Camille Paglia. Erica Jong. Annie Sprinkle.
I recently brought up my views on decriminalizing prostitution, with a 22-year-old feminist who is going into environmental law. (I guess she's what conservatives would call a "pink & green.) I was on edge when I did this, because I only met her the night before. I was please when she said she was all for it, and considered prostitutes rights to be a central to womens' rights.
(BTW, she's not a provider, as far as I could tell.)
The feminists are divided on this, and within their ranks, we have allies.
Unlike, say, the Christian Coalition, who are monolithicly, solid, dead against it.
/Zin
that would shut down this site if he could? I would really like to know how you reconcile this.
On a side note it seem that during the Republican Convention there will be a mass influx of escorts to my home town to service all those conservative Republicans that want to tell everyone else how to live. You've got to love hypocrisy.
-- Modified on 6/30/2004 4:00:38 PM
30 years ago, I was at a teachers college in the middle of no-where. I wrote a term paper on the economics of social issues of which about a third of it was on prostitution. The professor was an old anal retentive conservative. HE DIDN'T CRITICIZE THE TOPIC AT ALL.
Later, in the big cosmopolitan University, I wrote a research design on prostitution. The radical chic Che Guevara beret wearing Witch took a baseball bat, swung for the bleachers and smacked me right between the eyes. My blood and brains were on the wall (figuratively speaking). That FEMINAZI tried to get me thrown out of the graduate program.
Democrats are so civilized if you agree with them but watch out if you don't.
Feminism has its separate roots. It's mix into liberalism is very complex.
For a true comparison/contrast, you shouldn't compare this witch to your anal retentive conservative professor. Rather you should try defending prostitution to a conservative housewife. You may literally have your blood and brains on the wall.
I've found self-declared feminists to be all over the map about prostitution. "Monogamous" housewives, on the other hand, are a solid block against it, as close to a monolith as human beings can get.
/Zin
When considering why it is that 'monogamous' housewives are unanimously against prostitution, one could consider the relationship between DeBeers and diamonds.
On an objective level, diamonds are at best semi-precious stones. After all, virtually every married woman in the U.S. has one or more gem-quality diamonds. This is called the 'float' by DeBeers, and it is the one thing that DeBeers is dedicated to maintaining through its expensive and imaginative "Diamonds are Forever" advertising campaign. The idea is to convince women of the emotional 'investment' they have in their diamonds, that should transcend even the death/divorce of their husbands. The diamond float is so huge, that even relatively small trafficking in diamonds by widows/divorcees could deflate the market. DeBeers overt message: lose the man, keep the stone.
The regulation of diamond availability by DeBeers is remarkable, and is probably the envy of so-called wannabe monopolies like OPEC. Anyplace in the world where there is a diamond strike, DeBeers is there to buy up/seize the supply. Technology has improved so much that synthetic diamonds, virtually indistinguishable from the real ones, can be made cheaply, yet somehow DeBeers maintains their monopoly. And of course, the ruthelessness of DeBeers on the African continent is legendary.
So an efficient monopoly can readily drive up the price and availability of an otherwise common but desirous commodity.
The implications for our hobby are readily apparent. On the one hand, pussy is also a common commodity, so it is important for monogamous housewives to maintain it in artificially short supply. Zinaval is correct that prostitution threatens to break this monopoly, and so would be avidly opposed by them. Recent advances in neurochemistry and neuroimaging argue that sexual activity shares the same pleasure pathways as drug addiction, so it would not be unreasonable to suggest that women are acting as "drug dealers" in limiting the supply of pussy (i.e., the drug of choice for most of the participants on this board).
One last point, it has often been cited on these boards how expensive it is for hobbyists to participate in their favorite activity. For example, in San Diego, you have a very active LE which helps to lower the number of available providers. If you consider the high cost of living in San Diego, along with the extremely low salaries paid to young women in civilian jobs, the wonder is why there aren't more than a handful of providers in SD. In agreement with Zinaval, I would submit that "monogamous" housewives are among SD LE's strongest supporters, and provide a necessary climate to maintain their monopoly hold on pussy. It's a monopoly that I'm sure would bring a tear of admiration from DeBeers.
