To pay a professional dominatrix (not Mistress Matisse).
It probably says something (or other) about our attitudes towards female sexuality, or possibly alternative sexuality, that the tone of the article is very much "she made him do this." She didn't make him steal. She's causing no more heart attacks than if he'd done it to pay off gambling debts. Although, of course, that wouldn't have been an interesting story.
He's being treated by a number of blogs as a weirdo. Well, no, he's a criminal. But she isn't. He could have -- and ought to have -- paid for such services out of his personal funds, or, if he couldn't afford that, not paid at all. No one, even a pro domme, wants customers to steal to pay for their products.
But the media story tells us that any woman who is in control sexually must be grasping and soulless. He's crazy, and she's evil for driving him to it.
Funny, I make my own decisions. I know right from wrong -- and stealing is wrong, even for something I really want. That's what's at issue here. She didn't steal. She didn't ask him to steal. All she did was charge money for providing a service.
Just in case I ever want a job at the Washington Post, I should point out I got perspectives from here (although there's no proof the guy was a Democrat, and he does live in East Meadow), here here, and here.