"I'd say that these undocumented exchanges were a system of anecdotes invented for the cultural purpose of trivialising the political contribution of Westminster's first ever female MP - to alleviate the very well-documented femophobic fears of the British male establishment. "

That's one possibility. The other possibility is simply that Lady Astor wasn't as quick-witted as Winston Churchill.

The feminist response to prostitution may be categorised in two classes. Libertarian feminism takes the view that a woman's consensual sex life is no-one's business but her own, and rejects the claim of others including the state to use force - the law - to impose any different standard of decision-making. Paternalistic feminism purports to decide on behalf of the woman what values she should hold and act on.

The problems with declaring consensual acts to be a violation of the person consenting should be obvious.

One is that people notoriously hold strong opinions about sex. The Christians in particular think it's the worst thing in the world and have historically loaded it with as many proscriptions as they possibly can. They hold that the model of sexuality is monogamous marriage of heterosexual virgins who live and die faithful. Everything else is supposedly a distortion of human sexuality. Though as a theory, this is a very poor description of the real world, the Christians assert divine sanction for their inaccurate opinions. This view of human sexuality has been enormously influential in the western world owing to the enormous influence of Christianity. Underlying much of the negative attitude towards prostitution is this Christian horror of sexuality, which they have imposed by force over many centuries.

All employments require the use of the employee's body to perform the service. It is simply nonsense to suggest that employment in general is "violence" against the employee for this reason. Similarly with prostitution. Rape is already illegal; and no-one is suggesting otherwise. Those alleging that prostitution should be banned as being "violence" are merely trying to smuggle their own anti-sex attitudes into the debate without having to offer any rational defence of their own intolerant meddling.

Peter Hume

Here are a couple points to consider:

If the argument of women prostituting themselves can be viewed in terms of “depravity verses morality”.

Then:

Is morality socially desirable? Is depravity socially desireable?

So then:

Against what fixed criteria do we base the argument of morality?

And:

Into what other social issues do we extend the argument of morality?

diver dan, nobody's claiming morality is fixed. It's a tough concept that is examined regularly.

However, our society does its best to lay a moral framework down, based upon the best outcomes for society.

Essentially, we look at whether certain acts have the potential to harm others. It is far from simple, but it's an accommodation that allows people of different faiths to live together without oppressing one another.

It's the only suitable arrangement for a modern society. That's why I find this rubbish about moral slippery slopes that allegedly ensue without a religious framework so damn disingenuous.

Society has never been a sinless utopia and the modern era of reduced religious influence is far more civilised for far more people than at any previous point in history.

So don't try this rubbish about attempting to pin down specific morality. It's a common debating tool, but it's intellectually weak. By the same token, I could go through the bible verse by verse and demand you justify each and every heinous act, and explain point-by-point, whether or not obscure ill-defined acts are permitted under Christian dogma.

To reinforce my point, I give you - Pope Alexander VI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI

"But it was not long before his passion for endowing his relatives at the church's and his neighbours' expense became manifest. Alexander VI had four children by his mistress (Vannozza dei Cattani), three sons and a daughter."

If well paid 'mistresses' are good enough for popes, I'm somewhat bemused that such a puritan attitude can still exist today.

Diver Dan

If we start with the facts, before getting into “depravity versus morality”, the commonest pattern of human sexual behaviour is where a woman agrees to sex with a man in consideration of something valuable from him including property and services. This includes prostitution, marriage, concubinage, mistresses, and girlfriends.

The next most common pattern of sexual behaviour is *a series* of *almost* exclusive heterosexual relationships. Even among those religions that believe in heterosexual monogamy, such as the Christians, in fact the vast majority do not comply with their own precepts. Only a small minority marry as virgins and remain faithful til death. The rest have a series of relationships, and many have a ‘bit on the side’ from time to time.

Even among the holy orders of the celibate priesthood, masturbating into one’s cassock, or sodomising the altar-boy, are not unknown neither.

The issue of policy is always whether the state should use its legal monopoly of force and threats to enforce a particular type of behaviour.

When it comes to ‘depravity versus morality’, the first problem is that even the people who agree that prostitution is depraved, do not themselves practise what they preach. But even if they did, there is still no reason why they should be able to force other people into complying with their sexual opinions. And even if they did, there is the problem of distinguishing the material rewards that women get in prostitution, from the material rewards they get in other forms of heterosexual behaviour.

So even if there were general agreement that prostitution is morally bad, that still wouldn’t provide a justification for using police to enforce the majority opinion; any more than majority opinion would justify feeding Christians to the lions for public entertainment.

As for policy to regulate prostitutes’ sexual health, did any sex worker ever ask Andrew Leigh or SJF to police her sexual health? Perhaps instead we should be idly dreaming up ways to police and inspect the sexual health of Andrew Leigh or SJF

PH and TRTL

So essentially you allude to the substitution of “desirable with acceptable”.

Is morality socially acceptable? Yes.

Is depravity socially acceptable? Yes.

Against what fixed criteria do we base the argument of morality?

Essentially you argue, morality has no fixed parameters.

Therefore;

Morality is unusable as grounds for debate on prostitution.

Interestingly, that is the position of the law. At the least in NSW.

So finally the question;

“In what other social issues do we extend the argument of morality”?

diver dan: "Therefore; Morality is unusable as grounds for debate on prostitution."

Impressive diver. Unlike others that argue from the point of view you seem to be taking, you do seem to have a very firm grasp of logic and seem perfectly willing to yield it.

The essential difference between the two view points is that some (like you, it appears - sorry if I put words in your mouth) believe there is some universal morality which we would all ascribe to if we could see it, whereas others like myself, TRTL and perhaps PH don't believe universal morality is a useful concept. Certainly no one agrees on what it is. Some people such as religious nut cases say they know what it is, but unfortunately if you scratch hard enough you find out they all think it is a different thing.

If you take your view point that morality is universal, then it would make sense to try and base our law upon it. But if it isn't, then what do you do? It seems to me we try come up with some consensus morality, which codify and call the law. Democracy happens to be the best mechanism we have discovered so far to do that. The law can not by definition match anyone's personal moral code as they are all different, thus we all at times believe the law is an ass.

You see the irony in this? You argue the law should be based on morals, and I say it already is. So when you ask “In what other social issues do we extend the argument of morality?”, and I answer the law is already based on it, and the rule of law is ultimately how we decide on most social issues here in Oz.