Survival needs are not the only legitimate needs. No, nobody needs sex to live. However, I would argue that most people need it in some form or another just for happiness. Your lack of sympathy on this is quite glaring. And no, prostitution does not constitute buying a person's body parts. At no point in the transaction is ownership of the prostitutes body transferred to the client.

I never said that married men don't see prostitutes. Only an idiot would make such an argument, and an idiot I am not. Nor did I ever say that it was OK for married men to see prostitutes. However, I maintain that the people I characterized in my previous post exist, and I would say that they do have legitimate, respectable reasons for seeing a prostitute. Ideally, I would like to see all such people find other, more permanent solutions to their predicaments, but you and I both know that the ideal is not always the possible.

She didn't cite her source, but I googled and found it. It was at a website for a nevada based anti-prostitution organization. Not surprising, the conclusions that they came to.

Here's another position paper, from a prostitutes rights advocacy group, that comes to different conclusions.

http://www.bayswan.org/New_Directions_prost.pdf

As I said to TinWoman (and as ForHeavenSake confirms above), the people I described exist, and their sexual needs (yes, I will continue to call them needs) are legitimate. They deserve to be happy, and to pursue happiness in their own way, just like anybody else. As I said to TinWoman, your lack of sympathy on this is glaring.

No, I don't know your friend. I never made any claim to the contrary. All I did was ask some questions. I don't think that my questions were presumptuous at all. I think that they were legitimate. I also think that I was justified in asking them, given that you were using your friend as your argument against prostitution. You still haven't answered them.

And, to answer your pointed questions: no, I have never had sex with a prostitute. Most of my sexual fantasies involve myself, and not other people. And no, they never involve me paying for sex.

You are the one who brought up the relationship of the body to the mind. You, apparently, were quite astounded that everyone didn't see things your way on that topic. I was just explaining to you where I was coming from on it.

My point was that human beings can, and do, for a variety of idiosynchratic reasons, concieve of mind and body separately, and that that fact guarantees that the connections that do exist between mind and body are bound to be idiosynchratic and personal. You still haven't addressed that.

"This will run to 400 posts from whining fat ugly men sitting behind computers..."

"Ready, set, go, boys....that is if your trembling, semen-encrusted hands can man your slippery-with-slobber keyboards..."

"Why not get up, shave, lose the damn weight, and behave like a decent person so you can actually have a relationship..."

"Really, some of you people are very stupid..."

And you, my dear, are nothing but a bully, who resorts to insult, invective, and ad-hominem attack when she finds that the argument that she is so desperately clinging to can't stand up to the test of reason and logic.

LauraBB and I have a fundamental disagreement, and I make no apologies for vigorously presenting my point of view on this thread. If you expect me to simply shut my mouth and cede my position to you, you are going to be sorely disappointed.

As for your notion that personal happiness has less to do with self ownership and personal freedom, and more to do with diet and exercise, I'll just let that notion speak for itself.

...why he shouldn't have a prime time speaking slot at the convention. His campaign was not about his personal life or ethic, and those who voted for him did not cast their votes based on that. THEY are the reason he should be allowed to speak: because he is their spokesperson, and they deserve a voice.

However, I am not holding my breath waiting for Mr. Fowler and the rest of the hacks who seem to be running this party to recognize that fact any time soon.

...that Edwards affair was not relevant to the campaign he ran - if I recall correctly, it centered on poverty, not holier-than-thou moral puritanism - and thus remains irrelevant to his speaking slot at the convention. Nor do I see this as any kind of a betrayal on his part. If you want an example of a real political betrayal, look no further than Obama's enormously hypocritical vote for the FISA bill in July, a vote that Joan Walsh rightfully called "unforgivable," all though she appears to have forgiven him already. I, for the record, have not.

The millions of people who voted for Edwards deserve to have him speak on their behalf at their party's convention, and if the hacks who seem to be running this party don't let him speak, those voters should take that decision as an unforgivable betrayal, and a personal slap in the face. I know I would.

...to click on the link and view the page myself, as I am at work now and am not sure how SFW the pictures may be. However, I must say that this website sounds exceedingly mild.

I also have very little patience for complaints about "how women's bodies are treated as objects for male viewing." Yes, women's bodies are, in fact, objects. Yes, most men - myself included - enjoy looking at them. I resent the implication that this is a bad thing.