As always, Glenn Greenwald raises some valid questions. The rank hypocrisy and idiocy of the present political state makes me cringe and shake my head.

That said, I do not agree entirely with Mr. Greenwald here. We are looking into the future of living in a theocratic police state and the Bushites have brought hideous misery and death all over the world. A person in a position to stop this has an obligation to deal with the "unfairness" of not being able to poke his weenie where ever he wants to without it ruining his political career. The forces of evil are going to find and use against you anything you do that could be construed as bad. That's what the forces of evil do. So fucking your wife while closing your eyes and imagining that she's a $1000 a night call girl is the price you pay for defending democracy.

Um yes this girl was exploited - because Spitzer paid off a pimp first, thus it can be inferred that most of the money will go to him, not the girl, Second, the girl was unable to refuse the service on her terms. She wanted to use a condom and Spitzer didn't. She was still unable to refuse servicing him. In case you don't know this already - wanting to refuse service (or sex) is not the same as consent. No consent = exploitation thus you have a victim. This issue has everything to do with the sex industry because it focuses attention on the issues facing sex workers and the industry as a whole, including trafficking - which by the way also happened in this case (Spitzer transported someone over state lines for the purpose of paid sex) Furthermore, blogs and papers alike have been talking about the other aspects of the sex industry, the conversation has not just been limited to this specific incident as you claim, so it should show you that there are others besides me who feel that this incident raises questions about a whole slew of issues relating to the sex trade.

I've come to the following conclusions:

1) Tina, you drive me insane. Even when I agree with you. Though you never resort to using profanity, there's such scorn and derision in your posts towards those who disagree with you. I wonder if you know how you sound to other people? I've had that problem in that past, especially writing emails. This is just a discussion about prostition; chances are, prostitution won't be legalized. So you don't have to worry.

2) Anecdotal evidence (my friend is a happy hooker, i lived in Europe, Australia, etc and those hookers are just as oppressed) does not a point make. I don't think you can make the argument that it's better for prostitution to be illegal for the actual health of the prostitutes. Getting monthly tests, being able to report violent Johns to police, etc., I don't see how that could be construed in any way shape or form as a bad thing.

The whole exploitation argument also seems silly to me; isn't the prostitute exploiting the man (or woman) as well? He's risking just as much as he or she is, in terms of STD's. There's also plenty of prostitutes who 1)beat up Johns 2) rob them and they too don't have much recourse.

If it's all about power, then wouldn't it make sense to even the playing field by making it a legal transaction between sex vender and sex buyer?

3) The fact is, most of you decrying prostitution think it's immoral. You worry, perhaps rightly, that it perpetuates the idea of woman as sex objects. (Though how this jibes with all those Thai boy prostitutes, I don't know.) The fact is, as one of the folks who hate prostitution has said, it's a choice. You don't have to lie on your backs and be, as Tina so quaintly said earlier, a "cum rag" for some man. Sure, there are cases of teenage girls and boys, runaways, getting turned out, etc., and ofcourse, human trafficking, but for most people here in the US you choose that lifestyle. If women, of their own volition, choose to be cum rags for hundreds of men, who am I to tell them no.

The speed with which Republicans are reaching for impeachment is surely an object lesson for Democrats (in more ways than one), not to mention the saddest commentary possible regarding this affair.

spell it out for me

what changes to current prosecution of prostitution would you deem as likely to be most effective at ending or at least curtailing abuses against women?

I have always found it very curious that one of the following, but not the other, is illegal:

(a) Two people have sex, one of them gets paid for it;

(b) Two (or more) people have sex, all of them get paid for it, and it is videotaped and sold to third parties as a commodity.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument why this difference makes any actual sense.

From the moral perspective of a religious fundamentalist, there is opposition to both. Hence, both should be illegal.

As to why one is legal and the other isn't, consider who rakes in the money from (b) -- well-taxed, and sometimes politically influential, businesspeople (sometimes well organized and capable of retaliation) -- as opposed to (a), untaxed private citizens, typically those of the powerless working class.

Of course, taxing and controlling (a) might make more sense on a number of fronts -- in providing forms of protection (financial, safety, health) for both the practitioners and their clients -- but since (a) usually produces aggrieved parties (like jilted spouses), unlike (b), it will probably continue to be considered unacceptable.

It blows my mind that comments are totally bereft of outrage about prostitution. If you can't find far more potent arguments than "it's illegal" you're in trouble.

I urge everyone to check these articles out. I thought this was the 21st century.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/opinion/19herbert.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/opinion/27herbert.html