Swiss Sex Boxes

Swiss sex boxReuters/Arnd Wiegman

In August, Switzerland debuted a new concept: drive-in sex boxes. The goal is to maximize the safety of sex workers and their clients while minimizing the public nuisance caused by the sex trade, which has been legal in the country since 1942.

Located outside the Zurich city center, the sex boxes are stylishly constructed out of teak with clear pictographic signs indicating to the multilingual consumer base which activities are permitted (sex, solicitation, condom use, and convenient drive-up perusal of up to 40 legit ladies of the night) and which are not (cameras, video or audio recording, minors, motorcycles, littering). The colorfully illuminated boxes are open from 7 p.m. to 5 a.m.

Building the experimental haven cost Swiss taxpayers $2.6 million, with annual upkeep of about $760,000. Sex workers who want to take advantage of the shelter-which also boasts restrooms, showers, and a small kitchen-pay $43 a year for a permit and $5.40 a night in taxes.

One thing that's not for sale: privacy. The boxes are a strictly al fresco experience.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Wow. I've never had to pay for it. If I ever do get that blue, I'll be damned if I'm going to do it in what looks like livestock stalls in the middle of a parking lot.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Prude!

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Yes, I am!

    I mean... Yes, I am.

  • misthiocracy||

    Prude, or impotent?

    ;-)

    I kid! I kid!

    I kid, because I love.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    With a typical hooker and in one of those things? It wouldn't surprise me to be both!

  • Dave Krueger||

    Hahahahahahaha! Nothing makes a hooker laugh like someone who claims they "never had to pay for it".

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Not in cashy money anyway.

    Memory fail: What was the movie where the guy say he doesn't pay the hooker for sex, he pays her to leave?

  • ||

    Charlie Sheen.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    Nothing makes me give a fuck about what a hooker thinks.

  • thom77||

    I never HAD to pay for it.

    I chose to because sometimes its just wayyyy easier like that.

  • ||

    No dwarves under 16?

  • JW||

    I just want to know what they have against trees.

  • misthiocracy||

    Make no mistake, Jimmy, if that tree got the chance it would eat you and everyone you care about.

  • Maggie McNeill||

    Actually, these aren't new, and sex worker rights advocates are wondering why the media keep reporting them as such. The correct word for them is "tippelzones", and they've been used all over Europe for years; before Zurich got them they were used in a number of other cities in Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "Actually, these aren't new"

    "before Zurich got them"

    "In August, Switzerland debuted a new concept"

    So they ARE new in Zurich, which is what the article is about. So, I'm not sure what YOU are even posting for.

    Or did you not get that, despite reading it, seeing it, and typing it?

  • The Hyperbole||

    why is broccoli verboten in two of the infographics and okay in the third.

  • SusanM||

    It's not broccoli, I think it's...oh my god...

  • Live Free or Diet||

    No having sex in trees? Or just with the trees?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, you can't do it in the tree or under the tree. Only in the roach coach or in the Blow Box.

  • misthiocracy||

    Legalize veggisexuality.

  • ||

    Dendrophilia is not a crime!

  • sailshonan||

    Shit you not. A friend of my boyfriends is a DEP cop at Honeymoon Island State Park. The friend was on his four wheeler and he rolled up on a chick fucking a dildo strapped to a tree on one of the trails.

  • OneOut||

    This one time? in band camp ? There was this...

  • misthiocracy||

    The red lines represent cheese sauce?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Is there a McDonald's drive-through joke in all this?

  • Kid Xenocles||

    You have to place your order through a garbled intercom, but they display it on a board for you to review.

  • SusanM||

    Something with the punch-line "It tastes better"

  • Kid Xenocles||

    You deserve a break today?

    Or, something about special sauce.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    The Big Mac: Two all-female hookers, special lube on the pickle please, both at once and let me see their buns.

  • fish_remote||

    Is there a McDonald's drive-through joke in all this?

    No....but I'm sure there is an IKEA furniture assembly instruction joke in there!

  • SusanM||

    Only if you get a contortionist.

  • misthiocracy||

    If your prostitute pulls out an allen key before the deed, you may have chosen poorly.

  • SusanM||

    Some guys like that, you know.

  • misthiocracy||

    The back seat of a car is a terrible place to assemble a bookcase.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    There's always the old "some stupid American got Switzerland and Sweden mixed up again" joke.

  • Anomalous||

    Instead of a Happy Meal, you get a Happy Ending.

  • Irish||

    The New York Times is evil.

    This lethal thicket was starkly mapped by The Times in a recent report showing how people who brandish guns, threaten family and neighbors and even admit to mental illness are able to get around the police. This is due in part to rigid legal requirements for a documented history of involuntary hospital commitment or other court actions that go well beyond the threatening incidents that are reported to law enforcement.

    You mean someone actually has to be proven to be mentally ill and the police aren't just allowed to deny someone their rights by claiming a person is mentally ill? Oh the humanity! How can the Times deny people their rights when the justice system keeps requiring proof before someone is punished?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    These are the same people who completely reject the 4th Amendment in the name of safety.

    New York is beyond saving. Just let them go.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    Ten years from now, Irish is going to win the Angriest Man in the World contest on ESPN-XII.

  • C. Anacreon||

    That's "ESPN El Doce"

  • Dweebston||

    "Lethal thicket"? Is this why tree sex is verbotten in Switzerland?

  • ||

    Remember, these are people who think they should be allowed to decide who is "mentally ill", and would put you or Hugh or me on that list for not being goosestepping statists in a heartbeat. You never, ever, want to let these people have even the slightest amount of power, ever. Because they will put you up against a wall without hesitation or remorse. They are sociopaths.

