Sex Work

In Seattle, Crime of 'Patronizing a Prostitute' Redefined as 'Sexual Exploitation'

'Words matter,' said Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes.

|

immortalafflictionphotography/Flickr

In Seattle, "patronizing a prostitute" will no longer be a crime. But the Seattle City Council didn't suddenly succumb to a libertarian streak: Paying for sexual services will still be illegal, it's just been rechristened as a crime of "sexual exploitation." 

"Words matter," said City Attorney Pete Holmes in a press release about the name change. "Using prostitute as a noun is demeaning and this change also reflects our more modern understanding that prostitution has lots of unwilling participants."

Words do matter, which is why sex work activists have been campaigning the Associated Press to change the term from "prostitute" to "sex worker" in The AP Stylebook, the sort of official journalistic-style bible. Part of the appeal of the term sex worker is that it succinctly characterizes the situation—someone putting in labor to provide romantic or sexual companionship, fantasy, and acts—without the negative historical connotation of words like prostitute and hooker. A common refrain in sex-work activism circles is that "sex work is work"—a way to make a living, not a pathology or party or crying shame. 

Another part of the appeal of "sex worker" is that it implies agency. If someone is forced into labor (of whatever sort), we don't usually call them "workers." We call them "slaves" (or victims of trafficking). While a "prostitute" can be someone selling sex willingly or someone forced into it, the term "sex worker" helps differentiate those who choose to work in the sex industry from sex-trafficking victims. And this is the difference most people care about; consent is the crux of the matter.

Politicians and law enforcement know this. As long as it's not in their view, most Americans don't really care whether consenting adults are privately exchanging sex for money. But they do (and should!) care about individuals being forced into sex. By conflating the two, officials can prey on people's very natural and right objection to sex trafficking to expand police and prosecutorial power. 

Sound like libertarian paranoia? Soon, the Washington state legislature will consider a bill changing purchasing sex from a simple misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor, thereby increasing the maximum penalty from 90 days to one year jail time. Would most people support a one-year jail sentence for trying to buy sex? Would they support it for someone guilty of "sexual exploitation?"

Words matter. 

"As somebody very leery of using the criminal-justice system to curb human behavior when it comes to sex," Melinda Chateauvert, author of Sex Workers Unite! and a retired history professor, told The Seattle Times, "I find this very disconcerting that we want to punish men for having sex, especially when the women are consenting and wanting money." 

City Attorney Holmes claims the city simply wants to shed "demeaning" language and help out "prostituted persons". Perhaps that's really what Seattle City Council members think they're doing. But refusing to differentiate—conceptually or legally—between those who willingly sell sex and those who are sexually exploited just makes it harder to help the exploited, both by diverting resources and by creating a climate where all sexual trade must take place underground. Refusing to differentiate doesn't help

It does however, expose a lot more people to arrest, prosecution, and prison sentences. If none of them actually happen to be sex traffickers… well, tomato, to-mah-to, right? Holmes told The Seattle Times that upgrading the state law to make purchasing sex a gross misdeameanor would really "give us an even bigger hammer." Size matters, too, I guess.

NEXT: Autistic Student Who Kissed Wrong Person Expelled for Sexual Assault

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. The Progressives are well on their way to bringing in a New Temperance Movement. Because the last one worked out so well.

    1. the funny thing is that they don’t think THEY are the ones who bring the temperance. They think it’s the religious right.

      Really, it’s the intersection of all statist busybodies that cross the line and force the majority to lift their heads up and let them know how much they’re really not wanted.

      1. The “religious right” is little more than a progressive boogeyman at this point.

        I used to vilify them too until I stopped for a moment and realized that they have basically zero influence on national policy. Not even the Great Crusade Against Same-Sex Marriage (TM) was their doing; in 2004, public opinion was against it, DOMA was already in place (and put there with a Democrat’s signature), and the proposed constitutional amendment was as much of a non-starter as the perennial “repeal the 22nd amendment” proposals.

        Once I got started in this whole “think things through” business, I realized that it was precisely the progressives who not only are pushing their own moral agenda but are actually gaining some traction at the national level.

        Sure, the “religious right” is a real group (I’ve known plenty of people who would identify with them) but it is a distraction at most; the progressives are playing a national game of “look over here!” to take attention off their own moralistic narcissism/nihilism.

        1. There’s still a lot of policy that affects one at the state and local level, and in a significant number of states, like mine, social conservatives are more powerful than progressives. Worrying about progressives here in SC would be like worrying about the eunuch in the harem.

          1. OK, but what are they accomplishing or preventing?

            1. Having fun on Sunday.

          2. South Carolina probably does have a fair number of traditionalist Republicans in power at the state level. In my state, there aren’t many Republicans of any stripe in power. However, neither of those realities have much to do with national politics.

        2. I used to vilify them too until I stopped for a moment and realized that they have basically zero influence on national policy

          According to Shreek, they have so much influence that the new inquisition is about to begin and we can expect to see witches and blasphemers burned at the stake again.

          1. Shriek? I believe that Bo is a different person.

        3. “The ‘religious right’ is little more than a progressive boogeyman at this point.”

          Libertarians get pretty exercised about it as well. According to some, the Republican Party is owned and operated by the religious right.

      2. I don’t really know, but prostitution laws seem like something that progressives and religious conservatives can really get together on. Not quite “Baptists and bootleggers”. Maybe “Baptists and feminists”?

        1. Fuckwads and douchebags?

    2. Among other things, Progressives do so love this catch-all non-argument of saying, “X MATTERS” =

      Its an interesting expression in that it seems to rely more on its inverse than on any specific assertion

      i.e. When you say something “doesn’t matter”, you don’t have to specify why; its suggesting the issue is irrelevant

      When you say something “matters”, it typically requires the explanation why, and to what it is relevant to.

      The way the expression is used by progs is to *suggest critics feel otherwise* = not to make any argument.

      its just an empty way of suggesting that critics think X “Doesn’t Matter”; that they’re *those type of people*

      it never actually bothers to make the actual required argument that the statement *presumes*. Of course “words matter” as a point of Law.

      People also say “words matter” as a way of suppressing free speech.

      People say “words matter” as an excuse to punch people in the face.

      The left routinely adopts these sorts of expressions and wields them like clubs to silence and demonize their critics, and to force them to work within the rhetorical framework they’ve chosen.

