Prisons

If Prostitutes Are Slaves, How Can Punishing Them Be Just?

|

WBUR, the NPR affiliate in Boston, reports that the Massachusetts House of Representatives is considering a bill that "would define the people who manage prostitutes, or 'pimps,' as 'human traffickers.'" Under the bill, which is supported by Attorney General Martha Coakley, pimps, who currently face prison sentences of three months to two years, "could be sentenced to 20 years for selling adults in the sex industry and sentenced to life for exploiting children." The maximum punishment for johns would rise from one year to two and a half years, 20 years in cases involving underage prostitutes. The penalty for prostitutes, one year in jail, would remain the same, although it would be reserved for those who refused the state's "help" in changing professions.

Since assault, kidnapping, and extortion already are illegal, the bill's definition of trafficking presumably goes beyond the use of force to compel cooperation from unwilling prostitutes. Simply redefining the managing of prostitutes as trafficking would unfairly punish some people for violence they never committed. And while it is certainly unfair to let johns go while locking up prostitutes, I'm not sure I understand the logic of treating them more harshly. This is exactly the opposite of the approach taken by U.S. drug laws, which punish sellers more severely than buyers on the theory that they prey upon their customers by giving them what they want. Why treat sex addicts like criminals when they have a disease that needs to be treated?

If you accept the premise that all prostitutes are sex slaves, it is easier to see why Coakley sees johns as villains rather than victims. But if prostitutes have no choice, why is it just to punish them? Because "the act itself is criminal," Coakley says, which not only begs the question but overlooks the fact that criminalizing this industry makes it much more dangerous than it would otherwise be, promoting just the sort of coercion and violence that Coakley claims to be fighting.

More on prostitution here. More on Coakley here.

[Thanks to Michael Graham for the tip.]

NEXT: Reason Writers On TV: Peter Suderman Talks Debt Limit, Medicare, and Government Jobs on Freedom Watch

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.

  1. Michael Graham of Boston’s 96.9 FM is The Natural Truth. So he says.

  2. Brilliant point! Gotta love the selective outrage. I wonder if these people would throw children who pose for kiddie porn in jail. Same logic ? if you agree with their premise.

    1. Whether such people would throw kiddie porn models in jail depends mostly on whether they can get larger kickbacks from the prison industry or from the therapists in the child abuse industry.

      I think the therapists charge more, and if they can convince their clients that they have been immensely damaged they can keep “treating” them for life. Therefore, these models probably need not fear prison – but the “therapy” they face may be much worse.

  3. See, we would have been better off if statist faux man of the people in his ugly truck who has been in government almost his entire adult life had lost to Marsha.

    Of course, I voted for Joe Kennedy. He was the libertarian candidate, no relation, of course, to the statist family.

    1. Not really. Brown being elected to the Senate kept the Democrats from tweaking Obamacare so it would be less obviously unconstitutional.

      You’re worse off if you’re a hooker or a john in MA, though.

  4. Marsha Coakley is repulsive. Torture is being forced to view Marsha in the state of undress. Even more so than Oprah or Whoopie.

  5. I eagerly await the feminist blogosphere to explain why this is okay because a Democrat is doing it.

    1. It makes penalties harsher for johns. I’m sure they’d love it no matter who proposed it. Increase in pussy value is the root of a majority of their causes.

      1. Fucking protectionism. Literally.

      2. This would be the literal definition of “Fucking Protectionism”, yes?

        1. You know, given all of this research into the economics of sex, there are so many theories to be explained in such terms:
          – Mercantilism
          – Marxism
          – Keynsianism
          . . .

          The list could go on and on…

          1. Those examples, though protectionist, don’t directly and explicitly involve Fucking, which was the thrust of my joke.

            1. Not so sure about that. The feds have been using Keynsianism to fuck us for decades.

              1. literal, genital-to-genital sextastics. Bunch of Figurativists, the lot of you.

            2. heh heh thrust

  6. Coakley retains her cynical jackass credentials.

  7. We all know the drill by now: We need strict laws against something to address the social problems caused by the strict laws against that something.