  • LarryA||

    "If you want a gun, you are mentally ill."

  • misthiocracy||

    What about "if you want a gun that you don't need, you might be mentally ill"?

    The problem, of course, being who gets to define "need"?

    But I'm just speaking theoretically, not legally. I don't think the government should ban guns, but I'm still creeped out by gun "nuts", you know?

  • General Butt Naked||

    ...but I'm still creeped out by gun "nuts", you know?

    I hear you, brother. I think that people without a gun in every room of their homes are nuts.

    Oh, you meant...

    Oops

  • misthiocracy||

    Hey, I fully admit reasonable people can disagree. I'm just bein' honest about my prejudices (which I HOPE never influence my politics).

  • prolefeed||

    Where do you feel safer:

    At a gun show in a state that allows concealed carry, where you can assume that most of the people there are packing heat.

    A public place that explicitly prohibits firearms.

    If you chose the latter, you might want to check out the incidence of mass murder sprees at the former versus the latter.

    I personally feel safer around "gun nuts", aka "people who feel comfortable exercising their 1A rights".

  • misthiocracy||

    I totally agree. I would indeed feel safer at a gun show, but I'm still creeped out on a personal level. I didn't say it was a rational feeling.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    What is it that creeps you out about guns?

  • misthiocracy||

    Probably the high-velocity lead poisoning.

  • misthiocracy||

    Also, I'm kinda creeped out by anybody that obsesses about inanimate objects. It's about when "enthusiasm" crosses a line to become "obsession".

  • ||

    Except you're the one obsessing about them. Project much?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So, COMPLETELY, irrational, then?

    Your odds of getting shot are about the same as getting hit by lightning.

    I'm guessing you're an urbanite?

  • misthiocracy||

    Yup. I know all the statistics. I know it's irrational.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So, why then, would you allow yourself to accept what you know to be irrational?

    It's like being afraid of werewolves.

  • misthiocracy||

    It's more like being afraid of snakes or spiders.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    NO, it's more like being afraid of meteor strikes, or massive gamma ray events.

    i.e. beyond irrational, bordering on pathological.

  • wwhorton||

    Hey, man, I don't share the same fear but I sympathize, and kudos to you for being even-handed about it. And hey, for the record, I don't automatically feel totally comfortable around any particular person with a gun for the same reason that I don't like driving on public roads: while most people are responsible, safe drivers, it only takes one flaming retard to cause a massive pile-up, and, with my luck, it'll be the guy in front of me driving the Suburban. I don't parley my fear (or confidence, really) in the idiocy of others into a desire to legislate against firearm (or automobile) ownership; but I'm not going to sit here and say that I believe the practice of owning a gun automagically confers responsibility and competence.

  • alittlesense||

    I'm afraid of Swiss werewolf hookers.

  • Bobarian||

    I'd pay extra for a swiss werewolf hooker...

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "but I'm still creeped out by gun "nuts", you know?"

    No, you haven't been honest yet, so I don't know. Just admit what you really mean, so we can run your idiot ass off and be done with you.

  • Will4Freedom||

    Lighten up, stfum.

    If you were not brought up around guns, and have been spoon fed since youth that only the cops should have them... it's natural to look at them with anything from caution to fear.

    One of my kids had a fear of going over bridges when she was a kid. She worked her way through it.

    Misthiocracy was not advocating for you not to have one. He/she may someday get some one-on-one with a gun owner and slowly overcome the "creeped out" feelings.

    Anyway, a personal belief or phobia you don’t agree with is not justification for hostility. You libertarians call it "Freedom" or "Non-Aggression", or something, right?

  • Irish||

    Remember, these are people who think they should be allowed to decide who is "mentally ill", and would put you or Hugh or me on that list for not being goosestepping statists in a heartbeat.

    In fairness, all three of the people you listed would be locked up in a sane and just society.

  • ||

    "The common denominator in gun violence, however, is not deranged individuals; it is the easy access to assault rifles and other high-powered weapons..."

    Between this and Benghazi they are dropping all pretenses now and just becoming a work of pure fiction?

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    My good friend who isn't me is interested to know where he can get easy access to assault rifles. And he'd also be interested to meet the He-Man who could shoot a "high-powered" automatic weapon, presumably a .30-06, while hitting the broad side of a barn and keeping all of his teeth.

    It's been 20 years since the first Feinstein travesty, and these fuckers still don't know the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon, a political term that they themselves invented.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yup.

    If they were really concerned about safety, and hadn't watched too many movies, they'd ban semi-autos and leave the full autos alone.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Disclaimer:

    Not that I think that banning semi-autos will make us safer, it's just that if you had to kill a bunch of people, I think, it'd be easier with a semi-auto.

  • Zeb||

    Depends on how closely packed the people you want to murder are, I think.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I don't know this for sure, but it seems to me that if you had a full-auto pointed at a crowd a couple of people and the ceiling would be shot a whole bunch of times and most would be unharmed.

    Even if you had a 100 rnd magazine, the gun would overheat and be useless pretty quickly.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, that's the thing. Full-auto is made for suppressive fire, no? If no one is firing back at you, why would you waste the ammo per target?

  • OneOut||

    Why does it have to be murder ?

    Why can't it be self defense? just because you are out numbered doesn't mean you aren't in the right

  • OneOut||

    Hey Barney.

