Sexual Infantilization By The Government
Retired call girl Maggie McNeill blogs at The Honest Courtesan:
As I've pointed out many times, prohibitionist laws (and legalization regimes) are based in the ridiculous notion that sex work is magically different from all other work, and that whores somehow need "protection" from our own choices...
She links to a piece from the Sydney Morning Herald by Elena Jeffreys, former president of the Australian Sex Workers Association:
Sex workers (most commonly women) make money from sex work. The clients (usually men) pay for sex work. This is a relationship, this is negotiation and this is a system in our culture. Yet our laws, social mores and the morality police tell us it's scandalous - a one-way ticket to hell. Or jail, if you live in Sweden. All this assumes that sex workers and clients are supposedly doing something wrong.But what makes it wrong? The government, even when it legalises or reforms laws in favour of sex workers, does not want to be seen to be endorsing sex work - just regulating it for those who are in it and need ''protection."
What are we being protected from? Why should it be reasonable to criminalise the negotiation of financial arrangements for sex? Rape is criminal. Violent assault is criminal. But consensual sex with a dollar figure attached to it is not. In NSW sex work is decriminalised and workers, clients and health advocates believe it should stay that way.
We are talking about 30 minutes or so of massage, sex, nakedness, talking, showering, then getting on with your life. Is that evil or wrong? Negotiate, pay or be paid, have sex, see ya later....In the words of author and sex worker Juliet November, "Sometimes sex work is about being gentle with someone's need for touch; sometimes it's about being kind toward a man who's ashamed of his body; sometimes it's about being friendly and fun with someone who's lonely; sometimes it's about holding someone's vulnerability very lightly in your hands; sometimes it's about making someone feel desired...sometimes it's about sharing intimacy, cigarettes and a laugh." So let's rid ourselves of our prejudices and preconceptions and repeat after me: IT'S OK TO PAY!
What percentage of sex workers lives do we seriously imagine to benefit from such 'libertarian' cheeriness?
It's crazy, crazy ironic that the nation that's done the most to give women better, more meaningful venues for the work of their lives so often finds delight in the bogus irony of this chatter.
And this comes to mind: Completely bass-ackwards.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 21, 2012 5:12 AM
Here's part of the problem: The prostitutes who write these kinds of things are by definition articulate people who seek inclusion in the eternal pageant of yuppie/bourgeois contrarianism.
Talking about things like poverty, violence, and debasement is never popular with those people.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 21, 2012 7:55 AM
Crid's got a point. Romaticizing and glamoriizing this isn't going to make it a better job. Being a sexual surrogate isn't quite the same as being a call girl.
KateC at June 21, 2012 8:38 AM
I think you're being naive Amy.
NicoleK at June 21, 2012 10:53 AM
The question is, does prostitution beat working at McDonalds?
Assholio at June 21, 2012 12:08 PM
My question would be, in the theoretical natch, would legalizing this lead to less exploitation, let human trafficking, less problems?
When something is illegal, the market for it goes dark and anything done within it is necessarily illicit. This leads to exploitation naturally because people cannot speak out if they are harmed.
We find ourselves there now.
What are the arguments about it being worse or better than now if it becomes openly legal? Can we find a factual basis for those arguments?
SwissArmyD at June 21, 2012 12:33 PM
Speaking of sexual infantilization by the government—
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 21, 2012 2:21 PM
I hate part 2 almost as much as part 1. just that it's a non-denial denial. I hate it because it's weird. It's as weird as molesting a teenage girl. The statement is intolerably blase and curt.
There's quite obviously nothing "odd" about Yoffe's conduct. It's not even mildly inappropriate.
One gets the sense that this is perhaps the niece's way of saying to the rest of the world: Oh... SO he got little Emily, too? Such a pity.....
That's beyond passive-aggressive... It's inexusable brusque, and the niece should be ashamed, and perhaps punished. Her own disappointments in life, by the hand of her uncle or anyone else, are not our concern.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 21, 2012 2:24 PM
Tangentially related. If a woman's breasts are surgically removed, and she goes topless in public, is it still nudity?
http://www.krem.com/news/northwest-news/Seattle-pool-allows-topless-breast-cancer-survivor-159874415.html
Meloni at June 21, 2012 3:11 PM
Very simply, prostitution is illegal in order to protect the market value of what the "non-prostitutes" offer to men in exchange for resources. Basic supply and demand, right? After all, if men can just rent, why would they ever buy?
Jay R at June 21, 2012 3:27 PM
> Very simply, ...
But you're not bitter, right?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 21, 2012 3:47 PM
Maggie McNeill at June 21, 2012 4:20 PM
Sex work is work; it's no better or worse than any other job. It has advantages and disadvantages, though many of the disadvantages vanish when the work is decriminalized as it has been in New Zealand and New South Wales (here's a recent study which demonstrates that: http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nsw-sex-industry-report-2012.pdf ) Some people like the work, some hate it, and many tolerate it as the best of all available choices...which is the same thing that could be said about any job.
Maggie McNeill at June 21, 2012 4:30 PM
Here's part of the problem
And the other part of the problem is moralistic, prudish, busybody, assholes like crid, who has gone on record saying sex workers shouldnt be allowed to participate in society (and no I'm not going to bother to link to one of your screeds), and other like him like their soundbytes far more than the truth
Why bother to think things thru when you can just make the icky women go away
Also for those of you who are concerend about human trafficing, read any one of close to a dozen articles Maggie has on her site
lujlp at June 21, 2012 5:49 PM
Yeah, Dated a girl (sex worker) for about 6 months. It has paid for her very nice house in Washoe Valley, sent her children to Bishop Manogue High School. and allowed her to get her BA. Yes there are problems like any other job, but she chose it and continues to.
But then it is legal here and she does not have to worry about a lot of problems that she would in other places.
Piper at June 21, 2012 6:07 PM
While I won't say it is a job for any and everyone, I see no reason that it shouldn't be a legal activity.
Look at Nevada. The brothels out on the borders of Vegas and Reno do fine. But they still have hookers within the city limits. I be the damage done to those doing it illegally is distinctly higher than the brothels. Why? Because they can't complain to the authorities, because the activity is illegal.
Jim P. at June 21, 2012 7:29 PM
"After all, if men can just rent, why would they ever buy?"
Odd. That's never been a worry that crossed my mind. I really don't think many women do. After all, people can rent almost anything in this world, but most still chose to buy. And that totally discounts the effect of love.
momof4 at June 21, 2012 7:53 PM
Most whores don't pay for private school for their kids. They pay for nothing except their next hit of really weak whatever-drug. Legalizing isn't going to change that. The whores that do well won't do any better with a law change, and the ones whose life is a living hell won't do any better either. People who chose that life are almost overwhelmingly without any other option, for whatever reason.
And I personally am pro legalizing it. I just don't hold any romantic delusions of what that will do. It will keep my tax money from being spent stopping it, that's all.
momof4 at June 21, 2012 7:57 PM
It's very simple. Having sex is legal. Giving someone money is legal. How can it possibly make sense that it's illegal to do both?
Rex Little at June 21, 2012 9:43 PM
> Sex work is work; it's no better or worse
> than any other job. It has advantages and
> disadvantages
Yeah? So... Maggers... Who are the women in your life —who you'd have loved anyway– for whom you would say: Well, Katrina went to cosmetology school (or biochem or IT science or forestry), but of course, that didn't work out for her so well as a career... All in all, she probably should have spent those summers out at the truck stop by the inner state, sucking cock on winter nights.