      1. I’ve said this before, but the SJW types spend inordinate amounts of effort and time to come up with tortured ways to explain why exactly they get to tell you to shut the fuck up and that you don’t get to have an opinion. Almost everything they do is an attempt to have a philosophical framework for why it’s ok to shut down anyone who disagrees with them as opposed to actually engaging others in honest discussion.

        1. I MADE THE POINT ALREADY AND THE ISSUE IS CLOSED, EPI!!

        2. You’re just mansplaining that shit. Now shut up.

        3. Your microaggressions are triggering me!

        4. Check your privilege, hetero-normative cis shitlord.

          1. If you guys don’t shut the fuck up I’m going to rape all of you. Rape-rape, too, not just “rape” rape.

            1. Otherwise known as making Whoopi.

              Are ludes going to be involved?

              1. Is the Space Pope reptilian?

                1. You got ludes?

                  1. I was gonna say, if you have ludes, I might be available to be raped.

        5. I got that from my friend Alley, who told me I don’t have the “chops” to say certain things. I needed a certain kind of status?but not privilege!

      2. Progressives do so love this catch-all non-argument of saying, “X MATTERS” =
        ###

        They love saying a great many phrases that primarily serve to obscure meaning and express approval/disapproval. Newspeak lives!

        It isn’t fair.
        — If you take the time to identify the “it”, it turns out to be existence.

        Affirmative Action.
        — Affirming the power and duty of the government to pick winners and losers based on race.

        That’s problematic. That’s too simplistic. It’s more complex than that.
        — I disapprove, but I can’t conceptually formulate any objection.

        1. “That’s too simplistic. It’s more complex than that”

          which is hilarious = because this is often their retort *after* they’ve just finished making a series of assertions like “X MATTERS” without explaining why.

          When you point this out, they fall back to suggesting that the way you approach the issue isn’t as “sophisticated” as their own, and that you clearly lack the necessary empathy to carry on the discussion in an honest fashion. The term ‘open minded’ with probably be used. as in, ‘failure to be’

          Its sort of the backup-system to the empty-assertion M.O. = the dismissal of *specific criticisms* as being ‘too reductive’. Which again = it says nothing about their own position (it implies that they have taken a ‘worldly and holistic’ approach, without saying how), while suggesting that their critics are ‘narrow minded’ and incapable of understanding the sophisticated relationship between issues that they’ve entirely avoided pointing out.

    3. Don’t forget the SoCons. Every time prostitution comes up here, Eddie goes all ballistic and pulls out non-liberty based arguments about “destroying marriage.”

      1. Eddie also defends the Pope reflexively. His opinion is not mainstream and his cohort is not very powerful.

        However, I do agree that there is a baptists-and-bootleggers sort of alliance here.

      2. Yeah, this isn’t one you can blame all on the left. There are a lot of left-liberals with very reasonable views about prostitution/sex work. The “all prostitution is exploitation” people are a fairly small group that just makes a lot of noise.

        1. This is just one of the reasons not to conflate liberalism with progressivism. They simply are not the same fucking things.

      3. Oh god. Don’t say his name, he might hear you.

        1. Ugh. Too late.

        2. Like he would miss out on an opportunity to flog one of his favorite dead horses (sorry for the tortured metaphor).

      4. The so-cons.

        In Seattle.

        Sure. Whatever you say.

  2. “Words matter,” said Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes.

    Every asshole loves to say things like this. Words mean things.

    1. Words have meanings- yes. But isn’t he projecting that “using prostitute as a noun is demeaning”?

      Demeaning? How? Judgmental bastard.

      1. Everybody knows verbs are better than nouns.

        1. so they can still use prostitute as a verb? so there was sexual exploitation when she prostituted herself?

      2. Demeaning? How? Judgmental bastard.

        When City Attorny Pete Holmes talks about this shit, he is prostituting himself and his office. When you call him a whore, he finds it demeaning.

        1. When you call him a whore, he finds it demeaning.

          My cousin called me a whore today. I thanked him for the implication that anyone would pay to have sex with me.

          Demeaning? Is there really a higher compliment?

    2. It is such a content free statement too. Of course words matter and have meaning. Without words, we’d just be some weird looking apes.

    3. If I were the sort of creep who wanted to be a prosecuting attorney, I’d favor such laws.

      It’s hard work to prepare a case to prosecute a real crime. It’s much easier to prosecute drug possession or a sting involving solicitation for sexual services or sales of drugs.

  3. Seattle city government has been cracking down hard on prostitutes for a few years now. They went after all the seedy motels on Aurora where the girls used to do a lot of their business and closed down a bunch. Looks like they’re just continuing this front in other directions.

    1. Oh no! How are you going to get laid!?!

      1. can’t he just get a permit to produce adult movies and cast himself? I mean, shouldn’t this be a pretty easy loophole? He could then destroy the product as he sees fit.

        1. Any movie with him in it is pretty much destroyed, already.

      2. I belong to a BDSM club, it’s very exclusive. My safeword is “antiquing”.

        1. what happens, then, when you actually want to talk about antiquing at the club?

          Sounds like a mistake in choice to me.

        2. It can’t be that exclusive. It let you in.

        3. You asshole!

          You told me the safe word was “more!”

          1. That’s what I wanted you to think, with your soft human brain.

        4. Epi, stop trying to destroy the world!

          1. Funderful?

    2. I drove on Aurora the other day and saw three women dressed up, and acting like, clich? streetwalkers. One of them even struck the leg up, high heeled shoe sole against a retaining wall pose. I never saw anything like this there before and suspect it was was a sting operation.

      1. I dunno. Aurora (CO) IIRC is a pretty nasty place. Could have been either.

  4. Are they the Sexually Exploited in Nye County Nevada? Where it is legal? How absurd would it sound to people if they referred to ballet dancers as Dexterously Exploited? Or musicians as Auditorily Exploited? Or even programmers as Logically Exploited? That’s it I am moving to Seattle and filing a suit against my employer cause they Logically Exploit me.

    1. Haven’t you heard?

      All work for pay is exploitation. Extracting surplus value from workers. Wage slavery.

      And penises are evil. Except when they’re gay.

      1. My penis is happy. Am I OK?

    2. They’re working on the “Culinary Exploitation” – when fast food places offer delicious food so cheap you can’t resist the urge to buy it, they’re taking advantage of your natural human instinct for delicious food.

