re: Sweden

do your own research. find me a link. I'm open to you using some actual statistics instead of anecdote after anecdote. show me some better practices

re: you knowing what is right and wrong for others

get hold of yourself and stop using the phrase "buying someone else"

hang on while I call my dad and tell him he's a misogynist because his cleaning person is a lady

if the next part is where you tell me that sex is different because it's intimate I guess I can only ask you nicely to stop telling me how to think

I appreciate a society that puts limits on how deeply capitalist transactions can penetrate the human body. We don't allow citizens to sell body parts between two "consenting adults," or to sell babies, or allow women to rent their wombs. Sure, the lines can get a little fuzzy in terms of egg donation, payments for sperm bank donation, surrogate motherhood, etc. But nonetheless, as a society we have placed such a value upon self-determined bodily integrity that we've determined that certain aspects of a person's bodily usage should not be influenced by money -- whether for financial need or want of greater financial comfort. One can participate in certain medical studies for money, but this is carefully controlled and monitored for harms. And perhaps sometimes high-class prostitutes go unharmed, but perhaps they are beaten, or get sexual diseases. Yes, people do use their bodies and put their bodies in danger in other jobs, but I think direct sale of body parts or use of someone's body for sex is in a different category. Just b/c it's hard to draw lines and they are fuzzy doesn't mean we can't try.

I find prostitution disgusting because I think society's ideal is that sex is a deeply intimate, personal thing, as as such, should not be part of commercial transaction. I'm not a big fan of porn, but at least the consumers viewing it are not physically involved -- that's much less intimate. Adultery is a violation of a marriage agreement unless agreed to by the parties, but the fact that this is not a nakedly capitalist transaction puts this in a different moral realm to me. I hope there aren't any more women out there who think they have to have sex with a man who bought them drinks and dinner -- but even so, this is not so directly about sex for money.

I recognize that a lot of the ways we view our bodies and money are culturally influenced, so other societies and time periods may have different views. So what. I think there is a reason we've made prostitution illegal everywhere but Nevada, and it has to do with our beliefs about what sex means and what bodily integrity and self-determination means and how we view the relationship of money to these things.

As Chicagoans and the literary community prepare to celebrate the Nel-centennial (Algren was born in 1909), perhaps we should consider his famous quotes (paraphrased here) on prostitution:

"Prostitution will stay alive as long as the institution of marriage stays alive. For any girl will tell you that the majority of her clients are not single men, but married ones."

When asked why she targeted married men, the girl in the police lineup explained, "Ain't it obvious? They never sign a complaint!"

The dismissiveness, evident deep misogyny ("just like a woman, eh?"), and name-calling of LWM speak for themselves--don't mind him. He's like my kid sometimes...at this point, he's just arguing for the sake of talking back, even if all he has to say is "drivel".

The thread is dying or dead, so I'm done. You guys with issues can stay on and get yourselves some women-hatin' done. That's what you're really here for anyway, not to discuss prostitution. Which is very telling, in my view.

Have fun, everybody!

You guys with issues can stay on and get yourselves some women-hatin' done

yeah, you're looking at this with a clear head

why should I do research for you? I'm not your slave. If you are interested, then look for yourself. I am not obligated to do anything for you just because I said I didn't have a link. I'm not handing in a research paper to you for grading. So, go find out on your own. This is a letters forum, silly.

And if your dad is fucking his cleaning lady, then yes, he is a misogynist.

Again this stupid false comparison asserting that all employment is prostitution. It isn't and I would think it would be clear why.

why should I do your research?

Im not your slave, either

Prior to the Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy statues throughout the United States it was against the law in many states including the state I currently live in for two men to engage in any sexual act. By the apparently thoughtless reasoning of many posting on the message board today incarceration of homosexuals would have been justified because it happened to be the law. Fortunately, even then prosecutors in the most conservative states realized that even their most conservative Christian fundamentalist citizens didn't really want to see them hauling homosexuals in to court to charge them with sodomy. What these citizens really wanted was to keep the law on the books so that homosexuals would know that that their freedom was made possible only through the toleration of the heterosexual Christian majority in their community, who hated only the sin and not the sinner.

