Always use the Cone of Silence when you must discuss classified matters with the Chief.

2. Do not patronize prostitutes.

Seriously, did any of the rest of you know, prior to this scandal, that the Secret Service was no longer part of the U.S. Treasury?

"2. Do not patronize prostitutes." Crid.
2a. Treat Prostitutes with respect as working professionals with similar stature to yourself.
2b. Pay the agreed rate on time, and in full, for services rendered.
2c. Always indicate you appreciation for their professional services.
2d. Always hire professionals, and avoid amateurs, as they are likely to impede your mission, and do less than impressive work.

2. Do not patronize prostitutes.

Yeah, sorry as a secret service member there are lots of things you cant do. Patronizing hookers is one of them. (And I'm all for hookers). I'd be against them doing online dating too.

My bro right is on hire with the euro union. He can't have any contact with anyone for 5 months. There are certain personal sacrifices that must be made when you are in any kind of secret service.

Not having worked SS or any other details, but having a general understanding...

What probably happened was the advance team went through and swept the rooms for bugs and other devices. They stationed a couple armed junior officers on both end, and then went to party.

They were either on another floor or another hotel. The idiot(s) that did the partying didn't understand the terms. So they were fucked.

Way back when, in the Philippines, I checked into a $150 per night room. (The hotel next door was $30. I was drunk and horny.) The checkout was 8:00 AM, they nailed me for an extra $150 that I was obligated to pay. I won't go into the ordeal.

I didn't understand the local customs. I paid for it. This is probably the SS defense.

If the hooker was paid -- fuck it -- not a big dealo.

> 2a. Treat Prostitutes with respect as working
> professionals with similar stature to yourself.

But I don't respect them as professionals, which they are not... They're prostitutes. This is just one reason we don't capitalize it when we type it out.

Furthermore, "Treat Prostitutes with respect as working professionals" is essentially identical to the thing Amy had yesterday about people pretending that Mommies were due all the respect given to business leaders.

It's not at all the same thing Crid. They're providing a specified service for a certain amount of money. Prostitutes have a lot more in common with lawyers or accountants than mothers.

And surely everyone knows you pay them, but if you can, afterwards.

> To tell the truth, I hadn't given the laddies
> a thought in years.

Me neither, but they've been in the budget all along. I somehow have less faith in them knowing they're part of the "homeland" enterprise.

Does anyone have a few hours to listen to my harangue about the stupidity of a branch of the United States government called "homeland"? No? OK, another day, then.


> Prostitutes have a lot more in common with
> lawyers or accountants than mothers.

Oh, this is so BOGUS...

Why do contemporary Americans feign erotic sophistication (and libertarian fortitude) through these goofy chirps about prostitution?

Prostitution SUCKS. It's about poverty and drugs and incompetence, emotional and otherwise. It builds nothing, elides taxation and regulation, and speaks most often to our mutual detachment. These are not things that would improve if it were made legal, something that righteous Americans have had the good sense to avoid... Despite our penchant for busybody intrusion.

Yeah, sure... Every blue moon, someone will convincingly claim to know a prostitute who thrived, or to have been a prostitute who thrived. But in the vast, VAST majority of cases, this is about poverty, intimidation, and goonish fumbling on the part of all players.

Most of this blogcomment puffery is from people who don't have any prostitution in their lives. The women in their families don't do it, and the puffers would be devastated if they did. The puffers don't have to deal with what it means to be in a neighborhood where this goes on. They don't have to deal with the drugs, or the abortions, the myriad diseases, the strong-armed security or the violent security failures.

You really need to do this? You're that detached from people who can hook you up (whether to tail or lunch money) out of sheer affection? Or you're somehow in a condition of deformity or weakness so that you can't make it happen any other way?

Wo-key fine. But can you keep me, Joe Taxpayer, out of it? That'd be ducky.

Because I don't pester you with my sexual idiocies, do I?

(that wuz me)

Again... Be glad it wasn't your (little) sister.

3. Don't beclown yourself, and don't beclown your boss. Especially the latter. Bosses don't like that.

3. If you think "Wheels up, rings off" is a good rule, don't get married.

Obviously that should have been #4. IP fail.

"If you think "Wheels up, rings off" is a good rule, don't get married."

Yeah, when you're living in a fish bowl, "what goes TDY stays TDY" isn't a very useful rule.

Prostitutes have a lot more in common with lawyers or accountants than mothers.

Let me know when they have to attend Prositute School for several years, and upon graduating take a test to acheive certification in the field.

Darth, the school takes place throughout their primary school years, the "certification test" is applied by every new customer, and the penalty for poor performance is often applied immediately and violent. You?

Everybody's uppity about their profession. Ages ago, Spruill Ave in Charleston was patrolled by a number of whores trolling for the sailors at the Navy base there. While I never employed one, I'm not too proud to speak to anyone, and so I struck up a conversation with one I recognized at a club in North Charleston out by the AFS. She said she was doing well enough, sailors being her preferred customers, and she had never been on welfare. So there's that; how about the Occupy crowd for comparison? YMMV.