      You, of course, are not exploiting the fast food place by taking advantage of the market forces that require fast food places to offer dirt cheap food in order to attract your custom.

      Just as prostitutes don’t exploit men by taking advantage of their overwhelming desire to engage in sex.

    3. Perhaps “exploitation” isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

    4. It’s giving people money to do things that makes them exploited. You’re a filthy wage-slaver.

      Making people do things using a threat of financial penalty is a power they reserve to the government.

    5. Or even programmers as Logically Exploited?

      Abstractly unexploited with exploitation taking place at explicitly at implementation.

  5. Part of the appeal of the term sex worker is that it succinctly characterizes the situation?someone putting in labor to provide romantic or sexual companionship, fantasy, and acts?without the negative historical connotation of words like prostitute and hooker.

    The other part is more often than not related to status. Higher-status leftists will be more aware of changes in the language along these lines, and accrue social prestige to the degree that they are “sensitive” to such changes. Its value as a signal (useless to the Unwashed, like us) is far higher to SJW types (who are 9 of 10 people to use the term) than any potential value as an accurate descriptor. (See “cis” and “zer” as other examples of this trend.)

    1. he also totally left out the word whore.

    2. The status signalling thing is probably true. But not all such things are equal. “Sex worker” at least means what it says and is pretty straight forward (though I’ll still say “prostitute” or “whore” if I feel like it). “Cis” is silly. I have never even heard of “zer”.

  6. By conflating the two, officials can prey on people’s very natural and right objection to sex trafficking to expand police and prosecutorial power.

    Plenty of moralists will claim that voluntary sex work is exploitation, to the point of telling a voluntary sex worker that she’s wrong and confused for not feeling exploited.

    Oh, and please ask your boss to invest in a spell-checker. (hisotry, Washignton)

    1. False consciousness FTW.

    2. “Plenty of moralists will claim that voluntary sex work is exploitation”

      Plenty of moralists will claim that all voluntary exchange of work for pay is exploitation.

      Many of these moralists will go on to claim that involuntary work for the state is liberation.

      Arbeit macht frei!

      1. Freedom Is Slavery.

  7. Maybe it should be legal for non-diseased, consenting adults to buy and sell sex in a discreet manner. That has more to do with the practicalities of prosecution, the risk of police corruption, etc., rather than an ideological principle.

    But as for terminology:

    “Part of the appeal of the term sex worker is that it succinctly characterizes the situation?someone putting in labor to provide romantic or sexual companionship, fantasy, and acts?without the negative historical connotation of words like prostitute and hooker.”

    Typical progressives – they think certain groups are unpopular or controversial because of their *name,* and if you change the name, the group will get more popular.

    In reality, if a new word comes to be associated with an unpopular or controversial group, the word will be tainted with the group’s unpopularity or controversiality (?).

    Look at all the different names for this group – harlots, whores, filles do joie, hookers, journalists, lawyers…ha ha, just kidding about those last two.

    1. Heh. You said “taint”.

    2. “Maybe it should be legal…”

      Yep, folks, all you need to know right there.

      1. I *have* discussed this before.

      2. “Maybe it should be legal…”

        Yep, folks, all you need to know right there.

        It does. Even though Eddie is personally opposed to prostitution he concedes that it should be legal. Sounds pretty libertarian to me.

        1. You’ve got to be kind–Tonio thinks the so-cons who control Seattle are behind this.

    3. In reality, if a new word comes to be associated with an unpopular or controversial group, the word will be tainted with the group’s unpopularity or controversiality

      A fine example are the Levine and Marks 1928 IQ classifications describing ranges of low intelligence scores: Idiot, Imbecile, Moron. They became pejoratives based on what they described. Much the way euphemisms such as ‘special’ are becoming pejoratives.

      1. Damn. Look at my own idiocy.

    4. Or look at the various terms for retarded (idiot, imbecile, etc) over the years. Whatever the new term becomes, ends up being used for an insult along the lines of “you’re stupid”.

      1. You’re just ‘challenged’.

        1. You are “special”.

      2. Who wants cake?

    5. That has more to do with the practicalities of prosecution, the risk of police corruption, etc., rather than an ideological principle.

      I would have said that this shows how disregarding the principle that adults should be free to do business with each other provided no one else’s rights are violated leads to police corruption, etc.

      Principle isn’t in conflict with practicalities, here. Principle is how you avoid those bad results.

      1. My main reservation – even confining myself to the “consenting adult” paradigm – is that the spouses (generally wives) of the “clients” usually didn’t give their consent. Thus this “voluntary” translation lacks the consent of a very relevant adult.

        1. I’ll bet you insist that every guy wanting to buy a motorcyle prove that his wife also consents to the purchase, right Eddie?

          1. Sure, because at every wedding ceremony, the husband solemnly promises not to buy motorcycles without his wife’s permission…

            Wait, no he doesn’t.

            But he *does* promise to “forsake all others” (either by words or by necessary implication).

            1. You realize that sex and love are very different things, right?

              Is a guy who masturbates violating his marriage vows?

              1. Yes, but it shouldn’t be a crime.

                1. Is a guy who masturbates violating his marriage vows?
                  reply to this

                  Yes, but it shouldn’t be a crime.

                  If your conception of marriage is such that 99.9% of men violate their marriage vows weekly, you really should consider the possibility that you have a very unnatural and perverted concept of what marriage is.

                  1. men violate their marriage vows weekly?

                    Fucking slacker!

                  2. “If your conception of marriage is such that 99.9% of men violate their marriage vows weekly, you really should consider the possibility that you have a very unnatural and perverted concept of what marriage is.”

                    No, I think human nature isn’t perfect. Duh.

                  3. In Eddie’s defense, at no point has Catholicism ever made reference to nature to validate its laws.

              2. Please say no. I thought I was a good man *sobs into hands*

                1. I hope you *washed* your hands first before touching your face.

                  1. *looks for moist towelettes*

            2. But he *does* promise to “forsake all others” (either by words or by necessary implication).

              That is just not true (not universally anyway). Open marriages exist. Marriages where no vows were made at all exist.

              1. I wouldn’t call those marriages, but “open relationships.”

                1. I wouldn’t call those marriages, but “open relationships.”

                  I’m sure you wouldn’t want someone defining your relationship, so why don’t you do others the courtesy of not defining theirs?

