What happened?

Did Ashley's husband hand over a wad of cash for a twenty year old escort?

Because that's a kind of a crappy car for a rich guy.

*rim shot*

I think you're really naive if you think most paid sex is happening between two people who are into each other and would have sex anyways and just decide to make it about pay.

I get your point, I really do, in theory people should be able to do whatever they like but unfortunately I think in the case of legalizing paid sex the negatives outweigh the positives, and the Nordic model, while imperfect, seems to be the best one.

Ashley might be a little unhinged. Although she presents a history of abuse, she doesn't seem to recognize the possibility of having beat it, possibly feeling guilty to have done so. She's not been careful of her company; one of the activists on stage with her at the Woman's March tortured and killed a gay man...

For some, her being loud is enough. Not for me, however little I really know about her.

I get your point, I really do, in theory people should be able to do whatever they like but unfortunately I think in the case of legalizing paid sex the negatives outweigh the positives.... ~ NicoleK at November 27, 2019 2:15 AM

Legalization sounds nice, sounds like it would cure many, if not all, of the societal and individual ills associated with prostitution, but I fear legalizing prostitution would, in reality, only be legalizing exploitation and trafficking. I fear it won't "free" desperate women the way its advocates argue it would.

And, as Crid likes to point out, none of those folks arguing for the legalization of prostitution propose it as a viable career path for themselves or a loved one, if given alternatives. Nor do they propose such services be offered for sale in their neighborhoods in front of their children.

The libertarian in me thinks legalizing prostitution is in line with libertarian principles. However, the pragmatist in me wonders if legalization advocates aren't dismissing out of hand the unintended consequences that always come with legalizing formerly illegal activities.

The problem with the "none of those folks arguing for the legalization of prostitution propose it as a viable career path for themselves or a loved one, if given alternatives. Nor do they propose such services be offered for sale in their neighborhoods in front of their children." line is we have other legal jobs with the same situation.

Almost no one hopes their kids will be a garbage man or a sewer worker. Few people want a miniwarehouse in their neighborhood. Much less a chemical plant or an animal processing factory.

That said I agree with you Conan that there are a lot of unintended consequences here.

I would like to see more freedom.

A man can take a woman out for dinner and drinks for $200 or they can skip the meal and go straight to sex. One of those is illegal.

A woman can get $75,000 to be a surrogate mother but not $500,000 or more.

I always heard talk of women saving themselves for the right man (to make themselves more “valuable”). Often, he had to have the right connections, drive the right car, and have money.

I often wonder if the money isn’t even the issue. Is it more about power and control? Women can get sustenance for sex but not enough for independence.

I would like to see more freedom.

A man can take a woman out for dinner and drinks for $200 or they can skip the meal and go straight to sex. One of those is illegal.

A woman can get $75,000 to be a surrogate mother but not $500,000 or more.

I always heard talk of women saving themselves for the right man (to make themselves more “valuable”). Often, he had to have the right connections, drive the right car, and have money.

I often wonder if the money isn’t even the issue. Is it more about power and control? Women can get sustenance for sex but not enough for independence.

"I fear it won't 'free' desperate women the way its advocates argue it would."

The problem is that this is still an infantalizing argument: it says that no woman in her right mind would ever agree to work as a prostitute. That's a short hop to the post-modern feminist contention that no woman in her right mind would agree to sex with a man, under any circumstances. (See here, in which Arizona State University finds that no woman is ever competent to agree to a threesome, and therefore any man who participates in one is guilty of rape regardless of the circumstances.) I get that prostitution tends to attract / be associated with an undesirable element, and this can lead to problems in the areas where it occurs. However, that's not the argument that the anti-prostitution side is making.

I find the "asymmetrical" thing especially ironic because, it would seem, the advocates haven't really thought it through. Suppose that they somehow succeeded in eliminating in all men any desire to pay a woman for sex? If they did, then what happens to the prostitutes who no longer have a source of income? Actually, I know the answer to this: they want those woman to become government dependents. Another captive voting bloc! Yea! Plus it feeds the power trip of the advocates.

"I think you're really naive if you think most paid sex is happening between two people who are into each other and would have sex anyways and just decide to make it about pay."

