Just curious. Would you agree with my post on p7? Not that you have to read everything, I just want to know, off hand.

Replacing alcohol in this :

* Sometimes, people get drunk and drive, or get drunk and abuse others. Therefore, we should outlaw all alcohol (rather than just outlaw drunk driving and assault).

with guns, we get this :

* Sometimes, people get guns which allow them to very easily kill others. Therefore, we should outlaw guns (rather than just outlaw murder and assault with a deadly weapon).

Drunk driving is already outlawed, but still in 2005 about 14,000 people died due to drunk drivers. Murder and assault is already outlawed and just over 14,000 homicides occured with about 10,000 homicides due to guns.

Drunk drivers are killing more people than murderers with firearms.

Isn't it logical that since we outlaw criminals from having guns, why not outlaw alcohol from convicted drunk-drivers?

Logic by itself is woefully lacking at times. Especially concerning cars, guns, alcohol and of course the opposite sex.

Joshua is telling me my place

My place? It's not my place?

Really, Josh, really?

Not my place? I am not an allowed an opinion by the almighty Josh? He of many other blatantly sexist posts?

There is a difference between telling someone a fact (It is not your place to determine for others how to live their life) and telling someone they have no right to an opinion (It is entirely within your rights to voice an opinion that you think it IS your place to tell someone else how to live their life). I believe Josh was expounding on the former - that just as it is not your place to compel anyone else, be they woman or man, to not take part of certain forms of adult consensual sex, it is not MY place to compel all religious morons NOT to take part in their ridiculous, primitive, totally baseless and irrational religious activities. I can express my opinion quite freely about the idiocy of religion and what it makes people do but I cannot compel them to my correct way of thinking (about REALITY).

You are absolutely free to your opinion. The problem comes when you try to see your opinions enacted into binding laws on everyone around you.

Best mussels in the known universe, Bah. There was that cholera scare due to pollution in the bay, but all is well again. Except for the magma, of course. The magma is always waiting.

Amen.

All I know is Salon.com is making more money off the the page hits from Greenwald's readers' discussions on this subject than Client #9 ever paid his to his prostitutes.

Incredibly upsetting. On many different levels. My blood hasn't boiled this much since the first Obama/Clinton thread I had the misfortune of reading.

I don't know; as someone who has known the high priced variety of call girls, it's hard for me to see it as anything other than a choice on their part. While I was making 480/week as an assistant, they were raking in 1,000-2,000 dollars night to screw famous and semi-famous people. Their pimp took a percentage, but if he called them and they said no, he didn't come over to their house and beat the crap out of them.

I am, in no way, shape or form saying my aquaintances and neighbors are the norm. When they weren't screwing guys outright for money as prostitutes, they were manipulating their "boyfriends" to pay their rents, car notes, jewelry and various fashion acoutrements. These girls, who were great to me, (one actually paid my rent for me for awhile because again, 480/week) saw men as walking penises with wallets.

I think the problem with some women on this thread is that they don't like to think there are women out there like this, who can treat sex and their body like a commodity. They want to beleive all women think like they do, and feel the same way as they do, and anyone who disagrees with their dogma has the female equivelent of a "slave mentality." Perhaps. They feel like it perpetuates a negative stereotype about women which will be to all women's detriment. Perhaps.

to Aycharaych on prohibition: What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.

Don't get out much do you?

This isn't "loosey-goosey." There are a number of specific cases recognizing and protecting specific activities as fundamental rights. Overturning sex toy bans was an extension of Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut. Those cases, and the cases they are built on, are about private activity. As an economic transaction, prostitution doesn't count. It may bear superficial resemblance, but it's not the same thing.

My place? It's not my place?

Really, Josh, really?

Not my place? I am not an allowed an opinion by the almighty Josh? He of many other blatantly sexist posts?

Glenn, you started all this by stating that nobody could disagree with you and if they did, they were incapable of logical reasoning.

That's not very good reasoning in and of itself, is it?

Look at what's crawled out of the woodwork with that.

Hope you like having this lot as your loving readership. man, oh man. What a joke.

Nasty little corner of the web your blog has turned into.

"As for the women saying they like to prostitute themselves, slaves in the American south could always be found saying they were happy with their lot (like Jupiter Hammond), Iraqis can be found who will say the Americans should stay forever, and about 20% of people will say George Bush is a great President.

Do we believe them? Are they right?"

Is this serious? So "Kristen" is like a slave in the American south or an Iraqi living under American military occupation? Please.

If you are truly interested in knowing how feminists view prostitution--I don't think you are, but well--the Feministing blog has been running a great thread on this very topic, also in relation to Spitzer. You can go read it to get a leg up on your feminist theory regarding prostitution.

I completely reject the notion that there is such a thing as a monolithic feminist view on prostitution and that you have the right to designate it. I already pointed to Jane Hamsher's views on prostitution which are the same as mine. I spent all week emailing with Digby on this issue, whose views are very much aligned with mine. I consider them feminists in every sense of the word. Why are their views not the "feminist" view on prostitution but yours and those at Feministing are?

As for the women saying they like to prostitute themselves, slaves in the American south could always be found saying they were happy with their lot (like Jupiter Hammond), Iraqis can be found who will say the Americans should stay forever, and about 20% of people will say George Bush is a great President.

Do we believe them? Are they right?

I don't trust your ability, or mine, to override the judgment of other adults about their own lives. I prefer to leave it to adults to make judgments about their own lives, even when they're wrong. The right to be wrong - without having know-it-all busybodies override your decision-making - is an important part of being a free adult.

As for bodily freedom--I'm all for it. But . . ..

Whenever someone says "I'm for freedom X, but . . . ," that's always a good sign that they're not -- as in "I'm for free speech, but . . ."

We enact legislation to protect people from their own stupidity and shortsightedness every day (helmet laws anyone?) For that matter suicide is against the law; you don't have the right to kill yourself. Part of the reason drug laws stay on the books, whether or not you support them, is the demonstrable harm drugs do to the users (it's only partly a plot by big pharma). Prostitution is a huge risk for the hooker and a public health risk as well.

So yes, when people are being patently stupid, we pass laws to protect them from themselves and others they may hurt in the process of being stupid. Why should prostitution be different?

I don't believe in any of the laws to which you're equating prostitution laws, so I'm not treating prostitution differently. I'm treating it exactly the same.

Why exactly? And why so touchy on this issue?

I love how people think this tactic -- "Hey, why so touchy about this issue" -- is going to work to deter others from advocating their views. It's an incredibly dishonest tactic, though one I'm quite used to.

"Hey -- why are you defending the First Amendment rights of white supremacists? Must mean you're a racist."

"Hey -- why are you defending the right of people to use drugs? Must mean you're a cokehead."

"Hey - why are you defending the right of people to hire prostitutes? Must mean you hire prostitutes."

Do you know people who are actually affected by tactics that low and absurd?

I'm "touchy" on this issue because I really can't stand busybodies who can't mind their own business and who convince themselves that they are so wise that they have the right to regulate the lives of other adults and even turn them into criminals. People like that are incredibly destructive and self-loving. It's the Jerry Falwell Syndrome, though it's found in many places other than right-wing evangelical pews.