                  1. And down the rabbit hole we go….

                  2. How about we both use our own terminology, reflecting our respective values?

                    1. How about we both use our own terminology, reflecting our respective values?

                      You can use your own terms but it does nothing to discredit Zeb’s point about the legality of prostitution in regards to marriage.

                    2. How about we both use our own terminology, reflecting our respective values?

                      Fine. Marriage is between one man and one goat. Anything else is an abomination.

                    3. You can’t have just one goat. They run away to find another herd. So..so I’m told. *looks around nervously*

            3. But he *does* promise to “forsake all others” (either by words or by necessary implication).

              Then they can take it up in God’s court.

              Plus – by your definition, open marriages are a violation of the marriage ‘contract’. Spouses could not give consent to sex outside of marriage under those terms, as there’s no provision to allow that.

              But . . .

              Marriage vows are not a *secular* contract and as such are:

              1. Out of the purview of secular courts
              2. Would be a tort anyway and up to the harmed party to seek restitution through civil action and not a matter for the criminal justice system.

        2. My main reservation – even confining myself to the “consenting adult” paradigm – is that the spouses (generally wives) of the “clients” usually didn’t give their consent. Thus this “voluntary” translation lacks the consent of a very relevant adult.

          I think I’ve brought this up before but I don’t recall you addressing it: are you claiming that people have ownership/property rights of some kind over their spouses? If not, what does the third party’s consent have to do with it, in a legal sense?

          1. (a) No.

            (b) A husband and wife can have duties toward each other without either one owning the other. In fact, of the duty of fidelity is mutual, how can it be considered ownership, which is usually associated with unequal relationships (like master/slave)?

            1. *if* the duty of fidelity etc.

              1. You don’t have a *duty* of fidelity. Duty implies an *action*, not an inaction.

                You can certainly have a duty to fulfill your partner’s emotional and physical needs though – and part of that *may* require fidelity (but this requirement, though common, is not universal).

          2. I think it could be considered breach of contract.

            But since when do only married people seek out prostitutes?

        3. Thus this “voluntary” translation lacks the consent of a very relevant adult.

          Sure, in a civil context. People and businesses violate exclusivity provisions all the time. They don’t get hauled off to jail, they get sued. The family law equivalent of suing for breach is called divorce, and that is the proper remedy for a spouse that doesn’t hold up their end of the bargain.

          1. I was discussing whether prostitution conformed to the consenting-adult paradigm.

            The issue of civil v. criminal remedies is important, but it’s another issue.

            1. It’s not a consent issue. If the wife consents to him banging the hooker, does that somehow absolve him from the marriage vows? I would argue that it doesn’t. It instead changes the type of relationship that they’re in.

        4. But that has nothing specifically to do with prostitution. People can cheat for free too. And is just ridiculous anyway. Violating your wedding vows is not a crime.

          1. Whether it’s a crime depends on the state. Even New York declares it a crime.

            Of course, these laws are rarely enforced, but it gives the offenders the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment when asked about their behavior in a divorce proceeding.

            1. I suspect that the divorce bar would rise up in indignation at any proposal to repeal the criminal statutes against adultery.

            2. OK, “should not be a crime”. I think my state still has an adultery law on the books as well. It should be a civil contract matter if anything.
              The point is, there are lots of things that exist that provide people with easy ways to violate their contracts and agreements. Unless something like that inherently involves violating someone’s rights, it should not be against the law. For example, it shouldn’t generally be illegal for people to talk about what they do at work because some people sign non-disclosure agreements with their employers.

              1. I wouldn’t prosecute every broken promise, but that’s for practical reasons, not because I think there’s a fundamental right to violate promises.

                1. There isn’t such a right. But the legal recourse in the case of marriage is divorce.

        5. That adult isn’t part of the transaction.

          You’ll be hard pressed to find someone who despises cheaters more than I do, but that’s got nothing to do with prostitution. Just because criminals use guns doesn’t mean using guns is criminal.

    6. “In reality, if a new word comes to be associated with an unpopular or controversial group, the word will be tainted with the group’s unpopularity or controversiality (?).”

      Socialist. Progressive. Liberal. Politically Correct. Social Justice Warrior.

      Words they used for themselves, until people who didn’t agree with them started to use them too, and then they got huffy about being “insulted” by being called what they are, so moved on to a new word.

      Always gotta keep one step ahead of the posse.

    7. No, it is absolutely a matter of ideological principle. Your argument is basically equivalent to saying that alcohol should be banned because some people might drive drunk. And exactly the same argument would apply to criminalizing all causal sex. What’s the difference if a married man hires a whore or picks up some slut at the bar?
      If the sanctity of people’s marriage is something that should be protected by law, then make adultery a crime (or start enforcing the laws that still exist in some states). You can’t just go criminalize a broad category of transactions because some participants might break agreements they have made with other people.

      1. “Your argument is basically equivalent to saying that alcohol should be banned because some people might drive drunk.”

        First, I wasn’t calling for criminalization, but suggesting that *maybe* the criminal statutes against prostitution should be repealed.

        But if we *must* have an analogy, banning prostitution would be like banning drunk driving on the grounds that drunk drivers are more likely to drive recklessly and dangerously.

        1. OK, I see that you are not necessarily saying that prostitution should be criminalized. But that you have the “maybe” in there at all says that you think it might also be reasonable to keep it illegal.
          I, on the other hand, maintain that criminalizing prostitution always violates people’s rights and therefore is always wrong as a matter of principle.

          1. Yes, that’s where we part company.

            1. So you think that locking people up and/or seizing their property because they engaged in a wholly voluntary and peaceful transaction with another consenting adult (imagine no one is involved is married for the moment) is OK?

              Sorry, that’s just wrong and completely immoral.

              1. Again, I challenge the “consenting adult” paradigm.

                1. Or at least its application in this situation.

      2. You must be wrong, Zeb. I have it on very good authority that absolutely no one but Muslims want to inculcate their religious beliefs into law.

        1. If opposing prostitution is a religious belief, the atheist speaker Robert G. Ingersoll missed it. He listed “prostitution” among a list of evils which included “beggary and want, “crime and misery, “disease and famine,” and “tyranny.”

          (from archive.org)

          http://ow.ly/HkEgX

          1. Yes, yes, you can always dig up some dumbass atheist which totally means you aren’t doing it for religious reasons. Fuck off, theocrat.

