"Let's use your same "barometer." Ask yourself, in your heart, if it's wrong for other people to decide your life. The answer is already there."

The answer is yes it is right for other people, or ourselves collectively, (i.e. legislature etc...) to decide the acceptable limits of our society.

Since many in this forum prefer rationalization:

A woman begins her period around 13 years of age. Biologically she is of age for sex. Following Glenn Greenwald's logic and that of many posters here, she should be available to men of any age for sexual intercourse, and she should be available as a prostitute. Why have all these moralist laws getting in the natural tendencies of our society?

Glenn position is irrational. He presents a unrealistic scenario of two equally consenting people ( not adults - see argument above ) who agree to exchange sex for money. That isn't how the real world of prostitution works though. In the world the rest of us live in, there is human trafficking, pimps/managers/escort services, sexual abuse, disease, sex tourism, cruel living conditions, psychological exploitation, child sexual exploitation, the effect on the families, I could go on and on. There are hardly any good real world scenarios Glenn could present that are beneficial to both parties in the transaction and should be deregulated.

Glenn knows that prostitution is wrong and society should outlaw it. He knows it in his person. He understands it without having to think about it. This article and this forum are just an exercise in rational Socratic discourse. Play the devil's advocate. Test the waters. Put up an idea, see if it gets propped up or beat down.

I presented a spiritual and philosophical position. This appears to be equated with moralism, religion, and opens me up for mocking ridicule? Mocking retorts are anti-intellectual and do not add to the discourse. Assuming I am a "moralist" or religious in my context is also a mistake and is an attempt to belittle my position. I do not take the moralist tack Protestants, Calvanists, abolitionists etc... would take. I would not outlaw it because sex outside of marraige is wrong, or because there is an attempt to divide people into groups and behaviors as moral or immoral, or to generically ascribe it as "sin."

I write in answer of 'Lemecdutex' here because this person took the time to respond to my post with a viable argument.

To reiterate my position. Prostitution is wrong and it should be outlawed. It is not consenting, and is not primarily about sex. It is about power, control, economy, abuse, exploitation. There are no fast answers to these issues. But there are some pretty quick answers. They come in that moment before we begin to rationalize. They are the answers our own heart, dignity, empathy for our fellow man, and integrity offer us... before our logical minds begin the rationalization process.

To expand my position. It is correct to legislate prostitution as illegal, and it is correct to make a societal effort to outlaw it and eradicate it. Why do you think almost every country in the entire world has laws outlawing prostitution? It is because all societies know that, prostitution in its real world context, is a detriment to the quality of life of its constituents. Even ultra liberal situations like that of The Netherlands have defined limits and are currently reversing previous decisions to liberalize the laws concerning prostitution. Prostitution is not the "oldest profession," as conventional wisdom would have us believe. That is just a modern phrase. Don't use it as an argument. Most ancient societies don't even have words for prostitution and rape, the concept is so foreign to them.

My position is spiritual, rational, moral, ethical, philosophical and based on real world experience. I suggest our society is best served when we agree to define certain limits and hold each of us to a standard we agree on.

Marx argued against the notion that man needs to relinquish religion to be totally free, referencing the United States as a prime example of a secular state in which religion flourishes.

He concludes that we have a material constraint on freedom by economic inequality, not by freedom of or from religion.

ref: Karl Marx "On the Jewish Question."

Did you go undercover for these interviews? Did you put on some acid washed jeans, a mullet wig, no shirt, Molly Hatchet on the car stereo, and a front seat full of Dollar Store bags full of Hot Pockets and Old English Malt Liquor?

Did you pull up in a fenderless Trans Am, remove your Ray Ban sunglasses and, while rubbing the spider web tattoo on your neck, ask for directions to the auto plant?

Damn I wish I was there.

I was going to post a comment regarding this article, but was distracted by a missile that shot from an ad in the left column, over the copy of the article and "destroyed" something or other in the ad in the right column. Wow, who would have thought that Salon would sink to this level. The Airforce literally shooting missiles across their copy.

U.S. Airforce. Above All! Air, space, cyberspace!

History is completely full of falsehood like the one supplied in this image. You can see that the flag is not even aimed in a spearing lunge at the "genetalia" of Mr. Landsmark, by simply noting the perspective via the bricks on the ground.

This photo is nothing more than a lie. A lie by the photographer. A lie by the newspaper that would use it for sensationalism.

This is why I have a problem with Salon's use of composite photograph illustrations.

It is also interesting that the ..."picture's aesthetic antecedents -- Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre, the flag raising on Iwo Jima, even Rubens' "Christ on the Cross." are all examples of other false images used with the intent of misinforming an already uninformed public.