A close friend? A cousin? Granny? Your sister? Your mother? Your daughter?)
I don't think you're anywhere near as erotically or emotionally sophistimicated as you pretend to be. This flapdoodle gets tiresome.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 21, 2012 10:38 PM
> When one doesn't bother to read any of
> a person's essays
I don't love you enough to read your essays... You're not owed the courtesy. It's sufficiently telling of the forces at work here that Amy didn't bother to mention any of that stuff in her passage. (But she doubled down on the caps for "IT'S OK TO PAY!"
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.....)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 21, 2012 10:42 PM
> Rape is criminal. Violent assault is criminal.
Yeah, and I remember a discussion of this one case of prostitute-rape that got a few women here all upset, while several others sat quietly and watched it all go down....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 22, 2012 12:04 AM
> When one doesn't bother to read any of
> a person's essays
I don't love you enough to read your essays... You're not owed the courtesy -crid
Crid, you are an asshole, you bitch and moan about people paraphrasing your positions likening it to them putting their words in your mouth.
Now here you are, doing it yourself. And what happens when you get called on it?
Y&ou brush it off as incosiquental?
Look we know you think hookers, porn stars, and
strippers should be quaraintinede for the rest of the public. But that isnt licence to pass your opinions off as theirs whn they are the ones who have acctual experince in their feilds
lujlp at June 22, 2012 7:14 AM
So don't read my comments... Thanx.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 22, 2012 7:18 AM
My question would be, in the theoretical natch, would legalizing this lead to less exploitation, let human trafficking, less problems?
***
No. There's still human trafficking in places prostitution is legal and regulated. In fact, Swiss legal prostitutes often complain about the illegal ones who do illegal things like bareback, not getting tested, etc.
NicoleK at June 22, 2012 10:28 AM
So don't read my comments... Thanx
And deprive my self of the joy of your half wit?
Or pointing out that you are wrong? You're a douchebag crid. And I make it a point to not let douchebags get away with being douchbags.
So really the only way to prevent me from posting in reply to your douchebaggary is to stop being a douchebag
So, you are welcome,
douchebag
lujlp at June 22, 2012 12:01 PM
Also, legal hookers complaining about illegal hookers inst sex trafficking.
lujlp at June 22, 2012 12:05 PM
More later! Pop popcorn!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 22, 2012 2:02 PM
What are we being protected from? Why should it be reasonable to criminalise the negotiation of financial arrangements for sex? Rape is criminal. Violent assault is criminal. But consensual sex with a dollar figure attached to it is not.
Well, I don't find it reasonable to criminalise the negotiation of financial arrangements for sex, but plenty of other people obviously do. To them, it's immoral and abhorrent and they find it perfectly "reasonable" to criminalise activity like that. To them, the fact that the people involved are both consenting doesn't matter. (You'll find these same people, of course, opposing same-sex marriage.)
JD at June 22, 2012 5:42 PM
"All in all, she probably should have spent those summers out at the truck stop by the inner state, sucking cock on winter nights.
A close friend? A cousin? Granny? Your sister? Your mother? Your daughter?)"
How about the other way around?
How about the guy who got his dicks sucked off is your close friend? A cousin? Grand father? your brother? Your father? Your son? Would be saying the same bullshit?
Something tells me that you had a very sheltered life. You don't know anybody personally, who had to suck dicks to pay the rent. And you don't know anybody personally, who had nothing to live for except for the moment of getting his dicks sucked off.
Life is tough. None of us voluntarily signed up for it. We do what we have to do get through to the end of the day without killing ourselves or others.
Get off your damn high horse.
chang at June 22, 2012 6:34 PM
Crid, assuming that my (or Maggie's) cousin, granny, close friend and/or daughter is an adult, exactly what business is it of mine (or yours or Maggie's) whether she sucks dick at a truck stop, goes to beauty school or studies IT? It's her life.
"What percentage of sex workers lives do we imagine to benefit from such libertarian cheeriness?"
Well, gee...all of them, except that the prices will surely dip some if it becomes decriminalized everywhere. I don't hold any illusion that most sex workers achieve home ownership, a nest egg, and private school educations through sex work, but somehow I think that *all* sex workers benefit from not being hauled to jail, fined, and slapped with a criminal record that will follow them for life. If a woman is desperate, choosing to turn tricks because it's that or starve, as she has no other reasonable alternatives (like, because she's an addict who is too unreliable for most jobs, because there are no jobs to be had, because she has no access to her birth certificate and all the other crap you need to apply for food stamps, whatever) she benefits from not being arrested for doing the only thing she can do. If she'd just rather do sex work than go to beauty school, she benefits from not being arrested for doing something she simply wants to do, not having her freedom curtailed by someone else's judgment of morality.
So then the question is, who exactly benefits from hauling sex workers to jail and marginalizing them?
*crickets*
Jenny Had A Chance at June 22, 2012 7:53 PM
> There's still human trafficking in places
> prostitution is legal and regulated.
Thank You, Big Nic! She comes through like a sister.
This chattering enthusiasm for prostitution is all about baseless condescension. It's a totally up-to-date kinda foolishness, and it's caught the eye of people who shouldn't be bothered with it.
Consider Swissy, who (with warmth and sincerity) posits:
That "theoretical natch" is a dicey rhetorical realm: It suggests that there's never been a place where freewheeling prostitution could be explored. It at least welcomes the implication that some kind of Beaver-Cleaver White People emotional sketchiness has made prostitution illegal for now.I think prostitution was, like starvation and youthful death, pretty much the normal human condition through history. The lawfulness of it doesn't count for much in cultures which aren't as tidily administered and policed as modern America, for which the sample size is precisely one (1)... So this is also a bold new way for self-involved young people to disregard the phenomenal wealth and comity of these generations (about which more anon). Certainly in most of America's past, out on the prairie and up in the mountains and down at the river delta, ain't nobody was gonna say much if you wanted —or (more likely) needed— to do that kind of thing to put bread on the table. America has plenty of experience with prostitution, thankyouverymuch.
Nor is there any reason to ascribe this injunction to naiveté, whether based on religion or sheer timidity. American religious fervor enthused our Revolution, Abolition, the Progressive era, and the Civil Rights movement, at the cost of... What? Prohibition? (Small price to pay, if you ask me, and the source of cocktail culture to boot: Prohibition has gotten a lot of people laid over the subsequent decades....)
No, AGAIN, modern America has done more to dignify womanhood than any culture the world has ever seen. I think a baseline instruction (both unspoken and explicit) to daughters that they will not be fucking their way through life is a big part of that. An unregistered but intricate coalition of forces has recognized that—
andInstead, we get these transparently witless postures of sophistication, smirking (and tellingly redundant!) comments about "social mores and the morality police", as if the commenter were somehow viewing our world from a Martian elevation. These cluckings from wannabe writers just aren't worth reading... And need not be deeply sampled before something ludicrous, and personally self-aggrandizing to the author, is offered:
So why do these writers (Quan! Bright! Hollander!) think they can make a living with such scribblings at all? Well, at least in the States, we all love a renegade, even an imaginary and tepid one. Marlon Brando rides into town with a thuggish motorcycle gang... And takes sodas from the machine without paying! But Hollywood has more to do with it than that.
