Feminist Author Katha Pollitt Advocates Banning Sex Work Because PATRIARCHY

Sex Worker Open University/FacebookSex Worker Open University/FacebookPoet and second-wave feminist darling Katha Pollitt penned a predictably bad piece about sex work for The Nation recently. Pollitt is upset about what she perceives as widespread leftist support for legalized prostitution. This is, in itself, a strange perception—I've followed sex worker activism and attitudes for years, and I am far from alone in noticing a recent surge in anti–sex work passion among progressives. But more problematic/annoying are the reasons Pollitt gives for criminalizing prostitution, reasons which turn on an unsavory belief that restricting liberty is justified if it leads people to better (read: more progressive) views.

Pollitt's opposition seems to hinge mainly on three things:

1) Some people do not want to sell sex and would rather sell pie.

2) Men she knows (and men you know, too!) might visit prostitutes if it's legal. 

3) PATRIARCHY.

To the first point, Pollitt notes that it's not "just prudery or fear of arrest or attack or stigma that keeps the vast majority of women working straight jobs. Maybe there's a difference between a blowjob and a slice of pie."

No maybe about it, lady, there is definitely a difference between a blow job and a slice of pie. It's neat that there's room in this world for both, and that there are people willing to both sell and buy both. Waitresses who don't want to sell blow jobs don't have to, sex workers who don't want to bus tables don't have to, and neither of them have to sell insurance. Women who don't want to sell blow jobs or pie or insurance, meanwhile, can find different means of making a livng entirely. The fact that not everybody wants to do a particular job seems like a very silly reason to think that job should be banned. 

Would many sex workers choose other work if they could? No doubt. (I'll bet many coal miners and migrant farm laborers would, too.) And sex work supporters acknowledge this. It's completely untrue that popular sex work activists—the kind Pollitt pooh-poohs for having Twitter accounts and a choice in what they do—don't talk about sex worker exploitation. No one is under any illusions that all sex workers are Ashley Dupre or Belle Knox. But, as Noah Berlatsky commented on Pollitt's article, the key question is how best to reduce that exploitation?

"Is it to tell sex workers that there's something wrong with them for doing this work rather than a service job (which does seem to be where your argument leads)?" Bertlatsky asks. "Or is it to try to give them more rights and more power?" 

Giving sex workers more rights, however, would also mean giving johns less punishment—a point which Pollitt expects women to find scary. Have you thought about the fact that men you know might visit prostitutes, young ladies? "This faceless man could be anyone: your colleague, your boyfriend, your father, your husband," writes Pollitt. "Theoretically, if it's OK to be a sex worker, it's OK to be a john....Do pro–sex work feminists really think that, though?" 

I can't speak for all pro–sex work feminists, but I imagine that most do, in fact, realize that it takes two to tango for money. Which means, yes, it's okay to be a john. Yes, monetized sexual relations with another consenting adult are "OK" no matter which side of the cash flow you're on.

But, but, but...don't we know this will perpetuate patriarchy? "When feminists argue that sex work should be normalized," writes Pollitt, "they accept male privilege they would attack in any other area."

I'm not sure what Pollitt means by "normalized." I've never seen any feminists arguing that prostitution should be the predominant sexual paradigm or that scores more people should go into it. We simply think that prohibition of sex work creates more problems than it solves, that adults should be free to engage in sexual contracts with one another as they see fit, and that driving sex work underground leads to more exploitative conditions for those who are coerced or forced into it. If that's "normalization," sure, but it wouldn't be the first term I'd choose. Semantics aside, the fact that a practice may contribute to troubling gender expectations simply isn't justification to prohibit it.

"Maybe men would be better partners, in bed and out of it, if they couldn't purchase that fantasy," Pollitt notes, as if making men better lovers is good enough reason to lock women away for offering hand jobs. She goes on to worry that destigmatizing prostitution promotes the view "that sex is something women have and men get (do I hear 'rape culture,' anyone?), that men are entitled to sex without attracting a partner."

First, imagine how silly this would sound in any other context (legalizing street vendors promotes the attitude that some people are entitled to soft pretzels without the work of baking them themselves...). Second, men paying women for sex has nothing to do with "rape culture." Rape culture rests on men thinking they're owed or deserve (free) sex from any or all women, not men spending their money to purchase sex from women who have given consent. Regardless, I want no part of promoting certain values—no matter how desirable—through coercive force.

"The current way of seeing sex work is all about liberty—but what about equality?" Pollitt concludes. Liberty, however, is an essential component of equality, and restricting the liberty of those engaged in (buying or selling) sex doesn't get us any closer to a more equal or less sexist society. It just restricts liberty. Hey, at least nobody's dad or husband is visiting a whore without punishment, though, right?

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.

  • pan fried wylie||

    Waitresses who don't want to sell blow jobs don't have to

    Yet another mandate missing from obamacare.

  • pan fried wylie||

    Was in such a hurry I didn't even finish reading that sentence: and neither of them have to sell insurance

    But they gotta buy it! *rimshot*

  • AlmightyJB||

    White Culture Rape Privilege is boring

  • silent v||

    there is definitely a difference between a blow job and a slice of pie.

    I believe this was the original movie pitch for American Pie

  • I. B. McGinty||

    I was disappointed to read on and see that the author was talking about pie and not "pie."

  • Calidissident||

    How is assuming that women are delicate creatures who can't make decisions for themselves not an example of patriarchy?

  • GotOutOfCali||

    If, somehow, Pollitt reads these comments, you might be sued for making her head explode.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Here's the problem with radical feminism:

    It's okay for them to have all these kooky beliefs. As long as they keep it to themselves, it doesn't bother me. But they've decided to enforce their Women's Studies 101 ideals without any empirical evidence or the slightest shred of logic.

    It's basically become a religion.

  • Tony||

    Same goes for your stupid ass bullshit. Perhaps if they just called it "freedom" it would be OK to impose on everyone?

  • R C Dean||

    Freedom isn't "imposed" on anyone. Its their natural state.

    Removing coercion from someone's life isn't an "imposition."

    Naturally, if they want to voluntarily surrender their freedoms (but only theirs, not mine, thanks), they are, well, free to do so.

  • Tony||

    (You're not actually selling freedom. You just call it that.)

  • The Laconic||

    Well, that's 30 seconds of your life you'll never get back. Well done, RC.

  • The Laconic||

    Lately I've been picturing Tony as Daffyd Thomas from Little Britain.

    Try it, it'll take the edge off.

  • gimmeasammich||

    ...Computer says no...

  • Restoras||

    Cherlene: Who the hell drilled my box?
    Archer: So we're just done with phrasing, right, that's not a thing anymore?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Freedom is a rational de fault option when empirical evidence has not been presented to the contrary.

    If you want to enforce a stupid law like those against prosecution, you should have the integrity to do some actual research and to argue logically instead of rigidly conforming to radical feminist doctrine.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    *prostitution

  • pan fried wylie||

    Perhaps if they just called it "freedom" it would be OK to impose on everyone?

    Hey it worked for obocare.

  • Ragnarok||

    Why do you even post here? By now even you should be able to remember the standard response to your statement.

    "Tony Logic: Not imposing upon people == imposing upon people".

    You should easily have enough data to recreate thousands of conversations between a drooling moron and libertarians.

