Since this scandal has broken, I admit I have assumed I was missing something. I mean sure, it's juicy. But what's with all the hoopla as if he murdered someone? It's along the same lines as a million other sexual scandals. (Hello, why didn't Gingrich get the same condemnation for having his own affair after making his career on pursecuting Clinton for the Monica Drama?)

however, I disagree that resignation is inappropriate for 2 reasons. 1) Even if the law doesn't make a whole lot of sense to seme of us, he IS a political figure busted for breaking a law while in office - a law that he made his career off of persuing!! 2) Most importantly, I think hypocracy is a reason to resign. In fact, many many MORE politictians should be forced to resign for their hypocracy. People put him in office because he stood against certain things, and now he's caught participting in those very things. He oviously can't deliver on what he was "hired" for. You can't deliver on a job, you lose it. That's how life works.

Besides, you simply cannot say "hypocracy isn't a reason to resign" for this guy, and then EVER get on your high horse about any scandals ever again. What makes one man's hypocracy ok and another's not? Again, it doesn't work that way. You either hold people to the values they sell themselves on, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

But the moral outrage? Enh. He went to a prozzy. Whatever. I don't think it makes him a terrible person. He should relinquish his office and we should move on.

Spitzer should resign because Democrats should hold their own to a higher standard.

Not that I expect that to happen.

When the state's top law enforcement official deliberately and knowingly breaks a law then they have violated a public trust.

Not to mention the absolutely staggering hypocrisy of prosecuting prostitution with a great deal of vigor and then availing himself of the services for which he has locked other people in nasty cages for long periods of time.

This guy makes Larry Craig look positively saintly.

"Harm reduction argues that no one should be denied services"

Okay, the apologists have totally lost me now.

Prostitution is not a "service". Nobody has an inherent right to sex just because he wants it.

William Timberland basically said if you live in the real world and not in the world of theory, prostitution is an ugly business. Courageously, he offered his experiences--the only guy on this thread who has owned up to being a john. His picture was not the cheery one offered by the apologists.

No response to the NY Times column that I posted.

Prostitution degrades and exploits women. That is the reality. Why anybody would defend it is just beyond me. It's somehow tied in with liberal bloviating about freedom from sexual shame, which in theory is fine, but the truth is--prostitution HURTS women.

It's hard sometimes to live in the real world instead of the world of academic theorizing--but I have to do it. The rest of you can comfort yourselves with the myths if you want.

Some kinds of shame are good. I would be ashamed to buy another person for this purpose of fucking their body, no matter how well off they appeared to be.

The whole barter-for-sex angle is an artifact of when women weren't supposed to be able to support themselves financially, much less work in the same careers as men. Lots of laws existed to reinforce this helplessness.

As a sort of consolation prize/pedestal/trap, women's virginity (or at least a heavy restricting of sex on their part) was offered up to women. It's the one thing they had to offer that had any value.

At the same time, that old framework holds that women -- through a mix of nature and nurture -- seem to be more focused on relationships than are men, who according to the stereotype are more interested in getting their rocks off than anything else. So the theory goes that the best way to keep the meal ticket around is to regulate his access to sex, and make sure that the best and easiest way for him to have sex is through marriage.

This is what "old-fashioned Christian morality" is all about. Sucks, doesn't it?

Consider the fact that our national experiment to prohibit the consumption of alcohol led to the rapid expansion of the Mafia and ended in utter failure. Consider the fact that our so called drug war, now 28 years and still counting, has resulted in the US holding a greater percentage of men in prison than virtually any other state than China, and has not, despite massive public financing, ended drug use. Consider the fact that prostitution is the world's oldest profession and will, no doubt, continue to remain so, as it is a service greatly in demand, even by those who denounce it and those who prosecute it.

So why is it we are incapable of drawing the correct conclusion as to the efficacy of these interdiction policies?

I understand that if we didn't have laws criminalizing prostitution we'd only be able to watch "Cops" once a week, but it occurs to me that despite the damper decriminalization would have on our television viewing habits, by doing so, by regulating the sex trade and taxing it, we eliminate almost all of the concerns that opponents level against the activity. Pimps would mostly disappear. The reporting of abuse would not be stymied by the fear of arrest. Sex workers would keep more of their earnings, would contribute to social security, and could save for the future. Medical certification could be mandated. Sex workers could unionize.

Of course, as is often the case, there is a down side. Police officers would certainly be affected, as it would seem likely, that certain time honored practices such as demanding free blow jobs from prossies in exchange for looking the other way might disappear entirely. Furthermore, there's the whole issue of what to do with the time freed up on the police officers' schedules. Would the decriminalization of prostitution lead to the loss of viewers on reality-based shows like "Cops?" Are car crashes and out of control red necks sputtering unintelligibly enough to hold onto the prime viewer demographic advertisers demand?

Finally, consider whether or not it is possible that we have our heads stuck too far up the asses of our fellow citizens? Indeed, is it possible that government has no real business becoming involved in these sorts of issues of personal morality?