How you run your blog is your business, Kate, but faithlessnes is the sine quo non of a prostitute. She’ll cut her client’s throats, and yours too, for a penny.

I had requested a copy too because of my interest in the case, much like yours.
Why was she gone after but none of her clients?
Why did the freeze all her assets and basically take away her life for providing a service which did not include illegal sex?

Glad to see she’s allowing anyone to download them now.
I’m super curious if I can crack the codes and find out who the clients were.

NK, I’m tempted to ask whether you’re speaking from personal experience or merely being judgmental. I’ll form my own assumption as to which is accurate, thank you.

As an attorney, I would think you’d recognize that Ms. Palfrey has not been convicted of any crime. Moreover, even if she was engaging in prostitution (or encouraging her employees to do so), it’s victimless crime. Which makes the true injustice here the hypocrisy of politicians claiming to be “family values” oriented and condemning illegal acts whilst engaging in such acts themselves.

Kat, it comes down to whether you recognize any of the phone numbers. The more people who peruse these records and make comparisons with numbers they know, the more “clients” will be identified.

For all the puritanical preaching going on in various theaters, I think it’s important to realize something.

Statistically, one in 5 American heterosexual adults of suitable age regularly or semi-regularly openly partakes of sexual activity that is illegal in some way, shape, or form. That doesn’t count homosexual adults, incidentally, and I make the distinction solely out of ignorance on the statistical proportion of that population.

Going a bit further - one in 10 adults, married or not, is a swinger. How’s that frost your cookies?

Kate,

Personal experience, kind of. I did not patronize them, I defended them. But there is no question that I am being judgmental. I am. That’s what “krites” means, after all. And I fully recognize that you’re a grown-up fully capable of making your own judgments. But please watch yourself with this lady. I really do know a lot of people who went to prison for money (which in some cases was a few cents for each day in prison). They are not like you and me.

No different in any way than Madonna preaching about the virtues of living green with a carbon footprint 100 times that of the average American. It helps that I don’t buy into any of that stuff anyway, but it’s the nature of humanity at this juncture to seek a bully pulpit and attempt to force others to do what they themselves will never do.

It’s the essence of many great Russian novels, such as Chekov’s The Cherry Orchard. The highest officials who were completely effete, given to all forms of excess and privilege and requiring the proletariat to live under the burden of the draconian laws of communism which were prejudicially enforced.

It will also be that way long after we’re gone.

WG, excellent points. So why does it remain illegal?

NK, your experience makes sense. I certainly don’t mean to imply that Ms. Palfrey and I have any association beyond the exchange of emails related to obtaining the phone list. That said, I am curious as to who else will be uncovered.

Jon, that hypocrisy exists — and always has and always will — does not make it any more palatable.

I’d so much prefer knowing who the liars are.

OK, oen possible explanation for why he did not speak earlier, and I am NOT saying this is the case.

Lets assume he had done it, had paid for sex, got laid etc. He then told his wife about it and by his admission they had gone through counseling. His wife miught very well have prefered him not to talk about it cause it would be hurtful to her.

Just as an example: Assuming that Venemous hubby had made a mistake such as this for which he was genuinely sorry. He confessed to you about it, and after counseling the two of you had agreed to try and put this behind you and work on your lives together. Would you want him to then annouce to the world what he had done? or keep the shame of his mistake within the venomous household?

For all of the sermons one hears from various religious sources, there are two inescapable facts about sex in this country that, I think, remain constant.

1) Demand fuels supply. There exists a supply for it because people want it. That being the case, it’s very unlikely that the “good old days of morality” in this country ever existed at all. Much like Prohibition, all outlawing any of these things has accomplished is to push it underground into the realms where people don’t usually talk about it in the open…which leads me to my second point.