    What's up ?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Franklin Graham says the Pope is soft on gays, and anyway, the Papal shoes clash with the rest of his outfit.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....80307.html

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I just realized that I opened myself to a Swiss Guard joke.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    My wife found an article recently (I'll have to get the link from her) positing that if nothing else it's tactically stupid for Christians to focus so heavily on homosexuality, a sin that only even tempts a small minority of people, rather than something like gluttony, which our society seems to be awash in. From the Christian perspective, which I can see but do not share, it seems to make a lot of sense, since all sins are the same and the goal should be to save as many as possible. Frankly, in this light the obsession with gay sex seems strange, and it begs for an ulterior motive.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Here it is. My summary was more based on what I took from discussing with my wife, but it raises some good points.

  • lap83||

    Although correct that all sin is the same, I think the gluttony focus sounds like it could just as easily come from ulterior motives, since there is a strong food regulation movement. But really it's just human nature. We're not good multi-taskers.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I think it's more like this: Gay sex is a sin in this worldview. Most people don't really contest this, though some consider the attraction to be sinful as well. But only gay/bi people are even tempted to have gay sex, and these people are a small minority. The obsession is completely unwarranted.

    Imagine a world where we replaced all the instagram photos of our extravagant meals with ones of our hypothetical gay lovers and you start to see where I'm coming from. Which would Graham and his ilk be spending most of their time talking about in this world?

    I admit I'm on the outside and I'm prone to see only what others, including many of Christianity's enemies, want to show me. But these ministers don't do themselves any favors by continually returning to the subject.

  • prolefeed||

    it's tactically stupid for Christians to focus so heavily on homosexuality, a sin that only even tempts a small minority of people

    What's even more tactically stupid is to call one's sexual orientation a "sin" that one is "tempted" by, thus revealing a complete lack of empathy. Does anyone anywhere ever say that a hetero is "tempted" to "sin" by having heterosexual relations?

  • cavalier973||

    Of course, in the cases of adultery and fornication.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Yes. There are many sexual sins.

    I should note that I don't subscribe to these views and am only attempting to put myself in the place of those who do.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    And I think your response reveals your own lack of empathy. If you strongly believed - for whatever reason - that people would suffer eternally for doing certain things, what would you do? Would you not make a strong effort to convince them of their folly?

  • cavalier973||

    I'm starting my own advocacy group--the League of the Unempathetic. We're going to force you empathetic types to accept us as we are, and to stop trying to force us into your severe, empathy-normative mold.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I don't condemn it as a moral failing, merely an intellectual one.

  • prolefeed||

    I understand the POV of very religious anti-gay people -- I used to be a Mormon -- so it's not a lack of empathy on my part to say that if you're trying to convince others to adopt your socon views and enact them into law, describing people's sexual preferences as a "temptation" rather than "what they prefer" reveals a profound inability to understand the POV of gays.

  • ||

    describing people's sexual preferences as a "temptation" rather than "what they prefer" reveals a profound inability to understand the POV of gays.

    The same could be said for every "sin" that Christianity condemns. Including the litany of heterosexual sins. Anything that is tempting to you could also be described as "what you prefer". If it wasn't your preference, it wouldn't tempt you.

  • cavalier973||

    It is unbelief, and not engagement in a variety of prohibited activities, that separate one from God.

    Embracing Christ, accepting His payment of the sin-debt, is all that is necessary to restore one's relationship to God.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    It is unbelief, and not engagement in a variety of prohibited activities, that separate one from God.

    That may be true, however, this is not

    Embracing Christ, accepting His payment of the sin-debt, is all that is necessary to restore one's relationship to God.

    As Christianity also teaches that one cannot seek a relationship with Christ or God under false pretenses - meaning if homosexuality is a sin and if I were gay still came to agree with the Christian faith that my innate desires are "sins", any prayerful confession to God or Jesus to seek saving would theoretically be actively ignored if I still desired gay sex.

    & while not gay, I don't think it's possible even in this case for a truly gay person to not still hold attractions and thoughts that would be considered "sinful" - just as I think as a heterosexual, if heterosexual sex, even in a lifelong union, became a "sin"... sure, if I truly believed in the faith I may be able to refrain from sinful sex acts, but to never think about it again?

    Not only do I think I would, but I don't think it's humanly possible not to think of your desires.

    But that's religion - the strongest police states ever to be and ever to come wish they had this power to outlaw thoughts. & they try, but at least in places like that, say North Korea, people can hide their thoughts and and at least escape through death.

    For Christianity and others however, thoughts are sins and death is just the beginning of the real punishment.

  • cavalier973||

    "...if I were gay still came to agree with the Christian faith that my innate desires are "sins", any prayerful confession to God or Jesus to seek saving would theoretically be actively ignored if I still desired gay sex.

    I think you misunderstand the Gospel, sir. No one has the capacity to reject his sin before he is redeemed. Christ redeems one first (Justification), then He works to recreate one to be holy (Sanctification), which is a life-long process.

  • ||

    any prayerful confession to God or Jesus to seek saving would theoretically be actively ignored if I still desired gay sex.

    I'm not familiar with every niche theology of Christianity, but that's not the way it works in any denomination I've ever been taught. 1 John 1:9 would be null and void otherwise. There's no expectation you're going to stop sinning when you become a Christian.

  • lap83||

    "Does anyone anywhere ever say that a hetero is "tempted" to "sin" by having heterosexual relations?"

    (I'm late returning to this, oh well)

    Yes, if it's not within the confines of marriage. They consider all behavior a choice. Free will.

  • lap83||

    I should also note that not every Christian thinks you can be reformed to being attracted to the "right" gender. It's more a choice between marriage and chastity. Like the Apostle Paul said "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry."

