DISQUS

You, sir, are drunk.

Argh. I was afraid of that. The effect is ruined, but here's the plain URL for the video I tried to embed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUWuUIiciWk

Tortured Analogy Productions presents:

MORE REGULATION
A Tragedy in One Act

Featuring:
Dr. Weird as "The Government"
Steve as "The Financial Markets"
and Corn as "Regulation"

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DUWuUIiciWk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DUWuUIiciWk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Please replace "hungry" with "hosed".

The Acclaimed Prequel

Though I agree with your conclusions and can't stand the streak of moralistic paternalism in our legal system, I don't think you're being quite fair to Ross's argument when you say that he believes that the inclusion of cash transactions attendant to the sex act alchemically renders it self-abusive. Rather, I think he would argue (actually, as we all would) that some sex acts are good and loving and some cause the participants harm, to draw a simplistic but useful dichotomy. He would then argue not that payment by itself moves a sex act into the latter category, but that those sex acts which involve payment are almost universally in that latter category anyway. Laws against prostitution thus attempt to combat damaging sex acts by proxy - namely, the cash transaction.

Even with that more reasonable basis, though, I find the argument wanting. I would not grant that a person engaged in the naked commerce of prostitution must necessarily be harming him or herself, and I agree that much of the harm that does occur stems from the fact that society calls the practice harmful. And even if it does harm those involved in it, people must be free to fuck up their own lives just as much as they are free to enrich them.