IIRC, the UN treaty on Women's Rights that Carter signed in 1980 left committee in 1994, a most unfortunate year due to the reactionary revolution in Congress by our very own religious fundamentalists like Frist and Santorum.  12 years later it still needs to be put to a vote in the US Senate.  Once it passes, it would decriminalize indie hobbying between consenting adults discreetly done out of sight.

If the Democrats take Congress in a big way this year, and I think they will, hobbyists like Ted Kennedy will be in very powerful positions and may let it go to a floor vote.  It's good to respect women's rights right?  Especially the right to do whatever the hell she wants with her body, which is the right I support most strongly.  We don't want our women to be abused by pimps, pigs, and other dregs of humanity do we?  And it would be great to book an appt. without having her call our office to verify us.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

As nice as it would be to have federal law mandate that paid clandestine sex between consenting adults cannot incur more than an infraction; it would further undermine the Tenth Amendment that the feds have been doing a good job of undermining anyway.

(Article X)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"  

Federal protections of civil and human rights supersede all state authority.  That was what the perverted fuckers were trying to pull during the segregation era.

In an odd twist, it appears that places like LA tend to be more draconion towards the hobby than the bible belt states.

I think you have it wrong. He has been a provider for a long time.

"Reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", another long forgotten provision of our Constitution that runs afoul of the agenda of tyrants.

just asking.

Well, after TK's great commentary about our cowardly VP Cheney, he could be a feature dancer at Spearmint Rhino & he wouldn't look any more foolish than Cheney...

C'mon, be honest.

Doesn't the illegality, trivial as it is,  of the thing add an extra frisson of excitement to the whole process?

...it, the yahoos in the administration would crank up legislation to make it a federal felony.  "Conservatives" always act this way when someone wants to deregulate behavior they don't like.  Remember Reagan's federal drinking-age law?
The U.S. has turned into a puritan, fundamentalist, no-fun country, distinguishable from some of the countries we invade only by our respective headgear (turbans for them; NASCAR gimme caps for us).  Ours is the country whose FDA refused to approve an effective anti-HPV vaccine on grounds that it might have a "disinhibitory" effect, i.e., people might be less afraid to fuck if they couldn't get an HPV-induced cancer.
If George W. Bush had been president back in Alexander Fleming's day, penicillin would be against the law.

"FDA refused to approve an effective anti-HPV vaccine on grounds that it might have a "disinhibitory" effect"

I gotta say, it'd be a high (or low) in brainlessness that I'd like to confirm.

You're right, the same logic should apply to lots of antibiotics, birth control, and a lot of medical practice.

But you have to understand, being a "conservative" isn't about thinking about right or wrong, it's about FEELING right or wrong; and the key concept here is, *I'm* right, and *you're* wrong.  If you can get that down, everything else follows.

iow, does the country think the issue is important enough to Federalize it?

The South felt that slavery and Jim Crow was a matter of local economics and culture, and that Yankee tyrants were meddling in their affairs.  The interstate commerce clause was used to disassemble a lot of the remnants of Jim Crow.


I suppose it's a matter of philosophy that eventually comes down to Chinese political science, ie, political power coming out of the barrel of guns.   Few people will admit to missing Jim Crow, or that the states would have never done it on their own; but there's a whole lot of argument about issues that are less dramatic and comprehensive.

the interstate commerce clause can trump the 10th amendment, if the supremes are so inclined.  I assume you know how supremes get there.

The most notable examples of the use of the interstate commerce clause include (1) all the regulations associated with technology and the national economy, eg the NLRA, etc etal, and (2) of course interstate commerce was used to disassemble remnants of Jim Crow.

Many people, mostly in the south, complained bitterly about the tyranny, mostly of the Northerners, in these issues.   Of course there are counterpoints, and an economic analysis of slavery vs labor regulation doesn't make NE mill owners look like Mother Teresa.

Still, the net question is, do you agree or oppose those issues - issues that of course paved the course of the USA in the 20th century.   It's sorta hard to imagine that USA would be where it is today without those, so of course there is pressure for you to agree that you're for civil rights and science, and of course there are reasonable differences of opinion about how to proceed from here.

What's not so reasonable is exactly what the Republicans do most of these days, ie, unthinking dismissal of issues with shit like we see from you here, shit like Cheney calling Lamont the al Qaeda candidate, etc.  

Look, if Lamont is the al qaeda candidate, arrest him.  If you have probable cause, LOCK HIM UP.  If you don't, and you still proceed with this BS line of propaganda, then you're just a bunch of know-nothing, constitution-hating fascists.


So - what sort of tyranny do you have in mind here?  The tyranny of the 1st amendment?  The tyranny of the 14th?  What is your complaint?  Spit it out.

The tyranny of the neo-gestapo liberals ("I'm going to run your life because I have already screwed mine up")

more sympathy if you weren't so much like this yourself.

Is a building code ruining your life, Harry?  Your neighbors'?  Or what, exactly, are you complaining about?

If there's anything worse that some idiot like Andrea Dworkin complaining about some vague 'patriarchy', it's some crank complaining about 'neo-gestapo liberals'.   The difference between Dworkin and Limbaugh is that Limbaugh talks faster.

Andrea Dworkin is gone to her happy hunting ground. (whatever that might consist of, I try not to visualize the possibilities) We are drowning in government, some nit-wit is micro managing almost every facet of our lives yet we cling to the myth of enjoying freedom. You can label a dog turd "candy" but it is still a dog turd.

I think some of us worry waaay too much re federal LE potential on this point.

Remember the Mann Act [popularly referred to as The White Slavery Law]?  It criminalize the transportation of a woman across interstate lines for immoral pupposes, even when the woman was a fully consenting adult.  Who was the last guy prosecuted under this law?  Jack Johnson, the  heavyweight champ?  

I'd worry a lot more about the various laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations and the like of one's local gov't unit [city, county, state].  You're more likely to run afoul of one of those little landmines than bring down the wrath of the Criminal Division of the US Dept of Justice because you decided, what the hell, I'm horny and curious and impatient, I've got a few bucks to blow, guess i'll pay for it.

exactly what IS your bitch?   Speed limits?  Building codes?  Boring news anchors?  Too many bills?  Are you out of beer? Life just too complicated? What?

My "bitch" is the concept that government (2 bit nitwit beauracrats)is trying to run everyone's life. It permeates every part of our lives. I have no personal battle with them, however, I observe these screw balls on a daily basis. Most of them don't have a valid argument for consuming air. They can't find their asses (and they are all ass) with both hands.

you're just minorly pissed.  You have a concept, but no particular facts to describe it.

Well, thanks for sharing.   I'd like to help you, but not so much that I'll actually do anything.