    1. Hey, that’s government, dude. It exists to create problems so that it can say it needs to exist with even more power to correct those problems.

    2. How many times do we need to destroy the village to save it before people GET IT?!!

      1. What the fuck are you doing? It’s a Power Play and you’re on here commenting.

        Come to think of it, so am I.

        For the record, Marsha is a twat of the highest order. She ought to spend more time minding her own business and less minding mine. I’m sure glad I don’t live in a state that’s as restri….

        Aw, fuck it. I’m in worse shape than a Masshole.

      2. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    3. Harry Browne used to say during his 1996 presidential run that the government was great at breaking your leg, giving you a crutch, and then telling you how lucky you were to get government assistance.

      1. || Pimpin, meet Joe M
        vv

  8. On behalf of the industry….thank you for the price supports in a time of economic stress.

  9. I would be totally okay with punishing pimps as human traffickers IF assault, kidnapping, and extortion can be shown.

    Problem is that as long as prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are not going to go to the police to report assaults or extortion. (Kidnapping, I’m assuming the victim will talk.) That makes it very difficult to get any convictions. But if you can get someone for being a pimp AND show that extortion and abuse is involved, then fuck yeah, put them away for 20 years. That will at least make prostitutes less likely to be victimized.

    1. This is pure logic. Too bad it’s missed on busybodies whose goal is not to create a safe (assault, extortion and kidnapping-free) environment, but is rather to impose their moral code on the citizenry, writ large. Of course, she did throw in the “for the children” reference to the underage ho’s. Ergo, anyone who complains about her being a nosy bitch gets labelled as someone who hates the precious children.

      Well I’ve got news for you, Marsha. 75% of the kids between 16-17 are sexually active to some degree or another. If one of them wants to make a few bucks doing something she’s probably doing anyway, who the fuck are you to stop her?

      Fucking assholes, every one of them. Jesus H. tapdancin’ Christ. Is there a single decent AG in the entire country? Please, someone, name me one AG who’s not a total attention-whoring busybody fuckface that is imposing his/her version of morality on his/her state for either political gain or self-righteousness.

      I’m sorry, but I’m a bit off the rails today. Some motherfucker backed out of a $435k deal I’ve been working on for 2 weeks. FUCK!

      1. Please, someone, name me one AG who’s not a total attention-whoring busybody fuckface that is imposing his/her version of morality on his/her state for either political gain or self-righteousness

        I’d be impressed if anyone could. State AG is a bigtime fast track to scumbag politician, either governor or Congressperson.

        1. Eh, my roommates Mom is an AG in Sonora County, Arizona.

          While super nice, she did crack down on drugs, especially dealers, super duper hardcore, but other than that seems reasonable. Also, that drug crackdown? Did not stop her three sons from being total stoners.

          1. Good to know that she’s so nice that she makes her Crackdowns merely symbolic.

            1. I’m guessing the dealers she cracked down on “super duper hardcore” would disagree with the “merely symbolic” part. But other than that, yeah, 100%!

              1. I think the point was that her sons arent in jail.

                1. Selective/favoritism/nepotism is not the same as “symbolic”.

      2. Well I’ve got news for you, Marsha. 75% of the kids between 16-17 are sexually active to some degree or another. If one of them wants to make a few bucks doing something she’s probably doing anyway, who the fuck are you to stop her?

        Don’t be a fucking idiot. They are screwing their boyfriends, not men who can’t get laid

        1. You’re right, rectal. There ought to be a law that puts the boyfriends of those girls in the slammer for doing something that’s perfectly natural: fucking after puberty.

          Of course, your sex life consists of rats gnawing at your fat folds in an attempt to find out where that gorgonzola smell is emanating from.

          1. I’m not against fucking teenagers who fuck each other, dumbass

            Old men are gross and they aren’t doing it unless they are forced. The pimps need to go to jail for life.

            1. You are such a contrarian asshole. I would venture to say that most of the people that pay to have sex are pretty normal. Perhaps they lack some social skills or travel quite a bit and haven’t developed a relationship, but that’s not the point.

