Sometimes I think that prostitution should be comepletely safe & legal, and *soliciting* a prostitute should be punishable by 20 years in prison.

Jessica, I think you summed up my position on sex work very well. As I've always said, I think it's completely consistent to be "pro-sex WORKER" while not necessarily "pro-sex WORK." Recognizing sex workers' rights is just one way of recognizing the reality of the situation in a feminist way--i.e. there is a great demand for the service; sex workers should be protected from rape and have access to contraceptives. However, in recognizing these considerations we must also consider the root of the demand and the reality of exploitation in the industry.

Does anyone else find this portion of the advice column problematic:

his brief encounter with a poor, nameless woman should not be a threat to your future.

It's almost like the columnist is saying that if the woman he slept with was actually not poor and disempowered and objectified, then there would have been a problem with his behavior. I'd understand slipping up with an ex or with a close friend or something like that a lot more than this...

There is never any circumstance under which it is ethically or morally permissable (by feminist standards or any standards) for a man to buy a woman to have sex with her. Women in prostitution are overwhelmingly in poverty. This is especially true in Southeast Asia where white men travel to satisfy their racist misogynistic desires. I've been to prostitution bars in Southeast Asia, guided by women's organizations. I've spent some time with International Justice Mission (and they have some fucked up politics of representation). Bottom line: Money (for women to simply survive) is the coercive element in prostitution. It is serial rape in exchange for cash. And women are profoundly damanged by it: even women in prostitution who don't identify ever having been raped suffer from PTSD at rates higher than returning Vietnam combat veterans - check out the peer-reviewed research by Melissa Farley at www.prostitutionresearch.com

bittergradstudent, you raise an EXCELLENT point. Prudie herself is making the cheating "okay" by demeaning the woman with whom he cheated. This is stereotypical anti-woman behavior. If a man cheats, blame the woman -- because you don't want to lose the man! Any way you can make it *her* fault in your head, means you don't have to give up on him, because a woman without a man is nothing, and you don't want to become nothing.

You're right that Prudie seems to imply that if the woman was, say, someone he worked with, someone with a job and who was treated closer to an equal than this poor woman in Asia, then somehow it would be a problem. Yes, Prudie, it's a huge problem when men want to have sex with women they consider equals, rather than with nameless, faceless, identity-less prostitutes. Oh, but I'm sure he's such a great guy he'll always have respect for his fiancee as an equal. (sarcasm)

Ooh, that was exactly my first thought too! That Prudie somehow thought it was better for this guy to have cheated on his girlfriend with a woman he could completely objectify and deny even the slightest hint of personhood, than for him to cheat with someone he might actually treat as something more than a high-end blow-up doll.

Also, I'm kind of aghast at Prudie's cheery prospects for this woman's future. I mean... "most devoted of husbands"??? WTF? Call me paranoid, but it sounds a lot more to me like this guy is just gauging how much he's going to be able to get away with. I mean, if this woman is willing to let him get away with seeing prostitutes now, when she doesn't even have the added weight of a "commitment" to consider, imagine what he'll be able to get away with once they're married!

How do I reconcile my belief that it's morally wrong to commodify sex with my support of women who do sex work? But then I realized that I don't have to. I can want to ensure the safety and rights (health, work and otherwise) of sex workers while still believing that buying bodies isn't right.

I think it's hard to split the baby this way. I think taking a position on whether providing a certain service is acceptable necessarily entails taking the same position on whether buying that service is acceptable - and vice versa.

Supporting the basic legal rights of all persons is one thing. You can certainly say that, for instance, you think sex workers should be safe, have legal recourse when they are harmed, not be coerced or exploited by the police, and so on. But that is not on-point regarding sex work itself.

I think that if you say you support sex workers' "work rights" - i.e., their right to engage in sex work - then you are more or less committing yourself to saying it's OK for there to be such a thing as a legitimate sex work industry (however structured), and that it's OK to patronize sex workers (within a legitimately-structured, safe, profitable, uncoerced . . . sex work industry).

Think about other disreputable industries we do support: is there any women's work that you think should be legal, about which you would take the position you do on sex work? Are there even any commodifying, but "legitimate", industries on which you would take that position? ("I think every woman should have the right to work at Wal-Mart, but no one should ever shop there." "I think women should have the right to pick crops/stuff envelopes/sew cheap clothing - but no one should ever employ them to do so or buy the products they create.")

