might be thinking of noting that Tina says, “And you are wrong about prostitution--it demeans all women who are involved in it, even "high class" call girls--whatever that means. Until you have had sex with a man you find offensive or vile, but you must go on, you cannot appreciate this fact. You just can't.” and further says, “um---no, I wasn't talking about myself” and then asking, in some faux-sophisticated, misogynist fashion, “Is not Tina saying that she, herself, can not appreciate that prostitution demeans all women?” And I say onto you, frequenters of prostitutes, that you have forgotten that Tina is right, and that you are wrong. And that the inability to appreciate without experience, of which Tina so rightly speaks, is only lacking in those who persist in being wrong. And that the seeming paradox upon which you so gleefully seize is nothing more than a chimera, a sick illusion generated by your woman hating minds.

I'm not in a position to look up statistics on prostitution at the moment, but have worked with a great many street prostitutes. The women I met ALWAYS had some sort of pimp higher up the chain from them. He was usually also a drug dealer and dealt in stolen merchandise (these three things almost always go together). The only women I met who did not have a pimp were those that were too poor (i.e. non-valuable). These were women on their last legs and frankly not long for the world, but they would usually team up with a male drug addict and "split the winnings". He provided pretty shaky protection, and she provided pretty shaky drug money. The amount of "oversight" provided by the pimp varied, but usually very little threat of physical violence was necessary. The women were so desperate for drugs that they would cut off their right hand if it would get them a big enough sack of heroin (but hey, you'd have no problem with that since it's "her right" to her body huh?)

As for what happens with "high class" call girls, I'm pretty ignorant. It's my understanding that that market is largely controlled by organized crime and that there is a large human trafficking element involved. The people I worked with were only involved with organized crime indirectly (aka there were a hell of a lot of middlemen).

I have no doubt that there are some girls in college that independently "work their way through school" by posting on craigslist or something along those lines, but I think they are few and far between.

----

As for your point about torture being "intrinsically wrong". What features make an act "intrinsically wrong"? My point was that even the most morally repugnant act can be framed in a way where it can be viewed as beneficial. I would argue that one has to carefully examine and weigh consequences of systems of behavior to determine whether they are right or wrong, rather than making random judgments and saying that one is "intrinsic" and the other is not.

I just wondered why you would have sex with someone you found "disgusting and vile". I had no idea that you weren't speaking from personal experience..

This argument is circular really. Of course you would not want to have sex with someone you found "disgusting and vile"--these are the kind of terms people use to describe their ex-spouses or rapists, not consensual partners.

I must say that I am filled with admiration for call girls who have sex with men who smoke, because this is something that I do find disgusting and vile in women, but I don't think there is anything inherently disgusting or vile about the human body per se.

I have, a few times, had sex (not for money, though) with women who were completely lacking in sexual attractiveness. The reason I did this was partly out of curiosity to see what it would be like, and partly because they wanted to, and I didn't want to turn them down because it seems mean to refuse someone who wants to have sex with you just because they don't look so good.

There was nothing repulsive about the experiences, because a human being is a human being, though there were some practical considerations. For example one woman's belly was so large that it made positions for sex difficult and her preference was for an alternate mode of intromission that does not appeal to me at all. Another women was so heavy that when she was on top I felt like I was being crushed by a truck.

So I can see that a woman who is being paid for sex, depending on the market segment she is targeting, may have to put up with certain inconveniences, but this is not necessarily traumatic and she may need to be assertive in defining what is and is not on the menu. But in my experience these things are negotiated in both paid and nonpaid relationships, so nothing new there.

"For what it is worth, Glenn's post was not about whether or not Spitzer should resign. That's a political question, and one I think reasonable people can have differences about."

Glenn's original post was "Who Cares If Elliott Spitzer Slept With Prostitutes?" Given that that is precisely the issue over which Spitzer would be forced to decide whether or not to resign, I'd say that's exactly what Glenn's post was about. He then made the disucssion about whether or not sleeping with prostitutes was a "big deal," going on to mercilessly mock anyone who happened to think it was wrong for Spitzer to have done what he did. All the while banging the drum about how people are losing theirs heads over this non-issue. In doing so, he completely screwed the conversation and burried the real issue.

Hey Paul Daniel Ash, I like srcasm as much as the next guy (I also like Glenn as much as the next guy if not more), but it's hard for me to watch someone call for cooler heads to prevail and then have them turn around and mock the hell out of any argument that doesn't stand side beside with his own. It's hypocrisy of it's own kind.

Sorry but Glenn's "Misadventures in logical reasoning" -- and the lessons learned therein-- is one the worst posts he's ever made, and borders on Malkin/Glenn Reynolds territory in its petulant tone.

I still love the guy and read him every day though.