The "free to be you and me" part of me would like to think that if we end the hypocrisy and legalize it, all this bullshit would go away. But if you look at places where its tolerated if not outright legal (ie, europe), you don't see a solution. The trafficking of women from eastern europe that is going on is horrific; if anything the problem is worse. I have no ideas how to solve this, but i'm unconvinced that legalization fixes anything.

"Women actively participate in this self-destruction too. We feel very free to condemn other women while giving the men who seek them out a universal pass on THEIR crime. Men are still considered such a commodity that we will destroy each other to avoid condemning them."

Want to know the meaning of oppression? Be eligible for the draft during wartime -- which is not a voluntary status. And it only applies to men.

Men are routinely thrown away in wars, while women stand on the dock and wave bye-bye.

Then whine that women are only victims, and men are only villains.

"So David Vitter and Eliot Spitzer abuse their marriage vows, abuse the public trust, abuse their wives by forcing them to participate in their public wallow of shame -- and then emerge fine, clean, and "penitent" because boys will be boys, but girls had BETTER NOT be whores."

I wonder if all those dutiful wives ever cheat on their husbands. Nah -- women are always moral and trustworthy. Besides, there's no evidence for it.

Nor is there evidence that the authorities hadn't conducted forensic investigation before declaring Palfrey's death to be a suicide. Nor is there evidence that Palfrey was murdered. But as Rumsfeld would say, "A lack of evidence is not a lack of evidence."

But it's acceptable to accept all that, uncritically, because women are only ever victims -- and their actions, and the consequences thereof, are always the fault of someone else. Graner was easily convicted: no controversy: lock him up and throw away the key. He got ten years.

But his co-equal in torture, Lynndie English -- it was a controversey -- the media -- at least the women reporters -- struggled for weeks with the question, "How to deal with it?"

Answer to the question was soon ffound: it was the invisible abstract "patriarchy" that "forced" her to do as she did. It was the invisible abstract "patriarchy" that was responsible for her actions and their conseqeunces.

Obviously, because female, she wasn't capable of mature, adult judgment, therefore shouldn't be blamed for or held to account for her decisions and actions. Lynndie English got three years.

We're all opposed to sexism which disadvantages women -- but not opposed to sexisms which can be exploited to their advantage. So Lynddie English was sexistly "infantalized" to her advantage, by women, while the "male-volent" Graner was not offered or given any excuses (nor should he have been).

Kiddo, you DO know that it's an all-volunteer army, right? I agree with you that men's having to register for the draft sucks, but since there IS NO draft, I can only feel your pain so far.

I also never said women are the only victims, although when it comes to prosecuting prostitution, a two-person act if ever there was one, women do bear a severely disproportionate amount of the pain. Or have you seen David Vitter and Eliot Spitzer (and Dick Morris, and Jimmy Swaggart, and...) getting arrested lately? Or ever?

And I'm not sure how Graner and England got into the discussion of prostitution, but I'm pretty certain Lynndie England was never alleged to be Charles Graner's "co-equal in torture." I'm not defending her in any way, but facts are (sadly for you) still facts. I'm not defending Squeaky Fromme if I suggest that, while not a model citizen, she is not Charles Manson's "co-equal in murder."

All of which is rather beside the point as I never made Lynndie England out to be a victim. You brought her up to create an easy straw man to knock down.

The difference between prostituion and torture is that in prostitution one can make that argument that both participants are equally willing. Too bad the punishment isn't equal.

Susannah Breslin is not a journalist, but an author of porn fiction.

Maybe what ticks men off so much about some women's being prostitutes is the unequal nature of the motivation.

Maybe if they felt the women were in it for the sex, like they are, they would find it easier to tolerate. But the fact that she doesn't actually want you, just your money, is what generates the wrath.

That's an interesting question.

YEP, breaking the law can get complicated. darn

"YEP, breaking the law can get complicated. darn"

You're pretty well missing the point here. The objection isn't that breaking the law leads to complications, but that it only gets complicated for the seller. The buyer, who is, you seem to forget, ALSO breaking the law, suffers nothing more complicated than a press conference, where customarily the one suffering the worst humiliation is his in-tow wife.

I'd sure take that over jail. Or hanging in a shed, either by my own hand or not.

Forgot who posted this already, but you're right. We hear a lot about the men caught using them and a lot about the scorned wives who are now forced to stand aside, but with very few exceptions, we don't know much about the prostitutes themselves. And when we do know anything about them, we immediately jump down their throats and call them a whole list of nasty names. I've caught myself doing it, but then I was horribly ashamed of myself. By what right do I denounce these women? I don't know them, I don't know their situation. All I know is what they did wrong. And why do their johns get to go free, with a nudge and a wink for "boys being boys?" Are we really that stupid as a society? There's always more to the situation. Let's look a little deeper.