But he should go down for it. He fits the bill for rank hypocrisy, what else do you need? If we are going to attack republicans for their hypocrisy then we should hit democrats just as hard. Otherwise, you would be guilty of hypocrisy. Times infinity (literally). no backs.

yeah he got targeted by a republican administration! Oh gawd, how could they! Oh the humanity! He should have known hes a high profile democrat and should have doubly avoided such rank, republicanesque hypocrisy.

carry with them much more potential for scandal and are far more serious than sins involving things above the belt (i.e., greed, hatred, etc). Eliott Spitzer should have known that. Also, when you make your career out of targeting the malfeasance of others, you had better make sure that you have a squeaky clean plate yourself.

I didn't make up those silly rules, it's our hypocritical culture that does.

That's why Bush's crimes are much, much, much more serious than anything Elliot Spitzer, David Vitter, Larry Craig, or Mark Foley could ever have possibly done.

But Bush probably doesn't even get laid on a regular basis. Perhaps if he did, he would be a more humane leader than the corrupt jerk he's become.

Surely you don't think that normalizing, legitimizing pornography has had a positive effect overall on our society.

Check out the cultures where pornography is completely illegal.

You will find that they are invariably very authoritarian/patriarchal and that violence against women is far more prevalent than in those cultures where pornography is legal.

It would be so refreshing if people would actually *think* about issues rather than just engaging in knee jerk emotional reaction.

Prostitution has been observed in nonhuman animal species, notably in Adelie penguins and in hangingflies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution

I'm still going to argue for harm reduction. Morality and panic. What a bad combination.

Harm reduction is a philosophy of public health, intended to be a progressive alternative to the prohibition of certain potentially dangerous lifestyle choices.

The central idea of harm reduction is the recognition that some people always have and always will engage in behaviours which carry risks, such as casual sex, prostitution, and drug use. The main objective of harm reduction is to mitigate the potential dangers and health risks associated with the risky behaviours themselves. Another objective of harm reduction is to reduce harm associated with, or caused by, the legal circumstances under which the behaviours are carried out (for example, prohibition of certain acts or substances can help create a black market where illicit trade flourishes).

Harm reduction initiatives range from widely accepted ideas, such as designated driver campaigns, to more controversial initiatives, like the provision of condoms in public schools, needle exchange programs or safer injection sites for intravenous drug users, drug legalization, and heroin maintenance programs.

Harm reductionists contend that no one should be denied services, such as health care or social security, merely because they take certain risks or exhibit certain behaviours that are illegal or are generally disapproved of by society as a whole. Further, harm reduction seeks to take a social justice stance in response to behaviours such as the use of illicit drugs or prostitution, as opposed to criminalising and prosecuting these behaviours. Often, harm reduction advocates the view that prohibition of drugs is discriminatory, ineffective and counter-productive. Among other arguments, they point out that the burden placed on the public health system and society as a whole from cannabis use and other illegal drugs are relatively low. They also contend that the substances are still widely used, despite extremely expensive attempts to enforce laws criminalizing them, and that the prohibition has the effect of criminalizing and marginalizing otherwise law-abiding drug users.

Critics of harm reduction contend that it appears to condone and even facilitate behaviours that are dangerous, socially destabilizing or considered immoral. For these reasons, harm reduction has been very controversial in the United States, where it has met more resistance than in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In the United States, debate about harm reduction is very polarized. Advocates are often characterized as "pro-drug". Opponents of harm reduction are often criticised for ignoring the realities and circumstances of addictions, disregarding scientific evidence, marginalizing the basic human rights of affected persons, and responding from a position of "moral panic".

There is a third group[attribution needed] that advocates an approach which is sometimes referred to as gradualism. Gradualism advocates are of the opinion that harm reduction programs are sometimes rooted in pessimism about the ability of addicts to stop their addictive behaviors and represent the "soft bigotry of low expectations." They are unlikely to categorize interventions as "good" or "bad". Rather, they tend to be more concerned that programs should urge clients toward abstinence when windows of opportunity open.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_reduction

In prostitution: the prostitute. Sure, Spitzer's whore may have been a top of the line pricey one, but most prostitutes don't make $1000 an hour or whatever he paid her. They get beaten up by their pimps, sometimes by their "clients", they get the money they earn stolen from them by their pimps often, they can get murdered and sometimes the police don't bother to look into it because it was "just" a prostitute. They often end up hooked on drugs, or dying of AIDS. Many are underaged runaways.

The whole business is about as nasty and sleazy as anything can be, and I think we ought to go easier on the women and really hit the men who use them up a lot harder.

There are people who will say, "Sex is just a commodity, and like any other commodity or service, it ought to be free to be bought or sold." But it isn't just like any other commodity or service. The women in this line are not on equal footing with their "clients". They're at a disadvantage and we should try to do away with the whole nasty business.

There are people who will say, "Sex is just a commodity, and like any other commodity or service, it ought to be free to be bought or sold." But it isn't just like any other commodity or service. The women in this line are not on equal footing with their "clients".

In how many employer/employee or buyer/seller relationships are both sides at equal footing?

They're at a disadvantage and we should try to do away with the whole nasty business.

If these women (and I notice that male prostitutes are never mentioned by moralists) are denied the ability to make money via prostitution then exactly what are they going to do in order to support themselves?

If there were so many other ready employment options and prostitution is so nasty (not saying it always isn't) it seems to me that prostitutes would not go into prostitution in the first place.

I get the impression that a lot of you moralists would rather see these women starve than make their living in a manner which you find morally objectionable.

You can prove me wrong by telling me what it is these women should do for income other than selling sexual favors.