Interesting insights on the "pimp" angle and I largely agree with you, but he also said the following:

"One step would be to decriminalize being a prostitute and focus solely on Johns and Pimps when we go to prosecute."

which goes to my point of how making it legal but prosecuting the customers doesn't make sense to me.

"Its illegal for an adult to offer a child money for sex. Its not illegal for a child to take money for sex. Its not what we want to see, but I don't know of any kids who have gone away for this."

It's illegal for anyone, child or not, to sell sex, except for adults in parts of Nevada.

"But decriminalizing the women who currently stand to loose the most, while still withholding the Prostitution Stamp of Approval seems like viable first step."

But how is it viable if you prosecute the customers? How are they going to legally make money? Also even if they work in a co-op fashion, they have to set up shop somewhere so it seems like you'd have to change the "pandering" part of the law as well.

Not necessarily about the supposed Swedish law but about the rest.

"I think decriminalization may be the thing where you make it proscribed, but not carry jail time. That distinguishes it from legalization.

Let the prostitutes be tolerated and pay the occasional fine, just like speeders."

You could even only prosecute Johns in gross situations like when the prostitute reports them for abuse or whatever.

I am only saying, put the emphasis on the buyer, not the seller.

We have many crimes that go unprosecuted because no one gives a damn, like ticket scalping. Police could just staff their investigations accordingly.

I really believe this preposterous idea of mine could work."

That's better than your earlier suggestion of criminalizing the buyer and I don't have a problem with shifting the societal emphasis somewhat but I'd hesitate to draw the victim/victimizer line as wide as you seem to be doing. Also, your "child sex for candy" comparison was terrible. Yuk.

Overall, I'm not against legalizing prostitution. I just think you have to legalize both sides of the transaction and treat it like a "normal" business. It's a better way to go rather than a grey "decriminalization" like speeding and ticket scalping which btw, go largely unprosecuted not because no one gives a damn or because they are tolerated but mostly because of the volume of the activity.

...people who clearly don't know squat about rap, or in this case, heard an old "Two Live Crew" song in passing and think that represents all of rap, chime in on subject as a way to bash feminists.

"We are animals. We evolved to want children so *our* genes would continue."

Okay, we are animals but when did this "evolution" of wanting kids so *our* genes would continue occur? Isn't the continuation of genes, by having children, always the case and is independent of a specific want? I don't think it's a state we evolved to, it sounds more like an emotional reason layered onto an existing biological fact. Regardless of want, anybody having kids is going to "continue their genes", no?

Oh get off it. Giants fans aren't different from most others. At one time or another, fans of practically every team on earth have cheered lustily for various home team "bad apples". Puhleeze, climb down off the soap boxes.

She already had two children before the adoption. A girl (Lourdes) and a boy (Rocco).

Funny how they always seem to come from the same LWs.

Anyway, the law certainly could apply to US citizens. As usual, the devil is in the details. The section on unlawful ememy combatants has tentacles that make the jurisdiction angle the Pubs are trying to use as cover pretty moot.

On the plus side, I breathe a sigh of relief everytime I see one of GB's letters because I know the "Islamofascists" haven't gotten him yet and out noble warrior, representing, as was said humorously elsewhere, the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, is safe for another day. Whew...