            1. Robert G. Ingersoll is a “dumbass”? The Council for Secular Humanism doesn’t think so:

              “More than 80 admirers of nineteenth century agnostic orator Robert Green Ingersoll came together for an immersive weekend conference and tour held in Amherst, Dresden, and Seneca Falls, New York within a week of Ingersoll’s hundred-and-eighty-first birthday.

              “Council for Secular Humanism CEO Ronald A. Lindsay kicked off the conference portion of the event on August 16 with his opening remarks.”

              http://ow.ly/HkGXq

              1. No offense, but the CSH is a hugely leftist organization whose primary tool for solving any ‘problem’ is criminalization and enlargement of the state.

                Secular Humanism, as an atheistic philosophy, attempts to go far beyond the minimalistic morality of libertarianism.

                1. I’m measuring Ingersoll’s influence over a century after his death. I don’t think he was a leftist (at least not by modern standards), but the willingness of people to honor him long after his death shows he wasn’t some random person I picked off the Internet.

                2. Stirner had this one pegged too. Humanism is not merely atheism, but the install’n of Man (collectively) as God.

          2. “Our atheists are very pious people.” ? Max Stirner

  8. ‘”Words matter,” said City Attorney Pete Holmes in a press release about the name change. “Using prostitute as a noun is demeaning and this change also reflects our more modern understanding that prostitution has lots of unwilling participants.”‘

    HAHAHAHAHAHA! ‘Modern understanding?’ Yeah, no one ever saw prostitutes as fallen, broken women being ravaged by scoundrels before. What a novel concept!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..te_slavery

    ^ Truly, there are no other instances throughout history when people proclaimed that prostitution is by its nature exploitative.

  9. This is just criminalizing male sexuality. Beyond that, it is also infantilizing women. Even an adult woman is apparently in the Council’s view capable of making decisions about her sexuality without being exploited.

    Pathetic.

    1. That’s is a good summary of the entire feminist movement.

    2. Heterosexual penises are evil.

      Haven’t you heard?

  10. If a John is now a sexual exploiter, are hookers now “financial exploiters”?

  11. They’re so liberal!

    Slut shaming is out.

    Marxist exploitation is in.

    …but they’re still bustin’ hookers.

    Meanwhile, across the border in Vancouver, didn’t the Supreme Court of Canada find anti-prostitution laws unconstitutional?

    I’m still not sure about ranking the U.S. behind Canada on the freedom index, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the people of Vancouver enjoy more freedom than people in Seattle.

  12. A user of (illegal) MJ is generally deemed a lesser criminal than is the dealer, and may even be let off the hook. However, a user of (illegal) sex may be slapped legally as hard as the dealer. Why is this?

    1. If we wanted your conservative white male logic, we’d have asked you.

      1. And here I was so *sure* I was getting in touch with my feminine side by sharing my feelings!

    2. Because it’s exploitation! That’s why! Even voluntary sex workers are being exploited! I mean, they’re women and their customers are men! How could they not be exploited! And what if these men have wives and children?!? They’re committing a crime against their families! They must be punished!

      /moralist

    3. In some jurisdictions – harder.

      Imagine if it was legal to posses drugs, legal to sell them, but *buying* them got you prison time.

    4. The logic is that drug dealers charge too much, making money from the sale of a worthless item, while prostitutes charge too little, selling sex for less than its value.

  13. The stigma attaches to the activity, which has historically been named with “prostitute” or “hooker”. The same stigma doesn’t attach to “sex worker” because people are basically confused as to what the hell it means, but once they cease being confused, the same stigma will attach.

    This “use ‘sex worker'” horseshit is pure Newspeak. It purports to change concepts by changing words.

    For the record, I think prostitution should be legal.

    1. “sex worker” is an effective PC phrase – as it removes all the fun from the room.

      1. I propose changing “Sex worker” to “Bangmaster General”.

    2. This “use ‘sex worker'” horseshit is pure Newspeak. It purports to change concepts by changing words.

      Sure. Unfortunately, changing the branding often works.

      See, e.g., the preference for the inaccurate term “undocumented worker” over the more technically accurate term “illegal alien”.

      1. Unfortunately, changing the branding often works.

        Is there something inherently unfortunate about that? I really don’t see the problem with “sex worker”. It seems pretty clear and accurate. And if it helps change the general view of people who have sex for money from either exploited victims or immoral nasty people to another job that people might voluntarily choose, it doesn’t seem like a bad thing.

  14. Well, I’d turn Mr. Holmes’ “words matter” around on him. If prostitution and sexual exploitation are no different, why should I look on the “victims” of sexual exploitation as anything other than whores (no, I don’t think that, but it is the logical converse of Holmes’ position)?

    That’s the thing about all this PC and SJW crusading. You can eliminate the distinctions between things, but you can’t ever be sure that the attitudes toward the now combined things won’t ever vary from the way you want them to. So, if prostitution and sexual exploitation are the same, well why should we be concerned for them. If a drunken hookup is rape, well why shouldn’t we view rape as nothing more than a drunken hook-up?

    Yeah, words do matter.

  15. I’m also a big fan of the term ‘prostituted person.’ Aren’t progs the ones always assuring us that we shouldn’t objectify women? Well, by calling a woman a ‘prostituted person’ you are basically saying she did not make any active choices in the matter, but was merely acted upon by the scourge of whoredom.

    It’s about as objectifying as is humanly possible, yet this is the preferred PC nomenclature the anti-sex left has decided to use. I hate the term ‘sex worker’ too because it’s anodyne, PC and boring, but at least that term assumes the prostitute in question is a human being rather than a lump of wood to be fashioned as society sees fit.

    1. Feminism is all about objectifying women, and denying their agency.

      Just as Progressivism is all about objectifying everyone, and denying them agency.

      Everyone but heterosexual penises. They have agency, and they’re evil.

    2. the scourge of whoredom

      Band name?

    3. It bugs me that “gender” has caught on as synonymous for, but preferred to, the uncouth word “sex”. They mean different things, but forms now ask for gender rather than sex. I wish they’d let you write in a gender of your choice; I’d be “the smart kind”, or maybe “good”.