2) The Puritanical attitudes in this country towards sex have always kind of reminded me of a schoolgirl flirting with a guy….
“Do you want it? Do you?”
“Please! Can I have it?”
“Maybe.”
Pushing things underground where nobody ever talks about it always fuels speculation about what’s going on behind the Green Door. Peoples’ imaginations being what they are, inevitably the ones on the outside who can’t quite bring themselves to call the coy schoolgirl’s bluff come up with definitions and speculation about perversions that would make your hair curl. Usually, there’s at least one or two demagogues in the lot that want to Do The Right Thing and Stand Up For Family Values, and they end up being the agitators that get legislation passed against things.

Said demagogues are often, in my opinion, also often purveyors of the same “perversions” they decry, much like a priest that can’t keep his mind off the choir boys. Remember Tipper Gore and her group in the 1980’s? I vividly remember watching the guy from Twisted Sister’s clash with her in Congress, after she said that his song Under the Knife was about sadomasochism, and he replied that he was the one that had written it, and that it was about his lead guitarist’s throat surgery. Tipper went looking for “perverted content”, and her own imagination supplied things that weren’t there.

One could say the same of a host of other subjects, of course. We have a host of unenforced morality laws in this country that serve no purpose except feeding the nanny state and giving a prosecutor legal loopholes for “something, anything else” to go after somebody for if they make a big enough pain in the ass of themself. On some level, I applaud prosecutorial flexibility, but as we’ve seen in South Carolina recently, that, too, proposes a risk of grotesque abuse.

Some things are still illegal because there is a stigma of shame attached to being interested in them in the first place. Efforts to repeal the laws against these things always run into a false moral outrage from the community. Think of all of the adults you know, and remember that statistically, one out of every five of them fits the legal definition of a deviant, for nothing worse than mutually enjoying with their partner things that hurt noone.

A “stigma of shame” aptly describes it, as does your point about the Nanny State. That adult prostitution continues to be illegal is made all the more laughable by the plethora of porn available on the internet and PPV.

Hello? Still it’s still paying for sex, you’re just getting ripped off by not even getting to participate in it! Meanwhile, what is the role of an adult film star if being, in fact, paid to have sex?

My point exactly. I guess the difference is that both “actors” are being paid by a third party, not one to another. Paying for sex is only acceptable as long as you’re a vicarious participant, which strikes me as being an absurd standard.

Dealing with prostitution should be much like dealing with the legal illegal vices of alcohol and tobacco; they’re legal, they’re big business, and we tax the hell out of them while running educational campaigns to inform the public. What emerges out of that approach is mostly responsible use of a narcotic/intoxicant, with the few idiots out there getting nailed every time they get caught (as opposed to getting caught doing the nailing). I doubt we’d ever have an organization called MARD (Mothers Against Road Head), at least.

Personally, as a shop steward for a very large union, I harbor a fond fantasy of being able to organize sex workers under the slogan, “We’re Not Going To Take This Lying Down.”

Alternative slogan: “Bend Over. We’re Driving.”

Think of the possibilities for advertising, though, if you could integrate the sex trade with other enterprises…a brief sample:

Golf: “Play a round, score as many Holes In One as you like.”
Grocery shopping: “Check out our Melons and fresh sausage!”
Government: “Let’s be honest, we are actually here to screw you.”
Fast food: “Get a Quickie Burger!”
Self-help books: “Get a head in life.” or “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Masturbation.”
(with a nod to the movie Crazy People)…
Parcel Delivery: “We’ll screw the other guy to get your package there on time.”

The possibilities are endless. How about new websites?
Pajamas On The Floor Media?

wg

Any room in your theory for “Debasement and Degradation At A Price”? How about, “My body is a miracle of Creation — yours for $100.00 an hour”? Maybe, “Human dignity is overrated”?

As a housewife, I kinda like: “Pay us now, or pay her MasterCard later.”

NK - Sure. Stack em in the corner with the shipment of “All the cool kids are doing it,” and “It’ll make me popular,” that I just got in.

My point is that anything somebody wants, there is someone else willing to supply for a price. Dignity is only worth the price you’re willing to pay or accept for it. To you, it’s priceless.