More rules of Secret Agent-cy:

Don't give the number to your shoe phone to just anybody.

The hot, hot, hot chick paying attention to you IS too good to be true.

They will see you if you let them.

> she had never been on welfare.

We ask much more of "professions", including taxation, charity, and community involvement.

Crid. It's a joke. I was taking the other meaning of patronize, since I thought it a joke thread...

#1. Don't forget to keep everything Secret when a Secret agent. It's in the name.

This incident didn't become front page news around the world because a Secret Serviceman hired a prostitute, like who knows how many others had before him. It made the news because he tried to bilk a prostitute.

In this corner, we have a woman who was probably born & raised in a tin shack in the jungle, but is now working as a legal prostitute in a legal red-light district, entitled to the same legal protection as any other Colombian citizen.

In the other corner, we have a guy who was raised with all the freedom & opportunities that come with being a citizen of the world's richest, most powerful country, and who worked his way into a very prestigious job. Then he got sent to Colombia on the taxpayers dime, where he felt entitled to hire that prostitute, flaunt Colombian law by throwing her out and refusing to pay the agreed-upon fee for services rendered, and who only began to comprehend the incredible idiocy of what he had done when she went to hotel security, who went to the cops, who all marched over to his hotel room to help her sort him out.

You're entitled to your opinion. In my opinion, only one of these two people is a scumbag.

"Or you're somehow in a condition of deformity or weakness so that you can't make it happen any other way?"

You could go on like that all day, but the guy who hires a prostitute and then tries to bilk her is still more contemptible by orders of magnitude than the guy who just hires a prostitute.

I'm sure most of them knew what they were getting into, but I keep wondering why the $47 guy would be so stupid.

Is it possible that he thought it wasn't a transaction initially, and when she asked him to pay up, he thought, "Oh, f---, she's a pro!" and figured if he paid her, he was then acknowledging a greater misdeed?

Anyway, remember the part of about most of these guys being married? Extramarital affair = lost security clearance.

"Is it possible that he thought it wasn't a transaction initially...?"

IP, in all the accounts I've read, the price was agreed on the evening before:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/world/americas/colombian-escort-speaks-about-secret-service-scandal.html?pagewanted=all

"We ask much more of "professions", including taxation, charity, and community involvement."

The prostitute paid exactly as much tax as a little over 50% of Americans; I have no idea how much she or her "sisters" give to charity; there is nothing whatsoever that says a prostitute is NOT involved in the community.

Here's how this works: Charleston whore gets paid by sailors, so some of your tax money (IIRC, an E-6 back then was paid about $2600/month) went to the sailor's entertainment fund. As you know, sailors spend money on wine, women, song and foolishly otherwise. A sad thing is that I know of several sailors who would be better off as regular customers than marrying the poor creature they ended up with.

Hey, cheer up: at work, our guys diverted about $3 million of your tax money from their own accounts to The United Way this year. I think the high was about $12 million back in 1991, when there were 3 times as many out here and everyone in the USA felt prosperous. Did you know The United Way has the name and Social Security Number of every Savannah River Site employee, possibly even the ones with Sigma badges on the Personnel Reliability Program? Neat, huh?

Crossing threads lightly, I suggest that the prostitute is relieving the hard-working housewife mentioned in another of Amy's posts from relentless sexual pressure, which would interfere with that work.

More rules of Secret Agent-cy:

Some people, like Winston Rowntree, get it.

> The prostitute paid exactly as much tax as
> a little over 50% of Americans

Apparently some "professionals" should be excused from filing if you think they or their jobs are cute. Otherwise, it would be fun to watch you compose the chart of their rates. Young fertiles marketing over the phone, percentage X; aging addicts doing street sales, percentage Y.....

> I have no idea how much she or her "sisters"
> give to charity;

My point exactly. I know I'm nearly an order of magnitude more charitable than the Vice President of the United States... Because he's a professional, and he's required to file.

> there is nothing whatsoever that says a
> prostitute is NOT involved in the community.

And we can imagine the campaign for a seat on the school board—

[✓] The owner of the John Deere dealership on the state highway just past the edge of town (about a mile from the junction with the Interstate) talks about building his business in post-Reagan American (finding financing with the local banks, seeking contracts with local farming corporations and co-ops, building a reputation for fair prices and good service), his attendance at church, and the experiences of his growing children in the classrooms themselves.

[_] Your "professional" talks about giving handies to long-haul guys out at the truck stop on a rainy February night.

Two perspectives on the same community... See what I mean?

"Apparently some "professionals" should be excused from filing if you think they or their jobs are cute.

Sigh. No, you've just made up something again. It's not about what I think. That's a simple fact. Taxation is not an indication of any prowess, and so it's not an indication of professional stature.

Maybe you want to see a business license?

So Joe Biden is the anti-whore? I bet. Who would hire him? I have no idea how much a prostitute gives to charity because of two things that ALSO prohibit YOU from knowing: 1) I don't have one capable of representing the profession to ask, and 2) public records don't contain all charity action. Your bad.

I had no idea that being involved in the community was totally defined by running for office. Do you want to discuss Ciccolina, or confine this again to whatever you want to count?