-- Modified on 7/1/2004 7:17:59 AM
And for no more than $100, I can approximate the experience that $300 buys on this side of the border. However, I DO believe that your metaphor has validity if some more distance and greater barriers are placed between myself and the alternate source of supply.
Women in this culture have been raised to favor monogamy, and see it, against their natural desires, as their only alternative. Everything from romantic songs, to romance novels sells this. By the time they are in their teens, they've all but accepted it that they are to fit all their desires to one man. If any desire is left over, they try to satisfy it in fantasy. Hence, they read more romance novels, listen to more romantic songs. "Romantic love" is propaganda for monogamy, and very effective.
This doesn't even take into account the way they are treated when they are being raised, where their family will more than likely treat daughter's desires as a disruption or an economic threat. And the way to contain it is to hold out a promise that she "will meet someone."
And then there is religion... where monogamous (hetero) marriage is treated as a sacrament. Than all of the rituals around it making sure that she, the groom and everyone knows what's expected of them, and how many people they are letting down.
So there are great forces brought to bear in making women "buy" monogamy. Housewives buy it at a great cost emotionally. Nevertheless, any human being tends to feel very adverse emotions, jealousy or nausea, over somebody else's sex, especially when it's sex they can't enjoy. Even though housewives will read romance novels and watch soap operas, actually being presented, in person, with polygamy for money is almost intolerable to them.
So, monogamous housewives will resent prostitutes for several reasons, and its very emotional, and the spite is very real. They don't think of it as "protecting" a monopoly. They don't have to reason that far about it. Usually, they don't feel they have a choice about monogamy, they just feel that those who don't uphold the order they're committed to must be punished.
And husbands, even if they see providers, never want to bear the costs of arguing with their wives about it.
/Zin
-- Modified on 7/2/2004 1:41:54 AM
decriminalization/legalization of prostitution, I think that the percentage of Democrats who would answer yes would be substantially higher that the percentage of Republicans who would answer yes.
Does anyone on this board dispute this?
because of what you mention and because limited government is the most moral form of government. This board and others like it are clearly beyond the reach of the federal government according to the Constitution.
John Kerry is an appeaser who will get us attacked more by Al Quida. Also as a liberal he believes in government and the more of it, the better. Liberals believe the USA is great because of governement. Conservatives believe the USA is great because of a tradition of limited government.
I don't expect to agree with every issue a candidate stands for, especially something as trivial as a hobby. No candidate running for President would support this site...too many votes to lose.
So you agree with everything any liberal stands for? How stupid...
Do you mean the way those loving Liberals pushed aside the homeless in LA for their convention? Ask Ted Hayes about that..
Guess they did'nt need the props....
If you don't think Kerry would shut this site down you've got your head in the sand.
-- Modified on 7/3/2004 8:27:50 PM
I must have missed that...
Please attach the URL so we can all see this statement, otherwise you're argument on this subject is useless...
BTW, I'll agree on one thing, when it comes to SEX, We're all HYPOCRITS
"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"
The Christian coalition would never stand in the same room. I could hear the quotes flying from Ezekial, and Jeremiah, and Hosiah, and all the rest of those holy prigs.
Rather than alienate that base of monolithic voters, the Republicans would simply show us the door. If we get out alive. As they do the gays. Look at the trouble made with the few anti-homosexual quotes in the Bible. With prostitution, we have pages and pages of rants to contend with.
And if democrats aren't with us yet, they are at least not hostile.
/Zin
-- Modified on 7/4/2004 9:54:01 PM
-- Modified on 7/5/2004 12:36:47 AM
the fact that some solidly left feminist groups say that prostitution should be illegal because it is the victimization of women?? These groups aren't exactly pulling out the old checkbook for GWB...
Camille Paglia. Erica Jong. Annie Sprinkle.
I recently brought up my views on decriminalizing prostitution, with a 22-year-old feminist who is going into environmental law. (I guess she's what conservatives would call a "pink & green.) I was on edge when I did this, because I only met her the night before. I was please when she said she was all for it, and considered prostitutes rights to be a central to womens' rights.
(BTW, she's not a provider, as far as I could tell.)
The feminists are divided on this, and within their ranks, we have allies.
Unlike, say, the Christian Coalition, who are monolithicly, solid, dead against it.
/Zin