The DC Madam case

I don't know of any feasible reason why there's a need to waste a federal court's time on a prostitution case like that. I felt a certain sense of disgust when I read the articles in the Washington Post this past week about how women were once prostitutes had to be bought before a court to be mulled over by federal prosecutors who needed to know intimate details about their past lives. In one case, it might potentially end the career of a woman who was once a prostitute but is now in the navy. And when I heard about the D.C. madam hanging herself, I thought that was equally awful and sad.

I understand the idea of outlawing prostitution. If you don't outlaw it, people might be forced to do it who don't want to do it because economic conditions necessitate it. But if people want to do it badly enough that they are willing to circumvent the law, than I really don't see any problem with it. I also just think there's just a sexual hypocrisy with which we view prostitution: As if that's any more sinful than any of the legal means by which we go about pursuing sex. I actually feel that prostitution is a more moral way of going about getting a one-night stand than going to a bar and trying to pick up someone there. It's entirely consensual (one person's not drink) and there's no deception or lying about it. I'm not sure if I believe that entirely, but it's just food for thought. Either way, I don't think we should be so quick to label a scarlett letter on public officials who have used this call service or anything like that. I thought the political pressure of the governor of New York to resign was kind of dumb. It made a little more sense to hate him for the fact that he busted prostitution rings and then used a prostitute himself, but it was still dumb to pretend it was anything other than the prostitution (they said it was racketeering charges).

I think Holland has a better way of doing it. That's just me.