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, strictly, most of these same Christians view sex outside of marriage as sinful. So, yeah, they do say people are tempted into sin by heterosexual relations.

  • Salty Bear||

    No true Christian considers being tempted a sin. We are all tempted by something. It's not sin til you give in.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've often wondered why jesus freaks are soooo obsesses with buttsex and the homos that have it, but can't figure it out. It's not like the bible has 100s of pages detailing all the ways that buttsex is evil, or that such a high percentage of the population is gay that we're not pumping out enough babies to do the farm work.

    I don't get it.

    My only guess is that they find the buttsex really icky spend more time worrying about what thy find icky rather than what's biblically important. I mean, you don't have jesus dudes comparing jews who work on sundays or their fatass relatives to murders.

  • misthiocracy||

    I think it's because some (many?) gay people do actually engage in recruitment (contrary to popular belief) to their lifestyle, while not that many gluttons do.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That sounds like some church newsletter bullshit scare story.

    Kinda like the rock 'n roll satanists of the 80s.

  • misthiocracy||

    Nah, there have been a few stories from relatively respectable outlets lately about older gay men cruising underage kids. However, as I do not have any citations to back it up, you are indeed free to take it with a grain of salt.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Dude, gay people aren't vampires. They aren't snow-pure teens who are bitten by some old queen and turned into RuPaul.

    Most gay people feel that way all their lives and old on young predation isn't unique or more pronounced among homosexuals.

  • misthiocracy||

    See, I'm not willing to accept absolutist statements like that. Surely, there is a segment of the gay population that is predatory, just as there is a segment of the heterosexual population that is predatory.

    The key is in how predatory practices are tolerated (or even promoted) in different social groups.

    A hetero man that brags about targeting underage women will (arguably) be treated differently by his community than a gay man that brags about targeting underage men. Arguably.

    Again, I am not advocating different legal prohibitions for homosexual behaviour.

  • ||

    A hetero man that brags about targeting underage women will (arguably) be treated differently by his community than a gay man that brags about targeting underage men.

    You sound like you don't know shit about homos. You reek of fear and mythology. Seeing that you also say equally pathetically fearful shit about guns, it looks like the corresponding fear factor is...you. Maybe you should try to be less of a pussy.

  • misthiocracy||

    Be nice.

  • ||

    Uh, no, fuck you.

  • misthiocracy||

    I love civil discourse.

  • ||

    And I love watching fearful pussies equivocate. I guess it all works out.

  • SusanM||

    Horny older guys? SHOCKING! THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF HETEROSEXUALITY! BURN THOSE HOMOS!

  • Zeb||

    Um, what?

    I think that if a person is open to "recruitment" to gayness, the gay was probably in there to begin with.

  • misthiocracy||

    There is quite a bit of research that suggests that's not NECESSARILY true, especially when discussing older men cruising underage targets.

    Of course, since I do not have any citations to offer, you are free to take it with a grain of salt.

    Also, note that I am not advocating legislative action. I'm only noting that the whole "you're born that way" mantra is questioned by some reputable sources.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I'm only noting that the whole "you're born that way" mantra is questioned by some reputable sources.

    That's not true - there are no reputable sources who have remotely proven that fully gay people weren't born that way.

    & I can say this even assuming all the research you said is good, done with integrity, and exists - because finding one person who "went gay" and later claimed there weren't really does nothing to refute the claim by many gays that it is innate.

    Add to this our scientific knowledge that sex is a very primal instinct. This is proven through FMRIs, as well as rational research into human evolution and history. After all, our survival requires sex.

    Therefore, it makes much more sense if heterosexual traits are innate, then most likely homosexual traits are as well.

    If you're honestly curious - the reason why your "research" likely exists is because sexual desires are not limited to binary options, but exist on a continuum (even if Kinsey was retarded and made up research, he was right about this).

    Combine all of that and science and rational thought say it's not just possible, but completely likely that some people could "go either way", but that it no way refutes the scientific question of whether homosexuals were born that way.

    If fact, if you believe sexual choice is on a continuum, people going "either way" strengthen the claims that homosexuality is innate, not weaken them.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    FWIW - the reason I'm so certain that "you're born that way" mantra has not been seriously questioned by any reputable sources, is that we still understand very little about human brains, DNA, chemicals in the brain, RNA, etc (though we do know through evolution when different parts of our brains formed and therefore older parts, the ones which deal with sex, food, etc, hold more of our "primary" instincts than do newer areas).

    That lack of understanding, prevents us today from saying directly that homosexual desires, or even heterosexual desires, are innate.

    Due to this - anyone claiming evidence in opposition can only present behavior patterns and try to draw conclusions from them as our current scientific limitations don't allow (yet) a definitive answer through most concrete scientific knowledge/methods.

    But what we know - is the gay population contends strongly they were born that way - no one has presented any valid reasons for disbelieving them en masse - and up until this question became important - all heterosexuals certainly believe their sexual desires existed from birth.

    Therefore it makes more logical/rational sense that all sexual desires are from birth - rather than some complicated idea that some desire are and some aren't.

    I suppose they could be consistent and say all sexual desires are learned, but we all know that's not what's happening here.

    I doubt it - but at least that would be consistent.

  • ||

    all heterosexuals certainly believe their sexual desires existed from birth.

    For sure. Because pre-sexually-mature children totally have ever-present sexual desires.

    I don't think there's anybody, layperson or scientist, boneheaded enough to think that there's not some combination of genetics and environment that plays a role in human sexual development.

  • ||

    there are no reputable sources who have remotely proven that fully gay people weren't born that way.

    That's because you can't prove a negative - it defies falsifiability.

