I’ll be the first to support Rand on this issue. Cant let the host of the site look like a lone dirty old man.
Well, it’s not my issue because I personally want to purchase the services. I’ve never done that, even when in Nevada. I don’t smoke grass, either, but I think it should be legal.
But there is no difference between a “dirty old man” and a young man except the number of trips they’ve taken around the sun.
OK, this is a bit embarrassing, but it’s a good place to mention it.. While I have never purchased the services of a prostitute, a couple of years ago I accidentally stumbled into an online relationship of sorts with an extraordinarily beautiful young woman who takes pictures of herself and sells them. I’m not talking iPhone selfies, either. She is a talented photographer using top-notch equipment, and her photos are as good as any I’ve ever seen from professional photographers. She calls herself a “sex worker”, too.
Plus, she seems like a nice kid, and I’m happy to help her out with her student loans. That’s a pretty heavy burden in this day and age. This is an example of free market capitalism. We’re mutually and voluntarily trading value for value.
Here are some excerpts from an e-mail I sent her a while ago:
Back in the old days before the internet, on the one hand there was the age-old relationship between prostitutes and johns. That involved direct physical contact. There were risks for both parties. They could transmit diseases to each other, and the prostitute always ran the risk that the john would turn out to be a psycho who would kill her. (Think of Jack the Ripper.) It was risky for the john, too. The prostitute might get him drunk or drugged, and then her pimp would show up to beat him up and rob him. (That is actually more common.)
On the other hand, you had traditional p*rnography, which has really only existed during the last 150 years or so, since the invention of photography. In most cases, men would pay a pretty young woman to take her clothes off so they could take pictures of her. Men published the photos in magazines, men marketed the magazines and they were purchased by men. The woman had little or no control over any of that; and her involvement, and her rights, largely ended after the photos were taken.
The men who purchased the p*rnography only saw pictures of naked women. They were pretty much abstract. The woman only existed as an image in a photograph at that point. P*rnography was completely impersonal. The women never knew the men who were looking at their pictures, and the men never got to know the women they were looking at.
Fast forward to the present day. You’re taking photos of yourself, and you have complete control over how you present yourself and who gets to see you. This forces me to treat you as an actual human being, rather than a disembodied photograph.
Here we are e-mailing back and forth, and actually communicating with each other one-on-one. This was utterly impossible before the internet. This is unlike either prostitution or traditional p*rnography. This is new and strange and different. It’s kind of in between.
I had trouble posting that, until I realized that the word “p*rnography” was sticking in the craw of your spam filter, so I had to self-censor.
Whether or not a society legalizes prostitution depends on how it will advance the “feminist imperative”. If prostitution can be used to undermine an established traditional ( I.e patriarchal ) culture, it will be supported by the left. In post traditional cultures like Sweden or Canada, men finding sexual gratification with a woman without the slavery contract known as marriage, will be opposed, and the left no longer has a use for it. The US as a whole isn’t quite there yet. Ironically, the dupes of the “right” are always to be found unwittingly doing the bidding of the culture warriors of the left. They want to be seen protecting women, or doing it “for the children”.
“feminist imperative”, “established traditional ( I.e patriarchal ) culture”, “post traditional cultures”, “the US as a whole isn’t quite there yet”, (isn’t quite where yet?) “culture warriors of the left”.
Could someone please translate Stan’s comment for me?
Actually, I’m going to have a crack at it.
He means that while the Right opposes legalized prostitution in the US, the left advocates it simply because it’s a means to attack the Right, Stan’s saying that Canada and Sweden have advanced to some form of culture in which the Left is so dominant that this “means to attack the Right” has become superfluous.
How’d I do?
From Chateau Heartiste:
“The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.”
The feminists dont mind prostitution when it helps destroy a partriarchal culture. However once a culture is sufficiently under the thumb of feminism, they will be against it. All those fat, ugly, bitter, haggish feminists wont have any sexual power if men are allowed to get needs filled with prostitutes. Any manifestation of male sexuality is threatening to feminists, who mainly see men as rapists. See Rands other posts on the recent college rape laws. Also try googling “SCUM” manifesto as it relates to the feminists in Sweden.
This is from National Review, but it’s still a good quick read on the subject.
It also shows the dupes of the Swedish “right” ignorantly lapping up the infections of the left.
Consider that the the radical feminists enjoyed widespread support, as well as a dominant position in there parliament until this leaked out from them. Do you think that stops the agenda, or just delays the strategy while the tactical battle shifts elsewhere?
I’d sell my body but my penny jar is full.