  • Tony||

    I'll keep posting until you guys realize that what you advocate is a) a complete upheaval of society that few people actually want, and b) because of that and for many other reasons, will result in a loss of a huge amount of personal freedom. Sometimes not imposing on one person is to impose on another. And you guys make sure to take it to its most obvious extreme to prove me right--you're overwhelmingly concerned about the supposed lacking freedom of those who would do the imposing.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    a complete upheaval of society that few people actually want,

    Ah Tony, the voice of the proles. How I've missed you.

    because of that and for many other reasons, will result in a loss of a huge amount of personal freedom.

    Allowing people to trade money for sexual intercourse is a loss of personal freedom? How wise and poignant you are.

    Sometimes not imposing on one person is to impose on another.

    Vagueness? From mah Tony w/o spaces? What is going on here? I've always known Tony w/o spaces to be the clearest of thinkers.

    And you guys make sure to take it to its most obvious extreme to prove me right

    When did a straightforward exchange of goods for services become "extreme"?

  • Tony||

    Around the time unicorns farted themselves into existence. Life is not as simple as you need it to be to understand it. An unregulated market is a market in which many, probably most, are exploited while a tiny few run away with the loot. It has always been thus and won't change because you label it freedom.

  • Calidissident||

    "An unregulated market is a market in which many, probably most, are exploited while a tiny few run away with the loot. It has always been thus and won't change because you label it freedom."

    Then it shouldn't be hard to prove this, should it?

  • fish||

    Then it shouldn't be hard to prove this, should it?

    .......hey where did Tony go....he was here just a second ago.

  • Tony||

    It's been done, but you guys are pretty steadfast in the belief that you are entitled to your own facts.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    An unregulated market is a market in which many, probably most, are exploited while a tiny few run away with the loot.

    Vague nonsense and Marxist crap. I R DISAPPOINT, Tony w/o spaces.

    It has always been thus and won't change because you label it freedom.

    Answer the original question, you gaping sphincter: How is a voluntary exchange of money for sexual intercourse a loss of personal freedom?

  • Tony||

    It's not, necessarily. But it can be if the sex worker is in that position not purely out of choice.

    The flaw in your outlooks is in assuming choice exists rather than making sure it does.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It's not, necessarily. But it can be if the sex worker is in that position not purely out of choice.

    At least you are willing to concede in general. But the same thing can be said of any other set of facts in which one party forces another to engage in activity against the latter's will.

    The flaw in your outlooks is in assuming choice exists rather than making sure it does.

    So... everybody is being coerced and they just don't know it? Darth Cheney's powers are great indeed.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    What part of black market don't you understand. Just because you say something is illegal doesn't make it not happen. It just means participants (both coerced and not) do not have any legal recourse for violations.

    But I digress...trollolololololololol

  • wadair||

    It has always been thus and won't change because you label it freedom.

    You don't like freedom, do you Tony? It's exploitive because it comes with responsibility that you just don't want to accept. It's not an unregulated market that bothers you, it's that freedom allows others to succeed and that makes you feel like a loser. So you want to "regulate" them down to your level.

  • Juice||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiClUPVNC8Y

    I can't stop thinking about Tony.

  • Hyperion||

    that few people actually want

    Then why are you always peeing your underoos in fear of us?

    Don't worry Tony, we will not force your mommy to stop letting you live in her basement and use her internet. We just don't care, you're irrelevant. IRRELEVANT, loser.

  • IceTrey||

    "a) a complete upheaval of society that few people actually want"

    Never heard of the American Revolution?

  • Tony||

    "that few people actually want"

    Catch that part?

    And that was over, like, a tax, not the huge questions you want to settle and enforce the answers to, like whether government should exist.

  • TransVanginalMesh||

    "And that was over, like, a tax"

    Oh come the fuck on, how can anyone take you seriously after this?

    What's the point of trolling if the stuff you say is so far beyond the pale that it's this obvious.

  • Tony||

    Okay at its most philosophically haughty it was over the right of people* (*landowning white males) to be able to have representation in their own government. Still not as big a change as you would impose.

    But it's not an imposition at all despite being a vast and unwanted change to everyone's lives, because it's called freedom.

  • TransVanginalMesh||

    Oh, I see, you misunderstand, "how can anyone take you seriously after this?" was a rhetorical question.

  • RannedPall||

    We need air support, and we need it now. Roll in strike package bravo on marauding troll, I authenticate code named life, liberty, and property. Attention all commentariat, this is a danger close mission.

  • John C. Randolph||

    How the fuck is anyone imposing on you by NOT putting a gun to your head?

    Really, Rent Boy: you've said some stupid shit before, but this is one of your all-time dumbest.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    Because behind your bullshit platitudes is a tax and regulatory structure that leaves us with sweatshops and robber barons.

  • Sam Grove||

    Tony, I see you've completely bought into a particular interpretation of history.

    Would that be situational stupidity?

  • Hyperion||

    I for one am sure that Tony wouldn't even make a decent monocle polisher.

    So, don't worry, Tony, we won't force you to work in our great smoke belching factories or mines, because we know you are too lazy, and unable to learn any useful skills.

    You are safe. Stay in your mommies basement and STFU.

  • Soros' Wank-noose||

    I think someone's been watching too much Fist of the North Star...

  • John C. Randolph||

    Your ignorance of economics is at the heart of your idiocy.

    The reason people went to work in sweatshops is because it was better than subsistence farming. The reason we don't have sweatshops in the USA today is the increase in the marginal productivity of labor brought about by..... CAPITAL INVESTMENT.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    No, capital investment did not improve the quality of life of workers, at least not intentionally (meaning it could go the other way if that's what's profitable). That took very hard-won victories by the labor movement, all of which you want to do away with.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Of course it did, you dumb shit. Why do you think South Koreans live better than the norks? Why do you think the American standard of living exceeded everyone else in the world until FDR fucked it up?

    hard-won victories by the labor movement,

    Bullshit. The labor movement just took credit for it.

    -jcr

  • SusanM||

    But it was Obamacare that killed the 40/hr workweek...

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    "Because behind your bullshit platitudes is a tax and regulatory structure that leaves us with sweatshops and robber barons."

    LOL, want to rephrase that?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Sure, I wouldn't prosecute the adult, voluntary sex workers who don't interfere with a spouse's rights (eg, having sex with some other woman's husband).

    I would only prosecute hookers, madams and johns in the other cases - child prostitutes, trafficking, sex slavery, and interference with the marital relation.

  • Andrew S.||

    "Interference with the marital relation"? Huh?

    Cause for somebody to be kicked in the balls, and probably divorced, but arrested?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    That's a dispute over what's pragmatic, and about civil vs. criminal sanctions. I don't think there's a *right* to violate one's marriage obligations or help someone else do so.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Oh, and cases where there's risk of disease.

    And zoning.

    So if you're not trafficking in minors, not coercing women, not posing a risk of disease, not interfering with the marital relation, and not locating in areas zoned residential, then you shouldn't be prosecuted.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And just how do you propose they enforce the "not interfering with marital relations" requirement? Prospective johns have to sign a wavier or something?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Maybe there's a pragmatic argument against prosecution, but not a rights-based argument, I don't think there is a right to betray one's spouse or help someone else do so.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    By prosecution, do you mean in a criminal court or civil?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I meant there's room for debate on whether criminal prosecution is practical when a prostitute services a married person.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ok. I still don't see how anything you advocate is different from the existing tort action of "alienation of affections".