  • cavalier973||

    Have gluttons formed politically active organizations that push for the rest of the population to embrace their lifestyle, while simultaneously labelling anyone who considers gluttony a sin a "stupid bigot"?

  • Kid Xenocles||

    They don't need to. That's the point; it's a hugely popular sin in our culture (if you see it as such). It's the mote vs beam problem that even appears prominently in the Gospels.

  • cavalier973||

    Are there groups that are advocating gluttony as a positive good that must be embraced as a viable lifestyle, even by people who view it as immoral?

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Does the fish notice the sea around him?

  • fish_remote||

    Sometimes....mostly when it gets cold.....

  • LarryA||

    Several examples: Fat people coddled by Hollywood, P.C. police
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....pc-police/
    Not unbiased.

  • Irish||

    The 23-year old Oscar winner told ABC’s Barbara Walters added that, “If we’re regulating cigarettes and sex and cuss words because of the effect they have on our younger generation, why aren’t we regulating things like calling people ‘fat’?”

    This is the dumbest sentence I have ever read.

    Screw it. I don't need to wait for ESPN XII to win the angriest man alive contest. I'm ready now.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I forgot about the anti-"fat shaming" crusade. Good point.

  • ||

    The key difference is that gluttony is not a legally protected class, so you are perfectly free to laugh in the face of an anti-"fat shaming" crusader and tell them "fuck off, fatty". When they actually start obtaining legal rights, and then you're faced with the prospect of a settlement or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending yourself against the crime of being a fattyphobe for making a comment like that, then it becomes a fairer comparison.

    Bear in mind that the vast majority of people think libertarians are inordinately obsessed with fucking prostitutes and smoking pot; even though we tend to focus on those issues only because they are subject to such extreme meddling by the government.

  • misthiocracy||

    "Are there groups that are advocating gluttony as a positive good ..."

    Food manufacturers.

    Restauranteurs.

    The folk that organize hot dog eating contests.

  • cavalier973||

    You forgot farmers and your mama.

  • ||

    Restauranteurs.

    It's restaurateurs - there's no "n".

  • alittlesense||

    I do not think you define gluttony correctly. Eating at a restaurant does not equate with gluttony. Do you consider any enjoyment of food as gluttony? Are you saying that anything over a certain portion size is gluttony? Are you really Mayor Bloomberg is disguise?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Have gluttons formed politically active organizations that push for the rest of the population to embrace their lifestyle, while simultaneously labelling anyone who considers gluttony a sin a "stupid bigot"?

    So if this happens we won't be subjected to the homophobic, anally obsessive rants of irrational morons? They'll just go on and on about cheeseburgers and shit?

  • cavalier973||

    You're not subjected to that, now.

  • ||

    Frankly, in this light the obsession with gay sex seems strange, and it begs for an ulterior motive.

    It may have something to do with the fact that the gluttons don't have a political movement seeking and obtaining protected class status for the fatties, elevating their rights and privileges above those of others, with the potential of forcing the church or people with religious objections to accommodate them. I'm not sure there was such an "obsession with gay sex" in the Christian community until the law started encroaching on the issue.

  • ||

    This is why it's important to scroll before posting...

  • cavalier973||

    It's okay. The point is a good one, and is worth repeating.

  • ||

    By papal standards, he probably IS being soft on gays. I doubt it's a high bar to jump.

  • misthiocracy||

    1) He's trying to be soft on gays while still being hard on homosexuality. Love the sinner, hate the sin, and all that.

    2) The pope no longer has no ability to use force to impose his views, one way or the other. He's allowed to voice his opinion, surely.

  • ||

    1) He's trying to be soft on gays while still being hard on homosexuality. Love the sinner, hate the sin, and all that.

    That sounds about like what he's said so far.

    2) The pope no longer has no ability to use force to impose his views, one way or the other. He's allowed to voice his opinion, surely.

    Whoa whoa whoa, we can't have people going around just speaking all willy-nilly now. It'd be ANARCHY! If we all just stick to our designated Free Speech Zones™ and Non-Offensive Topics™, we'll be just fine.

  • ||

    hard on homosexuality

    The joke's on him then, that's just the way they like it! At least the male ones.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    2) The pope no longer has no ability to use force to impose his views, one way or the other. He's allowed to voice his opinion, surely.

    Since in developed countries the majority of Catholics actively vote for pro-choice candidates and have so for decades, the pope has lost the ability to even persuade the faithful.

    Though for those who really believe in Catholicism, the church does have a weapon - they just will never use it - but they can kick people out....

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    “God would have to shift — and God doesn’t,” he said. “God’s word is the same, yesterday and today and a million years from now.”

    So God didn't alter his covenant with the Hebrew people and enter into a new one with the so-called "gentiles"? Graham admits that "Christians" are just pagans cosplaying as Jews?

    I'll be damned.

  • misthiocracy||

    I'm a Christian, and that description doesn't offend me. Makes quite a bit of sense, ackshully.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm glad, because it wasn't meant to offend Christianity. What I'm getting at is the absurdity of the statement spoken by someone who purported believes in Dispensationalism, that is, the theological belief that God speaks differently to different groups of people at different points in history.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "Eduard van Haalen|12.29.13 @ 12:46PM|#

    Franklin Graham says the Pope"

    I honestly cannot think of three individuals who I care less about hearing from.

  • ||

    I can think of at least 435. And that's only counting congress!

  • lap83||

    Nothing about why taxpayers should have to foot the bill?