I listened to a excellent podcast from ReasonTV the other day, talking to a former sex worker called Maggie McNeill. This phrase in particular stuck with me:
“The problem is that there are already laws for these things,” states McNeill. “We have a name for sex being inflicted on a woman against her will. We call it rape. We have a name for taking someone and holding them prisoner somewhere. We call that abduction. … Why do we need [prostitution] to be laid on top of all these other things that already are crimes?”
She also had some shocking comments about ‘trafficking’ and how some institutions are effectively keeping women prisoner, only wheeling them out when the “Rich American Women” come to visit (she mentions that the women who speak English aren’t allowed to talk to these RAW’s).
I’ll be the first to support Rand on this issue. Cant let the host of the site look like a lone dirty old man.
Well, it’s not my issue because I personally want to purchase the services. I’ve never done that, even when in Nevada. I don’t smoke grass, either, but I think it should be legal.
But there is no difference between a “dirty old man” and a young man except the number of trips they’ve taken around the sun.
It’s been legal here for just over a decade, the sky hasn’t fallen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand
OK, this is a bit embarrassing, but it’s a good place to mention it.. While I have never purchased the services of a prostitute, a couple of years ago I accidentally stumbled into an online relationship of sorts with an extraordinarily beautiful young woman who takes pictures of herself and sells them. I’m not talking iPhone selfies, either. She is a talented photographer using top-notch equipment, and her photos are as good as any I’ve ever seen from professional photographers. She calls herself a “sex worker”, too.
Plus, she seems like a nice kid, and I’m happy to help her out with her student loans. That’s a pretty heavy burden in this day and age. This is an example of free market capitalism. We’re mutually and voluntarily trading value for value.
Here are some excerpts from an e-mail I sent her a while ago:
I had trouble posting that, until I realized that the word “p*rnography” was sticking in the craw of your spam filter, so I had to self-censor.
Whether or not a society legalizes prostitution depends on how it will advance the “feminist imperative”. If prostitution can be used to undermine an established traditional ( I.e patriarchal ) culture, it will be supported by the left. In post traditional cultures like Sweden or Canada, men finding sexual gratification with a woman without the slavery contract known as marriage, will be opposed, and the left no longer has a use for it. The US as a whole isn’t quite there yet. Ironically, the dupes of the “right” are always to be found unwittingly doing the bidding of the culture warriors of the left. They want to be seen protecting women, or doing it “for the children”.
“feminist imperative”, “established traditional ( I.e patriarchal ) culture”, “post traditional cultures”, “the US as a whole isn’t quite there yet”, (isn’t quite where yet?) “culture warriors of the left”.
Could someone please translate Stan’s comment for me?
Actually, I’m going to have a crack at it.
He means that while the Right opposes legalized prostitution in the US, the left advocates it simply because it’s a means to attack the Right, Stan’s saying that Canada and Sweden have advanced to some form of culture in which the Left is so dominant that this “means to attack the Right” has become superfluous.
How’d I do?
From Chateau Heartiste:
“The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.”
The feminists dont mind prostitution when it helps destroy a partriarchal culture. However once a culture is sufficiently under the thumb of feminism, they will be against it. All those fat, ugly, bitter, haggish feminists wont have any sexual power if men are allowed to get needs filled with prostitutes. Any manifestation of male sexuality is threatening to feminists, who mainly see men as rapists. See Rands other posts on the recent college rape laws. Also try googling “SCUM” manifesto as it relates to the feminists in Sweden.
This is from National Review, but it’s still a good quick read on the subject.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/216858/fanatical-swedish-feminists/stanley-kurtz
It also shows the dupes of the Swedish “right” ignorantly lapping up the infections of the left.
Consider that the the radical feminists enjoyed widespread support, as well as a dominant position in there parliament until this leaked out from them. Do you think that stops the agenda, or just delays the strategy while the tactical battle shifts elsewhere?
I’d sell my body but my penny jar is full.
I listened to a excellent podcast from ReasonTV the other day, talking to a former sex worker called Maggie McNeill. This phrase in particular stuck with me:
“The problem is that there are already laws for these things,” states McNeill. “We have a name for sex being inflicted on a woman against her will. We call it rape. We have a name for taking someone and holding them prisoner somewhere. We call that abduction. … Why do we need [prostitution] to be laid on top of all these other things that already are crimes?”
She also had some shocking comments about ‘trafficking’ and how some institutions are effectively keeping women prisoner, only wheeling them out when the “Rich American Women” come to visit (she mentions that the women who speak English aren’t allowed to talk to these RAW’s).
Very illuminating…
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/20/why-we-should-decriminalize-prostitution
Isn’t it already legal to be a politician…
Oh wait… you are talking about those who actually provide a service for their fee…