Film hasn't really brought any new narratives to drama, right? Same ol' stories. What it HAS done is put a little more emotional impact to the ancient plot lines by putting images of really attractive people on the screen to recite them. Hollywood has dominated fashion since the first reel. Anyone who's seen a film has a hunger for the sugary shrewdness that it seems to provide... Especially when the consequences might be erotic. A few generations ago, a kid from the out on the farm might have moved to the big city with no pretense of sexual experience, but with some confidence that, having seen how the pigs in the slop and the chickens in the slop handle such things, it would probably work out as it was supposed to.
That was then. In our culture, savvy is essential. They say that the one punchline which will ALWAYS get a laugh from an American is 'Get it?' And for the last few decades, the ladykiller line that would bring success to a seduction was 'Wassamatter, Honey? You're not uptight, are ya?'
There are a lot of women who read this blog and post things here sometimes. Many are satisfactorily married and attached, and a lot of them are flatly, shamelessly happy. They could, were they so inclined, offer every bit as much insight about fucking.... And about affection. Their genitalia are no less attached than those of "who have acctual experince in [the] feilds." The best of them, I believe, are entirely resistant to this kind of pandering narrative, which has much in common with the travelling snake oil shows of yore. (That city-slicker with the fancy suit seemed like an awful sharp feller...!) There's no reason to believe that people who screw for money know more about sex (or anything) than anybody else.
Dear condescenders: There is nothing new under the sun.
_____________________________________
> exactly what business is it of mine (or yours
> or Maggie's) whether she sucks dick
> at a truck stop
I think that's a pretty childish way of looking at the world, m'self. It has the odor of an 8-year-old who deeply resents being sent to bed at 10 on a school night. 'You're not the boss of me!' isn't really the best expression of responsible family relationships. But golly, if that's what you want to say to your daughter when she's heading out to the truck stop, go nuts.
(IOW, your comment is non-responsive.)
____________________
Cute, right? Shame she didn't DO something with her life... Something, y'know, interpersonal. Amirite? Trying to get into the spirit of this....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 23, 2012 12:21 AM
Whoops. I meant chickens in the coop.
Damn. Coulda been one of the great ones.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 23, 2012 12:24 AM
OK, in the morning light we see that it was never going to be one of the best-ever blog comments. But golly, what a foundation, right? Another couple hours of polishing, and they'd have just turned off the internet... It woulda been, like, 'We're done, Man... Crid nailed it over at Amy's, so it's time for us all to leave our computers and go do something else.'
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 23, 2012 6:20 AM
::eyeroll::
Yes, Crid, an adult who doesn't want to answer to the government about *why* she has sex is exactly the same as an 8-year-old resisting his parents' authority. You realize you just said that the government is (or should be) to adults as parents and nannies are to children, right?
It's an ugly business, prostitution, and no, genius, I wouldn't want my daughter involved in it. Since she is my daughter, I can happily provide other options so that she never has to resort to that. It would be a shame if she didn't do anything better with her life, but, sometimes people don't. Welfare rolls have their fair share of people who didn't do anything better with their lives, too, people whose parents are disappointed and ashamed that that's what their child has chosen. Waddayagonnado? If she chooses prostitution, despite having a family who will love her and help her in any reasonable way, how exactly would hauling her off to jail help anyone?
*those pesky crickets again*
------------------------
Re: "Prostitution is almost always about poverty, dependence and controlling women's lives"
All employment is about poverty. Your hairdresser is cutting your hair because he or she will slip into poverty otherwise. The person ringing up your purchases at the liquor store, the chairside assistant at the dentist, the guy rummaging through your trash for aluminum cans and other such things, are all only doing this because they have to do something to make a living. Each of them has a certain set of talents and a certain amount of resources and a certain amount of drive, and other obligations/roadblocks, and this is what they've chosen to do with their situation.
Dependence---Yes, often a prostitute has some dependency issues. Mostly these dependency issues make him/her unsuitable for other work.
Control of women's lives----Yes, some women are forced to have sex with men they don't want to. That's terrible and those men who have sex by force, or enable other men to, are vile rapists who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. For rape. Which is a crime all by itself, with a clear victim. But, keeping prostitution illegal is ALSO about control of women's lives. How is locking up women who've willingly had sex for the "wrong" reason (e.g. money rather than love or lust) anything but controlling women's lives?
-----------------
Now, trafficking. It's a vile disgusting thing and people who traffick unwilling women---and especially those who traffic children----should be drawn and quartered. That said, anyone who's ever sat through an econ class and paid any attention can tell you that incidents of trafficking will go down considerably after prostitution is legalized and no longer marginalized. Once you take away the fear of being arrested and imprisoned, more people are willing to do the job, the price goes down, and it's no longer worth the hassle of kidnapping and restraining unwilling women.
Will trafficking ever go away completely? Of course not. In particular, pedophiles appear to exist in every nation and every era, so there will always be a market for trafficked children. BUT, if we aren't worrying ourselves sick over whether an adult woman is making a bad choice with her own life, we can turn all the resources that would be used "protecting" adults from prostitution to protecting and rescuing *children* from prostitution.
What NicoleK says about Swiss legal prostitutes complaining about others who go bareback and don't get tested, BTW, is not necessarily trafficking. It may be related to trafficking, or it may simply be that a handful of prostitutes and johns make the very bad choice to be reckless and disregard the workplace code. She does it to make more money, he does it because he prefers that. You'll always have that, too. You have it every profession, but it doesn't automatically mean trafficking. Restaurants exist that don't follow ABC codes, for example, and certain people seek them out for that reason, but neither party is being exploited. There are home day cares that don't follow the codes in their states and parents choose them knowingly, to save a buck. Sure, governments should still enforce workplace codes (and that's all NicoleK mentioned, really; she didn't offer any evidence that the bareback prostitutes are forced by pimps to not use condoms) but that's different from outlawing an entire profession.
Jenny Had A Chance at June 23, 2012 6:48 AM
> ::eyeroll::
The countenance of theatrically aggrieved teenagers (or similarly undercooked personalities) is a continuing factor in this discussion. But here's the thing: I ain'tcher Daddy. Society ain't your Mom. We all got better things to worry about than you vapid snark.
> You realize you just said that the government
> is (or should be) to adults as parents and
> nannies are to children, right?
I said nothing of the kind... Kids today don't understand this very well, but there's more to life than government. In this case, the government policy certainly well represents the posture of the People.
> no, genius, I wouldn't want my daughter
> involved in it.
Izzinat sumpin'? Only took, like, three rounds in this exchange before the shame took hold.
> how exactly would hauling her off to
> jail help anyone?
Well, it'll keep your slut (but free-livin') daughter off my streetcorner, where her malfeasance would cripple property values and threaten public health, etc. Perhaps, while sitting in jail, she'll consider whether she should pursue a career in astrophysics, like that Mainzer girl.
> Since she is my daughter, I can happily
> provide other options
There's nothing that magical about you. America provides sensational opportunities to young women who've never even met you.
> All employment is about poverty.
Not so much. Many of us have found work that pulls us out of poverty and keeps us out it. And which doesn't require us to align ourselves with pimps or other violent musclemen. And which isn't so pathetically submissive that we bury our consciousness in drugs. And which ennobles the lives of others throughout the surrounding culture in the middle- and longer terms.
More later
so that she never has to resort to that. I
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 23, 2012 7:20 AM
Crid, a legal brothel means that prostitutes aren't on your street corner. Legality means you don't have to align yourself with violent muscle men.
