Human life is messy, isn't it? And ethics can be, too. That's what makes the social sciences so much more interesting than hard sciences. This whole thread, and the commentary herein, shows what a sticky wicket it can be. While I don't purport to resolve all the issues raise, I do think I can perhaps shed some light.

First, the comments seem to evidence a craving for moral absolutes where only shades of gray may exist. Prostitution in all to many cases does involve coercion and exploitation. Add underage sex (setting aside for the nonce issue of what is a true age of consent, minor differences in societal norms as to age of consent, etc.) to the mix, and it becomes tragic and heart breaking. But just as surely, not every case of prostitution involves exploitation. (Indeed, as some have pointed out, the men in Keyna seem to be a low dollar version of what some here simply call a "dinner whore.")

Second, no matter how hard we may try, many of our perceptions are colored by American prudery. Our nation stand almost alone among Western nations in it's backwards view toward sex. I wonder if this discussion would go differently on an British political discussion board. I suspect that it would.

Finally, the element that I find most disturbing about this situation (as well as the most typical sex tourism situations, and those forms of prostitution that I suspect are the most unsavory) is the inequality of bargaining power. I wonder the extent to which this is really an arms length transaction in many cases, or if it is a personal decision that otherwise would not have been taken, but for economic desperation. Obviously, none of us can judge this from a few short paragraphs, but that -- at least to me -- is the issue that stands out as the one that is of most concern.

It's an analogy or an allegory. If the dogs don't like the dog food, all the marketing in the world won't help.

I persist in my belief that Huckabee is the most dangerous Republican candidate from the Democratic perspective.

Well, Elephantman, if you ignore his product liability cases, he did mainly sue doctors. And let's take that one step further. Who insured those doctors, indemnified them for their wrongs, and paid for their defense? Oh gee!! The biggest insurance companies in the world, probably. If you want to try that "he sued poor doctors" bullshit on someone, make sure it's someone who doesn't know the score. Go peddle it somewhere else. I'm a trial lawyer and I know what really happens. If you tug and Superman's cape and sue doctors and hospitals, they and the insurance companies that insure them come at you with both barrels. It's no different that suing GM or Ford.

And of course you and all the other Republicans squeal like a pig stuck under a gate when Edwards is mentioned for the same reason that the main stream media ignores him -- he's a threat to your little tea party like none other. First, he is head and shoulders the most electable Democrat. Second, he's not a corporate Democrat who is just a bit more progressive than the average Republican, but essentially cut from the same cloth. (Which is, of course the same reasons he's the least liked candidate of the Democratic party hierarchy.) He is a double threat -- electable and the one realistic chance for true change.

I rather had to admit it, but if Elephantman has his facts correct -- and that's one hell of an if -- I would say that Sen. Clinton would be a legitimate target. The rumors about here and Huma Abedin are I suspect just that, right wing conspiracy rumors with no basis in reality. And I agree with a previous poster that they are likely originated because some pin heads on the right can't imagine in their pea brains a powerful woman who is heterosexual.

But, I believe by virtue of her stance against gay marriage and in support of DOMA, if she were having a same sex relationship, it would be fair game from a policy standpoint, rather than just voyeuristic peeping-tom yellow journalism.

But given that, Elephantman, let's see your evidence. Surely even you don't think that accusations should be made with no evidence whatsoever. And that is not the case with Sen. Craig. In his case, there is a plea of guilty for actions that reasonable persons could interpret as solicitation for homosexual acts in a public place and several persons who have come forward to say that they engaged in homosexual acts with the Senator. As to Sen. Clinton, there are rumors (denied or unconfirmed, depending on who you believe) that a newspaper is sitting on a story about sexual indiscretions by a candidate (whose name is unknown) and some anonymous sources say it's about Sen. Clinton. The only evidence of any kind in the case is that the aid in question is undeniably hot. The cases are as different as chalk and cheese.