  • prolefeed||

    It's not morally correct enough to simply legalize such buildings and let entrepreneurs build them if they think they can make profits doing so. To be really chock full of good intentions, one has to rob people via taxation and have a monopoly institution build these things for more money than it would otherwise cost, and rob people again to pay for the subsidized rents.

    Because that's what REAL compassion looks like.

  • misthiocracy||

    Like.

  • ||

    I will say this though: if you're going to spend public money on such ventures, Europeans tend to it smartly where we tend to do it incomprehensibly stupidly. The buildings and maintenance are ostensibly to be paid for by taxes on the prostitutes, and were probably built with funds already collected via other taxes. Europeans are comfortable with a crushingly high tax burden to pay for shit like this. Americans want to be taxed like ancaps, but still get all of the same benefits as Europeans.

  • prolefeed||

    The buildings and maintenance are ostensibly to be paid for by taxes on the prostitutes, and were probably built with funds already collected via other taxes.

    Ummm, no, do the math.

    Daily maintenance cost: about $2,000.

    Daily fees charged a maximum of 40 hookers: about $5.

    So the fees cover about 10% of the daily costs, and none of the building costs.

  • ||

    Daily fees charged a maximum of 40 hookers: about $5.

    Don't forget though:

    Sex workers who want to take advantage of the shelter...pay $43 a year for a permit and $5.40 a night in taxes.

    Presumably there would be more than 40 hookers paying for the permit since they may work different days/times.

    Plus I did point out:

    ...and were probably built with funds already collected via other taxes. Europeans are comfortable with a crushingly high tax burden to pay for shit like this.

    Point being, Europeans have been able to do social democracy for so long because they understand the concept: we all pay out the nose, and in exchange the government does all our thinking for us. Americans like everything but the "we all pay out the nose" part.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I'm not understanding the whole "tree" prohibition thingy.

  • ||

    I think you are only supposed to have sex job your vehicle or in the stall. The tree represents the true al fresco experience, which is not allowed.

    Just a guess, though.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'm not understanding the whole "tree" prohibition thingy.

    Not "tree"; "bush"?

    I approve.

  • ||

    Former Obama operative Lis Smith, who was one of the most prominent feminist critics of Mitt Romney and accused him and the GOP of waging a "War On Women", is now dating feminist hero Eliot Spitzer

    Mayor-elect de Blasio's spokeswoman Lis Smith hasn't been heard from since it was revealed she was dating her old boss, the still-married former governor of New York Eliot Spitzer. And now the Post suggests that she may not be following de Blasio to City Hall.
    Smith, 31, had worked on Spitzer's failed comptroller campaign before joining de Blasio's mayoral team ahead of the general election. After de Blasio's win, she has been handling communications for his transition.

    The Post points out that de Blasio was critical of Spitzer when he ran for comptroller, and said, "Eliot has not only been absent, but Eliot is a child of the elite. And dare I say, he invalidated himself by his actions when he was in public office before," adding, "I'm not saying for a moment that he didn't do a few good things, particularly as attorney general, I think some of them were commendable, but his but his later actions I think took away the mantle of leadership in every way."

    Just a reminder: Spitzer is said by a few different call girls to have had a fetish for choking women during sex.

  • ||

    I can't think of anything more fitting than a political apparatchik like Smith dating a political scumbag like Spitzer. They deserve each other, and hopefully choke each other out at some point. It's not auto-asphyxiation if someone helps you.

  • ||

    It doesn't matter how ugly you are or if you are known to have zero integrity, if you're moderately successful and liberal there will be some progressive/feminist women out there will find you irresistible.

  • SugarFree||

    Either she's not 31 or she's been dragged behind a truck for 31 miles.

    She looks like a hard-drinking 44-year-old at a minimum. Way to go, Eliot.

  • misthiocracy||

    I have much more respect for men who choose women I might describe as "homely" when they have the ability to bang women I might describe as "hotties".

    It's why I actually had much more respect for Prince Charles when he married Camilla. He didn't cheat on Diana with some young bimbo, like many powerful men do. Instead, he fell in love with someone he considered more his equal.

    It's kinda sweet if ye think about it, ackshully.

  • prolefeed||

    He married someone beautiful and charming and, apparently, utterly wrong for him, realized his mistake, and then married someone whose company he enjoys.

    Proving even inbred people can exhibit good judgment.

  • cavalier973||

    His marriage to Diana was a matter of state. He was (if I remember correctly--Ha! I do remember correctly!), already interested in Camilla long before he met Diana.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    NYT:

    The common denominator in gun violence, however, is not deranged individuals; it is the easy access to assault rifles and other high-powered weapons afforded all Americans. A few determined states are attempting to deal with this issue, but real solutions must involve federal legislation and national standards, which are nowhere in sight.

    It just never gets old.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    What was the NYT's attitude towards filibusters?

  • seguin||

    Depends, who's in the majority this year?

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Didn't I just see a Ronald Bailey article last week about how gun control doesn't improve public safety, but CCW does?

  • General Butt Naked||

    It's funny to me that on the side of this article is a link to another article about an "epidemic of carjackings" in Newark, a place where even hollow point ammunition is illegal.

    Looks like gun control laws just make the innocent more vulnerable to the predators.

  • Derpetologist||

    My favorite pro-2A anecdote is how crime fell 89% over a decade in Kenesaw, GA after they passed a law making gun ownership mandatory.

    If there was any other policy that had that result, Team Blue would be pounding on tables to get it passed.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    My favorite pro-2A anecdote is how crime fell 89% over a decade in Kenesaw, GA after they passed a law making gun ownership mandatory.

    I don't have the specifics on hand, but IIRC, this research was refuted mostly, as the same time frame the US saw a large drop, and the 89% was inflated in the study.