  16. You know what else had a lot of unwilling participants?

    1. The Temperance Movement? Sorry, read it as “unswilling”.

      1. I miss The Wine Commonsewer’s comments here.

    2. The Comfort Women program run by the WW2-era Japanese armed forces?

    3. The Comfort Women program run by the WW2-era Japanese armed forces?

    4. Also, the Squirrels.

    5. Jar Jar Binks?

    6. Sappy romantic comedies, to the extent men watch them on the insistence of women?

      1. only a dirty libertarian could hate “Fools Gold.” Disgusting…

    7. Vietnam?

    8. The Junior Anti-Sex League?

    9. Those imaginary figures alleged to be making mucho $ working at home with search engines?

  17. Welcome to the War On Women, Pete Holmes.

  18. consent is the crux of the matter

    For you and me, yes. For the Seattle city council, I doubt it. They’re concerned with enforcing their morality on sex-workers and their customers.

  19. “prostituted persons”

    Objects acted upon by others. Completely lacking agency.

    “It does however, expose a lot more people to arrest, prosecution, and prison sentences.”

    Mission Accomplished!

    Stop judging them by what they *say* they want, and start judging them by what they *do*.

    1. I’m waiting for my personal sex-worker robot / cook / maid.

      Once delivered, this white male will step aside and allow the genders and races I’ve been exploiting to run the world.

  20. It’s only exploitation if you don’t pay for it. Oh and menfolks ALWAYS pay…cashy money is just more honest.

    1. And generally cheaper.

  21. When will the government realize
    It’s got to be funky, sexy ladies

    1. +too many dicks on the dancefloor

  22. patronizing a prostitute –

    “OK, honey, can you dress up as a French maid for me? You see, honey, French maid fantasies are quite popular among some…”

    “Yeah, I know, don’t patronize me.”

    1. I don’t care what they say about you. You’re all right. (In spite of the obnoxious morality trolling whenever certain subjects come up.)

  23. But remember kids, progressives are the socially liberal ones. They are not like those prudish SOCONS.

    1. Yawn. Call me when they want to make sodomy and sex toys illegal.

      1. No, they just want to make sex in college and sex between people of differing “power” illegal.

        A pox on both clans of statist.

      2. They have. It is called “yes means yes”. I don’t see any socons trying to regulate every single sexual encounter of any kind that occurs. Yet, that is exactly what “affirmative consent” laws do.

        Are SOCONS behind those? No. Yawn. Sorry Bo, you are just are not very socially liberal.

        1. Whatever the faults of that nonsense it’s not barring sexual acts themselves.

          1. Yes it is. It makes any sexual act of any kind criminal unless both parties affirmatively consent to its occurring. Progressives have made any sort of passionate sex or any sex that does not involve each party explicitly agreeing to each act a crime.

            Sure, that law is totally unenforceable. But sodomy laws are not enforceable either.

            1. It’s like the difference between banning plastic bags altogether and banning giving them out without first asking if the customer wants to use a greener alternative.

              1. Bo, that is so stupid and so poorly reasoned, it is difficult to even respond to. Why do you think a little harder and get back to me. You statement so self evidently stupid, I find it hard to believe even you could actually mean that.

                1. The one accurate part of your comment is that you find it difficult to respond. Why else just three sentences of ad hom?

                  1. Bo,

                    Consensual sex is not the same as getting a fucking grocery bag. The fact that this fact has to even be pointed out to you is really a new low for you.

                    Liberals want to criminalize any sexual behavior that doesn’t involve affirmative consent of both parties. I don’t know how to put it any more clear for you.

                    1. “Consensual sex is not the same as getting a fucking grocery bag”

                      I can’t explain the nature of analogies and discuss today’s point John. Maybe you can google it?

                    2. No. Bo you can’t explain analogies. That is because you don’t understand them. That is your problem.

                    3. Bo is analogy-challenged. At least his mommy thinks he’s really smart. She reminds him every night when she tucks him in.

                    4. Lol, you and sarc and analogies! A bag is not sex!

                    5. Then why are you fucking so many of them?

                    6. Then why are you fucking so many of them?

                      Which? Bags or analogies?

                    7. Whichever turns you on, baby.

                    8. “Then why are you fucking so many of them?”

                      Now SF, sarcs mom ain’t great, but she’s not quite a bag. Not is she an analogy (more like a metaphor, for something hauntingly sad and terrible)

                    9. It’s a terrible analogy, and here’s why:

                      1) cashiers have been trained to ask you if you want a bag. Girls generally don’t just come out and offer affirmative consent at the beginning of the night.

                      2) The cashier has to give the bag to you, it’s not self serve. However, sex is very much self serve in the gray area between “no means no” and “yes means yes”.

                      3) there is no well-established set of body language that hints at the cashier’s want to give you a bag. It’s not like rubbing your nose means “double bag it please”

                    10. The analogy is about the difference between a total ban of X and banning X under Y condition.

                    11. Right, and John’s counter was that affirmative consent is a category of sex (X) and not a condition of sex (Y)

                    12. The bag is a bad analogy in that the bagger doesn’t have to keep asking you whether you’re still OK with the bag all the way until you get home and take your stuff out of it.

                      John’s missing the point in that the “yes means yes” laws are not about punishing sex, they are about punishing male dominance.

      3. If you’re a sex-worker in Seattle then they’re already illegal.

    2. Well, the socons are by definition the prudish and socially illiberal ones. It’s just a mistake to assume that progressives can’t also be socons. To the credit of the traditional conservative, they at least admit that they want to legislate morality when they support banning prostitution.

      Similarly it is a mistake to assume that all progressives/leftists/liberals are in lock step on things like this. A lot of liberalization of prostitution laws comes from that side as well.

  24. Pete Holmes took down Wolverine, so that was pretty great.

  25. Anyone else remember when Liberals were the ones who said that the government should stay out of people’s sex lives? yeah, neither do I.

    1. I do. There just aren’t that many left-liberals around these days. But I know plenty of people definitely on the left side of things who do genuinely believe that.

      I really think that this is one issue where you can’t put the blame too squarely on one side or the other. They just come at it from very different angles, perhaps for different reasons.

  26. OT: School shooting deaths are a thing of the past

    “When is a can of beans more than just a can of beans? When it’s a weapon of self-defense for students to throw at an armed intruder who has just entered their school.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/13/…..-shooters/

    “No matter how much information you give them they cannot draw a sensible conclusion” – Yuri Bezmenov

  27. Melinda Chateauvert, author of Sex Workers Unite! and a retired HISTORY professor, told The Seattle Times, “I find this very disconcerting that we want to punish men for having sex, especially when the women are consenting and wanting money.”