No, I don't think anyone thinks that because it isn't the point. The prostitute is selling a service. We all do things that we wouldn't do if we weren't getting paid for them. I sit through hours of pointless training on subjects unrelated to my job (ironically, including one on human trafficking) every year because they pay me to. Believe me, I would not sit through that utterly predictable do-gooder tedium otherwise. The prostitute might or might not enjoy her work. But that isn't the point. She's doing her job to make money, like a lot of us.

BTW: Nicole, what is the "Nordic model"?

"I fear it won't 'free' desperate women the way its advocates argue it would."

The problem is that this is still an infantalizing argument: it says that no woman in her right mind would ever agree to work as a prostitute. That's a short hop to the post-modern feminist contention that no woman in her right mind would agree to sex with a man, under any circumstances. (See here, in which Arizona State University finds that no woman is ever competent to agree to a threesome, and therefore any man who participates in one is guilty of rape regardless of the circumstances.) I get that prostitution tends to attract / be associated with an undesirable element, and this can lead to problems in the areas where it occurs. However, that's not the argument that the anti-prostitution side is making.

I find the "asymmetrical" thing especially ironic because, it would seem, the advocates haven't really thought it through. Suppose that they somehow succeeded in eliminating in all men any desire to pay a woman for sex? If they did, then what happens to the prostitutes who no longer have a source of income? Actually, I know the answer to this: they want those woman to become government dependents. Another captive voting bloc! Yea! Plus it feeds the power trip of the advocates.

"I think you're really naive if you think most paid sex is happening between two people who are into each other and would have sex anyways and just decide to make it about pay."

No, I don't think anyone thinks that because it isn't the point. The prostitute is selling a service. We all do things that we wouldn't do if we weren't getting paid for them. I sit through hours of pointless training on subjects unrelated to my job (ironically, including one on human trafficking) every year because they pay me to. Believe me, I would not sit through that utterly predictable do-gooder tedium otherwise. The prostitute might or might not enjoy her work. But that isn't the point. She's doing her job to make money, like a lot of us.

BTW: Nicole, what is the "Nordic model"?

Who tortured and killed a gay man?

Why is everything appearing twice today? That's weird. I'm sure I didn't hit the post button twice.

Re Ashley Judd: Besides being in a couple a crappy movies, I know here mainly for being the wife of race car driver Dario Franchetti. But she divorced him several years ago, right about the time she got really woke. (Or maybe he divorced her. He doesn't talk about her in public.)

I have questions.

First, if a woman is held to be incapable of giving consent in these situations, shouldn't the procurer of her services also be liable for sexual assault of some sort?

As Jen has pointed out, if one provides material support instead of cash it suddenly is legal? so if I pay someone's rent and then bang them several times in that month that's not prostitution?

The problem with legalizing the business is the same that the cannabis business is currently suffering in some locales: there is so much tax & red tape that it's actually less expensive to go to the black market to obtain your goods.

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

The Nordic Model is what we're discussing here... making it legal to prostitute yourself, but illegal to prostitute others or buy sex. Compared to countries where prostitution is fully legal, the Nordic Model seems to have the best results over the long term, though in the first few years countries implement it, there seem to be glitches.

I totally agree at first glance it does seem infantilising, because we're all thinking of that woman who WANTS to sell herself, or the one who doesn't really want to but the money's too good, or others like that.

The problem is it quickly leads to nonconsensual situations and conditions, it increases human trafficking (both voluntary and non), and you end up with situations like Germany where they have McBrothels with fast food prices and terrible working conditions.

And I get it, I totally do, the free spirit libertine should be free to exchange sex for money. But I think the unintended consequences are worse than a couple free spirits not being able to get their game on.

As for the infantilizing argument, you can make that against all sorts of situations. Maybe domestic violence should be legal because after all, the women aren't leaving and so making it illegal is infantilizing them.

The Nordic model needs to be implemented properly, including education for police, because it can flop, too, but in general it seems to be good at reducing trafficking, creating better wages and working conditions, and reducing abuse.

The "Nordic Model" is flat-out discrimination against men, and an attack on male sexuality.

The fact that women can charge for sex, and men can't give it away is the dynamic responsible for much of the relations between the sexes. Society WANTS men to have to pay for sex. But society wants men to pay a lot more for it than the prostitution transaction involves. Prostitution decreases the value of p*ssy to unacceptable levels.

The problem is not with men buying, nor with women selling (and, of course, the opposite is often true, but always ignored). The problem is with pimping. Make that illegal, and much of the problems associated with sex work disappears.

