I don't know, EJ -- it's hard to convince me that we should regulate the behavior of consenting adults just because there's money involved.

I know, we'll argue about what's consent. But there are people who get off on objectifying and being objectified.

Legalize it all, just regulate it, get the pimps out.

I too am puzzled by those, including Alan Dershowitz, excusing Spitzer by averring that his patronization of a prostitute is a "private" matter. Though much of what you have written I do not understand.

Spitzer was the chief law enforcement officer of the state of New York, and he violated the law. That's all that's necessary to know.

Spitzer had the arrogance to think he could get away with "structuring" his wire transfers, a crime for which he has prosecuted others; and asking the bank staff to remove his name from the wire transfer forms. For that alone he should be prosecuted. Elected and appointed public official should be punished far more harshly than others for their crimes.

The suggestions, by Alan (torture is OK as long as it's Muslims who are tortured) Dershowitz, a Spitzer friend, that "johns" are never prosecuted is crap.

Having said that, I do think that prostitution should be legal.

Let us not forget Rev. Haggard. He payed big money for expensive penis, and nobody brought up exploitation, unless prostitution is only exploitation when it involves a man paying a woman.

Trading money for sex means that you have money and the power it gives you, but you can't communicate or share with the person you are having sex with. Instead you have to control them.

What I find significant about the idea of $5000 an hour prostitutes from a political point of view, though is that the only men who can afford such a luxury (sex without communication or commitment) are the ones who the Bush administration gave large tax cuts to.

Most of that money went to the criminals who run the organization, too. Of the $5000 the woman probably got little more than $1000 at most. The rest with to - who else? - Bush's base. The wealthy.

A woman in an industrial nation that takes care of its people like most of the European nations do would not be likely to be forced in into a position where she had to sell her body for money.

All in all, Spitzer's adventure is a pretty good argument for a strongly progressive income tax that covered wages in investment income, a return to a sharp inheritance tax, and a comprehensive safety net that covered education, housing, and health care for every American. Apparently Spitzer can afford to contribute a lot to such a society.

I echo common dreamer's "wow." Old p.c. feminism rearing its head. What's next, attacking pornography again?

There's one problem, and that is: sexual desire in humans is complex. Not everyone buys into the same "family values" you do.

Consider a little tolerance for "the other" that is not turned on by lifelong monogamy and does find sex to have something about power related to it, and might even find that exciting. (BTW, I'm all for no tolerance for the hypocrite Eliot Spitzer.) The gay world is not immune from this, perhaps you need to be reminded of the pre-AIDS non-family values world.

For example, your story here

For those of you who weren't teenage girls once: your body erupts into weird and often uncomfortable shapes, effluvia, aches and pains. And those Alice-in-Wonderland changes in your body bring on incomprehensible responses from others. It can take awhile to understand and learn how to manage those responses, to figure out what's your fault (getting grabbed in your crotch by some stranger while waiting for your mom to finish shopping: your fault or his?) and what's ordinary creepiness

was not mine as a teen. Truth be told, I felt very empowered by it, that older men were attracted to me. I felt superior to them, and felt it very exciting and dangerous. We know similar stories about young women like Christine Keeler and Monica Lewinsky. (And no, it's not about my father, or being abused, because my father raised his firstborn girl, me, to know that she could be anything she wanted, equal to any man.)

People differ a lot sexually, deal with it. A lot of it is nurture, but plenty is nature, too, and we don't know which is which yet. The irony is that I shouldn't have to remind someone like you about that. More often it's trying to tell it to someone like a "family values" supporter. I am a feminist, too, and I think the "family values" thing of not accepting the complexity of sexuality is a much bigger problem for women in the end. Consider stopping trying to put others inside the context of your values. It simply cannot be the case every "prostitute" in history, of all genders, in so many different societies, was a victim.

I hope when his daughters are done feeling so disgusted and repulsed and creeped out by their father, they will spend just a moment asking themselves, "Why is Dad so lonely?" Maybe some day they will even ask him that question.

As I get older - 48 now - it becomes increasingly evident that nothing is more repulsive to the run of humanity than the sexuality of the middle aged man. Young men, young women, older women, gay straight and bisexual: all seem to concur in finding middle aged men grotesque, frightening, perverse and disgusting. I guess this is just a fact of life we have to learn accept.

I wouldn't presume to suggest I understand the infinite mysteries of female sexuality. I wish it were more common to find equal levels of humility in women. My general impression is that when it comes to grasping what makes men tick, most women really don't have a clue, but are remarkably prone to think they have it all figured out. I don't know where this presumption comes from exactly. But it seems to be imbibed from an early age along with all those "What Your Guy is Really Thinking" articles in teen magazines. Of course, most of those articles are written by women for women, and consist of little more than the blind leading the blind.