I should also point out that not all aspects of the sex industry are necessarily degrading or debasing. I am certain that there are men and women who provide sex for money because they genuinely enjoy it, and see nothing debasing or degrading about it in the least. I see it as an agreement between adults; if they’re both amenable, and it’s not forced upon me without my consent or request, then what others do in private is meaningless. Ergo - it’s none of the government’s business unless there is a genuine public interest at stake, and I can think of few trades as removed from public interest as the privacy of the adult sex trade.

The arguement that legalizing prostitution leads inevitably to widespread loose morals, the degradation of society, sexual abuse of minors and minorities, drug use, and criminal activity is the worst kind of straw man, because it’s demonstrably false. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson in that magnificent prose from 200 years ago, a government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Any conduct that a) has been around as long as prostitution, b) is as enduring and popular as prostitution, and c) is pursued by a significant portion of the population is something that no government has an interest in a blanket prohibition. It is, in fact, quite the reverse.

The Great Experiment of Prohibition created a crime industry unlike anything else in American history, for the same reasons that illegal prostitution breeds some of the same problems (to make a particularly bad pun). It wasn’t until Prohibition was repealed that the legs were cut off of the crime industry surrounding it, and over the last eighty years or so, this country has steadily moved towards a more regulated, educational-based approach to alcohol, with a corresponding drop in crimes related directly to it.

The same thing would hold true of what is, in effect, a victimless crime when both participants are consenting adults. Indeed, alcohol has a a prima facie more detrimental effect on society; how often do you hear of fatalities in traffic because somebody was having sex behind the wheel and crossed the center line? I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but it’s far less likely. Alcohol can be slipped into an unwilling, unwitting person’s food or drink, and they might not realize that they were impaired.

The arguements presented against legalizing prostitution are the same ones presented a century ago against alcohol, and both have their roots in a stern and unforgiving Puritanical background. Government has no place in this equation, other than to regulate it.

At least, that’s how I see it. You obviously disagree, which I applaud.

Not all aspects of the sex industry are necessarily degrading or debasing

I’m often tickled by the argument that prostitution (or making porn) is “degrading.”

Such a position reveals an underlying assumption: that sex itself is intrinsically degrading.

So what, then, separates “degrading” sex from “non-degrading” sexual activity?

Even degradation itself is sometimes the goal; there is a whole array of fetishes devoted to such things. I don’t personally go for that sort of thing, but there are lots and LOTS of people who do.

I think separating out the truly degrading really sort of depends on the degree of exploitation and choice involved. There is a host of difference between a woman who chooses to make a living as an adult film actress or a call girl that makes “after-hour-arrangements” with her customers, and a woman depending on street hookups to support herself, her kids, or her drug habit. That presupposes a degree of elitism, I suppose, but I would argue that legalizing the industry effectively cuts the basis out from under the lower end of the spectrum.

To draw a parallel with Prohibition again, if you’ll forgive my harping on a theme, much of the moonshine industry that flourished during Prohibition is pretty much gone now, and has been replaced by microbreweries whose product is safe and often better than the alternative from the massive brewery companies. Instead of an illegal activity, we now have an industry that provides a tax base, contributes to the economy, gainfully employs thousands of people, provides a constant flow of business in the small-business entrepreneur category (which drives a significant amount of this country’s economy), and has no more contributed to the fall of civilization than any of the other ancient trades that have been around since the dawn of time.

In essence, legalizing things usually has the effect of both reducing demand over time and removing a link from the self-sustaining process of criminal activity. Any cop will tell you that prostitution, drugs, and an array of other illegal activity are often, if not always, closely associated. Remove one of the sides of that triangle, and there is a cascading effect.

ABC News has an article today on the psychology of cheating politicians. I haven’t finished reading it yet, but thought I’d point it out.

The article’s point seems to be a pretty basic saw; those who deny loudest are often the most frequent offenders. I wonder what it is about human nature that leads us to such an obvious and transparent fallacy.