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I would say criminal conversation,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversation

    but that underlines my point that there isn't a *right* to betray one's spouse *or* help someone else do so.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    What if the wife joins in?

  • shamalam||

    All I can say is, Seymour Dorothy Fleming was the kind of girl a fella likes to date!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....hy_Fleming

  • shamalam||

    Note to you lawyers in North Carolina: I smell some "deep pockets"!

    " In Smith v. Lee, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78987, the Federal District Court for the Western District of North Carolina noted that the question of whether an employer could be held liable for an affair conducted by an employee on a business trip was still unsettled in North Carolina."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversation

  • ||

    That link made me learn a new word: candaulism. Thank you!

  • Sudden||

    The prostitute would have no legal culpability for such a breach of the marital contract.

    The offending party is the one that is a party to the contract. No one outside that contract has any liability or responsibility for recompense to any party to that contract.

  • KB Check Release||

    ^ This

    And only this. I think prostitution is pretty disgusting.

    So are a lot of things.

    Hookers didn't take vows, spouses did.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Wait, so what if someone cheats for free? Is monetary exchange the only thing that makes it a crime?

  • np||

    No, absolutely wrong. There is no *right* whatsoever to transform a contract into slavery. What you are proposing is a positive right, not a negative one.

    Rights come from self-ownership, not contract. As such, contract enforcement can only be predicated based on exchange property. A mere agreement--whether verbally or on paper--does not a right make.

    When an artist signs up for a recording label, and he decides to renege and leave early. He pays back the money that the label gives him and the money for the opportunity cost (that the record label could have used on some other non-reneging artist), BUT that does not mean the contract allows the studio to make a slave of the artist, nor does it in any way prevent another studio to lure the artist away.

    Likewise, a marriage contract is predicated on the exchange of property i.e. bank accounts, land, home, etc. and those assets are what can be acted on in contract violation. No one has sold his/her own self in marriage.

    But Eddie, you don't believe in self-ownership do you?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "No one has sold his/her own self in marriage.

    "But Eddie, you don't believe in self-ownership do you?"

    Do you? Because you seem unwilling to allow people to voluntarily make marital commitments, if these commitments involve perpetuity and exclusivity.

    So you would impair their right to contract, in the name of autonomy.

  • Tejicano||

    Why does everybody have to ascribe to your ideal marital contract which must include exclusivity?

    It is possible to stay married, provide support, raise kids, but still have sex outside the relationship if that is the only venue for sex left open.

    I am not saying this is optimal but too often the real world is not optimal and we have to deal with reality.

  • Mellow Kitty||

    Christ Eddie, what planet do you live on? Should businesses that stay open on Sunday be sued for helping people violate the sanctity of the Sabbath?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The Sabbath is a religious institution, marriage exists independently of any particular religion.

  • Agammamon||

    The *sexual* requirements of marriage do NOT however.

    Hell, adultery isn't even a crime anymore in many parts of the country.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I think the fidelity part exists across a whole variety of religions and philosophies.

  • Mellow Kitty||

    The sexual rules of conduct in marital relationships do not exist, in any meaningful sense, independently of religion.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I don't think you're being fair to our atheist brothers and sisters. I think they are generally aware that adultery is a wrong thing.

  • ||

    It's a wrong thing and a violation of a contract with your spouse. Criminal or civil sanctions against a third party is absurd, they are not a party to the contract.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Marriage is more than a contract, it is a relation deserving legal protection. That's why many states still have laws against criminal conversation and alienation of affection.

  • ||

    If by many you mean North Carolina, then sure.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Eh. I see where you're coming from, Eddie, but -- even from a purely pragmatic POV -- it makes little sense to put the onus of contract enforcement on a third party which is not part of the contract (or relation) and which is not coercing either of the two parties into breaching the contract.

    What do you think will be more likely to change the behavior of a potential cheater: the likelihood that some hooker he barely knows will be deprived of life/liberty/property, or the likelihood that he will be deprived of property in the event that he is caught cheating with her?

    The answer seems quite obvious to me, and the desireability of enforcement lacks a case for how such enforcement would lead to the desired ends.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Perhaps it would be impractical. If so, give the hookers an exemption from prosecution on pragmatic grounds. But I don't see it as an issue of civil liberties.

  • Applederry||

    If you want there to be penalties for infidelity in your marriage contract that's your choice, but the hooker is a third party not subject to your contract.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    She's doing the equivalent of receiving stolen property.

  • Hugh Akston||

    "Are these balls stolen?"

  • Applederry||

    Oh, my apologies. I was not aware I was speaking to the local retard.

    *Ahem*

    Why yes, Billy, it is perfectly reasonable to force your personal social obligations onto complete strangers with the threat of government force! You're so smart! And you speak so well!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Yes, marriage is simply a matter of personal opinion. Just because a husband and wife have mutually pledged their lifetime fidelity to each other doesn't mean there exists any kind of social institution deserving of third-party recognition!

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    "...it is perfectly reasonable to force your personal social obligations onto complete strangers with the threat of government force!"

    Yeah. It got unexpectedly weird in here.

  • The Laconic||

    Somebody bookmark this thread. We'll want to refer to it later.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Why?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    You know why. You just started throwing retard cake everywhere.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    If retards *want* cake, why would they throw it? Wouldn't they eat it? Unless...unless it's not the thrower who's the retard.

  • JW||

    Look, Eddie, just because the hookers have blacklisted you, doesn't mean we all have to suffer.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    That's different, it's because they don't like wearing the Margaret Thatcher costumes I bring for them.

  • JW||

    They're OK with role-playing. It's all of your crying during the pegging session, Eddie. It creeps them out.

  • pan fried wylie||

    I don't think there's a *right* to violate one's marriage obligations or help someone else do so.

    How does that position square with divorce and the lawyers who make it happen?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    It doesn't. Thank you for raising that point.

  • Tejicano||

    So how about when the wife no longer wants to "fulfill her marital duties" and gives hubby money to get his rocks of elsewhere? (BT:Didn't DT)

    What if the wife simply doesn't want to help or even discuss it? Is the man's only course of action divorce? Sounds like a nice way to do things wen there's kids involved.

    Your black and white world is childish.

  • Knutsack||

    What about non-sex workers that interfere with "marital relations"? Does any infidelity rise to the level of a crime?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Also, false choices. They can sell blow jobs AND pies. I'm actually wondering why no one's come up with that as a business model.

  • Andrew S.||

    Pvt. Joe Bowers: Man, I could really go for a Starbucks, y'know?
    Frito: I don't really think we have time for a handjob, Joe.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    +1 for the 'Idiocracy' quote

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    One stop blowjob and pie shop. Who wants to get a kickstarter page going? ;)

  • SugarFree||

    Call it "Cream Filling."

  • From the Tundra||

    Uh uh. "A La Mode"

  • SugarFree||

    Meringue.

  • ||

    Any of your stupid names are fine, idiots. As long as we make sure to hire Warrant for our commercials.

  • SugarFree||

    I thought the entire band died of shame.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Hair bands don't feel shame

  • From the Tundra||

    They must not. Every damn one of them is still touring!

  • SugarFree||

    Hair bands don't even have the common decency to die young.