I've never said that whores are pillars of the community, etc., but I will now state that it is difficult to state a difference in morality between a prostitute - not pretending to be virtuous - and some politicians.

Crid, your assumption that American escorts don't have to worry about the IRS and don't register their businesses is mistaken:

http://dating.com/escort-resources/ways-for-escort-to-avoid-tax-issues.do

State-by-state:

http://dating.com/escort-resources/business-registration/by-state/

I'll mention here that, as legal prostitutes, the women in question here would certainly be known entities to whatever agency collects taxes for the Colombian government, just as all the ladies at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch are known to the IRS.

> Taxation is not an indication of any prowess

I don't care whether hookers have "prowess" or not. Wise cultures tax professions attentively... And whaddya know, Hookers don't much have to deal with that.

> Do you want to discuss Ciccolina, or
> confine this again to whatever you
> want to count?

Nope, quite the reverse. You guys seem to be constructing a teen fantasy realm where the exceptions to any rule ("Moonlight Bunny Ranch"!) are so personally enthralling that they point your imagination towards a a bold new planet of respect and acceptance for prostitution. To wit...

> assumption that American escorts don't have
> to worry about the IRS and don't register
> their businesses is mistaken

...As if anyone else in our tax base, the cobblers or waitresses or auto insurers, had faith that prostitutes were declaring their income or paying a fair share.

Or, as if the rest of us WANTED to be sure... As if we WANTED to compose and enforce this fantasy tax code of yours, for mischief which most regard as immoral, criminal, pathetic, none of our fuckin' bees wax, and something that sensible people joyously exchange without concern for grubby lucre.

Or, as if...

> whatever agency collects taxes for
> the Colombian government

...the imbecile bastard daughters of Cartagena's alcoholics were of interest to us. THAT'S THE POINT: They are not.


Besides, Martin, I though you weren't even from the United States. What do you care about our tax codes?

Besides, what is this shit:

> I had no idea that being involved in the
> community was totally defined by running
> for office.

What the fuck CAN you count on these idiots for? Blood drives? Participation in the Bike-A-Thon for Breast Cancer? Attendance at public hearings for the Department of Water and Power?

Prostitution, from each side of the exchange, is about being a burden to the community. It's not a realm of work that people get into (or patronize) because they're thinking about the big picture.

PS- Swissy was being more satiric than I gave him credit for... Apologies.

Listen, it's dark in here sometimes, and when you see to shadowy figures chasing around, it's hard to tell who's the hunter and who's the prey.

Drezner considers the issue from the perspective of a mature political scientist.

Has anyone here been to South or Central America? I am by no means offering up a defense for these Secret Service Agents (I think they are creeps) but a lot of comments seem to be giving these prostitutes etc waaayyyy too much in the way of assumption of integrity.

When I was in Nicaragua, within the first 20 minutes I had twenty dollars stolen from me in a parking lot from a guy insisting (INSISTING) on taking my luggage to the shuttle. The shuttle driver said not a word, no help. He just saw my bag there and was ripping it from my hands.... I was begging him to give me the bag back and he wouldn't. When he got to the shuttle he demanded payment - all I had was a twenty and held it up asking my friends "anyone got change" boom, he was off like a dart.

Anyway, make a long story short - 5 minutes later I had the cop, the kid and the shuttle driver all giving me the "I don't know, didn't you give him the money...." Clearly, this was not by chance and they all benefited.

In Argentina, cab drivers, police and robbers work in unison to rob tourists ALL THE TIME. My cousin has had this happen to him three times now in the last ten years. All his money, clothes, shoes, belt, wallet, everything but his underwear was taken and he was left to walk home naked.

These things happen in countries like this. I am not so sure this wasn't just a little amateur extortion plot that unknowingly fell upon on high profile clients and tried to take full advantage of the situation. When they found out who they were, they went in for the kill and didn't expect all the media attention they got. They probably expected these guys would pay instead of risking the fallout.

Which goes back to what Crid said. Don't patronize prostitutes.

Just not so sure why people are so inclined to make these prostitutes into some morally, courageous and innocent creatures.

Just not so sure why people are so inclined to make these prostitutes into some morally, courageous and innocent creatures.

Posted by: Feebie

We're not, but neither are we demonizing them and labeling them sub human becasuse the product they sell isnt shoes or someth other object you can take home with you

> neither are we demonizing them and labeling
> them sub human

You're approaching these women with compassionate boners! You just want to approach them as social equals. You want to make a respectful connection... And then squirt your ennobling load all over at 'em.

But first, you negotiate the lowest possible price... I mean, they may be human and all, but you're nobody's fool, right? The whole point is that YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LET ANY MERE WOMAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU... You're proudly masculine!

Just like the boys in the Secret Service.

But us, we're labeling! That's what's wrong with us!

We label... And we judge.

Steyn.

No Crid. The problem is that your opinion is moronic and presumptive and can only possibly be held by somebody with no experience beyond his own nation's borders, and beholden to a moral and ethical code that demands not just judgement (which is fine, don't trust anybody who won't judge anybody) but the IMPOSITION of that moral code on every other person in the country, and not JUST in the country, but on how they follow the laws rules and customs of the countries they travel to.