For anyone who wants a balanced view of the prostitution debate, instead of the one-sided argument presented by radical feminists, there are a lot of dueling studies on this, mention of which can be found here:

Does prostitution cause psychological harm?
http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/questions/psychological.htm

Do prostitues want prostitution legal?
http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/questions/prostitute.htm

Is the Swedish model of making only the buyer a criminal effective?
http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/questions/sweden.htm

Radical feminists like Melissa Farley, Andrea Dworkin, Katherine McKinnin and others paint a picture of prostitution as being a very black and white issue. Good guys vs. bad guys.

But there's a lot of dueling studies on this issue and the feminist authors of some of them have been criticized by some for methodology. From Wikipedia on Melissa Farley:

Her prostitution studies, however, have been criticized, most notably by sociologist Ronald Weitzer, for alleged problems with their methodology and sampling bias toward highly marginalized groups of prostitutes (such as street prostitutes), and for the way the findings of these studies have been more generally applied to demonstrate the harm of sex work of all kinds. Farley's critics also claim that her findings largely reflect her radical feminist ideology.

The full text of one of Weitzer's look at her work is here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060111065947/http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/content/otherpublications/WeitzerVAW-1.pdf

Farley's highly charged claims in her most recent 2007 study -- which I believe was self-published -- about the Nevada brothel system also came as a shock to many researchers who had studied the brothels there for years. They have many criticisms of the Nevada system and of the working conditions but were apparently stunned by how over the top Farley was:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/31/bewildered-academics-pore-over-sex-trade-hysteria/

Has anyone ever considered that the kind of sex that was required might not just be your usual bedroom routines? There are some men who don't feel comfortable asking their wives/partners to spank them, make them wear diapers, put dildos up their asses, or conversely, for the women to be tied up themselves, or other activities that might be called kinky or worse. I've read that Wallis Simpson controlled the Duke of Windsor by encouraging him to indulge his fantasies. Some men have the "virgin or whore" attitudes towards the women they marry, their wives being the passive missionary-position partner but never the participant in the wildest fantasies that the men dream of. For that, they pay, and often they pay a lot. Prostitutes know that they may have to accommodate such things in their repertoires, although in the best scenarios they will not be injured--unfortunately in the worst scenarios they are sometimes injured or even killed.

I think we have to separate a couple of things: Spitzer's (or anyone else's) daughters would probably be disgusted and appalled if they found out anything specific about their father's sex practices - especially if they're unusual in some way. So that's really not a reason to indict the guy. I feel bad for his wife if she didn't know he was having a secret sex life and thought she was the center of his sexual life - that would be a difficult and painful revelation, especially when it was discovered in such a public way. Breaking laws is a bad thing, but laws against sex between consenting adults are unconstitutional (or should be held so, in my opinion). I don't think it's our business, but it's a lot of fun reading salacious stories. But willingly getting paid a lot of money for a couple of hours of sex is not a bad way to earn a living. Maybe it violates some peoples' moral codes, but it's no more dehumanizing than a whole host of other jobs where people have to put their brains and identities on the shelves - sometimes for minimum wage. What's so special about genitals?

By the way, after reading this article in Thursday's NY Times, if we are going to be reading minds, I got rather different impressions of Mrs. Spitzer's feelings from yours, don't see that much in the vein of worrying about shame:

...he returned to his apartment and to a blur of passionate talks with advisers and friends, his wife and, eventually, three criminal defense lawyers, one of whom was an old acquaintance from his days as state attorney general. He had revealed his failings to his wife only the night before, but surprisingly she counseled him to hold fast and resist resignation.

...Late that night, the governor told his wife, Mr. Baum and his friend, Lloyd Constantine, an almost incomprehensible tale: He was a client of a high-priced prostitution ring; he had been caught on a federal wiretap; The Times had requested records for the date of an alleged tryst with a prostitute in Washington.

The atmosphere was alternately charged and funereal. Mrs. Spitzer and Mr. Constantine, the governor’s senior adviser, counseled hanging tough. The governor, though, seemed convinced that he was finished....

A few very brief comments:

1. Prostitution maybe should be legal (like recreational drug use)

2. Despite that, I doubt many women who become prostitutes are happy women. Sure, a few may truly enjoy the profession, but most I bet are only in it because they believe they can't get decent wages elsewhere and don't have high self-esteem. Many do seem to come from very troubled backgrounds.

3. Assuming that the majority of women who become prostitutes do it out of a sense of hopelessness, then the profession is exploitive. It depends on a supply of women who feel powerless. Sort of like a sweatshop.

4. It would be nice for a so-called progressive like Spitzer to be aware of the exploitive (or potentially exploitive) nature of the relationship/business and refrain even if it were legal.

5. Paying $80,000 for sex with pathetic young women seems pretty much in-line with other forms of corporate exploitation. So much for Spitzer the crusader against powerful corporate interests.