    I think the study wasn't really research, but an attempt to find specific scenarios which has specific numbers to bolster and already held conclusion that gun ownership reduces crime.

    I think research using FL and other early adopters of CCWs, showed little movement either way in crime due to the likelihood that the criminals knew "more people are carrying".

    Disclaimer: While I think that "study" was highly flawed and don't believe we have good statistical proof that things like CCWs reduce overall crime, I still strongly believe in gun rights and gun ownership, as I strongly believe that without the ability and right to defend oneself, all other rights are moot.

    Further, the NYTs and other gun control advocates are irrational. As such, they are willing to exploit deaths, attack normal, decent people as deranged or mentally deficient for daring to own any guns, and any other tactic they deem necessary to disarm their opposition (as they falsely believe they will be in charge forever and therefore not themselves be disarmed).

    After all, since only evil conservatives, libertarians, tea parties, etc own guns - it must be wrong.

  • misthiocracy||

    Why must Swiss taxpayers foot the bill?

    Why not just pass a law legalizing privately-operated "sex boxes"?

    For that matter, is there a particular disincentive for Swiss sex workers to make use of Swiss hotel rooms?

    Why does the Swiss government want to encourage sex in cars rather than sex in hotel rooms?

    Are Swiss sex workers legally prohibited from offering their services from a private residence?

    These smells to me like a hare-brained "solution" to a problem caused by government in the first place.

  • ||



    For that matter, is there a particular disincentive for Swiss sex workers to make use of Swiss hotel rooms?


    Yes, the price.

  • Dave Krueger||

    One thing that's not for sale: privacy. The boxes are a strictly al fresco experience.

    What does this mean? Everyone is having sex out in the open? Do they then just hose it down after closing? You know, like the cages at the zoo?

  • John Galt||

    The truth seldom lives up to the hype.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Here's a story with an actual picture of the stalls. They look like a cross between one of those DIY car washing places and a horse stall.

  • alittlesense||

    Are they timed? Does the box screech "cuckoo" and toss the particpants out and the end of the alloted time?

    Ya know, Swiss cuckoo clocks, etc.

  • John Galt||

    Katherine Mangu-Ward on Swiss Sex Boxes

    *Disappointment*

    The misleading title of this article led me to believe I'd be seeing risque images of Katherine Mangu-Ward sitting on some Swiss made sex boxes.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    That's subscriber content. Spoiler--all photos feature Gillespie and Bailey from the 2004 Reason Cruise.

  • John Galt||

    Gillespie and Bailey are certified cock blocking specialists.

  • Derpetologist||

    I believe Carlin said something like "Selling is legal; fucking is legal. So shouldn't selling fucking be legal?"

  • misthiocracy||

    Selling, in most places, is highly regulated.

    Fucking, in most places, is unregulated.

    So, legalizing fucking for money would mean regulating fucking.

    Legal prostitutes in Nevada have much more interaction with law enforcement than illegal prostitutes elsewhere, since they must submit themselves to registration, background tests, drug tests, fingerprinting, and weekly health tests.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    Fucking, in most places, is unregulated.

    Experience holds that my fucking is highly regulated, though admittedly not by me or by the monopoly of violence that is the state.

  • Derpetologist||

    It's a cartel- The Organization of Pussy Exporting Cunts

    /this is why there are no female libertarians, etc.

  • misthiocracy||

    Private regulation of private behaviour. I gots no problem with that.

  • John Galt||

    Better yet (for the ladies at least) the selling of the promise of maybe-fucking is entirely legal. It's called "marriage."

  • Derpetologist||

    I wrote on my blog about this.

  • John Galt||

    A question for Mr Stegosaurus: What ever motivated homosexuals to think they sincerely want in on the misery that for the most part has been reserved for a man and a woman.

    I have no problem with gays marrying. Just at a loss for reasons why they'd want to.

  • Zeb||

    Probably the same reasons straight people do.

  • Derpetologist||

    I think anti-Christian spite is a big part of it. It certainly seems to be the motivation for gay pride parades- "hey look at us! Are we pissing you off yet?"

    Gay parade?- "Yaaay! Look how tolerant we are!"

    Tea Party?- "Uneducated yokels gather for hate-fest! Film at 11."

    Open carry parade? "This is an illegal assembly. Disperse or we will open fire."

  • misthiocracy||

    Like.

  • misthiocracy||

    Because they are looking forward to a big, fat divorce settlement from the sucker they convinced to marry 'em?

  • John Galt||

    Bingo!

  • misthiocracy||

    Legal - but HIGHLY regulated.

  • SusanM||

    Just wanted to say it's always nice to come to the comments here. Rational and, dare I say it, reasonable discussions.

  • misthiocracy||

    Fuck you!!!

    ;-)

    Just kidding. I'm tryin' to be ironic, like all the cool kids these days.

  • SusanM||

    try moar harder

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Speaking of Eliot Spitzer, have some butthurt:

    When professions police themselves, society holds together. Unfortunately, most groups are reluctant about criticizing their members, whether they’re teachers, lawyers, politicians in the same party, doctors, hedge fund managers or reporters.

    I want to break with that tradition in considering the sleazy recent activities of the New York Post, which has been spying on Eliot Spitzer, New York’s former governor, and Lis Smith, the campaign communications director for the incoming mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio.

    The Post staked out Smith’s apartment building in New York and shot night-before and morning-after photos of Smith and Spitzer going in and out.

    Then Andrea Peyser, the Post’s bulldog columnist, wrote about their liaison in a rabid column.