              If they force someone to have sex with them, it ceases to be prostitution and becomes rape or sexual assault. I also don’t see how a pimp can “force” someone to have sex with a john unless he locks the chick in a room or holds a gun to her head. I don’t hear of that happening too often. More likely is a 30 year old cop chick offers to suck a guy off and he ends up in jail. Or a dude cop offers a girl $$ for sex and arrests her. It is extremely rare that people are caught engaging in actual prostitution (both parties arrested). It is almost the standard that one or the other is entrapped by busybody pigs looking to justify their budget by bumping up crime statistics.

              Oh, and regardless of how this plays out, you are a worthless bag of shit.

              1. you are a worthless bag of Christian shit along with your god

            2. Old men are gross

              Are you a feminist? Cause if not, you might want to look into it. They too like to use personal vaginal lubrication as a basis for laws. Course there’s also the socons. They like to base their laws on what the thought of something does to their erections. Don’t know which you have and don’t care. Just thought I’d let you know, since you seem to spend most of your time on a libertarian board.

              1. Reality check: 16 year olds don’t want to suck old dick, and yes, the pimps beat the shit out of girls to make them do it.

                1. Reality check: 16 year olds don’t want to suck old dick

                  There are a ton of guys in prison right now who really, really wish this was true.

                  1. there is a difference between a girl fucking a guy under 25 and screwing a guy in his forties, fifties …

                    1. So, your position is that all the men in prison for statutory rape were under 25 when the incident occured? Seriously? Are you an actual person, or is there a cat walking around on a keyboard in a nursing home somewhere in south Flordia?

                    2. Dude, don’t talk about cats like that. Uncalled for.

                    3. ageist asshole!

                2. And any pimp who beats a girl to force her to perform such favors needs to go to prison for a long, long time, since the act could no longer be considered consensual.

  10. “If Prostitutes Are Slaves, How Can Punishing Them Be Just?”

    It’s “just” in the same way that recreational drug-users are helpless, hopeless addicts whose only hope for salvation lies in lengthy prison sentences surrounded by murderers and rapists.

  11. If libertarians are idiots, can making fun of them be just?

    1. Maxie Pad, your momma has your breastmilk enema ready for you…nice and warm, just like you like it. Then you can suck her strap on before she ass fucks you to sleep. Sweet Dreams!

    2. Please don’t be his porn.

    3. Making fun of you is just, Edward, and you’re a retard, so I guess the answer is: you’re a retard.

    4. Ironically, this is why I can’t stand progressives, but don’t particularly mind conservatives. Anyone who believes is God, particularly a bablical one, obviously is not intellectually competent enough to bother with.

      Progressives, on the other hand, KNOW BETTER. They’re smart enough to understand the arguments, but they CHOOSE not to.

      1. WTF? I believe in God and I think I’m pretty well-respected on here as a true believer. Serious question: What does that have to do with libertarianism? To me they are hardly at odds with each other.

        Seriously, I just do not get that about a lot of folks on here. They laugh and snark at all religious people, when there are plenty, PLENTY, of us out here that live by a moral code that we do not want to impose on anyone else under any circumstances.

        “Progressives on the other hand, KNOW BETTER.”???? WTF does this mean, that they are somehow smarter than me because they have a different belief structure? No offense meant, Hazel (because you are a very thoughtful and intelligent poster), but there are at least as many moronic, busybody dickface atheists in the green movement that want to run your life as there are on the religious right.

        1. Personally, I’m a deist myself. I believe there is a god(well ordered universe and all that, and yes, I have read my David Hume telling me how that is bull… but fuck David Hume. Great philosopher, dedicated atheist, I just disagree), I just don’t believe it gives a shit about human affairs.

          Which I find comforting- far more comforting than a God who would arbitrarily intervene. I also believe it puts the onus on humans to make the world a better place- but that can’t be achieved by force.