6. If he didn't care about the prostitutes, it would at least have been nice if he cared about his wife and daughters enough to restrain himself.

7. I'm not sure it's the desire to have power over women that tempts men to go to prostitutes. I think it's often simply the desire for what a young woman I knew in college called a "zipless fuck." I never quite knew what "zipless" meant, but I knew what she meant was she liked to get laid for fun without any strings attached or future obligations placed upon her. It is true that sex with the same person gets dull. And men are attracted to women in the peak of their childbearing years--that's just biology. But see point 6 above--if you love and respect your wife, that can more than offset the urge to sleep with 25 year olds.

8. While it may seem hypocritical for "family value" conservatives to frequent prostitutes, in some ways it's even more hypocritical for liberals. That's because liberals are supposed to care about the exploited and try to better their situation. As much as prostitutes are exploited laborers, the liberal who uses them participates in that exploitation. The evangelicals who talk about family values, however, thrive on the cycle of sin and repentence. They are caught in a struggle between god and the devil which consumes them and absolves them of all responsibility and self-control. Driven by great forces beyond them, they fall and grovel in their sinfulness then rise into the catharsis of repentence and forgiveness. The cycle titilates them and urges them on to ever bigger sins requiring ever more exhilerating repentence. They don't have to try to be responsible adults--quite the opposite they have to seek out sin to prove the greatness of their fall because only the lowest can rise to the heights of ectasy that are reached by throwing oneself at Jesus's feet and saying God save me!

Put more simply, liberals generally expect other liberals to act like adults. The Christian right, however, expects people to act like they are torn between the devil and god, swinging wildly between sin and repentance.

I find it interesting that so much of the Spitzer discussion on the internet has boiled down to the idea that prostitution should be legal. My granddad was a public health doctor (in the Bible belt) back in the day, and he felt very strongly that prostitution should be legal and regulated as a way to control STDs. So I've always been sympathetic to that point of view.

But the fact is, prostitution isn't legal. This isn't Bill Clinton's intern giving him a blowjob. A man who said he was going to uphold the law broke the law. If he thought prostitution should be legal, why did't he put that in his campaign platform? Why did he bust up prostitution rings himself when he was attorney general? How many people did he ruin who were doing just the same thing he has been found guilty of? I have a hard time wasting too much sympathy on a man who seemed to have very little for others.

I did not say that all the sex workers had disappeared, but it was sloppy for me to write "almost no prostitution." Street prostitution has been reduced by 2/3 (see London University study cited below).

I made it to the wikipedia entry you cite. The only "rights campaigners" wikipedia cites, who complain about the bad effects of Sweden's law on prostitutes, is one group called SANS. SANS appears to have no affiliation with any known human rights groups and I could find nothing on the SANS site about who finances them or who runs the organization.

Another problem with trying to learn anything about SANS is that "so the sex workers feel safe in the discussions," the SANS site discussions are closed. (members can't just pick screen names that don't identify them?)

Further, if you want to participate in SANS, you must be recommended and "known" by someone who is already a member. So I guess not all prostitutes whose "rights" are being violated by the Swedish law are welcome at SANS? It's at least worth asking whether SANS is a legitimate organization that is concerned with anybody's rights?

After all, wealthy, international criminal organizations have a Huge financial interest in propaganda that undermines Sweden's law that has reduced trafficking as well as prostitution. Perhaps the best way undermine such a law is to argue that it's bad for the prostitutes?

More important, if this law proves a great long-term success for Sweden, other countries will follow suit. So Sweden's law might well be seen as a huge threat that looms over both the sex and criminal trafficking industries.

Anybody can put up a website, call themselves a rights group for prostitutes and rail against a law that replaces punishment of prostitutes with programs for drug addiction and entry into more mainstream work.

The information put forth in my initial post was extrapolated from a quick review of the March 12, On Point discussion about Prostitution and the Law, which corroborated some of what I read in a comparative legal study from the University of London that was done for the Scottish Parliament: (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/lg/inquiries/ptz/lg04-ptz-res-03.htm

A couple of excerpts from the comparative study that I found interesting:

"The new law has had an effect on trafficking. The trafficked women have sometimes said to police that they overheard traffickers say that Sweden is a very unfriendly country to operate in, and that they should take them elsewhere, such as the Netherlands, where the traffickers can operate with impunity." (Interview, 2003)

"One pro-legalisation argument, which appeals to professionals, governments and activists, is that it will reduce trafficking. The evidence in the country reports, however, suggests that trafficking into countries/locations where aspects of prostitution are legal increases. "

"Since 1999 street prostitution in Stockholm has dropped by more than two-thirds."

How about we let grownups do what grownups do, and let them figure out whether it leaves them in a moral icky mess?

I regularly pay to use someone else's hands, feet, head/mind, eyes, ears, torso, and they pay to use mine. What makes the vagina so special, especially once conception is taken out of the equation?