    I saw Vince Neil on some show the other day. He looks like a corpse that's been in the East River for a week.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Hair bands don't even have the common decency to die young.

    I saw Vince Neil on some show the other day. He looks like a corpse that's been in the East River for a week.

    Uh, Keith Richards and Mick Jagger?

  • Almanian!||

    I love Motley Crue. But Vince Neil can no longer sing. That's the crime.

    Just. Stop.

  • fish||

    They must not. Every damn one of them is still touring!

    Gotta pay the new hip joint somehow.

  • ||

    In that case, we'll hire a band of Mexicans to replace them. El Warranto.

  • Agammamon||

    Filipino's

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiutc7IwrFU

    Hell, even Journey's current lead singer is a Filipino that got his start in a Journey tribute band.

  • ||

    No dice. Filipinos are Mexicans who can do math, so they might figure out how badly we're cheating them.

  • BakedPenguin||

    In that case, we'll hire a band of Mexicans to replace them. El Warranto.

    y Los Kixe!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I'm not going to limit myself to just one flavor.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Snake n'Bake

  • DEADBEEF||

  • SugarFree||

    SWERF: Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist

    Watching progressives fight fills me with joy.

  • Paul.||

    Why do I always feel the collateral damage?

  • SugarFree||

    You got to dodge the derp and slurp the schadenfreude.

  • JW||

    derp and slurp

    At last, I have the name for my new diner.

    Or, for my brothel. It's a toss-up.

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Screw 'n' Chew"

  • JW||

    I might open a Briner.

    "I'll have what he's having."

    "Triple Slam, bowl of red and drag one through Georgia! No, not her, the other Georgia! She's got seniority!"

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Because whichever Progtard emerges from the pit the victor is not only as stupid as ever, but stronger, leaner, and has an appetite for human flesh.

  • pan fried wylie||

    "This faceless man could be anyone: your colleague, your boyfriend, your father, your husband,"

    I can understand being concerned about your sexual partner visiting a prostitute due to the STD risks involved, though I don't understand how that person can sleep with someone they trust that little...

    And, your Dad? I dunno, maybe stop thinking about your Dad's dick.

  • Sudden||

    They wouldn't become feminists if they did that.

  • wef||

    But how about transvestite hookers?

    And teh gays.....

    But this woman pollitt's main problem is revealed in the line Maybe men would be better partners, in bed and out of it, if they couldn't purchase that fantasy - which is itself a puerile fantasy of bullying and bitter women of a certain age.

  • ||

    It's like the Jezebel writer who doesn't realize she's documenting her failing marriage in her columns.

  • JW||

    "I don't get it. I've let myself go physically, harp on him to no end and judge him by framing his every action within the culture of the patriarchy. Why isn't he interested in me?"

  • shamalam||

    link please?

  • Nooge.||

    But this woman pollitt's main problem is revealed in the line 'Maybe men would be better partners, in bed and out of it, if they couldn't purchase that fantasy' - which is itself a puerile fantasy of bullying and bitter women of a certain age.

    Sure you don't think that men should desire or, God forbid, even enjoy sex, do you?

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Theoretically, if it's OK to be a sex worker, it's OK to be a john"

    Theoretically, if it's OK for girls to wear form fitting camel toe yoga pants, it's OK for boys to male gaze. Life lessons. How do they work.

  • Nooge.||

    Theoretically, if it's OK for girls to wear form fitting camel toe yoga pants, it's OK for boys to male gaze. Life lessons. How do they work.

    No, no, silly. It's okay for women to wear yoga pants. It's not okay for men to notice. Noticing a woman's body because you are a man is degrading to women or something.

    I think it's funny how feminists like this crazy woman objectify men. They objectify us as emotionless walking boners, so that they can condemn and criminalize normal human behavior, like a man finding the shape of a woman's body pleasing.

  • Tak Kak||

    "Liberty, however, is an essential component of equality..."

    Haha, I guess you aristocrats are marketing things differently than old John Randolph did.

    Liberty and equality are ultimately at odds.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Pol Pot's Cambodia was probably the most egalitarian society ever created.

    And 1/3 of the population was murdered in under 5 years.

  • Tak Kak||

    Someone obviously had too much freedom there!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Needs more Obama dildos.

  • ||

    Tony has that more than covered.

  • fish||

    Yeah but you certainly wouldn't want to buy used!

  • Tejicano||

    Obviously you've never been to Singapore.

  • Restoras||

    2) Men she knows (and men you know, too!) might visit prostitutes if it's legal.

    I hate to break this to her, but men she knows already have. And do. and will continue to.

  • The Laconic||

    Maybe there's a difference between a blowjob and a slice of pie.

    I'll have one from column A and one from column B, please.

  • Paul.||

    I've followed sex worker activism and attitudes for years, and I am far from alone in noticing a recent surge in anti–sex work passion among progressives.

    Recent? Uhm, you're still not labouring under the misconception about "my body, my choice" with progressives are you, Lizbeth?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    BTW, was his donation leaked by the IRS or was it required to be publicly reported?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Equality is necessary for meaningful speech.


    [Citation needed]

  • GILMORE||

    So much for my "proudly still using Mozilla because I don't give a shit" campaign

  • Tony||

    Okay, read the piece, and, surprise, the reason response mischaracterizes it. She doesn't want prostitutes thrown in jail. She is questioning the "normalization" of sex work being considered on the left. Most sex work is done by desperate people, and there is an inherent imbalance with respect to men and women. Now, I can't figure out exactly what she proposes as a solution to the problem, except remaking the world into a place where plentiful economic opportunities exist for all women. That would be nice.

    But the libertarian description of sex work given here is pure self-parody. Voluntary payment for voluntary service! Yeah. Sometimes you guys make the naive look cynical.

    The only feasible first-step solution is to be found on the left (as usual). Strong oversight and regulation of the industry to prevent exploitation and harm. Both the left and libertarians can agree that throwing people in jail serves no purpose (except for sex traffickers perhaps). But the argument that sex work is inherently unequal and exploitative is not so easily dismissed.

  • AlmightyJB||

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Of course sex work is "unequal". That is why there is cash compensation involved.

  • Byte Me||

    Putin's Buttplug: Is it also "unequal" when you exchange money for a pack of gum or anything else? Are you suggesting that trading value through the use of money for goods is inherently wrong? If so, I believe there are a few things about trade that you need to learn.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I was quoting Tony with these things "".

    I am a radical liberal/libertarian. I think if you want to sell a kidney that is your business. Euthanasia should be a legal trade. Sell pussy? Fine.

    This is a primary reason I despise Chriso-Fascists (GOP).

  • fish||

    This is a primary reason I despise Chriso-Fascists (GOP).

    PS: NEEEEDSZ MOAR CHRISTFAG

  • Tak Kak||

    "But the argument that sex work is inherently unequal and exploitative is not so easily dismissed."

    Of course it isn't, as "exploitative, unequal, and even inherent" aren't concrete concepts.

    So obviously ideas like "Strong oversight and regulation of the industry to prevent exploitation and harm" is absurd, nor does it at all address her concern of "normalizing".

  • Caleb Turberville||

    The Left in general doesn't understand that market economics relies on mutually beneficial behavior.

    Someone must always be exploiting someone else.