Indeed, even the ill-fated Bowers v. Hardwick case originating in Georgia that was used as a proxy to test the Supreme Court's view on the sodomy statutes was dropped by the county prosecutor. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that the Georgia statute outlawing consensual oral and anal sex engaged in by consenting adults was constitutional. Justice Lewis Powell cast the deciding vote for the majority, and sodomy laws were safe for another decade. Justice Powell would later admit that he regretted having been talked into supporting the majority. He also told anyone who would listen that he didn't think he had ever met a homosexual. He was, as we say, clueless.

You can open up community newspapers in just about any major city and find ads for masseurs and masseuses (and for those of you who haven't figured it out - many of these ads are actually about sex). Most cities don't want to see their district attorneys spending time and money enforcing the laws on their books or prosecuting the masseuses/masseurs or their "clients." Why don't these communities want to see law enforcement rounding up these criminals? They don't want to see their citizens imprisoned for consensual sex. If the people were agitating for prosecution, you better believe they'd be out there rounding up people right and left. They don't because you and I don't want to see that happen. We don't think that it's right. We don't think that it's just.

So what should one make of the strange case of Governor Spitzer. As a former banker, I think he must have been out of his mind to have done what he seems to have done. He seems to have made significant cash withdrawal(s) and purchased bank check(s). The figure of $10,000 dollars that has been reported as the fee is a significant number. It's kind of hard to believe. The guy was New York Attorney General. Surely, he had to have known that banks are under tremendous pressure and constant scrutiny by the federal authorities to insure that they monitor all cash transactions and report those that appear to have been structured (for whatever reason). I'm guessing this was the definitive circumstance, and it probably gets the Feds off the hook for any potential counter charge of selective prosecution.

On the other hand, how often do you hear of guys being prosecuted for visiting a prostitute? Do you think that the lack of prosecutions means these sex for pay arrangements are not taking place every day, every hour, every minute? And if they are taking place all the time and everywhere, what does it say about the fact that the government isn't pursuing most of these crimes? It says that the government isn't anymore interested in pursuing prostitution or solicitation charges than Mr. Bowers was interested in pursuing sodomy charges. I imagine Mr. Bowers probably let the arresting officer know just what he thought about the apprehension of Mr. Hardwick when they finally had a chance to chat.

So why are these laws still on the books? I'm betting they're still on the books for the same reason that the sodomy statues stayed on the books for so many years after the opinion of most Americans had changed about their legitimacy. And so now laws punishing sex workers and those who contract for their services remain on the books so that a certain type of American can feel just a little bit superior to those who indulge in paid intercourse? It appears to me that Gov. Spitzer may have been one of those Americans. This case is obviously imbued with a sad irony. It's hard not to feel that Gov. Spitzer is simply receiving his comeuppance, but if we don't actually believe that people should go to jail for having consensual sex what does that comeuppance mean to us. I suppose it's simply a matter of a hypocrite being hoisted by his own petard as it were.

Despite the hypocrisy involved in this case, this is an excellent time for us to re-consider whether these are the sorts of laws we want to have on the books. The lack of enforcement is one of the clearest signs to me that we no longer view these laws the way they were viewed when enacted. We find the penalty does not suit the crime. Indeed, most of us don't really view it as a crime. We should think about getting these laws off the books.

PS Someone will no doubt raise the issue of "street walkers," and this is something that needs to be addressed. Most people don't want to have prostitutes walking back and forth along the street in front of their house. The legalization of the sex worker's status should provide a rationale for enforcing where prostitutes can solicit. I don't have specific details on what the best policy would be, but if it's a business, it can be regulated and taxed.