I'd say that drugs (also should be legal, your body, your business) lead to prostitution quite a bit more often than the other way around. People get hooked on drugs, and become unsuitable for other work and need to continue living until they are ready to pursue sobriety. I don't think it's that common that a self-respecting sober woman decides to become a prostitute, then hates it so much that she drugs herself to continue rather than stopping this hateful action and availing herself of the myriad sensational opportunities that America provides (because apparently, parents have nothing to do with the matter).
"> All employment is about poverty.
Not so much. Many of us have found work that pulls us out of poverty and keeps us out it."
This is basically a restatement of my point. The prostitute is being kept out of abject poverty when she is paid for her services. She may well be kept further from poverty than a McDonalds employee, and she may well be less in need of "burying her consciousness" than anyone else who does unpleasant work. It's up to the individual. Ever work in a chain restaurant? I have, and I've known exactly one prep/line-cook who didn't do drugs and the job certainly wouldn't have kept them out of poverty if they'd stopped doing it---would you say that Applebee's is "pathetically submissive" work? Of course not.
But whatever. You know better than anyone else what women should do with their bodies and men should do with their money. Freedom is just so much libertarian cheerfulness, and women who don't wish to, or cannot, work at McDonalds or go to beauty school should just line up for welfare and men who want to have sex with a willing partner without a relationship or the pretense thereof should just work out their frustration by posting screeds that argue against libertarian ideas on the blog of a noted libertarian.
Jenny Had A Chance at June 23, 2012 8:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/21/sexual_infantil.html#comment-3241494">comment from Jenny Had A ChanceAgree with Jenny above.
Amy Alkon at June 23, 2012 8:54 AM
> this is what they've chosen to do
> with their situation.
Bad choice! Forbidden, destructive, malfeasant, etc. This is part of the grown-up thing: Liberty is not just "choices".
> Mostly these dependency issues make him/her
> unsuitable for other work.
Well, then she'll have to shed the dependency, won't she? That's a seriously fucked-up argument... The school bus driver apologizes for the cliff plunge: Dude, I was soooooo hammered....
> Yes, some women are forced to have sex
> with men they don't want to.
You shouldn't start with "Yes" as if to suggest you're answering my argument rather than the one you want to answer. The problem with prostitution isn't that women sometimes have to suck the goo from penises of men who don't take sufficient interest in their hygiene. There's a constellation of predation from pimps, johns, drug dealers and other corrupting forces which tend to hold them in that line of work without investment in future, or greater enterprise.
> That's terrible and those men who have
> sex by force, or enable other men to, are
> vile rapists who should be prosecuted
> to the fullest extent of the law.
> For rape.
Prosecutions are dear, and public goodwill is pricey. Prosecutors, and the communities which employ them, aren't often eager to move forward on inherently compromised cases. (More on this later today.)
> anyone who's ever sat through
> an econ class
Didja graduate?
> Will trafficking ever go away completely?
This is not your talk show. You shouldn't ask yourself questions.
> that's different from outlawing
> an entire profession.
Accounting is a profession. Law is a profession. Sheet metal and carpet cleaning are professions, with the tax returns to prove it. Prostitution is a vice.
> a legal brothel means that prostitutes
> aren't on your street corner.
They're on somebody's corner, aren't they?
> Legality means you don't have to align
> yourself with violent muscle men.
Right. It means you expect the rest of the society to provide it for you. But I don't love you enough to do that. I place zero (actually negative) value on the thing you're bringing to 'market'. The last, last, last thing I want to pay cops and prosecutors to deal with is a hooker's 'workplace' conflicts. ('Your honor, she said I could fuck her between the tits, but all I got was a handjob... And she charged full price! What will the community do to set right this horrific transgression?!?!?') There are a few industries which I'm not involved in for which borderline extralegal security comes into play... Jewelry, and transfer of certain industrial treasures. But mostly, muscle is what I want to protect women from by forbidding prostitution. And where they observe the law, it works very well indeed.
> I'd say that drugs (also should be legal,
> your body, your business) lead to
> prostitution quite a bit more often
> than the other way around.
Just answered a transatlantic call from the Philosophy and Sociology department at Sorbonne; at this hour, they're preparing for languid Saturday dinners in Paris. But even at that distance, they could feel my howling disinterest in these precious & personal calculations you cite, and they just wanted to give me an attaboy. No prob, Pierre!
__________________
Of course, in the bigger picture, this is tragic... But my heart sings when someone is so wrong. More later.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 23, 2012 9:46 AM
> a legal brothel means that prostitutes
> aren't on your street corner.
They're on somebody's corner, aren't they?
Sure. Theirs. If someone is trying to sell booty (or for that matter, lemonade) on your piece of land, by all means, call the cops. There are laws that prevent other businesses from operating on the sidewalk, too. But if any business person---butcher, baker, Bible salesman, or hooker----owns the land, and it's zoned for commercial use, they can use it as they see fit. You are free to move to an area that is zoned for residential use.
---Accounting is a profession. Law is a profession. Sheet metal and carpet cleaning are professions, with the tax returns to prove it. Prostitution is a vice.
Sure, in the US right now (same a few counties in Nevada). But it's semantics. Profession is what one does to earn living. The government calling prostitution a vice and refusing to issue a tax return doesn't change what it inherently is.
-------------------------------
> Legality means you don't have to align
> yourself with violent muscle men.
Right. It means you expect the rest of the society to provide it for you.
Oh my goodness, the government enforcing contracts between people? Say it ain't so! Everyone knows that the government is only there to keep your neighbors from having sex for reasons you dislike.
-----------------------------------
> Will trafficking ever go away completely?
This is not your talk show. You shouldn't ask yourself questions.
Of course it's not my talk show. It's therapy for your frustration, and I, for one, am happy to help you.
Jenny Had A Chance at June 23, 2012 10:48 AM
> Everyone knows that the government is only there
> to keep your neighbors from having sex for
> reasons you dislike.
THIS IS IT EXACTLY...
American believe so deeply that they have the right to be regarded as more sexually sophisticated than their peers. Americans DEMAND to be admired for their superiority. ALL OF THEM DO... On the basis of dorka del nada.
It's goofy! I mean, like, Daffy Duck™ and Goofy™... You insist on rhetorical war with a cartoon enemy.
I could keep going point by point. If anyone's interested, speak up (coherently), and ask.
Otherwise, know this: The world is full of places where you'll have the "right" (!) to prostitute yourself, your dependents, a maybe a few perfect strangers with the ferocious nuance of a brilliant violinist. And 'government' will NOT interfere. You should move to one of those countries. You might find a couple of other things about those places aren't to your taste. This is NOT about your kindness, or sophistication, or libertarianism, and it CERTAINLY isn't about feminism.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 23, 2012 1:44 PM
Um, no one is calling prostitution sophisticated except you. It's quite the opposite, a very old, traditional thing nearly always pursued by people who are anything but sophisticated (of course Maggie is an outlier). No one is demanding to be admired for superiority, only that they be allowed to choose which avenues of sexuality (if any) they themselves find superior. No one is arguing for the right to prostitute dependents or strangers, only oneself.
I have never once claimed to be feminist (eww), kind or sophisticated. I don't think my stance on prostitution shows me to be kind or sophisticated (I don't think it shows me to be particularly unkind or unsophisticated, either). But whatever.
There are plenty of places where you, Crid, can be surrounded by those who share your desire "protect" women from choosing who to have sex with and why. Some of them even protect women from their choices about what to wear, and protect men from the choice of having sex with another man. But none of those ought to be calling themselves free countries. The United States does call itself a free country, and so should act accordingly.
