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.

I don't necessarily entirely disagree.

What I do disagree with though is that making prostitution illegal somehow improves the lot of prostitutes.

When you deny someone the protections of the law, it harms them, not helps them.

And, for the record, I've never hired the professional services of a prostitute.. I went the implicit barter method, which by your silence, you have implicitly agreed is morally OK.

Now.. Maybe you will respond to my point as to just exactly these desperate women are going to do in lieu of renting their bodies?

If you do not respond to that point I shall have to assume that you would rather would be prostitutes starve rather than violate your moral standards.

Thousands dead, trillions gone down the hole in Iraq, and what gets the blood of the press flowing? Another inconsequential sex scandal. They milked Britney for all she was worth and needed fresh meat, which Spritzer, sadly, and the Fed (more importantly) provided.

The part about this due to an alert from a bank for a money transfer seems strange. Maybe there's something else at work here, other than the obvious targeting of a politician for partisan purposes (hello Karl). Do you suppose what preceded the knowledge of this transfer was the routing of this information through telecom electronic communications by way of the government's cable connection in Quantico?

Now we won't have to pay any attention to the latest suicide bombings and U.S. casualties in Iraq. The so-called news networks are breathing a sigh of relief.

Susie Bright and some other sex-industry workers would have a discussion with you about this. They believe that the solution to the exploitation of sex-industry workers is not to sweep the sex industry under the rug and pretend that frequent busts will drive it out of existence, but to legalize and regulate it much as is done in the UK and other places in Europe. Remember, the way the pimp/madam justifies their existence (and their percentage of the take) is by serving as a buffer between the sex worker and the cops. They're the ones handling the bribes, etc. When sex workers can organize themselves and work without fear of being busted, then the need for such "protection" drops dramatically.

The weird thing is that many of the guys who most avidly go to prostitutes are usually the ones who follow the old morality that teaches that sex is bad. Thus, they follow the old "madonna/whore" dichotomy: Women who withhold sex = good; women who freely engage in sex = bad.

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.

Tina, you are entitled to your opinions, not your own facts. You are entitled to perceive and interpret the world in your own way, even if it is at odds with most of the rest of us but don't speak for WT.

Not to put too fine a point on it.. But what man in his right mind wants to schtup a virgin?

Sexual prowess is a learned skill, the only benefit a man gets from having a virgin as a sexual partner is that she will not be comparing him to previous lovers and finding him wanting.

Schtuping virgins is for insecure losers. Real men prefer a knowledgeable and enthusiastic partner.

Artifact the barter system may be but it is still alive and well and practiced by the majority of sexually active women.

Should be taught in every High School during the junior and senior years. It is a Behavioral and Social Sciences discipline with a very good legal and civil rights component. You learn about the Constitution. It would make better voters. in a few years.

This is the problem.

It would make better voters. in a few years.

Which is precisely why it will not be taught.

No politician in his right mind wants better voters.

Ignorant sheep are far easier to manipulate.

1. Eliot Spitzer goes after prostitution rings

2. Eliot Spitzer is found to use a prostitute.

3. Eliot Spitzer has sworn to uphold the law.

4. Eliot Spitzer did not apparently, uphold the law but broke it.

5. Eliot Spitzer should be charged with whatever the crime is...a misdemenor, a ticket, a felony, etc.

6. Whether or not Eliot Spitzer should resign is up to the people of New York. CEO's have resigned over sex scandels also (BP?). The reason is the scandels detract from the job at hand.

It sounds as if some arguments are:

1. Republicans do it

2. Prostitution isn't really so bad and should be legal

3. Spitzer was persecuted

4. It's between Spitzer and his wife (indeed, which is why he put her on display)

I really wish some government officials understood they need play by the same rules most of the rest of us do.

Turns out there was wiretap for the sting. Here's what we learned about GG's "independent consenting adult", Kristen:

She had a pimp and Spitzer paid the pimp directly for her services.

Spitzer insisted on unprotected sex and unspecified "dangerous activities", which presumably Kristen was not free to refuse.

Spitzer specified "an American". Maybe he meant white, or maybe he just was being patriotic.

But oh yeah, all's rosy in the world of prostitution.

That's the real issue here.

If you read the ABC and other reports, you find that this whole thing came about because Spitzer's bank had been a) watching his financial transactions like a hawk and b) reporting anything unusual NOT to him, but to the (Bush-controlled and heavily-politicized) IRS and DoJ.

Think about it: If your bank saw something funny -- especially with the amounts involved -- their first thought would normally be "Oh crap, somebody's probably nabbed this guy's check card, we'd better let him know", not "Oh goody! We've finally found something we can use to nail him -- don't know what just yet, but we have".

Now why would his bank be watching his every move -- especially since Spitzer is himself so rich that $5,000 transactions to him are like pulling $20 out of an ATM are to us? We're talking about a rarefied world where $5k dinners and such are commonplaces; a $5,000 transaction, or even a series thereof, shouldn't have tripped any sensors at the bank.

It's because he's been the financial industry's worst enemy.

That's why Wall Street rejoiced when the news hit yesterday.

THAT's the real story here.