I don’t mind if the state steps in to protect women from their bad decisions. Being a cam girl may be fun at 25 but most women will regret it at 45. Also no child wants to be the offspring of an ex whore. Most parents don’t want their daughters to be whores. We live in a society and this should restrict our personal freedom.

Also I don’t really care about the freedom to be a degenerate. Libertarians seem to care a lot about decriminalizing things like heroine and sex work. But they don’t seem to care that Facebook censors right wing views or that people lose their jobs for articulating right wing opinions.

Political freedom yes. Vigorous freedoms of speech yes. Degeneracy no.

That appears to be the difference between libertarians and the Libertarian Party Jamal. Libertarians worry about censorship from both government and business. The Libertarian Party is only concerned with sex, drugs, and Rock'n'Roll. Which is why the party doesn't go anywhere. There aren't that many people who want to vote the guys who do interpretive dances in their underwear at the rally into power. Bee beards are great for a carnival but don't display the maturity and stability most of us want in our public officials.

I'll admit the last few decades the establishment politicians haven't shown much maturity either. What with the FBI spying on candidates while having affairs or Hillary still running around talking about how she won and it was just Facebook and the Russians who got in the way. Which is how Trump got elected. He isn't much of an adult. But he has been more of an adult than the alternatives. But even in a post-Trump world Mr. Nudipants isn't getting votes. Being high isn't a selling point.

Claims of "trafficking" are wildly exaggerated. Most of the time it is law enforcement trying to gin up support to arrest hookers. There was a big case in Florida recently that was supposedly "trafficking" but turned out to be plain old hooking.

Much of the violence prostitutes suffer from is because it is illegal. Legal brothels can be quite safe (see Nevada or Germany). Prostitutes are often drug addicts also and incapable for that reason of holding a job.

To say it is ok to stop people from being degenerate is pretty rich. Who decides what is degenerate? Should we cancel pro football because the players suffer brain injury? Do we prevent people from posting stupid things on Facebook that will bite them later? Do we stop people from getting tattoos because then they can't get a good job? Do we force people to dress nicely so they can get a good job? Do we arrest people for cursing? To prevent "degeneracy" shouldn't stripping be illegal? and porn?

Given that much of the Left uses victimhood and exploitation as their main weapon, it is logical that the only possibility they can see is that prostitutes are being exploited. But if you ask them, most do not want to be "saved" from their work. Maybe they are lazy and this is easy money. Maybe they enjoy it. Not my business.

Thanks Ben. I know I was painting with a broad brush but as an ex libertarian I have an axe to grind.

And cc the way we decide what to ban is to have a discussion as a society. I know libertarians tend toward childish thinking (ban everything or legalize everything) but we have to be adults and have the discussion about what to allow. For example I think mild drugs like alcohol and weed are okay but heroine should be banned. Sometimes we will get it wrong and that’s part of the process

Also cc like most libertarians you have a simplistic view of freedom. By banning vices we allow people to be free to self actualize. For example If we ban porn we incentivize men to live a richer life by finding a real sexual partner. By banning prostitution we force the would be whore to become a wife if she doesn’t want to work. When she is 55 and has grand kids she will be freer than the woman who squandered her youth on strange men and is now lonely and ignored.

By banning vices we allow people to be free to self actualize. ~ Jamal DeMarcus at November 27, 2019 1:21 PM

Some people don't want to be free to self-actualize. Should the government be a life coach?

What if wallowing in degeneracy is someone's life goal? Should the government be invested with the power to take that away from him?

Should the government be invested with the power to take that away from him? —Conan

Yes.

"Who tortured and killed a gay man?"

Intentionally?

Asking for a friend.

"By banning vices we allow people to be free to self actualize." ~Jamal

This is the logic that started the war on drugs as well as prohibition. The problem is it doesn't work.

I may have given the impression that I am a libertarian. As I get older I find I am less and less inclined that way. When Amy talks about unearned power over others (a recent favorite phrase of libertarians) it registers as no more significant than the word salad intersectionalists spout off. It means nothing.

Instead I am just for good governance. Or at least effective governance. The truth is the people of the US don't share a culture anymore. We flat don't. There are no common goals or values. If Amy wants to take her kids to a transvestite reading thing at her local library I couldn't care less. Good for her. If my local library wants to offer such things then I am quite happy to stop funding the library and shut it down. I don't need people hundreds of miles away wasting my tax dollars. They can fund the library if they want to. I don't want them using my money.