Jenny Had A Chance at June 23, 2012 2:25 PM
So then the question is, who exactly benefits from hauling sex workers to jail and marginalizing them?
Posted by: Jenny Had A Chance
Why the 'Save women from human trafficking' people. Imagine being given free governemnt money to sit around and write bogus reports based on sketchy statistics to secure even more funding to sit around and write reports . . .
lujlp at June 23, 2012 4:22 PM
> Um, no one is calling prostitution
> sophisticated except you.
No one?
Teen-sarcastic expressions of condescension toward authority are all that this is about. Nothing in the rhetorical posture seen here shows concern for women or anyone else.> She does it to make more money, he
> does it because he prefers that.
Neither fulfillment builds anything that can mean something to other people: Wealth is not created.
> Something tells me that you
> had a very sheltered life.
Better than 'sheltered', Sparky: enriched. Women competing (most especially with men) in the broader economy has created a huge fraction of America's wealth just in my lifetime.
And Chang, in your case, the two eternal themes in your comments here poison your critique. First, your perspective is so very often youthful and naive that I can't help but ask 'How old are you?'... You seem never to have accepted the challenges that grownups answer as a matter of course: Hiring people, disappointments, best effort for second-preference opportunities, and so forth. Furthermore, with a perfect screen of evasion for questions about your background, you seem always to want to pretend that you've come from a culture that handles social challenges will better courage and achivement than does America. It's more ironic than THAT... You want to cling to the churning excellence that America brings to life, even as you pretend to have come from a higher-performing culture... About which you'll say nothing, as if mortified by shame.
> a restatement of my point.
Ludicrous.
> The prostitute is being kept out
> of abject poverty when she is
> paid for her services.
My hatred of poverty only begins with the "abject"; I want and expect women to do what it takes to pull themselves so far out poverty that they need never fear the predations of the monsters described earlier; so far out of poverty that the wealth they create will roll through the rest of their communities in sturdy, rewarding bundles; so far out of poverty that they can be taxed in (nearly) Big-D Democratic style. And I expect their surrounding influences –in law, policy and culture– to encourage and sustain that escape.
> Would you say that Applebee's is
> "pathetically submissive" work?
If it resulted in as little reward for the rest of the community, if it gave as much coercion and sadness to the lives of its workers, and if it spat them, unimproved, into ever-plummeting wage tranches as they aged, I most certainly would.
> men who want to have sex with a willing
> partner without a relationship
Golly, bunny, some of us do OK at that without taint of filthy lucre. I readily concede that some men's 'tudes are so bad that it won't happen for them without prostitution. This suffering is low on my list of society's shortcomings.
> screeds that argue against libertarian
> ideas on the blog of a noted libertarian.
Amy's take on this isn't so much libertarian as reckless; nor am I certain she's so "noted." Let's do a test: Let's count up how many times in the next month she wants to tell other people how to live. This will be good, clean, statistical fun!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 23, 2012 6:05 PM
Crid, just becuase people find you to be a small petty asshole using faux moraility to push you predjudeces doesnt mean everyone thinks sex work is sophisticated.
It just means they can see you for the kind of person you really are
lujlp at June 24, 2012 6:27 AM
"Nothing in the rhetorical posture seen here shows concern for women or anyone else."
You know what shows *tons* of concern for women and men, Crid? A preference to haul them off to jail for having consensual sex, and an unwillingness to "allow" them to use the court system to enforce their contracts if you personally find the conflict icky and "place no value" on it (as though everyone must find value in every single dispute---I could not care less about body waxing, but if a waxer is stiffed, you're damn skippy he should use the court system to enforce his contract). Using tax money to "protect" people by setting up stings to haul them off to jail, with no victim---Okay in Crid's world. Using tax money (which hookers contribute, too, if they are legal) for the same purposes as every other person who needs to enforce a contract----icky, might cause someone to say "tits" in court and therefore not okay. You know what else makes you look like a paragon of concern? Your unwavering defense of "property values" ("they're on somebody's corner") over people's rights and your continued condescending refusal to accept that where prostitutes have legally recognized workplace codes and follow them, the ARE safe from the "predators" you so desperately want the police to protect them fro...well, they are as safe as the rest of us, anyway.
"Amy's take on this isn't so much libertarian as reckless; nor am I certain she's so "noted." Let's do a test: Let's count up how many times in the next month she wants to tell other people how to live. This will be good, clean, statistical fun!"
Vocab lesson: A person who gives advice to her own readers can be libertarian. She'd stop being libertarian if she wanted the government to hand out the advice and enforce penalties if you didn't follow that advice. Like, if you made bad choices.
But okay, Crid. Please do post another diatribe in which you call me a teenager. Then I promise I'll stay off your lawn.
Jenny Had A Chance at June 24, 2012 6:28 AM
Also the only times Amy tells other how to behave is when their behavior is impacting others, ie littering, shouting into cell phones indoors in violation of the property owners plainly published signs, etc
lujlp at June 24, 2012 6:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/21/sexual_infantil.html#comment-3242402">comment from lujlpluj and Jenny are correct. As Jenny writes:
Which I don't.
Amy Alkon at June 24, 2012 6:56 AM
> Your unwavering defense of "property values"
Right. Freedom is about property and values.
> Using tax money to "protect" people by setting
> up stings to haul them off to jail, with no
> victim---Okay in Crid's world.
I said that? Can you post a cite? Or did I merely say that prostitution should be illegal?
> you're damn skippy he should use the court
> system to enforce his contract
So, like, you mean it. You truly hold the, um, guileless faith that other adults want to take time out of their lives, and resources out of their budgets, to sit around and adjudicate these intensely personal and quintessentially trivial fulfillments, mundane burdens which they're often too busy to attend to in their own lives. Public finances fracture and bedrock institutions crumble across the globe, yet you sincerely contend that the world can be made to adjudicate the pettiest imaginable intimacies, those between people who by definition want nothing to do with each other but who pitiably, pathetically strike the tightest imaginable bond for the briefest imaginable interval, as if such projects were supposed to be mutually rewarding. That's what you think civilization, and courts, and adulthood, are for. (Not even for a suntan, which at least could later be enjoyed by others.)
I'm starting to feel bad about it, but the echoes of a snotty childhood are just too loud to ignore. The family's had a difficult visit with Grandma at Thanksgiving, and has to make a 200 mile drive home on a snowy Sunday night; Dad has an early shift at work in the morning as the difficult Christmas rush begins to gel, and Mom's got a burgeoning head cold and her period's about to start. But 10 miles into the trip, the kids have composed a squealing pissfight in the back seat... They think the car should be stopped so Sissy can complain about how Bobby spilled Coke Zero™ on her new dress after she accidentally tore the cover off his comic book.
Noted.
And good luck with that. As a citizen of the finest nation our globe has ever known, you of course have the right to gum up the works of our delicate comity with your personal incompetence. You are fully empowered, nay, hyperempowered to bring civilization's progress to a halt with a comatose recitation of your own developmental failures and intersocial cowardliness. You can make us pay attention.
But you can't make us care.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 24, 2012 8:19 AM
> Using tax money to "protect" people by setting
> up stings to haul them off to jail, with no
> victim---Okay in Crid's world.
I said that? Can you post a cite? Or did I merely say that prostitution should be illegal?