    What I find interesting is the fact that feminist are seeing the sex workers as the exploited. If their johns are paying them money (which has lasting value) in exchange for oral sex (the value of which vanishes with time), aren't the johns being exploited?

  • Tak Kak||

    It's a completely meaningless word at this point.

    Useful for complaining though. Obviously, the sex workers who are truly exploited as they have to perform a "degrading" act.

    On and on this will go.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Yeah, but some men may view paying for sex as degrading too.

    Leftist logic always ignores the gains people make and instead focuses on the trade-offs.

    According to the Left, the world isn't just until everyone's lunch is free.

  • Tak Kak||

    Of course - I hate paying for sex, I feel so awful - some sort of voucher system would obviously be needed for a, dare I say it, just and equal society.

  • GILMORE||

    Dear Tony =

    what exchange of money isn't ' inherently unequal and exploitative' in your definition?

  • GILMORE||

    taxes? mmmm. so equal.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    No, we still have rich people :-(

  • Tony||

    Exchanges that actually fit the definition of free and mutually agreed-upon.

    I go pretty far on this. I think if you have to work to survive you're being exploited. I think you deserve to survive regardless of whether you're putting money in a CEO's (or pimp's) pockets.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I think if you have to work to survive you're being exploited.

    Then you're a fucking idiot. Go troll somewhere else, you're not even mildly entertaining anymore.

  • Tak Kak||

    So would you say nature itself is "exploitative"?

    (Since you DO have to work to survive outside of society, whether you think so or not)

  • Tony||

    Nature is a pretty fucked up place to live no matter who you are, yeah. The whole point of civilization is to smooth over some of its rough edges and make life easier for people. That you want society to resemble it more than I do should be your weirdness to defend not mine.

  • Tak Kak||

    Calm down there, I'm no libertarian, so your projections about what "society" I want are vacuous.

    Regardless, the "point of civilization" while a silly thing to say is irrelevant. As is the obvious following debate on whether life can be easier at some level of exploitation versus none-at-all.

    I just wanted to know where exploitation began.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Tony is a troll, pure and simple. Not even sure it's one person. If you're looking for some insight into the mind of the progressive left you won't find it there.

    Let me sum it up for you: Positive rights outweigh negative rights. Rights are granted by the government (collective).

  • Tak Kak||

    Now, now, we got somewhere with him/it, that's a start. Just a wee bit cagey is all.

  • Tony||

    You can hardly blame me for all the abuse I get. *sniffle*

    Exploitation is what it is. One party doesn't get an equal choice in a transaction. It's a word that implies agency and will, so it's hard to say that nature does it, but it is just one of the things that happens in nature and society that reasonably moral people consider wrong, necessitating the tools of civilization to remedy.

  • Tak Kak||

    "Exploitation is what it is. One party doesn't get an equal choice in a transaction"

    It really likes you bring it on yourself. See the above discussion, it's an infinite regress, define "equal choice" now.

    Then, "society", "wrong", "moral people", "reasonably moral people" and "tools of civilization"

  • Tak Kak||

    Excuse me: looks like*

  • paranoid android||

    Now, now, we got somewhere with him/it, that's a start. Just a wee bit cagey is all.

    Doubt it. I was trying to look something up from an article from yesterday, and do you know what I discovered?

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/04.....nt_4423527

    Tony makes a past time of showing up in threads over twelve hours after everyone else stops posting so he can post responses to an empty room. One might say he's as vain as he is clueless and just wants to make sure he gets "the last word" without the risk of anyone responding to him, but it's possible it really does take him twelve hours to try to come up with a dumbass retort.

  • Tak Kak||

    You may be right there, I just thought I'd give him/it the benefit of the doubt. Feeling charitable or something.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    The whole point of civilization is to smooth over some of its rough edges and make life easier for people.

    When did we, as a society, convene the meeting in which we all mutually agreed upon the point of civilization, as a whole?

    I missed the invite.

    Or, perhaps all the human conflict over the millennia has been one grand, drawn out debate over how exactly to make life easier for people?

    You might as well talk about what the point of a forrest of trees is, or the point of a herd of wildebeests is.

  • GILMORE||

    ""Tony|4.3.14 @ 5:51PM|#
    Exchanges that actually fit the definition of free and mutually agreed-upon.""

    Such *as*?

    See, when people ask questions, they expect answers, not a repeat of your undefined premise.

  • Tony||

    Anything, whatever. Me buying a car or a sandwich. I never said all exchanges were suspect, just some. But I don't struggle with gray areas like all of you do.

  • GILMORE||

    You still haven't distinguished what "is" and "isn't" exploitation other than to say you like Sandwiches and you deserve to live without working (not clear if you apply that to everyone on the planet or just your privileged self)

  • BakedPenguin||

    GILMORE - Stop playing with the idiot.

  • GILMORE||

    sorry (kicks can, slinks off)

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    But I don't struggle with gray areas like all of you do.

    At least that little bit of trolling is of a higher class.

  • GILMORE||

    So, what you're saying is that "Exploitation" is everything, and therefore nothing.

    great. where'd you go to college again?

  • wadair||

    I think if you have to work to survive you're being exploited.

    Nobody owes you a living, Tony.

  • Hyperion||

    I think you deserve to survive regardless of whether you're putting money in a CEO's (or pimp's) pockets.

    So do I, so get off your ass, craft yourself a spear, bow and arrow, and fishing line, and survive. Oh, and hope that the government doesn't arrest you and throw you into jail for eating some 'endangered' animal or for hunting on 'their' land.

    There isn't a libertarian alive that doesn't want to give you that chance. So do it, or STFU.

  • Brian||

    Gilmore:


    What exchange of money isn't ' inherently unequal and exploitative' in your definition?

    Tony:

    Exchanges that actually fit the definition of free and mutually agreed-upon.

    Then, by your definition, since taxes are not free and mutually agreed-upon, taxation is inherently unequal and exploitive.

    You were doing so OK at first, but then you ran intro trouble, and blew yourself up.

  • Brian||

  • Tony||

    Not a bad try, but taxes are not of a kind with market exchanges. They're an object of law (thus always compulsory). Some people do consider at least progressive taxation unequal. But is it exploitative? Only when it's used to exploit people. What's your point? There should be no taxes, or exploitative transactions are okay?

  • TransVanginalMesh||

    "What's your point?"

    That you were asked to define something, and when you did, you were left with a contradiction that you still haven't solved.

    Reading isn't hard guy.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Not a bad try, but taxes are not of a kind with market exchanges. They're an object of law (thus always compulsory).

    Oh, now there's a special pleading qualifier: market exchanges. I see, so unfree, and non-mutually agreed-upon exchanges aren't unequal and exploitive, as long as its the government, defined by law. Only those kind of unfree, non-mutually agreed-upon exchanges are good, because there's no market; it's the government. Otherwise, it's horrible.

    You might as well just say this:
    "Coerced exchanges, and exchanges without mutual agreement are bad, except when the government does it. Then, that's debatable."

    It's amazing the sins that democracy and law can wash away. It's almost as if they're just defined into a different plane of existence. How conveniently subjective.

    But is it exploitative? Only when it's used to exploit people.

    This is what we call a "truism." Are market exchanges that are not free, without mutual agreement, exploitive only when they exploit people, too? You didn't mention any special pleading exceptions earlier. Why is this only debatable for the state?

    What's your point? There should be no taxes, or exploitative transactions are okay?