    Because men are eternally evil, the corrupted minions of the Patriarchy, the serpent in the garden, leading women from their quasi-divine state with promises of pay-for-play.

    The Cult of Woman is alive and well in America. Feminism is just its jihadist arm.

  28. OT: Megan Fox in a bikini.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..Green.html

    I’ll be in my bunk.

  29. What percentage of prostitutes are men? If I had to guess I’d say a not insignificant percent.

    1. In Balboa Park (San Diego), it’s got to be approaching 95%

    2. Gay men need to buy love too.

    3. I don’t understand. Who would want a male prostitute? I mean, men are yucky.

      Not counting Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute, who fulfills a very, very niche demand.

    4. According to this English data around 40 percent. I just wonder how these feminists wrap their heads around all those male prostitutes.

      http://blog.import.io/post/how…..uk-economy

      1. I just wonder how these feminists wrap their heads around all those male prostitutes.

        *Uncontrollable giggling*

      2. Somehow male prostitution is also misogynistic. I have no idea how, but I am sure someone has come up with some tortured reasoning to get to that conclusion.

    5. Re: Bo Cara Esq.

      What percentage of prostitutes are men? If I had to guess I’d say a not insignificant percent

      I wouldn’t know that and what are you implying? Huh?

  30. And remember kids, the Seattle city council is full of died-in-the-wool socialists!

    1. But Paul, Bo tells me that they are so much more committed to freedom than SOCONS. It is like totally different when socialists criminalize private behavior than when SOCONS do it. Didn’t you know that?

      1. You’ll have to point me to where I said that, John. I could have sworn what I said was that I still think SoCons are worse about sex.

        The SoCon proposal to deal with college sex is to reconstitute the old system of separated dorms and chaperones.

        1. The horror, the horror!

          1. I’m glad you helped there Eddie , as Johns next move was surely to ask for a citation.

        2. All evidence says to the contrary.

          The SoCon proposal to deal with college sex is to reconstitute the old system of separated dorms and chaperones.

          Yeah, that is totally worse than declaring most forms of consensual sex rape and setting up kangaroo courts to get convictions.

          Do you even listen to yourself sometimes?

          1. If your goal is to have sex then yes that’s totally worse. The chaperones are there to, well, do I really have to explain that to you?

            1. No. one puts me in jail if I break the rule. The other just means I broke a dorm rule.

              Stop it Bo. Haven’t you beclowned yourself enough today?

              1. Jail? Isn’t it just a college campus rule?

                You know, like a mandatory chaperone one would be?

              2. Haven’t you beclowned yourself enough today?

                There is no such thing as peak BoDerp.

                1. Sarc has said that he loses so many friends over arguments because he’s so logical and others are emotional. Because nothing says non emotional rational like jumping in other people’s conversation to just insult one of them.

                  1. I’m reminding John that you are not worth the effort of a conversation. All you deserve is insults.

                    1. I think when you said rational you meant rationalize

          2. You don’t get it, John, this is what we SoCons would do if we took over:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-45xL7QLXc

            1. I watched this movie with my girlfriend. Or at least it was playing on the TV while we were on the couch.

        3. The SoCon proposal to deal with college sex is to reconstitute the old system of separated dorms and chaperones.

          Personally, I would have prefered that system to the legal terror that they are constructing now.

          My roommate in college was falsely accused of sexual assault by a girl he rejected… In a chaperoned environment she would have had a much more difficult time claiming a lack of consent. If this happened in the current era he would definitely have been expelled. AS it was, my testimony was believed and IIRC she was kicked out (it was her fifth allegation and it was clear she serially coped with her regrettable behavior whilst drunk by accusing the men she was with of raping her).

          1. II don’t disagree that’s awful. I’m no fan of this affirmative consent nonsense. But I’m a college guy who likes to have sex with college girls, and separated dorms with chaperones would be awful. I could get most girls I’m interested in to give affirmative consent if necessary, but chaperones?

            1. “But I’m a college guy who likes to have sex with college girls, and separated dorms with chaperones would be awful.”

              It’s great that you’re honest about your bias. But if you try being objective you’ll see how colleges voluntarily choosing co-ed dorms is nowhere near as coercive as categorically banning types of consensual sex

              1. er separate dorms

              2. One might expel me if I have sex with a fellow student without getting affirmative consent, the other would. It allow any sex with my fellow student. That’s the point if the chaperone

            2. You could, I dunno, move into an apartment.

            3. Pffftttt…

              The easiest targets were the ones at the all-girls schools.

              College of Notre Dame of Maryland (CONDOM)

            4. Live a little, and you’ll get to experience the hell that is the kafkaesque world where unsubstantiated and difficult to disprove allegations have life altering consequences.

              The affirmative consent world is far, far, worse than the one where people are strictly segregated, which is a far, far worse world where we don’t police people’s sex lives and allow people to learn from their own bad experiences and witnessing the bad experiences of others as to what prudent steps allow them the lives they want while minimizing their likelihood of being the victim of crime.

              1. And you don’t see expulsions of people who inevitably try to skirt a chaperone rule? How’s that better?

                1. Private schools have the authority to set moral standards for their students. State schools can only consider a narrower set of standards concerned with safety. Students (customers) can pick their provider of choice.

                2. The social consequences of being labeled a curfew violator (a misdemeanor) are far less than being labeled a sexual predator ( a felony).

                  Again, live a little.

        4. “proposal” does not = criminalize

          If SoCons DO want to criminalize co-ed dorms, that’s another thing. But that doesn’t sound remotely common.

          1. Exactly that. I don’t hear anyone trying to make cohabitation outside of marriage criminal.

            1. The proggies are…

              Talk about a chilling effect!

              Consider my roommate; he went to a bar; he got pretty drunk with a pretty girl; they went back to our place; after ten minutes of them making out while I worked on a lab report (yes, I was that asshole roommate that studied all the time), finally they convinced me to leave; two minutes later she peed on him as she passed out; and he carried her to her dorm room with the help of a couple of his friends and turned her over to her RA.

              She then accused him of sexual assault.

              Had she not blacked out, and forgotten my existence, she would likely have accused me of being an accomplice.