-Crid
Allow me, crid.
prostitution should be illegal
Posted by: Crid at June 24, 2012 8:19 AM
Now, I know you are a little more slow these days so let me break it down for you
If prostitution is illegal, then when police, paid "using tax money", "'protect' people" from prostitution they so so "by setting up stings to haul them {Them=hookers and johns} off to jail". And as is is consetual by both parties there is "no victim"
Does tha make sense sweatheart? Do you undesrstand that you stance has acctuall real world implications?
lujlp at June 24, 2012 12:22 PM
So, like, you mean it. You truly hold the, um, guileless faith that other adults want to take time out of their lives, and resources out of their budgets, to sit around and adjudicate these intensely personal and quintessentially trivial fulfillments, mundane burdens which they're often too busy to attend to in their own lives
[She] said that? Can you post a cite? Or did [she] merely say that [people] should be [able to use the courts to adjudicate contract disputes, even if those people are hookers]?
lujlp at June 24, 2012 12:26 PM
> [She] said that? Can you post a cite?
Sometimes a failure to read is an attitude problem; there's no medical excuse.Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 24, 2012 2:19 PM
" You want to cling to the churning excellence that America brings to life, even as you pretend to have come from a higher-performing culture..."
The high performing U.S. culture explains all the flourishing brothels around U.S. Army bases around the world and the Americans going to sex tourism in Thailand.
We both agree that the one of our finest culture, feminism, is largely responsible for the America's dominance in the world in just about any field. But you error in that the dominance has something to do with U.S. policy that prostitution is illegal. Do you worry about that we will lose our dominance in the world if we made the prostitution legal? Do you worry about that all of the aspiring female medical interns will switch their career goals if prostitution is legal? I think that is an insult to the feminism. What are you afraid of? Or do you simply want BJ but you don't want to pay for it?
You cannot define sex acts in one shade of grey. But it can be defined at least fifty different shades of grey. Your definition is not better or worse than mine. Just different.
Get off from your damn high horse.
chang at June 24, 2012 3:08 PM
Christ crid, you are even more abtuse than usual.
You claimed her postion of allowing people to use court was proof of a belief that 3rd parties wanted to sit on such juries.
She said no such thing
Sometimes a failure to read is an attitude problem; there's no medical excuse.
I assume this is amother dig at my dyslexia? Three thought spring to mind
1. Fuck you
2. Nothing you've written in this last string of exchanges highlights any failure of reading comprehention on my part
3. Incase you are too dumb to figure it out on your own #2 no-so-sublty implies its your reading comprehention which suffers.
3a. And while you might be tempted to blame your failures on my spelling I'd like to point out that everyone else is smart enough to understand
lujlp at June 24, 2012 4:25 PM
But you're not bitter, right?
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 21, 2012 3:47 PM
Crid, such predictable shaming. I'm sorry I missed this thread earlier. Good reading though.
Oh and Crid, you might want to check out craigslist er wait they shut that down, maybe plentyoffish or adultfriendfinder. Lots a "intimate encounters" available, just help pay the bills or fund some new shoes or an ipod. I blame the recession. No, its prostitution stupid! Ban it!
Sio at June 24, 2012 5:14 PM
Crid, are you serious? First of all, as luj pointed out, you can't argue that something should be illegal and then claim that you never said that the people who do it should be jailed. All illegal actions, even those initially punished with fines and community service, have the potential to lead to imprisonment. Even if you prefer to "protect" prostitutes by fining them (which you didn't say, either), people who don't pay that fine go to jail, as do repeat offenders. Illegal = jail time.
Second, who exactly am I asking to "take time out of their lives and resources out of their budgets"? The court's time belongs to every citizen who has an actionable claim and legal sex workers (where they are legal) contribute to its resources as much as any one else who brings a claim of non-payment, such as hairdressers, dog-sitters, housekeepers, and landlords. Hearing and adjudicating cases IS the court's life, and the whole point of its resources. Judges aren't always thrilled with every case that comes before them, but that's their job. Prostitute/john cases will not be unique in irritating civil court judges.
Besides, the subject of prostitution will always be addressed in courts---either those accused of it will be tried in the criminal courts (where I doubt that judges are particularly enthused about the subject) or OCCASIONAL disputes will be settled by civil courts. I emphasize 'occasional' because, as with other situations, it will be a hassle for a hooker or john to take time out her/his busy life to go file a claim, serve the other party, gather evidence, etc etc etc so most of the time, most parties will not even bother and simply write off the loss. Not only that, but hookers will have fewer problems with payment when the practice is legal---just knowing that a prostitute or brothel CAN sue him, and that the lawsuit will be public record, available to anyone who can google, will be a powerful motivator to the sorts of "predators" who would happily rip off a hooker who had no recourse except maybe an equally predatory pimp. Ask your hairdresser, massage therapist, dentist or any other small business people how often they get stiffed (not very) and how often they take it to court (even less). Nevada has dealt with it fine.
"I'm starting to feel bad about it, but the echoes of a snotty childhood are just too loud to ignore."
Oh, Crid. Another parent/child analogy. In this one the government plays the parents and citizens (hookers or otherwise) play the spoiled, contentious children. Oh, my. It doesn't work any better than your first attempt, when you compared stubborn self-determining women to overtired 8-year-olds...but it's good to hear the classics and "Daddy Government knows best/has better things to do than play referee" is definitely a classic.
Jenny Had A Chance at June 24, 2012 7:57 PM
"You claimed her postion of allowing people to use court was proof of a belief that 3rd parties wanted to sit on such juries.
She said no such thing"
Yeppers. And just in case Crid needs it reiterated again, I don't think that third parties want to sit on ANY juries. Which sucks, but it's necessary. With the status quo, ordinary working stiffs have to sit on juries that decide whether to convict people of having sex for the "wrong" reason (that would be prostitution, Crid) and I'm positive they're not thrilled about that.
Of course, if prostitution were legal, most disputes between hookers and johns (nonpayment, suing for refund due to unsatisfactory services) would be handled in civil court, which uses jurors far less frequently, and particularly small-claims court, which doesn't use them at all. So, hey, the only people involved in court who DO have to take time out of their lives and resources from their budgets would actually be burdened less, not more, by simply allowing hookers to settle their disputes in court.
Jenny Had A Chance at June 24, 2012 8:08 PM
You're all wrong. More tomorrow.
(Or just reread.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 24, 2012 10:11 PM
It may be much later today, or even tomorrow. It'll probably be kinda long. But that's the thing, right? My insights are so keen and my perspective is so broad that you know the blog comment will be worth waiting for.
On a number of occasions, publishers have asked for permission to condense my offerings into semi-annual monographs. While the profits might have been substantial, I've always turned them down, feeling that these works deserved to be seen in their original context.
Unfortunately, this sometimes means that you'll have to look back into the archive to receive the radiance... Or that –as in this case– you'll have to demonstrate a little bit of patience as our mutual orbits return from apogee.
But you know (as I most certainly do) that you have nothing better to do with your time than wait for me.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 25, 2012 7:55 AM
My insights are so keen and my perspective is so broad that you know the blog comment will be worth waiting for.
Realy? In my experiance the longer posts inspired by your more, earnest & assinine postitions rely primarily on needlessly verbose vocabulary, secondarily on rephrasing and insulting other people and their postitions without ever provideing any real argument, and thirdly on basing you talking points around the frnakinstein like kludges of texts you've selectivly quoted and paraphrased
Who wants to lay odds that this time will somehow be different?
lujlp at June 25, 2012 3:05 PM
Well, spanking idiot children isn't THAT fun, or I'd have had some of my own. Go ahead and roll through your pathetic, lonesome lives, pissing yourselves in certainty that there's something libertarian about insisting that the surrounding community help you get laid, at competitive "prices", without attachment. Yours is a government that will readily accept the chore.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 25, 2012 6:02 PM
Christ crid, did you even try? I mean, did you even notice I prediceted the exact tenor of your response?
