You Have a Right to Buy and Sell Sex. Will the Courts Protect It By Legalizing Prostitution?

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

You Have a Right to Buy and Sell Sex. Will the Courts Protect It By Legalizing Prostitution?

HD Video Download

"Our hope in the lawsuit is to have the anti-prostitution law overturned as unconstitutional and invalidated in the state of California," says Maxine Doogan, a working prostitute and president of the Erotic Service Provider Legal, Education, and Research Project (ESPLER), a group that has filed a lawsuit against California's attorney general and several mayors. "We don't have equal protection under the law."

Reason TV's video breaks down the legal arguments underlying ESPLER's lawsuit with the help of legal expert and former California Supervising Deputy Attorney General Jerald L. Mosley. The case leans heavily on the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas to argue that sexual privacy warrants protection under the 14th Amendment and also makes First Amendment arguments regarding freedom of association and, more specifically, "freedom to date."

The video also features a man who goes by the name "Bacchus," who suffers from a disability that makes having a normal sexual relationship challenging, as well as libertarian activist and sex worker Starchild.

ESPLER is currently running a crowdfunding campaign to cover legal fees associated with the lawsuit.

Approximately 10 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Alexis Garcia.

Comments

[BearOdinson]

I actually hold sex workers and porn stars in very high regard. They get paid to provide joy and pleasure to millions of men (and yes, women). Get rid of the prohibitions and then if a john gets rough, guess what, the worker can call the cops. Porn is legal to make, and as a result, many stars may get their dreams shatterered (hell probably the same percentage as who gets their dreams shattered in "legitimate" Hollywood), they don't get beat up or robbed in great numbers because they can call the cops.

And of course we all know that the best way to help some poor woman "forced" into prostitution is to fine her and send her to jail.

[Sapient Mulch]

I understand your point and agree with it, but I'm not sure calling the cops is the safest approach these days.

[BearOdinson]

Fair point!

[Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks]

It's definitely not safe at all.

What if that 100 pound Thai immigrant manages to overpower an armed, trained, peace officer with double her body mass and kill him with COP KILLER bullets?!?

[Hyperion]

Yeah, like if she was on marijuana or something, she would probably be able to lift an entire car full of cops and throw it like 100 feet in the air, this happens all of the time! Why do you think cops are always so afraid all of the time?

[John Galt]

Triger werds!!

[Irish ?s ESB]

"Get rid of the prohibitions and then if a john gets rough, guess what, the worker can call the cops."

They wouldn't even need to do that, since if prostitution was legal you could just have brick and mortar brothels with bouncers like they have in strip clubs. Have panic buttons and a means for her to call for help, and a lot of the danger of being a hooker immediately goes away.

[WoodchipperPatriarch]

Plus, that's one business that can't be outsourced.

[Old Man With Candy]

one business that can't be outsourced.

Not true. I outsourced it quite often during my last marriage.

[BiMonSciFiCon]

Local jobz!

[Jam4Joy]

Not if he was flying to another country.
My point is that if prostitution was legal it would hurt the small, Thailand corner owner.

[BiMonSciFiCon]

Conversely though, they're easy jerbz for immigrants to come and take.

[BearOdinson]

Even better!

[jrombouts]

You have no right to any kind of freedom or pleasure in this country. Only government employees have rights. If you try to pay a woman for sex, law enforcement will gun you down right on the spot, and enjoy themselves in the process. You have no right to own a gun; you have no right to keep any of your own money, it belongs to the government, all of it; you have no right to privacy in your own home; you have no right to disagree with your government; you have no freedom of speech; you have no right to a trial if the government thugs accuse you of a crime. Only government employees enjoy these rights and freedoms according to our judges and politicians. And if someone stumbles in your driveway, the personal injury lawyers will seize all of your money and take your house, and there is nothing you can do about it. Because, the courts and politicians allow this. We are surrounded by assholes in government!

[jrombouts]

You just try to buy sex people, law enforcement will blow any ones head off and love every minute of it, if anyone should dare try to pay for sex. The courts will never legalize buying sex in a million years. And a few months ago, congress passed a human sex trafficking law, which now makes soliciting sex from an adult a federal felony with a 15 year minimum sentence. And it is now a crime in which a person can receive the electric chair. Of course every asshole federal prosecutor will seek the death penalty for anyone caught paying for sex. The statute only exempts government workers and former government workers. Congressman Ted Poe, of Texas inserted the 15 year mandatory part of the law. It is now a federal crime to use sites like match.com, if a person eventually has sex with a person that they meet on a dating site. And the feds want to shut down all dating sites.

[Limpee Wiltstock]

No.

[John C. Randolph]

I wonder which side of this issue the SJWs are going to weigh in on. Do they support it to irritate the right-wing puritans, or oppose it because "think about the exploited helpless women"?

-jcr

[Apple]

Legalizing prostitution is not in the financial interest of women who aren't themselves prostitutes, so they'll oppose.

[WoodchipperPatriarch]

Once they start getting "donations" from Hoors Local 118, they'll change their minds.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Not gonna happen soon; the Feministas have dissed the sex-workers too hard and too long by this time. It'll take a generation for that to blow over.

[HolgerDanske]

We need a gaze narrowing here, I think.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Legalizing Prostitution would undermine the social position of the Feministas. Men wouldn't have to put up with Psycho Bitch From Hell to get a basic urge met, and even WITHOUT getting that need met, they have cut way back on commitment and romance. The Feministas swear blind that this is because of Porn or Rape Culture, but the plain fact is that the modern world has made it so legally and emotionally risky to have anything to do with a modern woman that only besotted fools and the terminally whipped will risk it.