          1. Hey, goldwater. Did you ever figure out where you’re gonna end up when you’re finished with school this summer?

            1. Probably DC- I have family out there, and the job market is pretty strong in the area.

              Actually, it’s crazy- I get my fancy, latin-y degree in about 11 days. And then the real world.

              It’s kinda like being on top of the high dive- you know you gotta jump, you know you’ll be better for it, but before you do it the first time- HOO BOY is it high.

              1. Probably DC-…the real world

                Haha. I’m sorry, dude, and this is in no way directed at you. It just strikes me as funny that someone leaving college and moving to DC thinks they are entering the “real world.”

                You seem to be a pretty bright lad. I’m sure you’ll do fine. Just remember…80% of the people in DC work for the government, which means you can not trust a supermajority of the people you will meet.

                As a side note, and from some personal experience: tell as many 20-27 year old women you work for a Deputy Director or Undersecretary of some department or other in Media Relations, and you will not spend many nights in bed alone.

                1. Good advice sloopy. I actually lived with my sister in DC two summers ago, during the height of the financial crash, and holy sweet jesus- it’s not just the people who work for the government who live in the bubble. I worked two jobs (volunteered for conservatives in the morning, canvassed for liberals in the afternoon- the second one paid, so eventually I stuck with that after I got tired of burning the candle at both ends) in the lobbying sector, and in both, people were shocked, shocked, that during the worst financial crises in history, people didn’t want to open their wallets to non-profits.

                  1. How does working in “the lobbying sector” not count as “working for the gov’t”. I get that they’re advancing the interests that pay them….but their audience is the gov’t, so, yeah. All the bullshit of working for the gov’t, but without the job security or tail-landing-titles.

        2. Don’t even bother, Sloopy. Your primitive mind (like mine) is unable to even converse with the brilliance of an atheist like Hazel. Frankly, the only reason you and I (a fellow believer) are libertarians is pure luck. We blindly poked at various political beliefs and just happened to land on the One True Political Dogma.

          1. For the record, I too respect Hazel’s comments here on the H&R blog. That being said, to suggest that people who believe in God are de facto idiots is ignorant. There are plenty of geniuses in this world who happen to believe in God. I see little difference between liberals who believe they’re inherently smarter than conservatives and atheists who believe they’re inherently smarter than deists.

            1. 2 of the biggest pricks here believe in god-I choose Satan

              1. You are destined to spend eternity in limbo, rectal. I believe that the Prince of Darkness himself would vomit up his lunch of moldy, aborted fetuses if he took one look at you.

                1. No offense Sloopy, I really respect your posts, and I don’t think you’re ignorant, or that I’m more intelligent than you at all, BUT…

                  Think about it like this. Imagine how you think of people who wear tin-foil hats to keep Olivia Newton John from controlling them with her brain-wave scrambler. They have no proof of this whatsoever, but they have faith that this is true. We call this person insane. We assume the hobo on the street, walking around talking to himself in unintelligible mutters to invisible agents, is mentally disturbed. But when someone does this in a church, suddenly it’s not disturbing, it’s great. It’s like the fact that the belief is widespread, absent proof (indeed, some might say in spite of proof), somehow validates it.

                  I don’t see a big distinction between the tin-foil hat Olivia Newton John guy, and a religious person. I have several close friends who are deeply religious, and I respect their difference of opinion, and we have cordial discussions on this topic all the time. But just imagine how it sounds when people basically say, “I believe this, I have no proof, only my faith, but how dare you question it.”

                  Again, not trying to flame or insult, just trying to think of a weird enough scenario that might convey how a dedicated agnostic / athiest views the idea of religion.

                  1. Why do you assume that theists’ beliefs are totally without evidence? Most theists have had actual experiences, corroborated by a billion or so others who have had similar experiences, from which their beliefs stem. The fact that you have had no experience that implies interaction with a deity doesn’t mean no one else has.