              In a chaperoned environment, a false allegation is harder to level against someone who is not messing around. Predators have a harder time finding victims. And people who do want to have sex have a safer time as a result, using the venues and customs that develop to service their needs.

              It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than an environment where the sexes are mixed and the girl I was alone with on an elevator can level a false accusation where I am presumed guilty.

              1. And people who do want to have sex have a safer time as a result, using the venues and customs that develop to service their needs.

                And how would this happen with a chaperone system? Either the system works and no one is having sex or it is riddled with enough workarounds to be useless as a defense mechanism for false accusations.

                1. Either the system works and no one is having sex or it is riddled with enough workarounds to be useless as a defense mechanism for false accusations.

                  If you are in the grey area, the assumption is that you consented to some degree of contact.

                  It means that
                  a) people who don’t want sex are able to avoid all the pitfalls of being falsely accused.
                  b) people who want sex have to do something unusual to go where they are going to have sex which implies some degree of consent.
                  c) the venues themselves will want to keep the heat off, so will self police, meaning that predators will eventually be id’ed and the word will get around about their bad behavior etc.
                  d) Since actual sexual assault would get much harder to prosecute, people would be much more careful and choosy about what situations they put themselves in.

                  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want such a system in place; I am merely saying that it’s not as bad as the system where someone can retroactively cry rape and there is fuck all you can do about it.

            2. Except the military?

              http://www.justanswer.com/topi…..itary-law/

              1. The UCMJ even outlaws most sexual positions.

                Or course the anti-adultery law seemed only to be enforced against guys or gals that pissed off their chain of command to the point where the chain was looking for any allegation to court-martial them over (or to charge stack).

                1. Strangely enough John and other conservatives aren’t crusading against the military’s Victorian sexual rules and kangaroo enforcement..,

                  1. In the military the laws are a very well known joke; to the point where when you meet someone prosecuted under them the question is “what the hell did you do to get them so pissed off!” with the presumption that the chain of command are assholes. It can even be a badge of honor: the one guy I knew who had been courtmartialed for adultery had been caught in flagrante delicto in a bomb magazine with his division officer’s wife. His punishment was pretty light: though convicted he actually faced nothing worse than a transfer to another unit and loss of his MOS (which meant he lost his permanent shore-bound career and was effectively exiled to sea-going vessels). They didn’t even take a stripe, which surprised me since he brought a civilian into a magazine!

                    I certainly don’t think it’s worth crusading over. There are much more damaging laws to get exercised about.

                    Although, if you want to make a name for yourself, I’m sure you could try to lobby to get that 19th century law changed!

                    1. Tarran, under UCMJ, that guy was not guilty of adultry, unless he was married. It also sounds like he was given an Art 15, rather than CM.

                      Now days even an Art 15 will eventually end your military career, so there are no more ‘badges of honor’ for this stuff.

                      I know when I came in, if a senior NCO hadn’t been busted once or twice, he was looked at as a ‘candy-ass’ and probably wouldn’t get promoted. That shit changed in the late 80’s though.

                    2. It wasn’t an article 15. It was definitely a court martial. I think his punishment was light because it turned out the wife was trying to humiliate her husband by fucking his men, and his attorney managed to paint the division officer as a pretty messed up individual. I think the jury and judges saw him as being the victim of poor judgement in the face of a very sexually aggressive woman.

                      The guy was a QM1 who knew fuck all about piloting and being a helmsman. I doubt he was going to make E-7 after the whole mess, but IIRC you can stay an E-6 for a long time.

                      On the other hand, as I was getting to know our hapless QM1, I watched a SK1(E-6) get busted down to a SKSA (E-2) during a three week period for fraternizing with a girl that worked (well, at the outset anyway) for him. Every few days they’d get caught in a storeroom. True love, I guess. I imagine the guy’s wife was pretty pissed! It’s hard to raise a family on E-2 pay.

                  2. In practice, and if you read the rules in your own post:
                    1. That you are having or have had a sexual relationship with the room mate
                    2. You were married at the time of the sexual relationship with the room mate
                    3. That you knew your conduct was wrong but continued the wrongful act and that it brought discredit to the armed forces.

                    The only people who ever get considered for adultry charges are Senior Officers who were involved with a subordinate. The UCMJ actually says ‘good order and discipline’ and that is the only reason to pursue those charges.

        5. Whereas the socialist proposal is imposing rule by kangaroo courts and Zampolit.

          Which is pretty much socialism’s go-to plan for every problem. At least they’re consistent.

        6. I thought that was Eddie’s suggestion. Is there an actual proposal anywhere?

  31. Where do “professional cuddlers” fall on the exploitation spectrum?
    http://www.foxnews.com/health/…..e-clients/

    1. Sad and pathetic.

      I mean, $80 an hour, $400 overnight? To lay there cuddling with your clothes on? Really?

      1. Sounds like easy money. As long as you have a bouncer in the next room.

        1. It is easy money. I’m disappointed in the customers, not the provider.

          The providers are geniuses.

          1. It could be a morality thing. It’s wrong to have sex outside of marriage but cuddling is legit. Kind of like how some religious girls do anal to still be a virgin.

  32. I just got paid USD 6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over USD 9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do
    ===================
    w??w??w.?u?s?a?-?r?e?v?i?e?w??.?????
    ===================

  33. But refusing to differentiate ? conceptually or legally ? between those who willingly sell sex and those who are sexually exploited just makes it harder to help the exploited,

    And that is assuming they exist and that the city is genuinely concerned about the sexually exploited, two things for which I show a high degree of skepticism and rolling of the eyes. See my eyes? They’re rolling.

  34. You don’t pay for sex, you pay for the hookersex worker to leave afterward.

  35. without the negative historical connotation of words like prostitute and hooker.

    For precisely as long as it takes for people to start using the new term. They’re not stigmatized because of the name, the name is stigmatized because of what they do.

  36. ‘Do you ever patronize prostitutes?’

    ‘Of course not. I treat them as equals.’

    —– Dick Cavett, in his Saturday Night Live monologue, sometime during the ’70s. (Quoted from memory, so it may not be precisely accurate.)

    By the way, Elizabeth, I loved your guest column for Maggie Mcneill. I hope you’ll do more of them.

  37. Jap Sammy So So is so cool liek that.

    http://www.Anon-Best.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.