Sounds like an excellent service. Too bad we have so many religious fundamentalists whose only concern is that somewhere someone may be enjoying themselves. Unfortunately, it appears that, as a country, we will never get over our Wahabi and Taliban-like attitudes.

I say if the prosecutors truly feel illegal activity occurred then arrest the johns, the working girls as well as the Madam.

Lets make a circus of this trial for there are plenty of clowns.

What is the point of a 90-minute appointment if it's not set-up just for sex? Who the hell would want to go on a 90-minute date? What a bunch of crap.

Taliban-like attitudes, eh? If that were truly the case and this were Saudi Arabia, there would be no prosecution or trial. It would beheadings, honor killings, and stonings of the women involved while the men would be let go. That was a pretty poor analogy you came up with.

Why doesn't anybody mention that these activities transmits sexual deseases? It is unhealthy physically and emotionaly on the long run. It always is.
I am glad there are prosecutors seeking out these desease transmitting activities. Staying healthy will save the environment (on the long run)!

It just amazes me that "community standards" can determine laws in the US. 50 yrs ago, community standards determined that blacks and whites could not have relationships. Why aren't US laws based on whether or not they actually cause physical harm to someone? As long as this is between two consenting adults, why should the neighbours have a say? Canada has moved away from "community standards". Time for the US to follow-suit.

the legal profession run rampant -- again!!
beat Duke case/special prosecutors/lawyers in robes who believe they are sainted....
meanwhile, Harry Reid/Dianne Feinstein steer millions to their personal pockets? When will the voters ever learn?

Just goes to show that there are a lot of lonely people in the world. A little sad, but true.

"What a bunch of crap."

Well said.

This sounds like another case of a victimless crime, sort of like prohibition in the 1920's

This sounds like another case of a victimless crime, sort of like prohibition in the 1920's

Hey, if you can chase an intern around your office and have sex with a page, what's the problem with a little "fantasy" sex? Powerful men are always going to be searching for ways to increase their weak egos.

Some may consider this to be a victimless crime, but it appears that the victims here are the girls themselves. As far as prohibition was concerned, what about the numerous deaths caused while driving under the influence. Let her disclose it all - including the clients names and occupations.

WOW! Another media circus to divert attention from more important matters like ending the war! Is Bush behind this one too!

Thank you.

Erik, Thank you for reading my comment. I've lived in Saudi Arabia, as well as Iraq. I will expand upon my comment.

Ideologies hold out the promise that the future will be better than the present. There are two types of ideology: a state-based ideology, which promises a better life while the person is living, and a metaphysical-based ideology, which promises a better life after the person is dead. The following will deal with the metaphysical-based ideology.

Monotheist Believes there is one right path. Since this is completely contained within the individual’s thoughts no one else would even know about it.

Evangelist Spreads word of the path. Sometimes intrusive and irritating; nevertheless is still peaceful and not a physical threat to anyone.

Fundamentalist Insists that public law reflect the path. If thwarted the fundamentalist will introduce violence, for the insistence, citing the desire of a deity, is without restraint.

Has anyone bothered to interview the women who actually worked and asked them if they were expected to perform sax acts?

I'm with Stan, "Expose them all"

> RhettsWife wrote: Some may consider this to be a victimless crime, but it appears that the victims here are the girls themselves. As far as prohibition was concerned, what about the numerous deaths caused while driving under the influence.

Where in that article was there ANY mention of ANY harm to the women escorts? It sounds to me like they had a lot of latitude about taking the job, and some specific guidelines about on the job duties. If indeed their contract with the 'Madam' specified no sex, then they were nothing more than independant contractors doing a job (john?) on the side. RhettsWife, you don't REALLY support prohibition do you? Lets run with the Chicken Little theme for a moment:
-What about all the car crashes (for whatever reason)? Let's ban cars.
-What about people who eat fast food and get morbidly obese (and cost gazillions in health care costs borne by the rest of us...[self-rightiously] I am the very picture of trim healthyness). Let's ban averything but fruits, nuts, and veggies!
-What about all those motorcyclists killed by car drivers turning left in front of them ("But officer, I didn't see him.")? Let's ban, er, LEFT TURNS!!!

This is really only a fun story because of the sanctimonious behavior of those on her list. We the people demand sainthood of those who clearly aren't, and act outraged when they 'fail'. We're the idiots.

Wait! What..no list? Decided not to release any names? What happened? Wasn't that the point? Wasn't this for the "big ratings"? What would make those at ABC change their minds? Hmm. That's the only interesting part of the story. One DC attorney scared you away? Maybe there were no "big fish" to fry? When you reviewed the list, besides the one Republican that was "outed", were you disappointed? Or, were there Dems on the list and you couldn't release Republican names without releasing Dems names? Oh wait, that can't be. That would mean you were engaging in honest journalism.

It is absurd and immoral that this trial is even taking place. Any sex acts performed for money were voluntary exchanges between consenting adults. The decision on whether to participate is entirely between those parties. The rest of us have a right to disapprove or persuade them to stop, but not to make their decisions for them.