                    Also, your premise that faith precludes reason is absurd. I doubt you have a problem when someone says something along the lines of, “I have faith in you.” Faith is learned through experience. If someone has faith in you, it’s probably because you’ve given them reason to believe you will succeed by having been successful in the past. This is a bumper sticker argument latched onto by people who’d rather not think things through. Easier just to be dismissive and repeat whatever it was that really cool atheist guy you met last week was saying.

                    1. This is a bumper sticker argument latched onto by people who’d rather not think things through. Easier just to be dismissive and repeat whatever it was that really cool atheist guy you met last week was saying.

                      So being insulting is better than being dismissive? What atheist guy last week? I’ve felt this way for a decade. When I was speaking of proof, I was speaking of the kind of proof that holds up to scientific scrutiny. Plenty of people have claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc, but just because people believe they saw it, doesn’t mean they actually did. Again, the extent of a delusion does not validate that delusion as real, esp. if the biological imperative for that delusion (i.e. if we are programmed to seek explanations or comfort of some kind, and thus invent religion to do so) is already present in our brains.

                      I don’t think the majority of people are lying about their religious experiences. I think they genuinely believe something happened to them. But since the experience is deeply personal and nonreplicatable, it can hardly be said to constitute “proof”.

                      Leaving aside the, “if a lot of people believe it then that constitutes proof” argument, how does this not simply leave the door open for any and all belief, including pink unicorns and pasta monsters? Not that there is anything wrong with people being able to believe in those things; I would never legislate any persons belief system; as long as they don’t violate anyones rights, everyone should be free to do as they wish. But I’m also not bound to respect or give credence to anyones belief system, either. I’m not saying this thread was an example of it, but often times the religious immediately take umbrage when someone makes fun of them or disrespects their beliefs. Well, if you’re going to hold a belief that some others might find crazy, then that comes with the territory. Hell, look what we put up with as libertarians on a daily basis from the MSM and the two teams : ).

                    2. I get your points, Jim. I really do. I personally feel the same way about people who believe there is no God. I mean, can the ordered creation or chaotic and unordered beginning of the Universe be proven either way? Not with the current level of science we have. Therefore, both creationists and non-creationists base their core beliefs on….faith.

                      Is there scientific evidence of evolution of species? Hell yeah, there is. Anyone who believes differently is refusing to accept something factual. Can this also tie in with my Christian beliefs? Absolutely, which is why there are a lot of biologists in the world that hold religious beliefs. Their scientific conclusions often support their beliefs rather than contradict them…based on their faith and lack of a scientifically proven alternative.

                      Either way, I never let my religious beliefs get in the way of my libertarianism. To the contrary, I believe a true person of faith believes in the ability of man to individually determine his own goodness or badness, and it is certainly not up to me or anybody else to compel him by force to do the right thing. Unless one is a Calvinist, I can’t see how a Christian could think differently.

                      Again, I respect your beliefs until they infringe on my person or property. All I ask is that the same courtesy is afforded to me. That’s why I am here as opposed to some right-wing blog where the goal is to sanitize the masses for the salvation of their souls. That’s a crock of shit because one’s soul is their own to do with as they please, therefore I have no time for those dumbshits. Just as I have no time for the dumbshit progressives who do the same fucking things for the “greater good” as well. A statist is a statist whether they do it for God or Gaia or the State, and they can all suck a big fat cock.

                    3. A statist is a statist whether they do it for God or Gaia or the State, and they can all suck a big fat cock.

                      Well said sir, and I fully agree.

                      I personally hold no opinion on the creation of the universe, because I see no hard evidence of any thought system (God, the big bang, whatever). I’ll continue to have no opinion on the matter until such time as compelling evidence is presented.

                    4. Oh, and I should add, two of my dearest friends are…young earthers. It’s a long story to explain why we’re all friends, but they advocate some kind of “water vapor canopy” which created density in our atmosphere to make humans tougher, live longer, etc. They don’t believe dinosaurs inhabited the Holy Land and went extinct before mankind spread out of the garden of eden, and they believe that all carbon dating is completely wrong (they accuse me of having unprovable “faith” in physics, using the asinine argument that we can’t prove that the physical properties of the world didn’t change dramatically after the aforementioned canopy collapsed, thus rending any science based on it useless). So that’s the religious folk I normally encounter and deal with; they usually accuse mainstream christians who disavow young earther-ism of having no real faith.

