For the last time, then I have to go. Andrea Dworkin was a kook. I'm a humanist, not a feminist, so feminist theory isn't really what I'm concerned with. Even they can't decide. Just like a woman, eh?

Feminism

Prostitution is a significant issue in feminist thought and activism. Some feminists argue that the act of selling sex need not inherently be exploitative, but that attempts to abolish prostitution - and the attitudes that lead to such attempts - lead to an abusive climate for sex workers that must be changed. In the new discourse, the redefinition of prostitution as "sex work" saw the development of the sex worker activism movement, comprising organisations such as the Australian Prostitutes Collective and COYOTE.

Feminists who believe that prostitution is inherently exploitative, such as authors like Andrea Dworkin, herself an ex-prostitute, argued in the 1980s that commercial sex is a form of rape enforced by poverty (and often overt violence by pimps). Proponents reject the idea that prostitution can be reformed. These feminists believe that the assumptions that women exist for men's sexual enjoyment, that all men "need" sex, or that the bodily integrity and sexual pleasure of women is irrelevant underlie the whole idea of prostitution, and make it an inherently exploitative, sexist practice. One feminist argument against Dworkin's position is that prostitution, insofar as it colludes with the perception of an inherent 'need' on the part of men for sexual release, is exploiting men more than it exploits women.

Sweden's 1999 law forbidding the purchase (but not sale) of sex was a natural extension of this view. Many prostitutes in Sweden have decried the laws targeting clients, as they say the laws just drive the industry further underground and reduce sex workers' incomes without providing greater safety.

Some jurisdictions have responded to sex worker activism by decriminalising prostitution. The rationale for these legal reforms has been to extend to sex workers the same health and safety standards that apply to other professions involving close bodily contact, for example dentistry, nursing or hairdressing.

@ L.W.M

Um yes this girl was exploited - because Spitzer paid off a pimp first,

When you rent a limo, you pay the guy's boss and tip the driver. Is he exploited?

thus it can be inferred that most of the money will go to him, not the girl,

Any number of things can be inferred but that's not a substitute for facts. We don't know what the split was.

Second, the girl was unable to refuse the service on her terms. She wanted to use a condom and Spitzer didn't.

Again you are making assumptions. I'll grant you, her cut of that $5000 dollars was a strong inducement but she could have said no anytime.

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.

Again, you are just blowing smoke. See above. That girl was not exploited. She had free will and a choice.

This rest of this all is just a rant. Get a sign and a giant puppet head. March around just stay away from me. I don't like prohibitionists. You are as bad a the religious right.

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.

Drivel.

-- meeneecat

EXCELLENTLY STATED, Glenn Greenwald! Governor Spitzer's case WAS MOST CERTAINLY a G.O.P. DIRTY, UNDERHANDED, VILE, DASTARDLY PLOT to DESCREDIT and HOPEFULLY FORCE Spitzer to RESIGN! WELL, TWO CAN PLAY AT THIS GAME!!!!! I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION A MOST COMPROMISING PHOTO, WHICH IF RELEASED TO THE PRESS, WOULD BRING the G(rotesque) O(pportunistic) P(ederast) fudge-pachyderm repugnicant-rethug-repubs, the white house and ALL of washington D.C. to its KNEES. Bush, Cheney and Rove are CRAPPING in their pants ANTICIPATING my RELEASING this PHOTO. BE WARNED, G.O.P. = R.I.P.!!!!! MORE TO FOLLOW......

If he is capable of hiring prostitutes, what else is he capable of?

The arrogance...

Some time ago I read a couple of news stories about a program in Germany where they were recruiting prostitutes to be trained as nurses, the logic being that they were already accustomed to touching people's bodies, etc., etc., etc. and were less likely to be judgmental, as well.

I thought it made a lot of sense at the time. Still, I can't see it happening here, again, because of the embedded strain of puritanism. If only a few less Puritans had immigrated here, perhaps that strain would not run so deep. I suppose there might be some objection, too, that former prostitutes might not be smart enough or educated enough already to accept such training. But, I guess that depends on the definition of "nursing."

It probably wouldn't be hard to come up with some additional ideas for appropriate training programs. The hard part would be overcoming the stigma attached to being a prostitute.

It strikes me as very unfair that men seem to want to have it both ways: they get to use women's sexuality against them if only by using the plethora of names for those dirty women who do not withhold themselves often enough from sex with too many partners, not to mention using the names for our body parts as the very worst insults to cast upon other men.

And yet, they will also insist on complaining that women are too likely to withhold sex (for bartering purposes), or that they won't do those dirty acts that men prefer, or that they just don't enjoy it enough. (Sometimes, women just like to keep something of themselves to and for themselves. It isn't always about withhholding from...)

Quit criticizing women so much and take a look at yourselves, and ask how you'd respond if you were a woman and faced with such a lose-lose proposition. If that's even possible.

Good grief! Where is Tiresias when we need him/her most?

Just for the record, the reason it often takes so long for you to get answers to your endlessly repeated questions is that you don't really ask them in good faith, but only with the idea of being shown another argument that you've already fashioned a weapon against because you're so sure that you know exactly what the response is going to be because of course you've already heard it all before. If that's so, why do you keep asking?