Also since when is three sentances considered long? Or broad?
And how would you condense all of it into an entire monograph?
You do realise condense means reduce, right?
You can hardly make an essay out of one parapgaph, let alone a paragraph thats been condensed.
Also no one has insisted the comunity do anything other than mind their own business and leave people engaged in volentary victimless behavior alone. No ones suggested the take a collection or form exploratory commitees on hooking fees
lujlp at June 25, 2012 10:24 PM
More later ☺
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 27, 2012 2:53 PM
I am so looking forward to making time to finishing this one off, and am intensely glad that everyone's still reading.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 28, 2012 5:04 AM
Look, peeps, you need to be patient. The forthcoming blog comment will be dispositive... Lives will be changed . Minds will be opened, souls will be glorified.
Specifically for Chang, Jenny, Llookeepoojilick, Amy and Sio. And isn't that worth the wait? Of course it is.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 29, 2012 6:45 AM
Its been four days, stop stroking what I hope is just your ego and get on with it fucktard
lujlp at June 29, 2012 1:50 PM
Excellence can't be rushed. Don't let your blinding, furious, curse-inspiring desire for moral instruction disrupt a perfectly wonderful weekend: Emotions are fueled as much by response as by stimuli.
Patience.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 29, 2012 2:12 PM
It isnt my desire for moral instructuon that inspires my cursing criddy-poo. Its you, its a nasty habit I picked up in an abusive home as a child, the one you said I and other abused childen asked for.
Its the pervese sense of joy you recieve from ridiculing people as stupid for having a learning disability
Its your mother-fucking goddamn hypocricy, your ala carte aproach to both 'morality' and reality wherein you can never be wrong about any subject because your ego can not bear the burden that someone else might have tumble to some idea before you were ready to find it yourself
You are bigot, you are a sick twisted individual who derives joy from the suffering of others, and you are the worst kind of hyporcite - the kind that seeks to control the choices and actions of others 'for their own good' via some bullshit morailty no matter the real word consequences to your prospective victims.
Eat shit and die
lujlp at June 29, 2012 7:59 PM
Amy's use of "infantilization" in the title of this one is perverse... And "government" isn't your problem. The surrounding community doesn't like prostitution, and declines to assist you in the perfection of the exchange. America wants you to be grown up, not infantile, and not primitive.
The taxpayer is not your Dad.
_____________
> The high performing U.S. culture explains
> all the flourishing brothels around U.S.
> Army bases around the world
Right. (How many other nations have bases around the world?) When our vital young men get lonely out there and don't have the company of modern, self-sufficient women available, they walk off-base as if stepping through a time portal to see what primitive solutions are at hand. And for those who're righteously concerned about the well-being of those cultures, the question takes a new form—
> Americans going to sex tourism
> in Thailand.
One wonders why Thais aren't offering better opportunities (and protection) for women (and others), as is Kansas and New Mexico and North Carolina.
> But you error in that the dominance has
> something to do with U.S. policy that
> prostitution is illegal
What's interesting about that sentence is that you offer no reason to believe it, nor does it cohere to the passage by which you introduce it. Our policy, and the dignity with which we ennoble women, has everything to do with our 'dominance'.
Chang, you're from Korea, right? Asia in any case. Well, that's ducky... Welcome aboard, sincerely.
But here's the thing. Immigrants often try to bring more cultural freight than they can carry when moving to the United States. This is obvious, normal, and pathetic. You left whatever culture you came from because the United States offers you a better life. There's no point in coming here if you weren't ready to embrace that life and shed the beliefs that kept your source culture from giving you the liberty you need. It ain't a cafeteria. No one promised you the adjustments would be trivial or tasty. This might hurt; in this case, it may hurt in the boner.
Nor is this problem seen only in immigrants. Across the world, people of lesser cultures tamp their admiration and envy of the United States through daydreams of some stinging lesson they could teach us, some little bitchslap of truth that we happen to have overlooked. Michael Kelly put it really well shortly after the 9/11:
And we know about fucking, Chang; your perspective is neither eternal nor novel. If you feel so ashamed by our policy that you need mock it as a "high horse," you're probably finding that responsibility is a bigger component of liberty than you'd imagined, in the sexual realm as in many others. The citizens who welcome you to their number can sympathize, but only to a certain degree.
The taxpayer is not your Dad.
_____________
> such predictable shaming. I'm sorry
> I missed this
I'll shame anybody for being stupid. But that's not what you were getting at, right? You want to cast opponents as naive hillbilly elders, preaching buffoons who're teaching you to feel unclean, and fucking with your soulspace in some sort of parentally psychological way.
But, y'know, that doesn't really apply. Nobody cares. You can go out and fuck anybody you want, and have as detached an experience of it as you want. Your fulfillment is not a concern to anybody either way. And Craigslist isn't of interest, nor is Bonnie Brae or Sepulveda or whatever the prostitution neighborhood of note is this year.
The taxpayer is not your Dad.
_____________
> you can't argue that something should
> be illegal and then claim that you
> never said that the people who do
> it should be jailed.
I don't have to argue any such thing: People shouldn't do prostitution. If people didn't do it, there would be no "victims" of any kind, and no jail. That's how society protects everyone.
> those accused of it will be tried in
> the criminal courts (where I doubt that
> judges are particularly enthused about
> the subject)
And God Bless 'em. I hate it when other people's incompetent sexuality impinges on my life, too.
> OCCASIONAL disputes will be settled
> by civil courts.
Interesting capitalization! So there's some force out there that's going to make things go well if we legalize it... As if pimps are in the business not because they know it involves men and women at their most vulnerable and exploitable, but just because they're attracted to lawbreaking.
> it will be a hassle for a hooker or john
> to take time out her/his busy life to go
> file a claim, serve the other party,
> gather evidence, etc etc etc
That doesn't stop anyone in any other realm of law. And if elides the larger point: Americans don't want to deal with this. And there are some very good reasons not to.
Americans are smart people, and they're smart in intimate ways. They recognize the fundamental theme of this foolishness: "Sex work is work; it's no better or worse than any other job." Americans know that this isn't so. There's really no reason to believe that a full culture of people can make eye contact, "Negotiate, pay or be paid, have sex, see ya later." Americans understand that these feelings are too volatile and deeply-felt to be discharged that way in a culture as liberal and demanding as ours. In a freewheeling economy like this, prostitution is always going to be mostly about violence and intimidation and social incompetence. Telling Americans that the encounters and consequences resulting from these feelings are as mundane as those for a court action over a dispute with a plumber will only confirm to them that you're not well oriented and/or attached in your own life. They will not nourish your daydreams that the moon is square, that water is actually made of rock, or that sex works well as a trivial commercial pursuit.
Besides, despite this hipster posturing, you know the truth. You'll never tell the women in your life that instead of going to school or trying to run a business which ultimately failed, they should have spent the summer sucking cock.
In Amy's Julia Roberts fantasy, the prostitute wears great clothes. She builds and executes her own schedule using the latest update from Google Calendar, drives to appointments in a late-model import, and delivers such thundering fulfillment to such high-minded clientele that there's never any need for muscle, let alone law enforcement participation; generous and prompt payments flow readily into her accounts without dispute. And then our heroine retires to her 427 acres in Montana to spend her sunset years studying high-energy physics and knitting.