                  2. “I don’t see a big distinction between the tin-foil hat Olivia Newton John guy, and a religious person. I have several close friends who are deeply religious….”

                    So you have perfectly normal friendships with people you believe to be hopelessly insane?

                    1. Pretty much. It’s a fun life!

            2. But would you say that someone who believes in magic healing crystals is stupid? That’s how an atheist views a theist.

              1. But would you say that someone who believes in magic healing crystals is stupid?

                I would say their belief lacks validity, but is not entirely without merit, due to the asskicking real-world applications of well-ordered matter.

                I like crystals enough that I might make up excuses like “it’s healing me” if that let me cuddle some crystal without being institutionalized.

                1. Ooo, does anyone know if there are any healing properties associated with copper wire? I just wanna have my story straight beforehand. Unlike the wire is gonna be by then, amirite, huh huh *highfives*

                2. Of course my beliefs lack validity, in a scientific manner. We call it faith for a reason. (Drink?)

                  Either way, I just took umbrage to Hazel’s smug assertion that all of us who believe in God are somehow not as smart as those who believe that there is no God. Of course I can’t prove I am right, but neither can she. I have faith in God. She has faith that there is not a God.

                  Either way, that has no bearing on any individual’s ability to be libertarian or not. Certain groups of secular humanists are among the most controlling people in the world.

                  1. Sloopy, I don’t assume that just because someone believes in god, they are stupid, but it is a rebuttable presumption.

                  2. She has faith that there is not a God.

                    Ok, I was kinda with you until this. Not believing in the sky wizard isn’t faith. I can’t prove one way or another that your head will explode tomorrow morning at 11:24 am. If you don’t believe it will, it’s because you’re rational, not because you have faith it won’t. You can’t say prove there is no god, since you know damn well you can’t prove a negative of that nature. If you say there is a sky wizard, then the onus is on you to prove it’s existence. Full stop. That “you can’t prove it’s not true” crap is beneath the normal level of discourse you usually have (which might have something to do with Hazel’s assesment of believers, since this is what they invariably resort to).

                  3. Either way, that has no bearing on any individual’s ability to be libertarian or not. Certain groups of secular humanists are among the most controlling people in the world.

                    In this, we agree.

        3. WTF does this mean, that they are somehow smarter than me because they have a different belief structure?

          I thought they self-proclaimed to be the Intellectual Elite, which makes their Secular Beliefs superior due to the use of Logic, Reasoning, and …. *snort* …. *tsptz* ….BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Sorry, I couldn’t keep going.

        4. Maybe this will explain it to you Sloopy: An Omnipotent, Omniscient, OMNIBENEVOLENT agency = 18,000 to 20,000 dead children a day.

          1. What you are missing from your analysis is the concept of a “non-idea.”

            For instance, if I were to say “geometric figure which simultaneously has exactly four sides and exactly three sides,” I haven’t conveyed an idea. Such a figure contradicts itself and can’t exist, even in pure conception. It is a not an idea at all; it is a non-idea, and to say “geometric figure which simultaneously has exactly four sides and exactly three sides,” is to say nothing at all. I may as well say “yada yada yada.” Furthermore, to say that God can’t make a “”geometric figure which simultaneously has exactly four sides and exactly three sides,” is not to limit God’s power or omnipotence. It is the logical equivalent of saying “God can’t make a yada yada yada.” It doesn’t express any idea at all.