I suspect not. I don't think that position quite works, for "legitimate" industries or for sex work. "Supporting the workers but opposing the industry" just means supporting the workers' right to be unemployed - which is hardly supporting their work rights.

You can oppose sex work, or sweathshop labor, or migrant farm work, or poverty-level corporate work, as being, simply, jobs no one should ever have to take. And if you think closing those industries is better, overall, for women than letting women work in such abusive environments, then that is the position you should take - that no women should be allowed to seek such work because the work is inherently too abusive to expose any woman to.

But if, as many well-intentioned people do, you think those are "merely" bad jobs that, on balance, are still better than nothing, then in saying you support women's right to take those jobs but no one should actually patronize the industry that provides them, you're basically saying it's better for women not to have a job than to have a bad, but acceptable, job.

In other words, we do support the right of women to take crappy jobs. We much more prefer that they have access to good jobs and decent working conditions, but, realizing that capitalism doesn't value such things, we recognize that the best option many women have is something no one would have to put up with in a better world - and we then support not only the basic legal rights of all women in such jobs, but the right of women to take such jobs if they feel they have to. Which is why most of us feel that Wal-Mart should provide better wages and benefits, but not that it should be illegal to work at Wal-Mart if they don't.

If that's your position about "bad" jobs generally - and it is, realistically, almost everyone's position about them - then what you have to decide is not whether you support "sex workers' rights", but whether sex work is, in your estimation, on the "supportable" or the "never supportable" side of the "bad jobs" line. And, again, if it's acceptable for women to work as sex workers, it has to be acceptable for someone (men) to hire them as sex workers - otherwise their right to work is of no benefit to them. On the other hand, if it's not acceptable for that job to exist at all, then no woman should have the right to take that job (though they should still have all basic legal rights not related directly to such jobs: the right not to be harmed, to be treated with respect, to adequate medical care, etc.).

I absolutely agree with Kevin about the problem of splitting the baby, so to speak. I am a woman. I am a feminist. I am a sex radical. I do not think it is automatically exploitive for one person to pay for sex with another, regardless of the gender of the people involved. I do have a problem with exploitation of labor, no matter what kind of labor it is.

The buying and selling of sex needn't be any more exploitive than other kinds of work. Some sex workers have pride in their work, and work in conditions that are better than we might expect. Why should customers who treat sex workers well, pay them well, and respect them be treated like criminals or stigmatized for their commercial sexual exchanges?

Kevin, I think you set up an unfair and false dichotomy. You're essentially saying that women are somehow responsible for our own objectification. I *suspect* Jessica would agree that if we lived in a society of perfect equality, where neither men nor women were viewed as merely sex objects, and where men and women were deemed to be equal in terms of sex, in terms of work, in terms of everything, then there would be nothing wrong with a sex industry existing. Note that the obvious logical corollary to this is that there would be roughly equal numbers of male and female sex workers, and roughly equal demand for both.

However, we do not live in such a perfect world. I think it's important to note that most feminists are neither prudes nor defenders of sex fiends. The fact of the matter is, in the real world that we unfortunately live in, that women are disproportionately objectified, and there is disproportionate demand for female sex workers. It is the *demand* that is the problem, not because there is something inherently wrong with the notion of selling sex, but because the sex workers are not in fact *just* selling sex. They are selling woman-ness, and this causes injury to all women. This is why the sex industry *as it currently exists* is bad and ought not to exist. At the same time, however, many of the women in this industry don't have a whole lot of other choices (somewhat ironically, by virtue of the fact that the sex industry exists; if it did not exist, they would have a much easier time getting the same jobs as men, rather than being seen as "not fit" for certain jobs because they are "men's jobs"). The point here is not to condemn the women who are in the sex industry, usually without much choice of their own. It's really not even to condemn, individually, the men who pay for sex. It's to condemn the notion that *women* are for sale. *That's* the problem, and there's absolutely no incongruity as you seem to suggest.

his brief encounter with a poor, nameless woman should not be a threat to your future.

No, see, because it's all about *love.* He didn't *love* the prostitute so having sex with her shouldn't be a threat to the girlfriend.

Boy Kevin, did you nail this one right on the head.

I am so conflicted about this. I personally know a woman who is a sex worker and loves her job, and I support her right to do what she wants to do with her life and her body. On the other hand, I've read the studies on how damaged and exploited most of the women and men (and children) are in the sex industry, and I know damn well that if that woman who received Prudie's advice were me, my fiancee would be living on a street corner so fast his head would spin for exactly those reasons.

Here's my conflict: I would never support a person's "right" to another person's flesh, and yet, how can I bash someone who buys sex when the person selling it is perfectly willing and happy to do it? I don't have repugnance so much for the person who sells it as the person who buys.

Is it possible to be for sex workers, but against sex work, or for sex work but against those who buy it? I don't think so.

I'm going to have to think about this.

I posted this before a lot of you posted your own responses - thanks Law Fairy, you made an excellent point and did a fantastic job of pointing out the big picture.

I think the Law Fairy has it nailed pretty well--the manner in which women are viewed in mainstream society, alongside the extreme corruption in much of the sex work industry, it is simply indefensible to really be a sex work patron. I would think, from the consumer end, it would be very hard to distinguish the situation of a willing worker from a semi-coerced one.

That doesn't change the fact that many of the sex workers themselves are oppressed and often without other options. One can certainly fight to protect them without necessarily endorsing all the bullshit that goes into the industry that pays their paycheck, Just like I can support the rights of Wal-Mart workers without ever setting foot in the damn place (and believing that others should follow suit until they shape up wrt their business practices).

Supporting the people at the bottom of any oppressive system is not an endorsement of those at the top.

Supporting the people at the bottom of any oppressive system is not an endorsement of those at the top.

I think that sums it up quite nicely...

I think it's totally senseless to say that you can't oppose the buying of sex while supporting those who sell it. It ignores the completely uneven power distribution in most situations where sex is traded for money, and completely misses the point of the things that go wrong when it comes to prostitution. I oppose the buying of sex because I would like to prevent the creation of a situation where economic coercion into rape is a likelihood. Coercion is coercion, though, and no one can take away a person's "right" (odd choice of words, Kevin) to be forced into anything. Most prostitutes are not exercising a right in selling their bodies - they are acting in situations where the right to control their bodies has been taken away (or at the very least, diminished) by economic realities, by male-female power dynamics, and any number of other factors. I don't believe that the buying of sex is always coercive or exploitative, though I do agree that public policy ought to be more concerned with the prevention of coercion into sex work than with allowing the small number of people who adore it to continue their work.

Just like we have regulations ensuring safety at work but you don't get arrested for standing on the "not step" of your ladder at home, situations where a person's decision-making power is arrested by circumstance can only be alleviated by giving the powerless more power - not taking away what little they had to begin with. Exploitation occurs when one party has the power to make every decision you could possibly make a bad one. You could have sex with a stranger for money or you could let your children starve. You could sprinkle asbestos powder on christmas decorations all day or you could quit and not be able to pay rent. These are not decisions a person can make rationally, and when you've been put in this situation by someone else, they are exploiting the fact that your random choice may benefit them.

The justification of the sex trade industry is a very complex matter, and although I have a strong disagreement with Kevin's conclusion in that I firmly believe that it is perfectly reasonable to separate the act of selling on a marketplace of evil consequences out of desperation and buying on that same market out of a false sense of entitlement, and also reasonable to support the right of a woman to prioritize her ability to support herself even when the means involve a market with negative social consequences at the same time that one opposes the existence of that market, but it's not what I really want to address and this comment is going to be long enough as it is, so I must sadly leave the argument unsupported.

Instead, I want to turn to one of the fundamental assumptions behind the main question asked:

To me, it's about whether or not you really want to be with someone who is fine and dandy about buying sex and commodifying women.

We don't know that about him. Seriously, we don't, despite the fact that he did buy sex and by participating from that side, contribute to a culture that commodifies women. Human beings manage to do a great many wrong things when their brains, for whatever reason, temporarily disengage. (In fact, I must admit to being a little disturbed by the implied reasoning here, that it is forgiveable to be fully cognizant of a betrayal of one's oath and an action that will directly cause harm to one's mate, but not forgiveable to be fully cognizant of an act that merely contributes to or takes advantage of a general social disrespect -- but I think the better starting point is from a lack of thought on the matter.)