    My point is that you're argument has logical conclusions that you disagree with. Also, questions about what other points I may have do not make them go away.

    Nice attempt at a save, but you've failed.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Never give Tony a pass when it claims the moral high ground. Especially when it bloviates on sex work. On this very forum, it insinuated that because my wife is Thai, she would sell my daughter into sexual slavery. Remember that when it says anything. Its image of Asian women consists solely of "sucky-sucky" bar-girl prostitute stereotypes. It is a bigoted and sexist piece of shit who projects its hatred onto others.

  • Tony||

    The fact that you're still on this suggests that you are actually being serious.

    FTR I didn't know a single fact about your marital situation. You completely misread things.

    It would be better for everyone if you were joking and not playing the part of permanently racially aggrieved leftist parody.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Did I misread things? I'm not certain I have. Regardless of that, perhaps an apology would be in order for any misunderstanding you might have caused with your careless and hurtful words. Are you a big enough man for that, Tony?

  • Tony||

    I apologize for your misunderstanding.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, I appreciate that.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    HM,

    Did you not force your wife to sign a contract giving you sole rights to sell your daughter? I'm shocked!

    I didn't let my Korean wife get off the boat without signing over rights to my kids. I'm shocked that such a seemingly intelligent guy as yourself didn't do so as well

  • John C. Randolph||

    Rent Boy,

    It does not follow that because sex workers are abused by pimps in the current, prohibitionist system, that legalization is a bad thing.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    Didn't say it was and neither did Pollitt.

    I'm for legalization for all the same reasons you guys are, but I don't necessarily accept that that's the end of the story.

  • Calidissident||

    What even is your point? Who here is advocating that forced prostitution should be legal?

  • Tony||

    Must one always have a point?

  • Hyperion||

    You NEVER do, so I guess it must be ok.

  • Brian||

    It usually helps to have a point.

  • Tony||

    The point is to attempt to get you guys to consider subjects thoughtfully.

  • Brian||

    RIght now, I'm still trying to figure out how the only exchanges that aren't inherently unequal and exploitive are ones that are free and with mutual agreement, except when it's the government, in which case, it's only unequal and exploitive if it's unequal and exploitive.

    I'm not sure if trying to untangle the web of contradictory statements, special pleading exceptions, non sequiturs, and word games is accurately described as thoughtful consideration. Is this another thing that only makes sense from Tony's subjective view?

    Here, why not just say this:
    "Everything that Tony likes is good. Except when he doesn't like it. Then, it's bad."

    I'll give it thoughtful consideration.

  • Mellow Kitty||

    Oh shut the fuck up, Tony. It absolutely is a voluntary service provided in exchange for voluntary payment. And this might come as a surprise to you, but most of us don't want "strong oversight and regulation" -- having to hand over half of our earnings to a government that dictates how we can fuck sounds too much like "being pimped."

  • Tony||

    Only if you ignore the reality of most of the sex trade.

  • Mellow Kitty||

    Please, tell me more about "the reality of most of the sex trade" that I've worked in for the better part of a decade. Go ahead.

  • Tony||

    Okay so by your logic neither of us can know anything about human trafficking, child sex tourism, starvation sex, or any of the problem areas of this particular industry, since we haven't experienced it?

  • Mellow Kitty||

    You're justifying onerous regulations by pointing to the statistical anomalies of the American sex trade? Bravo.

    Here's the thing: You don't eliminate instances of coercion by enforcing your own petty preferences on people who want nothing to do with them.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Only if you ignore the reality of most of the sex trade.

    The reality as it exists in a heavily regulated state (i.e., banned practically everywhere)?

    That's not exactly a victory for heavy regulation bringing out maximum awesomeness for everyone.

    The amount of government regulation that contributes to human trafficking is amazing.

    Traffickers can coerce people to work through a variety of mechanisms. Trafficked migrants usually have their passports taken away on arrival. Without their documents they cannot prove they have a right to be in the country and therefore cannot go to the authorities for assistance.

    Score one for regulatory awesomeness.

  • Tony||

    I'm using regulated as an antonym of prohibited.

  • Brian||

    Regulated is not an antonym of prohibited. Permitted is an antonym of prohibited. Prohibition is a type of regulation.

    If you're going to keep up switching and making up definitions for words to support your silly arguments, then they quickly become incoherent. I, for one, don't really know what you're really saying, as you say it, since you seem to be using your own language. Also, I find semantic word games boring. If you can't stick to standard English, and stop trying to revise it as we go, then I'm not sure what the point is.

  • Tony||

    But I am happy to assume that you think children, at least, should be prevented from entering the trade.

    Gotta love the "well we can't look like psychopaths, can we?" exceptions to your stated principles.

  • ||

    Because

    Strong oversight and regulation

    would never be used by a corrupt bureaucrat to harm or exploit sex workers!

  • DEADBEEF||

    Assuming absence of choice by default requires that some entity act to, as you innocuously put it, "make sure" it exists. Considering that the police are consistently cited by sex workers as one of their biggest dangers - more than bad clients, more than pimps or traffickers - there's a great deal of abuse hiding beyond that anodyne phrase.

    Oddly enough, sex work activists themselves overwhelmingly endorse the New Zealand model of decriminalisation and the removal of all sexwork-specific laws, and explicitly reject the "strong regulation and oversight" of other regimes - Nevada, Holland, Germany, etc - which are based to varying degrees on your default-assumption-of-coercion paradigm. They organise against such systems - and evade their requirements when forced to live under them - precisely because they are intrusive, presumptuous, infantilising, based on lurid stereotypes rather than the relatively mundane realities of sex work, and because "strong" licensing requirements serve to concentrate power in the hands of the few people who are wealthy and connected enough to acquire them (cf. Denis Hof, the "brothel king" of Nevada, versus the proliferation of SOOBs in New Zealand). In other words, experience has brought them to a pretty bog-standard libertarian position on the issue.

  • DEADBEEF||

    But I'm sure you can explain to them how how naive they are, and how thoughtlessly they have considered this subject, for not wanting to submit to mandatory weekly health screenings, or to being placed on a register on the off-chance that a future government won't decide to recriminalise, or to having their places of work subject to arbitrary "inspection" by SWAT teams. Because trafficked children.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    In the discourse of sex work, it seems, the subaltern does not get to speak.

    Warning: Critical Theory (i.e. Freudo-Marxist) buzzword sighted! Read with great caution!

    Women who fight sex trafficking are in it to build nonprofit empires, “jobs for the girls,” and are indistinguishable from paternalistic rescuers like Kristof.

    In order to combat forced prostitution, we must ban voluntary prostitution.

    Yes, it really does make that much sense.

    They accept that sex is something women have and men get (do I hear “rape culture,” anyone?), that men are entitled to sex without attracting a partner, even to the limited extent of a pickup in a bar, much less pleasing or satisfying her.

    The Pussy Cartel is on full display. Men must beg, plead, and jump through hoops, and still shell out money, in order to have sex. This is equality in the feminist mindset.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Only one legitimate way to monetize the gold mine:

    http://www.theonion.com/articl.....scam,1773/

  • Anonymous Coward||

    A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, but if she decides she wants a man, he'd better do everything she says, buy her what she wants, because "she has the pussy, so she makes the rules."

    Feminism doesn't even allow for coherent thought.

