I like the way you put this; it's 100% better than the way that retard @pol_pot put it (yes, I'm pinging you: faggot. Still care to join the debate, or are you going to continue to cower behind your faux sense of superiority?) I agree that prostitution happened without government interaction. If I agree to that: will you agree to notice that I said no mention of "more government" being the solution? If anything: my position is that *further legislation* is going to do nothing more than legitimize evil, by giving people a legal scapegoat (another jewish construction, neatly enough). Arbitrarily granting people "more freedoms" isn't going to solve any problems; some things are taboo *for a reason*. Killing babies is wrong. Ending your genetic lineage by refusing to put your penis in a vagina is wrong. No man is an island. The fact that we are to exist, as a species, means that we have to work with (and to a certain extent: begrudgingly agree with) one another. We're looking at this problem from a perspective of differing expectations, however: because you posit that by adding heftiness to the weight of consequences, that we're somehow negatively affecting the situation. But if that were the case: why do you even have *any* punishment, for *any* "crime", to begin with?