You can bitch and moan about poor prostitutes all day long, but its just more of the same victim projection and big daddy paternalism and women as eternal victims talk. As if trading sex for money is somehow bad for the buyer and the seller. If I were still in europe and reading off your commentary to some of the hookers I knew over there, they'd laugh at you so hard not even viagra could get you up again.

...that is if they weren't scratching your eyes out or siccing the bouncers on your stupid ass. And if they didn't, their husbands would. (Yes more than a few are married). They get tested regularly for STDs, the date of which is put on the doors outside of every room, which is invariably immaculate, bouncers at the doors make sure every establishment is free of violence, safe sex is mandatory, and when the girls want to quit, they just quit.

You were safer banging one of them than you are dating in some American cities. I can't attest squat about South America.

But Crid, the problem is that there IS no problem that required national attention. People made a problem out of less than nothing, then tried to paint a victim where in all likelihood, there is none, and then dictatorial little ignorant minds like yours seek to impose your ideal rules on others, not only in our own country, but in other sovereign nations...and you actually think you're being righteous.

You're being the worst kind of fool, the fool that thinks he's somehow being good. Next time (if there was EVER a first time) that you travel overseas, like say to Europe, go to a brothel, hire a hooker, not to bang her, but to talk to her. If you have the guts to test your ignorance that masks itself as a point of view, find out how she lives and how she does, you might be surprised to find that your poor victim woman belief, and your contempt for her profession is most unwelcome, unappreciated, and unrealistic. But I doubt you will, because I doubt you have the courage to do that. Its easier to hide and sneer from where you are, and snuggle comfortably in your blanket contempt and warm yourself in the comforting glow of your ignorance.

Sex is a skill like any other, some people do it well enough to make a living at it. More power to em. Why is working with one part of the body (or more) more contemptible than working with your hands, head, or anything else?

If the shining example of your life or the commanding power of your reasoning were going to persuade people about this, we'd know by now.

Anything else?

Three things
1. Your hatred for these women is palatable
2. You have a tell, Crid. The less you know about a subject the more verbose and animated you become on the subject, almost as though you belive talking liouder is more effective then argueing rationally
3. I see no difference between a woman selling her pussy by the hour and a guy selling his body to dig ditches by the hour. And for all your manufactured moral outrage you have yet to give one example of how it is different

> 1. Your hatred for these women is palatable

We understand each other perfectly. "Palatable"! (Well, not hatred so much as spiritless pity.)

> you belive talking liouder is more effective
> then argueing rationally

It's not that I speak so loudly –these are penny-per-thousand blog comments, after all, and read by a dozen on the best day– but that my clear reasoning rattles your skull like Damnation's own thunder.

> I see no difference between a woman selling her
> pussy by the hour and a guy selling his body to
> dig ditches by the hour

Not really a surprise, but no harm in having it on record: You think the greatest intimacy a woman can offer a man is "no different" than digging a ditch. In dirt.

Noted!

Next...?

Where's Swissy? I wanna be sure he knows I apologized.

Crid the fact of the matter is sex is just a physical act. The most intimate thing a woman can give a man is her love.

But the fact remains that not all wives love their husbands or give them sex, and not all males are prominate enough to score their own woman even if only for one night.

Sex is a biological impulse, not your and every 5yr old girls dream of 'ever after'

And dont forget it is the worlds oldest profession. Sex was being traded for goods before man was more than a mere animal

> the fact of the matter is sex is just a
> physical act.

You're doing it wrong.

But again, teh Google is taking notes, so keep going...

"What the fuck CAN you count on these idiots for? Blood drives? Participation in the Bike-A-Thon for Breast Cancer? Attendance at public hearings for the Department of Water and Power?"

Logic just isn't your thing, is it?

You're not a whore (well, I dunno what you do, really), but I can't count on YOU for those things.

You might participate. So might a whore.

Here is a porn star more involved in the community than you are.

Go on, be a hater.

> You might participate. So might a whore.

Yeah. Anything's possible. But do people want whores to participate? Does "might participate" encapsulate your expectations for community involvement? This (along with repeated and irrelevant mentions of Cicciolina) is what I meant about a teenage fantasy realm where slender exceptions and trivial anomalies portend a golden future of casual fucking for emotionally detached (or emotionally incompetent) horndogs.

Despite sincere effort, it's just not possible to be charitable with you (guys) about this. And guys you are... While there may be a few women of libertarian disposition reading this, they haven't been inclined to speak up in favor of the kind of prostitution you extol in these comments.

Mostly, you guys seem terrified of women... Of having to relate to them and take an interest in their lives in order (even) to bang them. Robert doesn't come off like an erotic progressive; he comes off like a bashful, isolated crank.

But once women are reduced to poverty and powerlessness such that you can terrorize them to save ten or fifteen bucks while you squirt your goo, you suddenly turn into poets of Junior High School, with notebooks of purple-ballpoint heart doodles surrounding wounded, pouty, rhyme-less verse about "labels" and "haters".

