Jesse Ventura’s biggest problem isn’t his openness. It’s his delivery.

Minnesota’s outspoken governor lacks the ability – or the incentive – to express himself tactfully and diplomatically. As a result, the basics of his opinions get lost in the mess he leaves behind.

Poor phraseology only undermines one’s position and hurts credibility. Ventura has made insensitive (perhaps naïve) remarks about suicide, religion and weight, and has shown little understanding of why people have reacted negatively to the way he’s expressed himself.

But underneath the questionable wording, the unusual candor and the celebrity status, this politician who scoffs at politicians makes some thoughtful points. It’s a shame so many of them end up getting lost – not only in his word choices, but in the often-overblown reactions of those who are offended.

Ventura’s comments about prostitution, in his now notorious interview in Playboy, have drawn a lot of heat from various factions, but many of the objections illustrate the validity of his views.

Evalina Giobbe, a former prostitute who runs an agency that assists women in leaving prostitution, claims that legalizing prostitution would send the message that “women and children are for sale.”

But Giobbe’s views on prostitution focus strongly on areas that reflect the illegality of the profession. In “A Comparison of Pimps and Batterers,” she writes of the power dynamic between a pimp and a prostitute, clearly illustrating an abusive situation that would be illegal even if prostitution were legalized. And if it were legalized, prostitutes would have somewhere to go if they were being abused, without having to fear being arrested.

“See, we call our country home of the brave and land of the free, but it's not,” Ventura said in Playboy. “We give a false portrayal of freedom. We're not free — if we were, we'd allow people their freedom. Prohibiting something doesn't make it go away. Prostitution is criminal, and bad things happen because it's run illegally by dirtbags who are criminals. If it's legal, then the girls could have health checks, unions, benefits, anything any other worker gets, and it would be far better.”

Perhaps the most radical feminist views on prostitution come from radfems such as Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon. Dworkin, an ex-prostitute, and McKinnon, an attorney, feel that prostitution – along with other areas of the sex industry – exploit and objectify women.

In “Prostitution and Civil Rights” (Michigan Journal of Gender and Law, 1993), MacKinnon says: “In prostitution, women are tortured through repeated rape and in all the more conventionally recognized ways. Women are prostituted precisely in order to be degraded and subjected to cruel and brutal treatment without human limits; it is the opportunity to do this when women are bought and sold for sex.”

This statement applies only to women who are forced into prostitution or who are abused within the profession. Those who are prostitutes of their own free will are not being raped when they engage in consensual sex with their clients; nor are they “bought and sold.”

Rape and abuse involve not having a choice over what someone else does to one’s body. Prostitution ideally should be a choice, not a sentence, and safer, healthier working conditions could curb the harmful side effects of illegal prostitution.

MacKinnon further states that “Women in prostitution are subject to near total domination.”

That applies only to those who are not free to make their own sexual choices. Decriminalization – or legalization – would minimize the substandard working conditions that many illegal prostitutes currently face. It might also curb the numbers of runaway teens being lured, even trapped, into prostitution.

Dworkin, whose views on men are not pretty, regards prostitution as inherently abusive. “Let me be clear. I am talking to you about prostitution per se, without more violence, without extra violence, without a woman being hit, without a woman being pushed. Prostitution in and of itself is an abuse of a woman’s body.” (“Prostitution and Male Supremacy”)

The woman who I have seen referred to as Andrea “All sex is rape” Dworkin (because of her views on penetrative sex as an invasion) also believes that “when men use women in prostitution, they are expressing a pure hatred for the female body. It is as pure as anything on this earth ever is or ever has been. It is a contempt so deep, so deep, that a whole human life is reduced to a few sexual orifices, and he can do anything he wants.”

This, to me, is more alarming than anything Ventura has said. Why, I ask, does the act of sex become an act of hate simply because money changes hands?

I know of a man who has made two visits to a brothel for the services of a prostitute. This man is quite respectful of women, and has a deep regard for sexual autonomy. He also has severe sexual dysfunction stemming from a childhood rape. His visits helped him to deal with his problems in a safe environment, with someone who was aware of these problems. He most certainly felt no hatred.

Wendy Chapkis, professor of sociology and women’s studies at the University of Southern Maine and the author of “Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor (Routledge, 1997), says, “I don’t think prostitution is the ultimate in women’s liberation, but I think it’s better understood as work than as inevitably a form of sexual violence.”

Chapkis believes prostitution should be decriminalized. “In a profession where women traditionally are not treated well, aren’t empowered, and should be able to go to the police for protection and assistance, we make the police another obstacle, another threat.”

As far as religious/moralistic objections to prostitution, I can respect them, but U.S. laws are secular. Religious rule is oppressive. Think of Iran, where viewing pornography is punishable by death.

Whether prostitution is “evil” or “sinful” is really not for this country’s legislators to decide, so religious objections are ostensibly irrelevant. But it would be silly to pretend that they don’t have a great, albeit subtle, power in law.

Religious views opposing prostitution carry the scent of that vague negativity toward sex that persists in our culture, a culture that passes on the sad and confusing message that sex is beautiful/ugly; sacred/sinful.

I respect those who choose to have sex within moral confines. I also respect those who choose multiple partners, prostitution or other alternatives. The details aren’t as important to me as choice, free will, their autonomy, consensuality.

It’s not my place to judge their choices, as long as those choices don’t bring harm on others.