That to me is the biggest difference between Spitzer's behaviour and Bill Clinton's. Monica was not likely to blackmail Bill for powerful favours.

Why not? How could he possibly have known that when he started with her? And what about the prospect that others would find out -- people she might tell, etc. Isn't the blackmail concern just as strong there?

It's totally unrealistic to expect elected officials suddenly to transform into saints, and as long as they aren't living like saints, the blackmail risk will always be there.

But how big is that risk? Are there any examples where that has happened of any significance?

I agree with you on sooo many things but not on this. I can agree that the moral outrage is overblown, especially when you consider the wholesale apathy in the face of the Bush administration's crimes. But prostitution is usually the last resort for the truly desperate. I know that in this case the prostitute was a call "girl" at the high end of the pay scale. But the principle is the same. Having sex with man after man, many of them very unappealing, never knowing whether they might be weird or dangerous is not what any woman who cares about herself would or could do. It is the "profession" of the desperate, the majority sexually abused as children (an experience that taught them how to hide and suck up their feelings of repugnance) many of them addicted to drugs. Just think about it.... how many of the women in your life would "choose" this way to earn a living. I believe that it is symptomatic of a lack of imagination in many men that they fail to understand what the reality of serial sex with men you don't know or like must be like. I remember as a girl in England during the 80s hearing about the Bradford serial killer who preyed on prostitutes. The prostitutes of North Yorkshire just carried on their trade, the prospect of a killer in their midst was not enough to deter them....they already were leading lives of everyday danger and were too used to it to stop. So I fault Eliot Spitzer for his misogyny. His willingness to use another human being in this selfish way.

I think Mizmoon wants them both to be illegal or, at least, was lobbying for porn to be so classified. Other than that, my highly unofficial poll is that no one else here thinks there is any logical reason for the (actual) scenario you laid out.

You win the absurdity argument by default, if not quite by "common" sense.

The fact that two or more people can have videotaped sex and get legally paid for it is so obvious a way around prostitution laws. I have never figured out why more "escort services" don't set themselves up as movie studios. Sell sex that is videotaped and sold to an audience of one (the john) and voila! no crime.

Because it's using and exploiting women and treating them as sex objects.

The adult women in question choose to be there. They don't have to be. In this case, they make hundreds of dollars an hour or more. They don't think they're being "exploited."

But Tina Schrier knows better than these women do about what's best for them, and therefore, Tina Schrier's judgment about what they should be doing should take precedence over these adults' judgment about their own lives.

You've earned the right to control people's lives that way and to override their own decision-making faculties.

Glenn, maybe you ought to stick to political commentary. Moralizing clearly isn't your strong suit.

Since I'm not a priest, moralizing doesn't need to be my strong suit. The purpose of the law isn't to moralize. At least most people who aren't followers of Jerry Falwell have had little trouble understanding that point.

-If you wouldn't want your own mother or daughter sucking dick for money, then don't wish it for someone else's daughter.-

You are correct. No one here would likely ish or condone a family member working as a prostitute.

The point is that prostitution exists. Its a reality that we cannot wish away which is why there are many proponents for legalizing/regulating it.

They don't call it the world's oldest profession for nothing.

I care a lot. Like it or not, our politicians are still role models. They aren't elected to break laws and be hypocrites.

This isn't a referendum on prostitution here.

This is about high-risk, illegal behavior by an elected official:

(1) He showed poor judgement

(2) He broke laws

(3) His public facade was grossly at odds with his private life

(4) He risked his career & the careers of those working for him --- for a sexcapade

There's more here than illegal behavior. There's a GROSS BETRAYAL of trust.

Kitt: Why the anger and hostility in a chat forum??

I am not hiding behind shallow verbiage nor deflecting my questions.. Again why the anger and rage??

I value candid constitutionaly protected dialouge and the beauty of the internet..

Again why the attacks??

-- arandi

You're joking? Right? I mean, that was real flowery and all about how much you value stuff you can't spell, and how beautiful you think the internet is, but, well, I have to wonder...

Juan Williams( FOX, NPR) made his career by outing Jesse's infamous Hymie remark despite Juan being Black and it was a cocktail chat among brothers..

Glenn is jewish like Spitzer many reporters do not disclose adverse information on people becuase of religion and other reasons.. I think this is wrong but reality is what it is..

Glenn is gay he is taking a moral position about prostitution no doubt in part becuase of his sexal preference therefore in my view I have no problem exploring this line of questions with Glenn..

Josh, I think there are a lot of people who ignore the misery that prostitution and porn cause because it suits them to do so. These are the same people who decry explotation in other areas of life - for the politically oppressed and downtrodden, for example. They hide behind "liberty" and "privacy" but the truth is they don't care how many people, mostly women but not exclusively women, are harmed in the prostitution and porn industries.

Perhaps true for some, but not necessarily so. You are presenting an unreasonably binary view of this issue. That is, you assume only two options: illegalize porn and prostitution, or allow it to be legal and completely unfettered. Your implied false choice ignores the very reasonable and obvious option of allowing the general activity, while imposing laws and regulations to shield participants from potentially harmful consequences.

In a free society, there are always risks attendant to free choice. The key is to maximize freedom while protecting against victimization and exploitation. This is accomplished by targeting the latter, not the former.

With that, unfortunately I have to go now.