The nobility of women in the United States is arguably THE best thing about our country, and our greatest source of strength. Even the nations you dream of shamefully and penuriously despoiling with your liquid filth seem to have caught on to this.

(PS/OT- What could possibly go wrong?)

Crid, you dont know shit about the nobility of women if you are so eager to ban them from scociety for daring to live without the benifit or your paternalistic 'moral' authority

Tell you what go have a converstion with a former pro,http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/

I look forward to reading about your virtual bitchslap, assuming you have the balls to acctually say such things to her

Go read the last paragraph of that Economist piece you linked:

"The fact that the scandal became public because one of the Secret Service men got into a dispute with the woman who had spent the night with him over her fee has reaffirmed what some Colombians see as an arrogance towards their country. "He didn't want to pay," said Isabel Londono, a women's-rights advocate, "but it ended up costing him plenty."

Does that express pretty much exactly the same sentiment as my comment @ April 20, 10:58 AM? Yes it does.

"...the imbecile bastard daughters of Cartagena's alcoholics..." You spew putrid contempt like that, then you have the nerve to cloak yourself in the nobility of American women, like you're the reincarnation of de Tocqueville?

You're not going to take up lujlp's challenge, and you'd never head over to the state next door to tell the legal prostitutes there what you think of their line of work right to their faces. It's so much easier to demonstrate your manly virtue by spewing bile at whores in blog comments.

> so eager to ban them from scociety

Eh? Who's banning anybody? Could you point out exactly where I said someone should be "banned"?

You're getting into some advanced daydreams here...

> the balls to acctually say
> such things to her

Correspondence with your pinup girlfriends is not really a priority. Tell her I said Howdy, but zip your pants and wash your hands first.

> daring to live without the benifit or
> your paternalistic 'moral' authority

Right-- "Labels," "hater," and now "paternalistic 'moral' authority," complete with extra-pretentious single-quotes.

But I think women can be trusted to pass the own judgment on the sincerity and practicality of your heretofore unseen feminism. And at this hour, none in this forum have chosen to speak up and offer you a huzzah.

So it will be interesting to see this new alliance with the sisters expressed in your comments in the topics to come, especially alongside your theme that fucking is like digging a ditch.


> You spew putrid contempt like that

First of all, "spew" is one of those words that turns up disproportionately in online comments... When anonymous, not-entirely-articulate people are trying to come off as much more sophistimacated than they actually are. (I started seeing this on Compuserve and BBS's in the 80's. Next comes nose-in-the-air posturing about "vitriol". [About 637,000 results.] "Putrid" is probably high in that calculation as well.)

> You spew putrid contempt like that

So! You, like Luukoojplick and Raddy, are compassionate! You feel the pain they feel, you suffer the indignities they suffer, and you want want to ennoble them in their downtrodden-hood, and elevate their status so that they can have some self-respect! You relate to these people!

Except by "people," you just mean children of alcoholics. And just the women. And just the fuckable ones. And just the fuckable ones overseas. And just the ones in Carta-damn-gena. You're not concerned about any of the impoverished males in your own neighborhood who might just has easily have been tarnished by my insufferable contempt... Your attention is solely with young, distant women. You want to relate to them from behind. Mostly, you want to exalt them all over their tits... At the lowest possible price. And then you want to fly back to the States, without further involvement in their lives whatsoever. Once their troubled lives have brought you some petty fulfillment, you're done.

Amirite?

> you'd never head over to the state next
> door to tell the legal prostitutes there
> what you think of their line of
> work right to their faces

What is the source of this daydream you little boys have about confrontation? No, I wouldn't do that...

But I don't seek out bank robbers, heroin dealers, child molesters, bunko artists, Senate candidates or country music performers to tell them what I think, either. Do I need to? These people do odious things: So what? Every time a whore tells me she's a whore and asks what I think, I look her in the eye and tell her the truth, right back.

As a rule, whores don't chat me up about such things. The vanishingly small number of them with emotional and financial competence, who will survive their "careers" to move into lives of comfort and normal attachment, needn't concern themselves with my opinion; nor, in their discretion, need they fear my instinct for constabulary response. And the vast majority of others, who are desperate, confused or weak, anticipate my righteous appraisal and don't want to hear it.

So you say I'd "never head over to the state next door.." Interesting!

As if we were looking to Nevada for moral leadership. Witless, mob-&-corporate-controlled desert gamblers are showing us our future! I guess I and all the other sentient Americans need to come to terms with that on a personal level, right? We need to eyeball these little sisters, all workless and humble-like, one-on-one, to see what's what.

This is nothing but an ad—vaaaaaanced sex fantasy for you guys.

Which, again, is perhaps why no women are participating in this discussion. They can smell the neediness behind your contextual libertarianism.

"But do people want whores to participate?"

You do. That's why you pretend they don't, or can't, or something in more manufactured outrage.

"You, like Luukoojplick and Raddy, are compassionate!"

There is nothing you won't make up. My whole point is that you've advanced fallacy after fallacy, and that you don't care because you think anything you say is golden.