  • Soros' Wank-noose||

    Could we please get someone to design a shirt or bumper sticker of a fish with it its bicycle, and a quote of something like, "I don't NEED it, I WANT it"?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Wahabbi Christians come to the same conclusion as this Pollitt female idiot.

    And there are 1000x more of them.

  • GILMORE||

    DERP WE'S DUMB BUT USE DUMBERER AND MOARS OF YOU!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    MUST ... NEVER .. SAY .. BAD ... THINGS ... ABOUT ... CONSERVATIVES.

    Got it!

  • GILMORE||

    Who said shit about conservatives? I was talking about you.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Because I dared insult your Christ-Nut friends in the GOP.

  • GILMORE||

    Who cares about them? We are dealing with an example of a feministprogtard. Said example makes you mad because....well, who knows. It upsets you that anyone makes fun of retards = "your people", I suppose. so you spit, drool, flail. It amuses us. Please, do more monkey dances while chanting "CHRISTFAG BUSHPIG ME SO ENLIGHTENEND!!"

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I'm not mad. I said she is an idiot and reminds me of the stupid "comparable worth" argument in the early 80s that prompted me to vote for Reagan.

    But forget the messenger whether far left or far right - they both hate freedom. And as George Carlin noted there is NOTHING like religion that threatens freedom and sanity.

    A few straggler feminists don't compare to religion as a disease on mankind.

  • GILMORE||

    Great.

    So in the future when some religious twats complain about liberty, maybe THEN you'll have a point rather than just being a retarded monkey *all the time*.

  • Brian||

    Somewhere, out there, there's a comment section where liberals are talking about how silly religious people are, and Palin's Buttplug is making sure they know how silly stupid feminists are.

    He's just making sure that everywhere, everything is fair and balanced.

  • GILMORE||

    "Pollitt's opposition seems to hinge mainly on three things:"

    I have to admit, I thought #1 and #2 both assumed #3, so like, isn't it really Patriarchy all the way down?

    (I want a t-shirt with this image, saying, "PATRIARCHY, BITCH"

    http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/s...../patri.gif)

    Also = why is it always SEX or PIE? SEX AND PIE!!

  • widget||

    I find Kristina van den Heuvel, The Nations' principal publisher, attractive.

  • GILMORE||

    Do you now? perhaps you should fawn over her daily lifestyle choices like the NYT does in its regular series on "How we liberals live well and maintain our natural superiority to peasant-America through Yoga, Yogurt, and our vegan cats"

    It has pictures of her *working out*. Hawt.

  • ||

    Why the fuck don't I get pictures of me working out in the NYT? Fucking bullshit.

  • SugarFree||

    Fear.

  • GILMORE||

    did the Fangoria "workout issue" fall through?

  • Sudden||

    We've been through this. Masturbation is not considered working out, even with a DOOMCOCK OF DOOM

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Dammit. There goes my New Year's resolution.

  • GILMORE||

    (rim shot!)

  • widget||

    I'd rather sit in a jacuzzi with Kristina than you GILMORE.

    What is wrong with me?

  • GILMORE||

    I think that's disgusting. She's melt anyway... there'd just be this floating scum of kale-yogurt and hair with botox evaporating from it. What a way to ruin a Jacuzzi.

  • widget||

    Think that through. What if widget had Kristina van den Huevel and Nancy Polosi over to the trailer park here to take a dip in the pool and pass the time - would you be any the worse for this?

  • GILMORE||

    Not if I can throw a toaster in the Jacuzzi with you.

  • GILMORE||

  • widget||

    You are such a Yankee do-gooder.

  • JW||

    Dude. She was attractive about 20 years ago.

    At least have the decency to lust after Madeleine Stowe.

  • JW||

  • ||

    Mmmm, Mary Louise Parker.

  • GILMORE||

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I think conservative apologist S.E. Cupp is hot as hell. It is partly the glasses and that she is an atheist - also she laughs a lot on Bill Maher's show - a good sport all the way.

  • SugarFree||

    Congratulations, Elizabeth. You drew out three of the trolls. If this was a weekend post you might have even drawn out the cowardly Tulpa and hit a homerun.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "Troll" = anyone who dares stray off the GOP Plantation.

  • SugarFree||

    Did this blank white space say something? Fuck off, waffletwat.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I count two. PB and Tony. Who am I missing?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I think he means moi.

  • JW||

    Shit. He's self-aware, which means we have to treat him as sentient, now.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
    Turing for the trolls at H&R

  • ||

    On his worst day (And arguing that prostitutes hold some culpability in the violation of the marriage contract is probably up there) I wouldn't consider Eddie a troll.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It is too bad Rollo couldn't participate in this thread -- I'm sure that with his line of work as a drug counselor, he has plenty of experience to draw from on this topic.

  • ||

    "The current way of seeing sex work is all about liberty—but what about equality?" Pollitt concludes.

    Well that's a dead giveaway, isn't it? We can't let people do things they want to do, someone might enjoy themselves. Or, even worse, someone might make her husband enjoy himself.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Hookers are the equivalent of scabs to a lot of women.

    They are all members in good standing in the United Pussy Union, and if these scabs are allowed to cross the picket line, how are they going to force the men to come to the negotiating table when they stage a walkout?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Damn, I really like this comment. A wicked analogy and said with aplomb.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    I can't take credit for it. I plagiarized it from the Bible*.

    * Note to others here, I didn't really steal it from the Bible, I just don't want to be publically linked with Putin's Buttplug under any circumstances.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    All you know about me is that I have the balls to publicly support Obama over the fascist-lite Bushpigs.

    That tells me you are no libertarian - you are Team Red.

    A libertarian wouldn't give a fuck.

  • Tak Kak||

    I always saw Obama as the fascist-lite Bushpig.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "less fascist"? Yeah, taking out the torture and blitzkriegs makes him so for sure.

  • Tak Kak||

    Do you mean *some* torture and *some* blitzkriegs? As that's at least arguable.

  • Tak Kak||

    (Not that torture and blitzkriegs are necessarily part and parcel with fascism)

  • ||

    Shreeeeeeek! I don't think you know what the word 'fascist' means.

  • ||

    What a sorry sack of demfag shit you are. Bush and Obama are at least as bad as one another.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bush and Obama are at least as bad as one another.

    Nope. Iraq by itself makes Bush worse - $1 trillion at least and 4600 dead for nothing.

    I can list 10 other bad Bush laws from the PATRIOT Act to Medicare Welfare. Plus eight more - try me.

    All you have is OBAMACARE!

  • ||

    You mean that Patriot act that Obama extended and now owns?

    How about assassinating two american citizens without even the pretense of due process?

    It's funny you should mention $1Trillion for a war that Obama wanted to continue indefinitely and didn't bother to take the spending off his budgets after he was forced to leave anyways.

    I don't know why I'm arguing with you. Even when you get your ass handed to you, you never learn and you always want cake.

  • Jordan||

    We have the PATRIOT Act x 2, plus the NDAA with Obama.

  • Tak Kak||

    Are you simply going by financial cost or do you have some other metric that you are applying to determine what is "bad"?

    And we established the other day that the 4600 didn't die for nothing. Many benefited from that conflict. (Probably not any that one would tout, but that's besides the point.)

  • MJGreen||

    Six years later, PB is still unaware that Obama and Bush never ran against each other in an election.