It's highly unlikely (especially given his guilt subsequently) that he started off the day thinking, "Hey, there are women here that I can use for my benefit, despite being in a monogamous relationship already -- let me go buy one." Much more likely is that he was at the nightclub mentioned in the letter, probably intoxicated, since that's what guys tend to do when they go out to nightclubs together, an exotic and beautiful woman draped herself all over him and turned up the flattery, wheedling, and charm¹, the blood drained from the big head to the little head and his remaining analytic ability went offline and he came back to himself several hours later thinking, "Shit, I just had sex with a prostitute."

It's still speculation, of course, but it's a not uncommon scenario, as I understand it, and it's more consistent with his subsequent guilt.

Even assuming this scenario, there remains the strong possibility that he still hasn't thought about it, focusing his guilt solely on his act of betrayal, and there's potentially a good argument to be made that it's a really bad idea to marry a man who hasn't thought (or isn't in the habit of thinking) women's issues through, because he's likely to have other bad related habits, for instance with respect to distribution of domestic labor, expectation of childbearing, and so on, that will turn into energy-sapping long-term corrections even if he's perfectly willing to think about them when prompted and come to the correct conclusions subsequently. That, however, is very much a different question from whether or not he should be avoided because he's "fine and dandy" with commodifying women.

If you're willing to let him off the hook for disengaging his brain with respect to a woman that should have been at the top of his consciousness, letting him off the hook for disengaging his brain with respect to an unfortunately uncommon social awareness should be just as easy. The only way for me to come to the conclusion that the commoditization issue is more significant is to assume that his brain disengaged with respect to hurting his mate, but that he had full awareness of the significance of taking advantage of a prostitute, and my brain is refusing to believe both of those things simultaneously.

¹ A terrifying aside about a possible side effect of prostitution: I read an account once from a former prostitute about one of her fellow prostitutes that had ingrained that behavior so tightly that she used it reflexively even on her coworkers whenever she had the slightest desire for something, and I've always wondered whether women who end up going that far can ever reintegrate into a regular society and have a normal relationship, or if they end up with a prostitute's version of PTSD forever.

Zed, that's a really good point but I'd like to posit a more subtle one: having nothing to do with his cognizant *awareness* of inequality, what might it say about him that he was even attracted to the prostitute, as clearly he must have been, in the first place? I think that who you are attracted to does say something about your character, and I think there's more to it than just plain chemistry. I've been attracted to *very* different types of men at different times, and I can realistically see how this roughly corresponds to my mindset at any particular time. That he would even *want* to have sex with a prostitute, regardless of whether his brain was on or off, I think legitimately *does* suggest something about his character. Maybe he can overcome it, but in my mind the answer is not simply "his dick did all the thinking." Actually, I think that's a stupid answer and *ALWAYS* the wrong one.

Just my two cents' worth.

I don't care what HIS feelings/motivations/intentions were. At all. He used her. He contributed to the sum total of suffering of women in prostitution. And by the way, there is no "prostitute's version of PTSD." There's just PTSD and an overwhelming majority of women in prostitution have it, no matter what.

When one is engaged (or planning to become engaged) there is an implicit contract of sexual exclusivity (unless stated otherwise). He broke the contract.

Why would you enter into a marital covenant with someone who cannot keep a simple implicit promise?

Now is the time for her to bail, like yesterday.

Finally, he confessed that he had cheated on me with a prostitute one night when he'd gone to a nightclub with two male co-workers. --LW

The fact that anyone cheats is grounds for a breakup but the fact that he bought sex is double grounds. It would creep me out to be with anyone who'd bought sex before or was capable of buying sex. Also, men have a choice to not buy sex whereas prostitutes usually sell their bodies to survive financially. This john could have had sex with his fiancee whereas the prostitute was probably either trafficked in a ring or desperate for money. I support the sex work, sweatshop laborer, migrant farm worker and poverty-level corporate worker and not these exploitative industries.

However, his brief encounter with a poor, nameless woman should not be a threat to your future. --Prudie

Wow. In one condescending swoop, Prudie is sexist, classist and racist.

sorry

*LW=letter writer

*This john could have had sex with his fiancee if he'd waited a couple days

*I support the sex worker

Just in response to the Law Fairy, we can't assume that he knew she was a prostitute right away. I knew someone who went to Vegas, met some girl in a club when he was really drunk, had sex with her, and was asked for money afterwards. He didn't know she was a prostitute until this point. Not that I think this situation is a common one, but it is a possibility that he saw this woman and found her attractive before knowing her profession.