            So the question, then, is whether a universe with no evil is an idea at all. One could argue that the absence of something good is itself evil; so a universe with no evil must have all good things. You could then argue further that an appreciation of good is good and that appreciation can’t exist without a concept of alternatives to what you are appreciating; so, an appreciation of good cannot exist without a concept of evil, which cannot exist in a world in which no evil exists. All this to say, in much the same way as “”geometric figure which simultaneously has exactly four sides and exactly three sides,” “universe with no evil” is a non-idea that conveys nothing. To say that “God can’t create a universe with no evil” is the logical equivalent of saying “God can’t create a yada yada yada.” Not only is it not true, but it isn’t false. It’s nothing, and the fact that evil exists does not preclude the existence of a being that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

            1. I’m not sure you get the idea of “omnipotent”. If god exists, and is omnipotent, then He could very easily make something with exactly four sides, and exactly three. He could make a “yada yada yada”, and give that concept form and purpose. He could make a universe in which good is understood and appreciated even in the absence of evil. He would simply have to change the nature of all logic and reality, which, for an omnipotent being, would be completely possible. No matter how you try to talk around it, any action, ascribed to a being which is omnipotent, must, by definition, be absolutely true without limitation.

              1. Jim,

                Without getting into Fabius’ argument about the impossibility of a universe without evil, there’s nothing wrong with his use of the word “omnipotent.” The idea that “omnipotence” means only the ability to do anything logically possible is quite longstanding and common; it has long been the mainstream position in Catholic theology, for instance, so your definition of “omnipotent” is arguably more idiosyncratic than his.

                1. That seems unncessary. Logic is just a reflection of how our particular universe is ordered. An omnipotent God could restructure it all at will, and accomplish it instantaneously, retroactively, or simultaneously. Maybe He just did.

        5. I have yet to see evidence that “Progressives … KNOW BETTER” about anything at all. Please provide same, without reference to God, whether or not biblical.

      2. Hey, know what we forgot? The obligatory…

        You know who else was an atheist?

        1. Buddha?

          1. Confucius?

            1. Jain’s Addiction?

              1. Did you know that Bil Keane (Family Circus) became an atheist before he died?

                1. You almost had me convinced Bil Keane was dead and his reign of terror was over.

                  You shouldn’t toy with people like that.

                  http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/…..5089036738

                  1. I had to do it. Chalk one up to sloopy’s sadistic side.

      3. Excellent trolling Hazel

        A+

        1. Anyone else notice how things get out of hand here when the topic turns to politics or religion?

          1. That would be on every thread, then. Yes, I’ve noticed that.

  12. Because “the act itself is criminal,” Coakley says

    So we can’t make a currently criminal act into a non-criminal act because the act is criminal?

    Got it. =P

  13. Coakley ought to be going after Scott Harshbarger for exploiting the children in the Amirault case.

    Of course, she’d have to follow Harshbarger to prison.

  14. I think the question posed by this post is one of those that would’ve shorted out Norman. Luckily for the legislators, logic isn’t their strong point.

  15. Q: What’s the difference between a man who hires a prostitute for some BDSM fun and the average politician?

    A:
    1) The man is only playing, while the politician inflicts genuinely harmful punishment.
    2) The man obtains the prostitute’s consent before beginning, while the politician does not.
    3) The man compensates the prostitute for their interaction, while the politician does not.

    1. Pros fucking pols best take pics.

    2. Pros fucking pols best take pics.

  16. So Martha Coakley is the Queen of Pimps?

    1. Pimp of Queens?

      1. As long as Doris Roberts is onboard.

  17. Those damn redneck evangelical SoCons!
    Forcing their Bible morality on everyone else. Massachusetts needs to elect some liberal progressives. They stay out of matters of sexual choice.

    1. They could enjoy more civil liberties too! AND SMOKE POT! VOTE DEMOCRAT OR ELSE.

    2. What SIV really means:

      Massachusetts needs to elect more commies who want to butt-fuck your kindergartners. They stay out of matters of sexual choice.

      Unless, of course, you choose not to let those totalitarian anal rapists force their faggoty pedo porn on your elementary school kids. Then, all at once, the child-molesting leftard faggots take a very great interest in forcing their sexual “morality” on everyone else. Say hi to your master Satan when he’s raping your kiddy-fiddling losertardian ass with a chainsaw in Hell, SIV.