Except it's not.

"Which, again, is perhaps why no women are participating in this discussion. They can smell the neediness behind your contextual libertarianism."

And there is no group for which you feel unqualified to speak. There is no trait you won't project onto others to explain their being wrong, wrong, wrong in failing to wriggle in glee at your genius!

I bet none of the ladies are bothering you because they personally don't want to annoy the pig.

Meanwhile: when a woman sells sex for money, it doesn't keep her from doing anything else.

Even talking to you. It'll be something else that stops them then.

> And there is no group for which you feel
> unqualified to speak.

Golly— in this case, there's not a whole lot of risk, is there? Any women reading this blog –and it's a feminine blog– are free to speak up and tell us what they think about what we're saying, and about the support of prostitution that's been expressed by you, Looj, Martin and Robert.

> It'll be something else that stops them then.

Chicks dig me, always have. They chat my ass up.

Why do you complain about my rhetoric rather than refute it? I coulda sworn you thought I was being insufficiently charitable to the social contributions of prostitutes.

Also, I meant "wordless," not "workless." Sorry.

Also, I thought Martin was from Canada, not the United States. So I am again wondering why he's so fascinated with our interior business, this time regarding prostitution.

And, AS NOTED A FEW TIMES EARLIER, the international aspect of this is important.

It bugs me that a lot of American (or North American) men regard the rest of the world as a sexual fantasyland... A place where, as soon as they touch down, they're finally free of the shackles that hinder them at home, free to be the kind of men they want to be, free to express themselves the way they've always wanted to... (In this case, as with the Secret Service: cheaply.)

Pathos (See #2).

"In this case, as with the Secret Service:cheaply"

One more time, in the words of Colombian women's-rights advocate Isabel Londono, from the article you linked to:

"He didn't want to pay, but it ended up costing him plenty"

This story did not become headline news because a bunch of guys fucked Third World prostitutes. It became headline news because one of those guys thought he could get away without paying. But he couldn't, because she was a legal prostitute, who could go to the police and get their help instead of getting arrested.

"I thought Martin was from Canada" Indeed I am, and this subject is of relevance to me because Ontario courts just struck down most prostitution laws as unconstitutional, clearing the path for some sort of legalization. It's a divisive subject, and there is a big gender gap. The most recent major Canadian poll found 62% of men in favor of decriminalization, vs 40% of women (31% of women wanted prohibition, 19% favored the status quo):

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/9/11/2009.11.27_Prostitution.pdf

The gender gap in an American poll could be even bigger, but I daresay it won't be 99 to 1, the way you fantasize it being. Feel free to look some up if you want to present solid support for your assertions, with a bigger sample size than the number of females still suffering through all your bilge on this week-old blog post, which by now must be zero or close to it.

> in the words of Colombian women's-rights
> advocate Isabel Londono

Why am I to be concerned with this woman's judgment? Even if I were, how exactly could that comment play into the discussion here but to the benefit of my position?

> This story did not become headline news because
> a bunch of guys fucked Third World prostitutes.

Christ, what on Earth makes you think so? For my own part, I regard the quibbling over price as only the most pathetic, if telling, detail. Many many people are handsomely appalled that these guys were behaving that way.

> Ontario courts just struck down most
> prostitution laws

You kids do wacky things up there. Good luck with that. And gosh, how do you explain that gender gap? Is it an explanation that flatters women in any context? Put it in a sentence so we can judge for ourselves.

> it won't be 99 to 1, the way you fantasize
> it being

Have I ever described such numbers? Has math appeared in any of my comments, except to note that there's not enough support for these buffoons to get them their jobs back?

> the number of females still suffering through
> all your bilge

So, like, there are multitudes out there who agree with you, including women, who don't think this Cartegena behavior was repellant?

Y'know, not everyone on the surface of our globe regards your loneliness as a big deal.

Fucked up the link to that poll. My apologies:

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/2009.11.27_Prostitution.pdf

"Is it an explanation that flatters women in any context?"

Men have an obvious motive here that women don't have. There are thoughtful women on all sides of the legality of prostitution debate, and up here at least, a plurality of them favor decriminalization. How is that unflattering to women?

> a plurality of them favor decriminalization.

If these numbers are as solid as your boner-fevered imaginations describe them to be, how come there's no forward motion on this. Again, the SECRET SERVICE AGENTS LOST THEIR JOBS. THERE'S BEEN NO SOCIAL MOVEMENT TO GET THEM BACK... NONE. Why do you pretend all the wind's at your back? Who are you kidding? Seriously... Who?

> Men have an obvious motive here that women
> don't have.

So what? That motive certainly isn't universal. The world is full of men who don't want prostitution. They think enough of the women in their life to recognize it for the profanation that it is on a personal level, and they're competent enough in their own relationships not to need that option to get laid... And recognize prostitution as economic failure rather than erotic enlightenment.

Y'know, I think about how the western world, the United States especially, stands so very far above every nation in history, ESPECIALLY FOR WOMEN, and am amazed that someone could jeopardize that stature on behalf of such a tragically juvenile sex fantasy.