Law Fairy, I agree completely. Such a lazy way out (makes me think of my uncle who told his 12 year old son one day that a man's brains leak into his balls during adolescence and stay there for another forty years).
Ugh. But anyways,...
A question to those with an opinion (or experience within the industry-I mean no harm in the question) but how is it a woman can be "happy," or even liberated, working in the sex industry?
I dont mean "happy they can afford a certain standard of living." I mean something that ascends material value, that is about enriching one's life...totally curious (though I understand the very question implies some sort of narrow-mindedness on my part-I accept, but I am open to responses and interested...)

The Law Fairy:

Zed, that's a really good point but I'd like to posit a more subtle one: having nothing to do with his cognizant *awareness* of inequality, what might it say about him that he was even attracted to the prostitute, as clearly he must have been, in the first place? I think that who you are attracted to does say something about your character, and I think there's more to it than just plain chemistry.

I'm starting to suspect that there may be US-centric viewpoint problem involved here, though: in most of the U.S., partly due to the fact that it's illegal, you have to jump through circuitous hoops to solicit a prostitute, and it's almost always a result of a man specifically going looking to do so. Elsewhere in the world, prostitutes solicit customers... sometimes very aggressively. (For the record, although I have been personally solicited in both Germany and Japan, I have never accepted. I also have firsthand accounts of prostitution in the Philippines, from both sides (I have heritage and family there, though I never passed through a place where it happened to me personally while visiting), and in Thailand (from the male side only, coming from acquaintances in the military). In the Philippines and Thailand, it can apparently be very aggressive, as the prostitutes compete for customers. I'll avoid repeating some of the more graphic stories.

Incidentally, I'm not arguing that she should get back together with him, or that his letting his brain go offline was in any way a correct decision -- merely that it's a problem distinct from being actively happy with the commoditization of women, and that if you are going to be in the tradition of forgiving single errors at all, this seems a bad place to make an exception.

As a general thing, I'm not convinced that it's wise to trade someone who was tested and failed for someone who was never tested without a deeper look at what might have been learned.

I have been drunk in a fancy bar, been hit on by an attractive woman, and failed to realize instantly that she was a prostitute. Sure, I figured it out quickly enough, but it's not as if I was driving the street looking for sex.

That said, I see no particular reason to cut the guy so much slack: absent some indication it was "all a mistake" why assume such?

However, I do understand what Prudie is getting at. Prostitution is nonemotional. And I think that given two options to hear from your spouse:

1) "I slept with two nameless strangers last night" or
2) "I am madly in love with someone else, though we haven't had sex yet"

many people would rather their spouse said #1.

I know quite a few marriages that have survived #1. I don't know many that have survived #2.

I'd still dump him though.

L1:

I don't care what HIS feelings/motivations/intentions were. At all. He used her.

He contributed to the sum total of suffering of women in prostitution.

And by the way, there is no "prostitute's version of PTSD." There's just PTSD and an overwhelming majority of women in prostitution have it, no matter what.

The PTSD would be from violence, rape, battery, etc. not the prostitute's aggressive seduction techniques.

"Mhm, well, I'd have to say they probably used each other... and if the event played out the way I think it did, the prostitute was probably significantly better at it."

Uhm... you're not seriously suggesting that we "blame" the prostitute here? That somehow *she's* the one with the power, and not the rich white American man?

Zed, this:

"a reflexive tendency to use manipulation and charm and a reflexive tendency to use fear and violence"

is NOT PTSD. What you are looking at is a way of relating to one's environment. PTSD, on the other hand, is a specific set of symptoms which appear in some people who have been exposed to a traumatic event (something outside most human experience) and the event, the emotions that surrounded it, and the actions of the person affected are relived through thought, dream, actions. This is accompanied by sadness, fear, anger, fear of dying early, inability to form close relationships, and poor sleep among other things.

PTSD is a very real and very difficult disorder; before you make pronouncements about it, please educate yourself.

And yeah. I was married to someone who had surreptiously using prostitutes on the side for YEARS (once I found out I dumped him). Men who think women are objects to be consumed are not relationship material. That attitude leaks over into everything.

If a man love's a women, he doesn't have sex with a prostitute, unless he is coerced into doing it by some fairly strange circumstances.