  18. Third period under way.
    Let’s Go Red Wings!

    This game is killing me. They’ve outshot San Jose 32-13 and cannot put the puck in the net. I sure hope Jimmy Howard doesn’t fuck up this game by falling asleep.

    1. Goal! Tie game.

      1. Another goal!!!!!
        2-1 Red Wings!
        WOO-HOO!

      2. I was once at a dinner party where Martha Coakley was the guest speaker, and she rambled on and on about what big pussies al-Qaida recruits. She just would not stop with the insults and tirades against them. al-Qaida fucks goats this, and al-Qaida has to hide their ugly ass women in burkas that. What else did she say? Yeah, their mothers are all whores. She said she wasn’t afraid of al-Qaida. She dared them to do anything about it. She wasn’t afraid because the big fat slobbering pussies would never dare come to Massachusetts ’cause they’d get their asses kicked right back to the teets of their whore mothers.

        Then she went on and on about animal rightest. She would LOVE to see one of them throw blood at her fur coat . . .

  19. I wonder who gives more material support ($$) to working girls.

    1) johns
    2) government
    3) minimum wage job

    1. fuckin’ comment threads. How do they work?

  20. I wonder who gives more material support ($$) to working girls.

    1) johns
    2) government
    3) minimum wage job

  21. Dudes. This is an easy problem to solve. Put a camera in the room. Post it on Pornhub. If the pigs pop in, you were making a porno. Hell, I’d be willing to bet some stars offer personalized videos.

    1. I recall reading about a company that took this approach 20+ years ago. The pigs busted them anyway.

      Fuck the politicians. Fuck the pigs. Fuck the whores.

      1. Interesting. I’d always wondered if this was a legit hack or not.

  22. ….sounds like a good candidate for an Obama DOJ position.

  23. Back to the topic kids.

    Consenting adult agencies and out call is legal with no big issues in almost all the world except the U.S. (Canada close example).

    Incalls mostly legal from huge public brothels in Australia/NZ to limit of 1 gal per flat in the U.K. or rarely enforced 1800’s bawdy house law in Canada.

    Sexwork can be very positive for a society and just no big deal in most of the rest of the world.

    Even common in biblical times with nothing wrong with “common” prostitution (not temple prostitutes worshiping the fertility “gods”.)

    1. Yeah, even in Sullum’s post he mentions people who visit sex workers as “addicts.” All kinds of people could visit sex workers for different reasons and a wide range of frequencies – if you visit a sex worker once a week or once a month would that make you a sex addict? And maybe you just prefer attachment free sex

  24. “Pimpin’ ain’t easy but it’s necessary…”

  25. Listen Jacob, don’t go there. The feminists already have an answer to that one – asymmetric criminalization, as exists in Sweden, where selling sex is legal but buying it isn’t. Yes you heard that right – being a John is illegal but being a hoe is fine cos you are “a slave”

  26. So, if u are interested in prostitution I want to invite u all to my blog.
    http://barriorojo-esl.blogspot.com/

    I’m a spanish john, so maybe some of the problems we have here are not the same (prostitution is not illegal, but in many cities its forbidden in the street). Anyway u can have an alternative view of this reality, one from inside.

    See u

  27. Sorry Marsha but you’re not going to FORCE anyone into therapy just so your lil special interest buddies can get federal funding on OUR backs.

    No Thanks.
    We needed your help BEFORE we got into the industry.. NOT AFTER.
    THAT IS TOO LATE.

    How about instead I teach these girls all about the consitution and how their rights are getting violated and we’ll just fight for ourselves, LIKE WE ALWAYS HAVE.

    Thanks.

    By the way, we tend to sleep with some powerful men and I just put you on the shitlist. I assure you, support for this kind of legislation is on the surface only. Behind closed doors, it’s political suicide, you have no idea who you’re threatening and since your non-profit group’s “help” borders on fraud, I suggest your brush up on the law yourself.

    One group has already come forward and admitted that the bogus sex trafficking study was created for the sole purpose of defrauding congress.
    http://www.sextraffickingvicti…..h-unfolds/

    Why don’t you LEGISLATE THAT ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.