Anything else?

"SECRET SERVICE AGENTS LOST THEIR JOBS. THERE'S BEEN NO SOCIAL MOVEMENT TO GET THEM BACK...NONE"

This is a complete non sequitur. Suppose those agents had been caught passed out drunk or puking in the palm trees (no hookers anywhere in sight), when they should have been alert & ready to protect the President. How many Americans do you think would say they didn't deserve to get their asses fired? Free men can indulge themselves in all sorts of sinful ways, but not when they're supposed to be on duty guarding their elected leader in a foreign country.

I know that if a Canadian agent was caught trying to swindle a Third World woman out of her money, I wouldn't just want him fired, I would want him handed over to the local authorities & tossed into a jail cell crawling with giant cockroaches. And it would make absolutely no difference to me whether that woman was a legal prostitute or a legal coconut peddler. If you think the reason Americans have no sympathy for these clowns is because legal hookers were involved, I think you're nuts.

The world's oldest profession won't go away because moralists keep pouring scorn upon prostitutes like they've been doing for thousands of years. I'm glad those Canadian laws were overturned, and it's not because, as you want to imagine, I'm itching to bag a legal hooker, something I have no intention of ever doing. It's because it will give my country a chance to try and work out something better than the status quo. If you think the American status quo on prostitution is the best of all possible worlds. all I can say is you're entitled to your opinion.

> This is a complete non sequitur.

It's precisely on point. You said "A plurality favor decriminalization." Robert talks about how "rational" people would support these agents, while only "dictatorial little ignorant minds" could have a problem with their dismissal. You guys talk as if the wind were at your back, as if vast majorities agreed with you, and a 180° pivot for both opinion and policy was at hand. But I haven't seen a single news report, article, headline or media tweet from any group or enterprise suggesting that the SS terminations were disproportionate, let alone in need of further review for exoneration... Though some have suggested unemployment is not punishment enough.

> If you think the reason Americans have no
> sympathy for these clowns is because
> legal hookers were involved,
> I think you're nuts.

There's just no reason for you to believe this but that you want to... So very, very badly. I'm quite confident that Americans (in the United States, apparently like nowhere else in the world) understand that a culture patient with prostitution is by definition less concerned with opportunity for women in bigger contexts.

Dood... Seriously... You're scraping an ugly boundary of pathos here. If you need that badly to get laid, meet a girl... Take her out to dinner... etc. If most women are looking for something more involved than what you want, keep looking.

But to imagine that most people, including those in the most sexually (and erotically) advanced country on the globe, are going to move in the direction of a third-world Hell-hole just so you can reduce this fundamental human connection to a pitiable (but less challenging) transaction is... Well, it's kind of embarrassing. Civilization knows better. Civilization knows what your loneliness is and is NOT worth. (Cartagena is your model? Really?)

> The world's oldest profession won't
> go away because moralists keep pouring
> scorn upon prostitutes like they've
> been doing for thousands of years.

I'm reminded of a story from a comedienne who visited the troops in Afghanistan several years ago, and occasionally mixed with the locals. She began to notice that some of the guys had filthy hands. Like, REALLY filthy. So she asked her military minder about it. And guy said "Yeah, out here, the locals wipe with their left... That's their dirty hand." He meant that in the most literal sense: They wipe with their left.

Primitivism is like that. There are bad impulses in human nature. Lesser cultures have lesser ways of handling them, as if one clean hand were what a man needs.

Hitchen occasionally cited Camus's "The Plague." which ends as varmints have been chased from the streets of Oran, seemingly taking the horrible illness with them:

It is able to stay for decades, sleeping in the furniture and linens, it waits patiently in rooms, in caves, in trunks, in handkerchiefs and old papers, and then possibly the day comes when, for the misfortune and instruction of men, the plague reawakens her rats and sends them to die in a happy city.

This example from Cartagena is both unremarkable and bulletproof.

Crid, its not suprising your unwilling to share your opinions on hookers with hookers.

The sad truth is that your a just a coward, a small petty coward who invariably results to insulting people once it becomes apparent that you are incapable of debating rationally.

Those guys were fired for dereliction of duty, plain & simple. It's folly to conclude that because no one wants them to get their jobs back after they were caught with hookers, no one supports decriminalization of prostitution. If they'd been fired for being drunk, there wouldn't be any social movement to get their jobs back either, and that wouldn't mean everyone is a prohibitionist.

",,,a culture patient with prostitution is by definition less concerned with opportunity for women in bigger contexts"

What twaddle. As if feminism is alien to every civilized country from New Zealand to the Netherlands that has implemented some form of decriminalization. As if the still-rampant illegal prostitution in the US is a shining example. Next you'll be telling me that every Western country should copy the Department of Education & the American public school system.

Decriminalization does not mean glamorization. It's been about 7 years since the first episode of "Cathouse" aired. It shows that a lot of the danger & ugliness has been removed from the lives of those legalized prostitutes - they're not in the hands of violent criminals, they're not out on the streets after midnight, surrounded by broken needles & crack pipes. But it also shows very clearly the reality of being a prostitute - politely servicing one loser after another, day after day. Every woman I know who's caught an episode has concluded that those girls earn their money, but that it's definitely not the life they'd want to lead. In that regard, it's a much better prophylactic than a million words of ranting from the likes of you.