Should the government be invested with the power to take that away from him? —Conan

Yes.

~ Jamal DeMarcus at November 27, 2019 2:07 PM

No.

Deciding what choices are best for an individual in his own life is not the government's place.

Preventing individuals from making bad choices (alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, extreme sports, etc.) is also not the government's place.

That easily leads to the government deciding what is a good choice for each individual and directing their lives.

Ben I hope you remember that live and let live attitude when your grandson decides to cut his balls off and become a woman after he learns about transgenders at school mandated daily drag queen story time.

As for you Conan. Go sit in the corner while I and some like minded fellows battle the left for control of the state (politically not violently). Whoever wins you can be sure will enforce their will on you. Your milquetoast David Frenchian libertarianism is as out of date as the National Review. These times call for a more Nietzschian spirit.

It isn't a real concern Jamal. Are you so poor a parent your kids want to self mutilate?

Also an excellent reason for charter schools. I'm a big fan of education. Which is why I'm quite happy to defund the public school system.

"Who tortured and killed a gay man?"

Apparently, it's Donna Hylton, whose other, um, achievements are visible on a Wikipedia page. She's visible on stage in this Oscar-worthy performance.

Enjoy.

It's common. The DNC brought Leslie Spadden to their shindig. You want to know who people are, see who they associate with.

By the way, Linda Sarsour was there for Ashley's speech, too.

Here's Fred Reed on the topic.

I wouldn’t want my sister to work as a garbage collector or in a slaughterhouse. Therefore, it should be illegal for anyone to work as a garbage collector or in a slaughterhouse.

Jen, men, of course, end up paying women for sex all the time via going on a date. The reason this isn’t illegal — although if people like Mike Pence had their way, ANY sex outside of marriage would probably be illegal — is that there’s no solicitation involved. I believe that solicitation is the key element. If I met a woman for a date and our chemistry was so overwhelming that we decided to skip dinner and just go back to my place to get naked, and then I decided to give her $200 afterward, that wouldn’t be illegal.

Jamal, I’m glad you pointed that out — about a kid wanting to cut his balls off after learning about transgender people in school — because not everyone is aware that when children learn about someone who is different than them, they want to BE just like that person. This is why the only millennials who are not gay or lesbian are those who have attended private religious schools where their impressionable young minds have not learned about gays and lesbians.

Doesn’t happen to everyone JD but some confused kids will transition and most of those will regret it later. Also a normal society does not allow children to transition but ours does.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/texas-transgender-child.amp.html

And cut the shit about kids learning about people different than them. We’re talking about young children undergoing hormone therapy and castration. I’m not going to try to convince you about my position. Keeping the trans stuff away from kids is non negotiable.

Your a piece of shit who is spreading his poison under cover of tolerance.

Have a bad thanksgiving.

Nicole, you live in Switzerland, right? I never knew that prostitution is legal there. Just found out it’s been legal since 1942. Do you know if there’s a strong movement there to move to the Nordic model or do the Swiss, in general, feel their way is better?

Jamal: the belief that it is the government's business to stop degeneracy is what leads quickly to nanny-statism. It is Britain saying if you defend yourself from a rape or attempted murder you go to jail. It is Bloomberg in NYC trying to prevent people from buying big gulp soft drinks. It is LA banning any more fast food in poor neighborhoods (even though that is the only type of restaurant people there can afford) because it is unhealthy. It is the fed gov pushing diet recommendations that turned out to be flawed.

With separation of church and state, the state takes care of highways and the church takes care of morals. When you ban the church and want the state to fix everything, then the state's decisions are backed up with guns.

I wouldn’t want my sister to work as a garbage collector or in a slaughterhouse. Therefore, it should be illegal for anyone to work as a garbage collector or in a slaughterhouse. ~ JD at November 28, 2019 10:35 AM

JD, there’s a difference between your sister having a low-level job that embarrasses you and her having one that degrades her.

Conan, the test is “Would you want your sister to do that for money?” not “Why would you not want your sister to do that for money?”

"if I pay someone's rent and then bang them several times in that month that's not prostitution?"

I R A Darth Aggie

That's marriage - if you're stupid enough to contract to continue paying the woman's rent whether or not she's banging you.