  • Marshall Gill||

    I can't take credit for it. I plagiarized it from the Bible*.

    * Note to others here, I didn't really steal it from the Bible, I just don't want to be publically linked with Putin's Buttplug under any circumstances.

    Well played sir!

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Pollitt is horrified by some progressives that are pro-sex work because the fucking pile of idiot trinkets in her decrepit skull cannot believe that modern Leftist progressivism now has a Libertarian fringe and as such can no longer be trusted to fall in line with diehard socialist/Communist sexuality doctrine. A LOT of people who were once drawn to Communistic ideology wake up very quickly when they realize that Communism views human sexuality on a bizarrely conservative paradigm. Communists are just as controlling of human sexuality as Pentecostals.

    Additionally, the problem here is that women in general are so goddamn vulnerable and incapable of living and working in a man's world that they clearly require genius women like Pollitt who can think for her entire gender and who is comfortable utilizing government power to force all the inferior women into a role that collectively protects them from their disgusting decisions.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Another superb comment. ENB is drawing out the best of H&R.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Communism views human sexuality on a bizarrely conservative paradigm. Communists are just as controlling of human sexuality as Pentecostals.

    Anyone who knows anything about Mao knows the truth of this.

  • John C. Randolph||

    While Mao was banging his thousand virgins, ordinary Chinese people were getting flogged if they were found in possession of pornography.

    -jcr

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    A LOT of people who were once drawn to Communistic ideology wake up very quickly when they realize that Communism views human sexuality on a bizarrely conservative paradigm.


    More a collectivist paradigm than a conservative one. Conservatives view the family as the building block of society, crucial for preserving continuity and propagating culture/all that is good in life. Communist goals for the family are to crush it enough so that it is not an independent unit in society, but so that it can efficiently take part in the creation of the New Socialist Man -- hence the strange mixture of hyper-puritan nonsense with things like the snuffing out of parental authority.

  • GILMORE||

    Jim Goad has a piece at Takimag on the 15th Annual White Privilege Conference

    (which as he notes, is helpfully located in Madison Wisconsin rather than in, say, New Orleans)

    http://takimag.com/article/sof.....z2xrZtbJv8

    I had a few weeks ago pointed out that one of my favorite samples of EXTREMEDERP was partly funded by the WPC peoples.

    Here is his new new hotness

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdR_twAOuiQ

    its about why voter-ID is about making blacks into slaves again

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The local schools should invite the white kids to attend the conference.

  • GILMORE||

    THAT'S MEAN!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Sorry, didn't read the article, I assumed a white privilege conference was a fun event where you hang around, play golf, smoke cigars, play, and drink martinis while persons of color unobtrusively refill your glasses, caddy your golf clubs and give the ponies a thorough grooming.

    Was I mistaken?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    play *polo*

  • GILMORE||

    No, what you describe is my home life. Although you forgot about the orphans manning the trap-shooting range.

    This conference is something else entirely. RTFA

  • Almanian!||

    So, you mean, "live like I do every day?"

    WTF fun is that? Oh, wait...never mind.

  • Byte Me||

    No maybe about it, lady, there is definitely a difference between a blow job and a slice of pie.

    There's no difference between an Australian kiss and a warm, apple pie.

  • Byte Me||

    Tony|4.3.14 @ 5:51PM|#
    Exchanges that actually fit the definition of free and mutually agreed-upon.
    I go pretty far on this. I think if you have to work to survive you're being exploited.

    Because working for a living (i.e. trading skills, knowledge, and effort for an income that you can exchange for goods to support your own life) is EXPLOITATIVE.
    If this is a legit position of someone who is not simply trying to fool us with some good 'ole fashioned satire, we're totally fucked. (and not in the "hey, take a deep breath, let's experiment" kind of way.)

  • Ice Cream Man||

    Prostitute. Why is PC reason magazine so afraid to say it?

  • GILMORE||

    Winky-Dinky Dog with Ho-Cakes.

    Say it with me

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msbo6TiwA5A

  • Almanian!||

    "Winky-Dinky Dog with Ho-Cakes!"

    That was fun! Let's do it again!

    "Winky-Dinky Dog with Ho-Cakes!!!"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • GILMORE||

    Hoes gotta eat too.

  • Soros' Wank-noose||

    Oh, wings don't fail me now! Batty, batty, batty!"

  • Almanian!||

    So - Bing'ed Pollitt - my takeaway is that Rush Limbaugh is right, and feminism is to provide...satisfaction or something...for fat, ugly bitches.

    Fat, STUPID, ugly bitches.

    Cool.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fat Rush is no gift to the ladies.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I know that she left her husband for a boyfriend who cheated and left her.

    I know this because it's in her memoir.

    http://www.amazon.com/Learning.....ha+pollitt

  • GILMORE||

    From KP's "About the Author"

    The very first line:

    "Katha Pollitt is well known for her wit and her keen sense of both the ridiculous and the sublime..."

    Don't worry = if you're not fully convinced by that assertion, just go to the second paragraph, where you learn...

    "...her essay "Why Do We Romanticize the Fetus?" won the Maggie Award from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America"

    Ridiculous. Sublime.

  • Almanian!||

    "A libertarian wouldn't give a fuck."

    "One True Scotsman™ rides awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy..."

    /Ode To Troll-y Jack

  • Tejicano||

    "A libertarian wouldn't give a fuck."

    But she might sell one

  • ||

    "I think if you have to work to survive you're being exploited."

    Please tell us how we can build a world in which no one works in order to survive, a world where no one is exploited. Do tell.

    Tony, this more than anything you have ever said, is illustrative of your profound ignorance.

    For everyone else: My grandfather said it a million times if he said it once to my brother and I before we were ten years old - "If you don't work you don't eat. Everybody has to work."

  • Tony||

    If your society is poor enough, you do have to work to eat. (Sometimes even that's not enough.) Americans don't live in such a society, but rather the wealthiest one in the world that can afford to provide basic needs and already does to an extent. I think you should have to morally justify why we shouldn't guarantee basic needs before I have to justify why we should. Because unlike libertarians I just can't see how a person starving is less an outrage than a billionaire being taxed ten cents.

  • ||

    the wealthiest one in the world

    And how is that wealth created?

  • chmercier||

    It's soooo profoundly evil of libertarians to think that people need to grow food and eat things, or drink water, in order to survive.

    Or: government is the new magical sky god?

  • MJGreen||

    We're fortunate to live in a country which the gods have blessed with trillions of dollars of wealth. I pray they will rain treasure upon us for centuries to come.

  • ||

    Is there a feminist in the world that isn't an angry, bitter man-hater?

    I suspect any answer to this will qualify in my mind as more of a libertarian who happens to be female than a feminist.

  • GILMORE||

    Yes. at least 2.

    And they were both good in bed. Of course, I may just be saying that because it was at the same time.

  • GILMORE||

    Now that I think about it, they may have also only been tolerable because they thought they had me outnumbered.

  • prolefeed||

    Tony|4.3.14 @ 5:34PM|#

    I'll keep posting until you guys realize that what you advocate is a) a complete upheaval of society that few people actually want, and b) because of that and for many other reasons, will result in a loss of a huge amount of personal freedom.

    Shorter Tony: "Increasing freedom will result in huge losses of freedom!"

    The fuck?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement