So you think violence remains constant--and? so? The issue isn't important? No possible connection to prostitution?

I said crime (meaning crime rates, and that includes violence, and violent crime) remain constant over time. They usually do in a stable population. Change that, or other variables, like population, and crime rates go up. Never was an increase in crime in the 60s. Just the statistical blip of baby boomers reaching the prime crime committing age. Nothing we did effected the decrease. Baby boomers got old. Now I'd like to cut this short because your head is not clear and you obviously won't read carefully enough. My advice, finish your field work, which you seem to be getting a little to emotionally attached to, and when you are ready, look at it like a researcher with a cool head.

Here is a simple barometer that cuts through all your rationalizations: Ask yourself, in your heart, if prostitution is wrong. The answer is already there.

-- The Voice of Reason

I'm asking because the "ask yourself in your heart" thing doesn't sound like irony, but maybe it's just too subtle for me?

Here is a simple barometer that cuts through all your rationalizations: Ask yourself, in your heart, if prostitution is wrong. The answer is already there.

-- The Voice of Reason

Look to the brain for sex!

It is the largest sex organ, unless you count the epidermis.

Her portrayal of life inside the brothel is certainly not one that would make any sane individual decide to take up a career in a brothel, but it is a bit more nuanced, possibly, than Farley's study, which apparently covered several brothels, but obviously didn't get to know the inmates nearly as well.

-- Amerigo

There are no inmates in legal brothels.

I said crime (meaning crime rates, and that includes violence, and violent crime) remain constant over time. They usually do in a stable population. Change that, or other variables, like population, and crime rates go up. Never was an increase in crime in the 60s. Just the statistical blip of baby boomers reaching the prime crime committing age. Nothing we did effected the decrease. Baby boomers got old.

Crime is prevalent in some populations more than others. It has shifted over time. Parts of suburban Detroit experience much more crime now than they did 20 years ago, even though the population of the neighborhood is fairly constant from an age basis. Likewise in the opposite direction for much of NYC. This shift is not entirely explained by baby boomers. Get a clue buddy, and maybe think for a second that multiple relationships are at play with any social phenomenon.

"Let's use your same "barometer." Ask yourself, in your heart, if it's wrong for other people to decide your life. The answer is already there."

The answer is yes it is right for other people, or ourselves collectively, (i.e. legislature etc...) to decide the acceptable limits of our society.

Since many in this forum prefer rationalization:

A woman begins her period around 13 years of age. Biologically she is of age for sex. Following Glenn Greenwald's logic and that of many posters here, she should be available to men of any age for sexual intercourse, and she should be available as a prostitute. Why have all these moralist laws getting in the natural tendencies of our society?

Glenn position is irrational. He presents a unrealistic scenario of two equally consenting people ( not adults - see argument above ) who agree to exchange sex for money. That isn't how the real world of prostitution works though. In the world the rest of us live in, there is human trafficking, pimps/managers/escort services, sexual abuse, disease, sex tourism, cruel living conditions, psychological exploitation, child sexual exploitation, the effect on the families, I could go on and on. There are hardly any good real world scenarios Glenn could present that are beneficial to both parties in the transaction and should be deregulated.

Glenn knows that prostitution is wrong and society should outlaw it. He knows it in his person. He understands it without having to think about it. This article and this forum are just an exercise in rational Socratic discourse. Play the devil's advocate. Test the waters. Put up an idea, see if it gets propped up or beat down.

I presented a spiritual and philosophical position. This appears to be equated with moralism, religion, and opens me up for mocking ridicule? Mocking retorts are anti-intellectual and do not add to the discourse. Assuming I am a "moralist" or religious in my context is also a mistake and is an attempt to belittle my position. I do not take the moralist tack Protestants, Calvanists, abolitionists etc... would take. I would not outlaw it because sex outside of marraige is wrong, or because there is an attempt to divide people into groups and behaviors as moral or immoral, or to generically ascribe it as "sin."

I write in answer of 'Lemecdutex' here because this person took the time to respond to my post with a viable argument.

To reiterate my position. Prostitution is wrong and it should be outlawed. It is not consenting, and is not primarily about sex. It is about power, control, economy, abuse, exploitation. There are no fast answers to these issues. But there are some pretty quick answers. They come in that moment before we begin to rationalize. They are the answers our own heart, dignity, empathy for our fellow man, and integrity offer us... before our logical minds begin the rationalization process.

To expand my position. It is correct to legislate prostitution as illegal, and it is correct to make a societal effort to outlaw it and eradicate it. Why do you think almost every country in the entire world has laws outlawing prostitution? It is because all societies know that, prostitution in its real world context, is a detriment to the quality of life of its constituents. Even ultra liberal situations like that of The Netherlands have defined limits and are currently reversing previous decisions to liberalize the laws concerning prostitution. Prostitution is not the "oldest profession," as conventional wisdom would have us believe. That is just a modern phrase. Don't use it as an argument. Most ancient societies don't even have words for prostitution and rape, the concept is so foreign to them.

My position is spiritual, rational, moral, ethical, philosophical and based on real world experience. I suggest our society is best served when we agree to define certain limits and hold each of us to a standard we agree on.