As far as the November erection, uh, election, this means nothing. the fascists tread these waters at their own peril. How many freelance homoerotic encounters have our republikan friends had of late? I've lost count. Spitzer's conduct as a married man is despicable, and whatever price he paid will be nothing compared to the shambles of his political career and his personal life. As far a New York democratic politics, it means exactly nothing. It's a nonstarter.

Fortunately the legalization issue is local politics. The constitution is mute on the subject. It will never happen in some towns. Some towns have no prostitutes.

Many US officials with inconvenient politics have died in small plane crashes. In fact, only one Republican from the Hill since WWII but several democrats.

Paul Wellstone

Mel Carnahan

John Tower

Hale Boggs

Mickey Leland

Alternet: Dr.Michael I. Niman

'When I heard Wellstone's plane went down, I immediately thought of Panamanian General Omar Torrijos, who in 1981 thumbed his nose at the Reagan/Bush administration and threatened to destroy the Panama Canal in the event of a U.S. invasion. Torrijos died shortly thereafter when the instruments in his plane failed to function upon takeoff. Panamanians speculated that the U.S. was involved in the death of the popular dictator, who was replaced by a U.S. intelligence operative, Manuel Noreiga, who previously worked with George Bush Senior.'

http://www.alternet.org/story/14399/

I'm just trying to figure out exactly how hollow a human being you have to be to pay several thousand dollars for an hour of sex.

At what price level would one not be a "hollow" human being to pay for an hour of sex?

Men generally pay for sex, it's just when a quid pro quo cash transaction enters the picture that the feminists and moralists get all outraged.

Flowers, expensive dinner, show.. Man pays for all with the anticipation that sex might possibly be the reward.. Everything is fine with the feminists and moralists..

sinners and horny preachers' wives.

Who need hookers when you have all those sinners.

'mout

What are the political connections of the individuals and companies busted by "The Sheriff of Wall Street"?

Using only half of my argument to force your own point of view is like cutting a clause out of a complex sentence. It doesn't really show you to advantage.

My point was that neither party can satisfy the other. The anti-legalization forces cannot show what you want. But neither can you show them how harm is truly eliminated by legalization. (Did you see my earlier post about eliminating the double standard about sexual mores?)

I'm not really arguing either way... just trying to say that it's time to agree to disagree and move on to something else, since it's moot in this case.

Better to leave the Spitzers alone in their misery about the morality or not of prostitution. Misery often does not prefer company.

I'm much more interested in "why" since the Siegelman case should have taught us something about these high-profile DOJ cases targeting Democrats while letting Republicans run amok.

But the anti legalization crowd refuse to explain how driving prostitutes and prostitution underground improves the lives and working conditions of those prostitutes.

Nor does legalizing if the quality of prostitution in the largest legal global epicenters means anything.... ranging from Haiti and the Dominican Republic to China and Thailand.

But I'm sure that won't deter you.

And it certainly has nothing at all to do with Spitzer.

where prostitution is legal. Like the Netherlands? Finland?

Come on guys, have you?

I have lived five years in Europe. Legalization, sex worker unions, health checkups...all existed where I lived.

Helped nothing.

Didn't end trafficking of foreign girls, esp. from Africa and at the end of my time there, Iraq (yes, that's right).

Look, I don't know why, all those measures looked like good ideas on paper. But they did not work.

Part of the reason may have been that the girls were too marginalized and had too many issues to keep their shit together no matter what was done for them.

But a big part of the reason, I think, was that a large percentage of the johns were violent sociopaths who used prostitutes because no normal woman would put up with the way they liked to treat women. So, danger was always inherent in the job, union or no union.

I saw these women at work. Some sat out by the road, and others sat in their cars by the big wholesale vegetable market (truck driver territory). It was night, and no sensible woman would be walking the streets at that hour because it was too dangerous. So what do you suppose happens to them? And when something does, do you think having a union helps?

Some women worked out of rooms/hotels but these women were more likely to have pimps than others (somebody has to rent the real estate). The ones in their cars were the most likely to be self-employed, and the ones at the train station were most likely to be foreigners and outright trafficking victims.

There is something inherently exploitative and underhanded about prostitution that legalization just cannot fix. Legalization does not address the motivation of pimps and gangsters to profit from stables of girls. Legalization of drugs may end the criminals' control over the drug market, although this is debateable, and we haven't really tried it yet (I'd be willing to). But it does not end the trafficking of girls.

Prostitution will always be in the shadows...nobody wants to tell their girlfriends/wives/moms where they are going. As such, it will always be secretive and dangerous for the prostitutes as well, always at night, always exposed to violent pervs and whatever else is on the street. If you are going to ask for a major overhaul of public opinion and perceptions of morality, instead of arguing that this disgusting treatment of women be accepted, why not argue that men be taught to respect women enough not to buy them? Would that be any less difficult? And it would make a lot more sense.