the nearestrnmirror, Ms. Davis.rnBut, says Davis defensively, the characterrnwho goes too far doesn’t do onlyrnbad things. No, he teaches the femalerncharacter “a lot” about herself. Such as?rnWell, he “dismantle [s] her defense system”rnand gives her the “best sex” she’srnever had.rnWhat about the “field research” Davisrndid for this novel? Not to worry, saysrnDavis demurely: “Oh, I have not beenrntied up. I’ve never trusted anyone thatrnmuch, actually, which is part of the reasonrnthis stor)’ was created. I think everyrnnovelist starts out with a ‘What if question,rnand one of mine was: What kind ofrnperson would it take for me to go, ‘Okav,rnI’ll do anything with vou’?” The answerrnis, of course, a simple one: A crazy person!rnIn any event, for field research, Davisrnsays she “picked the brain” of “a professionalrndominatrix”—which, if you mustrnwrite about this kind of sexual perversion,rnis preferable to an amateur dominatrix.rnWhat she learned “confirmed”rnwhat she had suspected: that peoplernwithin “the context of a relationship”rn(there’s that euphemism again) feelrn”ver- self-conscious about bringing theirrnfantasies and deep, darkest desires intornthe relationship, so they go to someonernlike her [the professional dominatrix]rnwho doesn’t have any judgment.”rnOK. I understand. I mean, who wantsrnto go to a judgmental dominatrix, professionalrnor amateur? This vsould obviouslyrntake all the fun out of being tortured,rnright? Likewise, one sympathizesrnwith those sickos who are reticent tornreveal their “darkest desires,” their preferencernfor sexual perversion.rnDavis says, however, that seeking out arnnonjudgmental professional dominatrixrnfor tortured sex doesn’t actuallv “bodernwell for a relationship.” She thinks thatrn”true intimacy” means “to share all ofrnthat stuff with your partner.” But, hut,rnsays Davis, “We live in a society that’srnnot OK with that.”rnSociety is to blame for weirdos goingrnto sex-torturers? Yep, that’s what Davisrnsays, with—if you’ll pardon the expressionrn—a straight face. The problem isrnthis: “There is a whole sort of sexual undergroundrnbecause of the judgmentalismrnthat exists in this society.”rnDavis savs that having exhausted herrn”treasure chest” of family memories, shernis now in “a whole other phase” of herrnwriting. Indeed. She says that in herrnnovel there are two women who almostrnbecome lovers but don’t because of “sortrnof echoes in their heads of: So, whatrndoes this mean? What category am 1rngonna . . . “rnThen, calmly, Davis “outs” herself,rnrevealing, it seems, that she is a lesbian orrnbisexual, something her interviewerrnNOVEMBER 1994/7rnrnrn