> your unwilling to share your opinions on
> hookers with hookers.

They're as free to read these words as anyone, Lookulz. To "share" with Google Cache is to share with eternity.

But tell us more about your fantasies for this woman! No no no, not those fantasies... Recite your dreamland scenario of this encounter, and compose a narrative of the booming granite slamdown of my worldview by this precious champion of yours. I think prostitution is pathetic, even when people make their way through life with it. I think drunk driving is horrific, even when alcoholics make it safely home and park squarely in their garages. 'K? So what's the money shot in this daydream confrontation of yours?

> It's folly to conclude that because
> no one wants them to get their jobs
> back after they were caught with hookers,
> no one supports decriminalization

Bzzzt... Lowballing.

[1.] I never said that everyone in the United States is against prostitution... I've repeatedly pointed out that pathetic men and naive women with no experience of this in their own lives are often foolishly enthusiastic.

[2.] "Decriminalization" is not a factor in this discussion. We're talking about whether Americans want prostitution. There's no mention of "decriminalization" in the coverage of this story. Indeed, your very selection of the word seeks to convey an ongoing policy discussion, as if the free world (and the United States specifically) were, through vigorous, thoughtful engagement, moving towards greater tolerance of whoring, as if it were inevitable. But that perspective is not real...

...And your lonely boners are not evidence. Again: I've been watching the headlines for weeks, and no organizations or sectors of our economy (academe, finance, labor etc.) have complained that these men were unduly punished. It's only the individual blog comment guys.

> As if feminism is alien to every civilized
> country from New Zealand to the Netherlands
> that has implemented some form of
> decriminalization.

We do it best. Listen, if you want to move to these places, MOVE.

But you won't. You want to live next to civilization's beating heart, the churning engine of strength and success that wrote the source code for modernity: The United States. You need the warmth generated by a truly adult understanding of –and thoughtful stoicism for– gender conflict, even if you yourself aren't able to contribute to it.

> It's been about 7 years since the
> first episode of "Cathouse" aired.

Ah, so you have a favorite TV show! That's great. I love TV! I don't own one, but I make a career in it. So you be sure and keep watching, OK? Do what you have to do every day to be home at 8 o'clock with your ass on your couch and your slippers on your feet and your milk & cookies on the coffee table so you can watch TV and have your most selfish impulses pandered to by people who aren't actually in your life.

> a much better prophylactic than
> a million words of ranting

Kiss a girl. Kiss one who kisses back because she likes you.

(Sorry 'bout the "Camus's"...  I never actually read any.)

PS- Martin, be sure and watch the commercials... They're the best!

OH, FOR FUCK's SAKE...

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday three Marines on a U.S. Embassy security team and one embassy staff member were punished for allegedly pushing a prostitute out of a car in Brasilia late last year after a dispute over payment.

Anyone still in here?

Prostition does not count:

In all circumstances, and especially in the most challenging ones like those in Afghanistan, the United States must remain a vital voice for women and girls not just because it is the right thing to do but because it is the smart thing to do. Give a small-businesswoman access to capital and training, and she can become a powerful contributor to GDP growth. Include women in governments and peace talks, and they can help ensure that ministries are better run and peace agreements are sustained. Educate a girl, and she will be more likely to raise healthier and more educated children -- and end the cycle of poverty.

"Why do you complain about my rhetoric rather than refute it?"

Because it's rhetoric, duh, look that up, and you haven't noticed you've already been had.

You've haven't named one thing a prostitute is prohibited from doing, nor have you cited one thing you can be counted on to do yourself to demonstrate your superior, um, public involvement.

And you clearly have more time to go on about this than I do. Count the words.

Yeah, chicks dig you. You hardly have time to post.

> You've haven't named one thing a prostitute is
> prohibited from doing

"Prohibited?" Whence this new metric? Read the FP link, and the Steyn link above. As a practical matter, prostitutes DON'T involve themselves in the community in compensatory ways. Are we supposed to admire them for not starving? There are others I'll admire much more for that.

> to demonstrate your superior, um, public
> involvement.

Well, for starters, I don't break the law. Secondly, you can be sure I haven't cooked the books for the IRS. Third, nobody from the government ever had to break my collarbone because my prices were too high. And on and on...

> You hardly have time to post.

Riiiiiiiiiight... See, I think you guys are living in a seventh-grade mentality about this, sexually and socially. Challenge #1:How to get laid without actually delivering any value to one of those sinister females? Challenge #2: Who's hot and who's not?

"(Sorry 'bout the "Camus's"... I never actually read any.)"

Seriously? I bet you read Stranger.

Sorry for the link.

Stranger

The Perfect Stranger includes the brilliant instrumental rendition of Outside Now Again, which can haunt a scuba survey of Fijian coral walls like you wouldn't believe. (The time of this music "eleven".)

So I kinda know what you guys're talking about.