It's a hard fantasy to argue with... And when it works out that way, I'll begrudge the whore only the tax value which she'll almost certainly have removed from the community of cleaning ladies, nannies, and cubicle-drone women who surrounded her. Otherwise, how could I complain? My dick ain't involved.
Just one thing, though... If there was that single afternoon in her career when things went horribly wrong, and that one elegant client who ran an international shipping firm turned out to be not a nice guy but a foaming psychopath who beat the shit out of her and kicked the hearing out her left ear, I am not going to want to hear the story. Because I tried to protect her by suggesting that she obey the law... Sorry, Lefty.
> the government plays the parents and
> citizens (hookers or otherwise) play
> the spoiled, contentious children
No. Weak rhetors insist on recapitulating family and personality-individuation issues (e.g., "::eyeroll::") with a surrounding society (within government and without) which doesn't give a fuck. And shouldn't.
The taxpayer is not your Dad.
_____________
> its a nasty habit I picked up in
> an abusive home as a child...
Got it. There's been this tone of unquenchable rage in your comments for a long time, since long before I decided that courtesies were useless in your case.
> ...the one you said I and other abused
> childen asked for.
I could ask for a cite, but would it matter? You're eager to show real anger to someone and get away with it. In this stack alone:
Comments like these, with a continuing disregard for the perspectives of others on any topic, made me think there was no point in responding as an individual. Communication isn't your intent. You WANT to be congestively angry... OK, so go nuts.Here's thing though, as noted above: I'm not your parents. It's a shame that they did nasty things, but it's got nothing to do with me, or with other taxpayers, or with any of the topics we talk about here... Even for those of us who disagree with you about small things, or about large things, whether we're nice about it or whether we're snotty. We just don't care. We don't care whether that means you can't get laid without hookers, and we don't care if they cheat you when you try.
Especially at this hour, so poignantly in this week —perhaps more than any in our nation's history– there are more people taking your perspective on the assignment of culpability for personal sorrow than are taking mine. On the other hand, we are out of fuckin' money. The well's run dry, and not just in the United States. And bedsides...
The taxpayer is not your Dad.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 30, 2012 5:40 PM
Section 1
I don’t know, seems to me like when others treat you as too stupid to make your own choices the definition of infantilazation is apt
The taxpayer is not your Dad.
Then why is it telling me how to act?
_____________
Section 2
Counting Embassies most countries have bases around the world.
What is the new question?
While you are trying to figure that out, ask yourself this. Why is it less degrading for those women to work ‘real’ jobs for 16 hrs a day at 1/25th the salary with working conditions that get Americans jail time were they to subject animals to them?
> But you error in that the dominance has
> something to do with U.S. policy that
> prostitution is illegal
What's interesting about that sentence is that you offer no reason to believe it, nor does it cohere to the passage by which you introduce it. Our policy, and the dignity with which we ennoble women, has everything to do with our 'dominance'.
Then explain the lack of dominance of third world countries which also outlaw prostitution
And perhaps I missed it but what point were trying to make about terrorism?
The taxpayer is not your Dad.
Then why is it poking its nose into my business?
_____________
Section 3
> such predictable shaming. I'm sorry
> I missed this
I'll shame anybody for being stupid.
Actually you try and shame people for disagreeing with you
Nobody cares.
If that were true you wouldn’t have taken FIVE DAYS to compile and respond
You can go out and fuck anybody you want, and have as detached an experience of it as you want. Your fulfillment is not a concern to anybody either way.
If that were true you wouldn’t have taken FIVE DAYS to compile and respond
The taxpayer is not your Dad.
The why is it trying to punish me for behavior it doesn’t like?
_____________
Section 4
And God Bless 'em. I hate it when other people's incompetent sexuality impinges on my life, too.
Wait a minute, didn’t you just say you didn’t care?
> OCCASIONAL disputes will be settled
> by civil courts.
So there's some force out there that's going to make things go well if we legalize it...
Wait a second, didn’t you just get after someone for note quoting you verbatim? Please point out in direct quotes where she said ‘some force out there that's going to make things go well if we legalize it’
> it will be a hassle for a hooker or john . . .
That doesn't stop anyone in any other realm of law.
Actually it does, that was her point
Americans don't want to deal with this. And there are some very good reasons not to.
Americans don’t want to settle custody disputes over dogs and potted plants and frozen sperm samples either. The courts are used to settle all sorts of disputes those wrangled into jury duty don’t give a fuck about
[biased screed about Americans and the deep nature of sex and how prostitution is nothing but violence]
This coming from the guy who publicly refused to read anything on the subject from actual hookers. Tell us Crid, where do you get your info on the “True Nature Of Prostitution”?
Besides, despite this hipster posturing, you know the truth. You'll never tell the women in your life that instead of going to school or trying to run a business which ultimately failed, they should have spent the summer sucking cock.
Funny how doing it for cash is wrong, but doing it for that degree which gets you hired into a business it is empowering
In Amy's Julia Roberts fantasy, . . . It's a hard fantasy to argue with... And when it works out that way, . . ., how could I complain? My dick ain't involved.
And yet, here you are, complaining. Care to explain?
I'll begrudge the whore only the tax value which she'll almost certainly have removed from the community of cleaning ladies, nannies, and cubicle-drone women who surrounded her.
How does she remove from the tax value of menial laborers and babysitters exactly?
Just one thing, though... If there was that single afternoon in her career when things went horribly wrong, and that one elegant client who ran an international shipping firm turned out to be not a nice guy but a foaming psychopath who beat the shit out of her and kicked the hearing out her left ear, I am not going to want to hear the story.
But what if the cleaning lady or the nanny got the shit beat out of her? Would you care then?
Because I tried to protect her by suggesting that she obey the law...
I see, as she failed to obey you and your edicts she is no longer worthy of basic human dignity or redress thru the courts. Right, those are only for real people, not filthy whores.
The taxpayer is not your Dad.
Then why does it disown ‘disobedient’ daughters?
_____________
Section 4
. . . since long before I decided that courtesies were useless in your case.
Right, and do you recall the reason you gave as to why courtesy was useless in my case? Was it my tone, no it wasn’t that, was it my ideals, nope, not that either. Oh I remember now, it was my spelling, that pesky little problem with a neurological learning disability that you prefer to consider laziness and stupidity.
I could ask for a cite, but would it matter?
Not really. I find it amazing the deference you expect others to confer to you when you refuse to do the same. You said abuse victims asked for it, I specifically gave you the chance to retract that statement in regards to children and you did not
Comments like these, [various insults]with a continuing disregard for the perspectives of others on any topic,
Christ that’s funny coming from you. You reflexively refuse to even look at data which disagrees with your positions. You go out of your way to ridicule me for a learning disability and then get all offended when, rather than kiss your ass in submissive supplication, I tell you to fuck off
The taxpayer is not your Dad.
Then maybe he should stop acting like he is
And finally it seems my prediction of your response at June 25, 2012 3:05 PM was 100% accurate
lujlp at July 1, 2012 4:29 PM
> You said abuse victims asked for it, I
> specifically gave you the chance to
> retract that statement in regards to
> children and you did not
That's the kind of exchange you want from the internet; that's the narrative you compose.
Good luck out there.
Crid at July 2, 2012 1:34 PM
So out of all of this the one thing you want to take the time to defend is the time you said abused children were asking for it?
And you wonder why I tell you to fuck off?
lujlp at July 3, 2012 6:29 PM
Leave a comment