    Spitzer, although not divorced yet, has been separated from his wife for months and living apart from her. Smith is single. That they are spending time together is not a scandal.

    What is scandalous is that a newspaper would devote resources to covering this “affair,” which the participants were not trying to hide, then give prominent play to stories about it.

    Eliot Spitzer is a warm and wonderful man, trying to make America better place. RESPECT HIM.

  • Derpetologist||

    The privacy of Top Men must be respected!

  • misthiocracy||

    Even creeps have 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

  • ||

    Which would be relevant if the government was spying on him.

  • Derpetologist||

    Peter Schiff tries to get shoppers to donate 15% of their purchases to give Wal Mart workers a raise- hilarity ensues.

    The gravel-voiced guy at the end trying to give him advice on how to lie is the best.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    I made a late-night run to the liquor store the other night and was cruising through the FM dial when I heard Stephen Molyneux talking about whatever it is that he talks about--jumping on trampolines, child abuse, Atlas Shrugged. Stunned to hear a podcast jockey on an actual, honest-to-God analog radio station in the middle of flyover country. Most of the shows around here feature "muscular Christianity" or experts who tell you that Jesus wants you to be rich, so the son of Irwin Schiff talking about the character of sound money is a little unusual. I'll probably keel over if I ever hear Tom Woods talking about the Civil War on FM radio.

    Turns out that Schiff has a late-night spot on the local talk radio station right after Dennis Miller. Apparently radical Austrianism isn't so radical anymore.

  • General Butt Naked||

    ...and was cruising through the FM dial when I heard Stephen Molyneux talking about whatever it is that he talks about...

    Get some band playing 3 chords over and over again in a fast fashion and everybody freaks out about anarchists on the radio, but get an honest-to-god anarchist on the radio and nobody cares.

  • Derpetologist||

    Most self-described anarchists are merely socialists who like swearing and wearing leather.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yeah, they're called communists. And fuck them, the murderous cunts can't have that word.

  • John Galt||

    Indeed. Upon examination it's obvious that socialist is the opposite of anarchist.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Indeed, indeed. Hell, most of those black mask wearing fucks aren't merely socialist, but rather hardcore marxist/stalinists. I guess they think if everything is the state than nothing is.

    Assholes.

  • Derpetologist||

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Wearing leather & listening to punk rock does not make you an anarchist

    They're Nihilists Donny.

    Is it crass if I link to my blog article on this subject?

    Only if it sucks.

  • misthiocracy||

    What about radical australianism?

  • Derpetologist||

    Quantitative easing?! Oy! How 'bout harden th' feck upping!

  • cavalier973||

    A Tupelo, MS radio station broadcasts "Free Talk Live", where every day the important topic of getting arrested for smoking marijuana is thoroughly discussed.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Dollars to doughnuts, the gravel-voiced guy is a retired union hired gun. He probably put the muscle in on a few businesses in his time.

  • John Galt||

    The "Dollars to donuts" phrase which meaning will have to flip to make any sense.

    At higher end donut outlets a donut already costs around a dollar, if not more. After the mass inflation we're likely to soon witness, "dollars to donuts" will either disappear or will have to become a phrase expressing great odds, not poor ones.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Hell, old people used to say "dimes to donuts".

    Maybe we could say "bitcoins to donuts".

  • OldMexican||

    clear pictographic signs indicating to the multilingual consumer base which activities are permitted (sex, solicitation, condom use, and convenient drive-up perusal of up to 40 legit ladies of the night) and which are not (cameras, video or audio recording, minors, motorcycles, littering).


    What? No motorcycles?

    Why, those barbarians!

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    So misthiocracy is obviously Bo, trying to hide from his previously burned screen name after he ruined it being Tulpa again.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You made me go back and reread his comments. Bo never swears.

    Could be Bo otherwise. Perhaps he did it to throw us off.

  • cavalier973||

    Bo is Tulpa?

  • ||

    I've never seen them photographed together. Just sayin'

  • cavalier973||

    Doggone-it, Climate! We said you're supposed to be warming! So, warm, already!

  • cavalier973||

    “At first, people were starting to watch disaster movies,” Dr. Turney added. “But I had to stop that.” Now it is mostly comedies, although episodes of the hit series “Breaking Bad” have been popular, too.
  • Vampire||

    What if one doesn't wish to drive into sex box at the moment, but rather spend time eating the sex box first? Sure makes driving inside a little easier, and pleasurable for the driver and the sex box too.

  • Bobarian||

    There have been a lot of cars in that sex box, recently...

    Some people like their sex box that way, I suppose.

    But it probably cost you extra for the meal.

  • ||

    prolefeed|12.29.13 @ 2:05PM|#

    It's not morally correct enough to simply legalize such buildings and let entrepreneurs build them if they think they can make profits doing so.


    Actually brothels etc are quite legal in Switzerland so entrepreneurs can build them subject to getting permits etc.

    These facilities are for street hookers, who tendency to use back alleys and public parks for servicing their clients rather than renting hotel rooms.

  • Jayburd||

    Jack uhnt zie box. Or Splinter City.

  • KRoyall||

    I see no reason for taxpayer funded sex boxes. I guess the economy isn't so hot there after all if women need to rent themselves out as sperm repositories.

  • SueNichollsera||


    my roomate's half-sister makes 74 dollars an hour on the laptop. She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her check was 19922 dollars just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

    http://www.tec30.com

  • buy steroids Australia||

    Do you consider any enjoyment of food as gluttony? Are you saying that anything over a certain portion size is gluttony? Are you really Mayor Bloomberg is disguise?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement