Context that I provided. Context upon which you conveniently attached your all-purpose "qualifier" as if I should have assumed what sages from millenia ago would have considered "reasonable". But maybe they didn't. Was there really ever a rabbinical ruling on the Boston Tea Party? At the time when it mattered? What makes you assume that there need not have been one?

Oliver Wendell Holmes was a proponent of many things, including compulsory sterilization - which he apparently deemed to be a way of preventing an encroachment on the common good of some supposed right to keep the mentally handicapped from enjoying the same sex that you claim to love - or at least the consequences thereof. His strict utilitarianism makes him a poor example to quote when it comes to swinging fists and encroaching noses. Usually people don't assume that others have an endless right to stick their noses wherever they want. It's called privacy rights.

And your utilitiarian "common good" assertions invalidate the lip-service you pay in previous paragraphs to the same consensual activity that, by definition, doesn't apply to minors or trafficked adults. That "consen(sual)" activity leaves open the possibility of a whole host of things - such as all other forms of prostitution - much as you can't stand to admit it. You can moralize your arguments as much as you want - cf. "You need to stop equating the activities of horndogs with those of American revolutionaries, social activists and a people escaping persecution." It doesn't make them any more valid than it made the cases brought by Jerry Falwell, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Bash lewdness all you want. The fact is that it reveals the same pernicious moralizing that you underhandedly resort to in every post here that's been against reason, liberty and rights for centuries. And if there weren't laws against what consenting adults could do, then I daresay we'd live in a much more honest society; a society where Spitzer could have got help instead of relishing the taboo nature of activities that are only taboo to people who would define them as such for the sake of a "common good" that believes the words "consent" and "adult" cannot be clearly defined - people who believe such words must be relics of a pre-Holmes, and, I suppose, less moral era. But less moral for reasons that are all to similar to those which you rally to.