for a sensible take on this issue - far more sensible, I might add, than that of the NYT whose main interest in the matter seems to be to once again explain to us that men are evil and corrupt and women are innocent and victimized. What the Times never addressed was the simple fact that the vast majority of men never have sex with a prostitute and the vast majority of women aren't prostitutes. If the Times' thesis were true, you'd expect the opposite to be true.

Some facts from the Sex In America survey by Michael, Laumann and Gagnon which was considered definitive when it was published in 1994: 16% of adult men have ever had sex with a prostitute; in the 1950s, 7% of adult males in the U.S. had their first sexual experience with a prostitute; by the late 80s, that figure had dropped to 1.5%. Those last two facts suggest that the sexual revolution has decreased the popularity of prostitution and, one would think, the percentage of women working in that business.

I'm with Mr. Bass Man. The salient feature of this whole discussion seems to be that prostitution is a uniquely horrible business in which to work, so that if one is "trapped" in that occupation, it must be worse than being "trapped" being a day laborer or a waitress. I suggest that's because we still don't have a very sensible view of sex generally, which is why I appreciate Broadsheet's bit on this.

Yes, it's about the prosperous using the poor. In that way it's like about 10 million other things in this society. I'm a retired lawyer. When I was practicing, I saw that fact up close every day. It's not a good thing, but it's far from unique to the sex trade.

she's an equal-opportunity sexist. I mean, didn't you notice her take on men's extreme emotional/psychological fragility? Old Elliot needs to be petted 24/7, just like the rest of us, right? Please.

Speak for yourself. If you're a dog, fine, but don't speak for me, because I'm not and neither are my friends. I know the opinions you state about men agree with those of Sex in the City, but not of anyone or anything else. In the meantime, you and whoever gave your silly screed a star might want to ponder why you have such a low opinion of yourself and of men generally.

Good point about Dr.L bashing women being condemned but a man (writerinla) bashing men gets a star. Just standard-issue Broadsheet hypocrisy.

is that this is a private matter and no one's business but the Paterson's. I agree, but would like to point out that that point of view directly contradicts the feminist trope "the personal is political." So are there feminists opining on this subject and if so, what do they say about that? Or is this another case of "the personal is political, except if we like the particular politician in which case it's not?"

And speaking of feminists, I wonder what they think of the fact that David Paterson "stood by" his woman all those years ago? According to every feminist I've read concerning the Spitzer debacle, Silda Spitzer should have committed an act of DV against him and then marched out the door. Should David Paterson have done the same thing? Or is this yet more feminist hypocrisy?

whether integration of the sexes will result in women ultimately not being able to compete. Women golfers and tennis players, for example, have their own segregated tournaments, not because we enjoy segregation, but so that women athletes in those sports can flourish and get paid, in some cases quite handsomely. Martina Navritilovna once told a journalist that she knew exactly what male player on the tour she was competitive with because she practiced against him. She named an unknown who was then 184th on the men's tour. And that was when Martina was No.1 in women's tennis. Anika Sorenstam, then No. 1 in women's golf played a men's tournament a couple of years ago, or rather didn't. She failed to make the cut.

We could throw men and women together in these tournaments, but the result would be that women's earnings and celebrity would drop to almost nothing. That would result in younger women not taking part in those sports.

That said, synchronized swimming is a bit different from tennis and golf, at least I suspect it is. It puts a greater premium on, well, synchronicity than on strength and endurance, so it may be that integration would not put women at a competitive disadvantage. But I hasten to add that I don't know much about the sport.

Not on topic, but regarding your pieces on extremist pastors and their support for our presidential candidates, check out Barbara Ehrenreich's article on Hillary Clinton's right-wing Bible study group. It's in The Nation this week.

Tell the audience you're giving them the whole range of views and then give them about 1/10th of the political spectrum. And of course that part of the spectrum is the part that agrees with 90% of the concepts of the military-industrial state. It's simple and it's been going on for decades.

Check out Jeffrey St. Clair's piece in this week's Counterpunch. He says that the Clintons are aiming to so damage Obama that he can't win against McCain. The calculation is that Hilary will be 69 in 2016, probably too old to run, and McCain will be a one-term president which will open it up for Hillary in 2012. St. Clair points out that that was Reagan's strategy against Ford in 1976 and it worked against the one-term Carter. Interesting thought.