> The natural concomitant to your hypothetical is "Some people drive 80 MPH and kill people - so let's outlaw cars."

That would make sense if I said we should outlaw sex, but I didn't. I said we should outlaw certain specific sexual practices which are risky not only for the participants, but for innocent bystanders as well. I'm no right-wing bible thumping do-gooder by any means - quite the opposite. I simply don't believe the argument that prostitution is a victimless consensual activity without repercussions holds water.

But yes, analogies are all usually quite readily dismantled, which was the other point I was making. Thank you for affirming it.

No, no, let's just outlaw paying for [diseases]!

-- DCLaw1

Would there be a thriving black market for them?

Hopefully! But it would be perfectly legal to pay someone to be videotaped catching the disease, then sell the videotape.

That would be *hawt*.

it demeans and exploits the men.

Not too many feminists are still espousing Dworkin's theories today.

I'm not calling her a "feminazi". She was a radical thinker in her day and I like radical thinkers, but to many she is now looked upon as a bit of a "kook". I am a bit of a kook. It takes one to know one.

Feminists.

That would make sense if I said we should outlaw sex, but I didn't. I said we should outlaw certain specific sexual practices which are risky not only for the participants, but for innocent bystanders as well. I'm no right-wing bible thumping do-gooder by any means - quite the opposite. I simply don't believe the argument that prostitution is a victimless consensual activity without repercussions holds water.

-- rodian

It is safe, sane and consensual when done right. Regulated and controlled.

I simply don't believe the argument that prostitution is a victimless consensual activity without repercussions holds water.

I'm not sure we are understanding each other, and I have a tendency to be flippant. Coal mining is a "victimless" consensual activity with repercussions. Shall we outlaw it?

humans need can from a marriage? Like coal comes from a coal mine.

We cap speeding because it is intrinsically reckless.

Like most flat statements this one is not entirely correct.

On limited access highways in particular what is most dangerous is driving at a greatly different speed than the prevailing traffic flow.

Going considerably slower than the prevailing traffic flow, even if you are doing the speed limit, is more dangerous than driving at the same approximate speed as the rest of the traffic, even if they are speeding by a considerable amount. It is the difference in speed that is dangerous more so than the absolute speed.

Our interstate highways were designed for 70 mph speed limits with cars of the sixties, cars far less capable in road holding, braking and handling characteristics than virtually all cars on the road today.

I really am. It's preferred but not natural, promiscuity is. Evolutionarily speaking, at least. Natural selection will fix that over time. Credit the advent of STDs.

http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm

You wrote: "The more accurate analogy to criminalizing prostitution would be to criminalize driving, not speeding . . .

(Some may think constantly responding to the critics is pointless, but I regard it as good exercise.)"

Indeed. Your responses are like a kind of review of logic homework. Very instructive. I get so tired of doing it at my job, though, and I appreciate you doing it here for us.

I simply don't believe the argument that prostitution is a victimless consensual activity without repercussions holds water.

There is a problem with semantics here..

"Victimless crime" does not mean that no one else was harmed in any way..

What it really means is that no one else's rights are violated.

Whose rights are violated and in what way when two people engage in consensual sex, paid or not?

Keep in mind that people are harmed every day without their rights being violated. If you wish examples of such harm I'll be happy to provide them.

Monseiur Claw

We cap speeding because it is intrinsically reckless.

Hitler did it!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/12/the-life-of-a-highpriced_n_91138.html

I just ran across this at huffingtonpost. The saddest part is they really seem to believe what they're sayying. Clearly there's a need for someone who knows better to step in and set these people straight.

For referring to divorced and remarried men as "serial polygamists"..

As in "Serial polygamist Rush Limbaugh"..

"Serial polygamist John McCain"

And so on..

Needless to say it was a wingnut board.

"Slavery"

I'm not sure why that eminently descriptive word is so seldom used in that context.

certain specific sexual practices which are risky not only for the participants, but for innocent bystanders as well.

Where is Bystander, anyway?

Innocent bystanders at a live sex show? That's voyeurism.

Innocent bystanders are people who inadvertantly get gunned down in a drive by. A wife and children are innocent, but not usually bystanders in the act of prostitution.

Again, this is a family matter. A civil matter, as in divorce, which is really a religious institution. Why criminalize it?

What drives people to want to become so involved in the intimate details of other people's most private realm and become a party to their marriage? Just bizarre.

Damnfino..

But there is an entire industry devoted to it.

People magazine,

The Star,

National Enquirer,

Etc..

And lets not forget the soap operas, the great majority of which are all about fictional couples doing nasty things to each other and schtuping anyone but their spouses.

So, she was abused and has been very poor - gee, how unusual.

I'm rolling my eyes at Glenn and the other Salon posters who are so certain that prostitution is all about empowerment and consent.

Extreme promiscuity often doesn't end well.

But that's true for non-paying sex as well. Are you also in favor of criminalizing adultery and even promiscuity when someone is in a regular relationship on health grounds?

Also, if health issues are your concern, and given that criminalization doesn't actually stop prostitution, shouldn't you be in favor of legalizing and regulating prostitution, so that working prostitutes can be checked for STDs as a condition to having a license, thereby decreasing the health risks?

I don't have a moral position on the matter at all, really; but I still think it's unwise, and unfair to put other people at unwittingly at risk on account of choices they had no part of.

I don't see how this reasoning doesn't lead you to advocate the criminalization of adultery just the same.

I also don't see how you keep presuming that you know what the arrangements are, and the level of knowledge is, between the Spitzers. Did she know and/or mind that he patronized prostitutes? Did she have sex with other people? Was that part of their marriage? Don't you need to know all those intimate details about their marriage -- and a lot more -- before depicting her as a victim and otherwise commenting on their relationship?

Finally, it's fine that you can't see how I hold the view on this issue that I hold. There are some issues where I find different viewpoints reasonable but, to be honest, this isn't one of them. I really don't understand the desire - or the perceived entitlement -- to criminalize the private, consensual acts of other adults.

But I blog every single day on a huge number of issues. If there are a small handful of issues where you think my views are incomprehensible, that's probably a pretty good record.