The question is, is prostitution exceptable under any conditions. Some wise old internationalist once told me that the Anglo-American armies traditionally are the only ones that went to war without their brothels.

The male impulse to have sex is something that is impossed upon him while he is an emotional midget and lacking any wisdom what so ever.

If a man has no relationship, and many men do not for a variety of reasons (shyness, geekness, poor communication skills etc...) then suddenly being thrust into a cultural situation, in a geija house type setting, where there is social coercion to indulge, then it is going to be the rare hetro that doesn't enjoin - and either way he will suffer his regrets.

A male in a relationship where he has a constant stream of sexual relations, and implied or overt understanding of monogamy it is wrong to engage in sex with the prostitute. He is, in effect, ending his relationship with his Girl friend/wife.

One should not underestimate the social coercion that takes place in some East Asian societies. Often the will of the group is expected to prevail and so does not let up until it succeeds, or if not, total social shunning ensues. This can be devistating in business relationships.

That addresses the male side of the equation, not the prostitutes side of the equation.

As Gandhi said, there is no greater violence then poverty - and I agree that impoverished women trapped in the sex trade are in effect, serially raped for cash. But at the other extreme you have wealthy porn stars who are paid cash for sex, some times 'serially' who obviously don't need the money. In between the two extremes you have you typical European Brothel, and in some countries, like Germany, every town has its brothel. What about those situations.

In essence the relationship exchanges is all about power. Men have it, women want it. Men want women, giving women bargaining power. Then it comes down to how good of a bargain one can get? Ivan Trump or Asian sex slave? It seems the trade is all the same.

All of this goes out the window when one arrives at love. In general, I believe you cannot hurt someone else, without hurting yourself. In sex that gets cubed. In love, it gets cubed again.

We need to create a culture of love, or of greater recognition of love. The problem is love is highly irradic, pops up sometimes rarely and for some, never at all, and in between those long gaps we need or at least could use sex.

After saying all of that, I just don't have the brain for this question - except to remember what the Greeks espoussed - no not their 'brothers behind' (not that there's anything wrong with that - but moderation in all things... all things but love.

I tried to write this before and got all bogged down - but did anyone stop to consider that the original letter writer was just asking for some advice on her personal situation, and not for a treatise on the plight of sex workers the world over, or the political and/or gender-equality ramifications of her fiance screwing a hooker?

I don't pretend to argue that the issues raised aren't important, but that's not what the LW was asking, and TO HER CREDIT, it's not what Prudie offered. You may not like her advice (I'm torn on it myself), but not one of us here knows how the LW feels about prostitution, how her fiance feels about prostitution, or for that matter how Prudie feels about prostitution. Is it not remotely possible that her fiance got drunk and did something incredibly stupid that he actually feels genuinely guilty for, and that this woman could forgive him, forge a life, and move on from this mistake - maybe even with some of the introspection and soul-searching on the wider issues that everyone here seems so bent on forcing on them?

People screw up. All the time. And other people who love them forgive them those screw ups. And sometimes, just sometimes, people learn from their mistakes. Maybe this is one of those cases - we just don't know, and shouldn't go around assigning motivations to people we don't know.

I found this posting from above to be very profound:

-Just in response to the Law Fairy, we can't assume that he knew she was a prostitute right away. I knew someone who went to Vegas, met some girl in a club when he was really drunk, had sex with her, and was asked for money afterwards. He didn't know she was a prostitute until this point. Not that I think this situation is a common one, but it is a possibility that he saw this woman and found her attractive before knowing her profession.-

While I haven't bought sex, and I don't like strip bars - I think because of the banal exploitation going on there - I have learned one thing, really good practitioners of the trade make it seem like they really do like you or are really attracted to you. The better the actor the more they make, I suppose. Then again, a beautiful women sits on your lap, bats her eyelashes, and the brain just quits working and judgement goes out the window.

I don't buy into that idea that men are rendered helpless and incapable of thinking--that is to say, incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions--just because they're turned on by a sexy woman. It's a myth that has been used to justify bad behavior on the part of men for many years, and it's nonsense. Men are adults. They are fully capable of making their own decisions regardless of the proximity of pretty women, and they should be held responsible for those decisions. If they can't behave responsibly in the presence of attractive women, then they shouldn't be trusted to make important decisions at all.