Legalize prostitution, and the balance of power shifts, big time. The Feministas are already having trouble justifying their positions to their less radical sisters. AND they have yet to deal with the "What the heel do they say when women have to register for the Draft because of their meddling" problem. This could drive a stake in their collective heart.

Not before time.

Probably not gonna happen, though. Too many people have too much invested in the Prostitution is always evilbadnasty narrative. You'd think that anything that united Jerry Falwell and Andrea Dworkin would be obviously a lousy idea, but the anti-sex-work anti-porn train just keeps on a rollin'.

[Illocust]

I think you have it exactly opposite. The ones who will be patronizing prostitutes will be the besotted fools and the terminally whipped. Despite how much they may claim otherwise, feminist don't make up even a quarter of all women. Most men and women have perfectly normal relationships untouched by the crazy feminists. Access to prostitutes won't effect most peoples desire for long term relationships with the normal people they know (the benefits of such being more than just regular nookie).

The relationships that will be effected are the ones on the margins. People like the guy with no confidence permanently friend zoned but used as an emotional and monetary boyfriend, are lot less likely to stay in such one sided relationships if they are able to fufill their sexual and, to a lesser extent, emotional needs elsewhere (an amazing amount of non-street level hookers spend half their paid time just listening while the guy talks about his life). Feminist of the crazy variety (not just girls who say feminists on dubiously worded surveys) will be outsized effected by prostitutions legalization, but most women won't notice a difference.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

The drop in men willing to marry is documented. The Feministas are in a swivel about it. And many a shallow little media twunt has been bitching in print about how men are gun-shy. Access to sex-for-cash will affect how much bullshit men are willing to tolerate, and the Feministas are at least dimly aware that that can't be good for them.

[Mr Lizard]

"men are gun-shy"

The subtle Irony balloon just went up

[Reverend Draco]

Nobody is "untouched" by the Feminutzis - some are just less touched than others. . . kind of like going through a TSA checkpoint at the airport. Even if you're not sexually assaulted, you're still delayed.

[Limpee Wiltstock]

"Despite how much they may claim otherwise, feminist don't make up even a quarter of all women."

Ay, but psycho bitches from hell makes up 100 ? 1 per cent of all women.

[jrombouts]

You made allot of good points in this post. The feminists are a big part of the problem. Same for religious nuts and the law and order conservative crap that wants everyone in jail. Read my other posts above this, on congresses new sex trafficking federal law.

[John Galt]

I'm still dealing with the repercussions resulting from three marriages. Women just don't know how wonderful they have it. For a female, when the relationship is over, they simply walk away and it's over. For those of us who are male, it is not simple. We're expected, and often legally required, to continue paying. And paying. And paying, and paying, and paying.

[Dark Lord of the wood chipper]

The real question is what happens when legalized prostitution meets public accommodation laws?

[Antilles]

A lot of escort ads state they won't service Black men (even Black escorts sometimes say this). So, if it becomes legal then they'd be required to service everyone, or else.

[SimonJester]

What about homosexuality? Would a prostitute be required to participate in homosexual sex? Frankly, I think this question, and line of reasoning, is redonkuluus, but it IS one that will occur.

[Antilles]

As a gay coworker explained it to me, they have the right to refuse. But refusing has consequences, such as losing your business or being fined. What right-minded person can object to that?

[BearOdinson]

Other than the obvious reason to legalize prostitution (you know something about liberty) I REALLY hope it becomes legal because I can't wait to see the arguments over equal access vs. the right to say no.

[Nick W B]

That reminds me of Harry Reid arguing taxes are voluntary.
https://youtu.be/R7mRSI8yWwg

[John Galt]

Absolutely. "Homophobia" is no excuse for the "hate crime" of refusing to serve the homosexual client.

[perlchpr]

Nah. They could just say "I'm not going to service you." and not specify that it's because the patron is $PROTECTED_CLASS.

But yes, I had a lot of fun getting a proggie friend really bent out of shape with this argument. 😉

[Curtisls701]

SJWs would see this through the illegitimate concern on trafficking - at least the SJWs I know would do so, and thus come down against legalization.

[Jay Dubya]

*whispers* fantasies about sexual trafficking and white slavery are how liberals work out their issues with the Brown Other. Has been for over 100 years. Its their Border Fence.

[John Galt]

Most SJWs want everyone to pay dearly that they've made themselves so grotesquely ugly they'd have to go to unbelievable lengths just to find anyone they could even pay to have sex with themselves.

[Hyperion]

I believe that they've already weighed in on this, and guess what, they're against prostitution but only because the prostitute is a victim, of the patriarchy of course. So the buyer of the services is a criminal because they are victimizing the seller, but the seller is also a criminal because we have to ruin their life to save them.

[Inigo "Chip" DuBois]

Whatever happened to free love hippies? Modern progs are the new Puritans.

Between this kind of crap and what's happening on college campuses, they make the Victorians almost seem free-spirited.

[BearOdinson]

This is one of the main reasons I still vote (mostly) with the "stupid" party. I see many Rs (at least the little people, maybe not those in power) coming around to live and let live. Even when they are religious and don't agree with the behavior, they are starting to understand that it isn't in anyone's best interest to use the power of the state to enforce it. While i see many Ds (including and especially those in power) who are increasingly becoming prudes, scolds and outright book burners.

[Jam4Joy]

In their defense, the book didn't support the narrative. Therefore, it was white privilege and triggering.

[Irish ?s ESB]

"Whatever happened to free love hippies? Modern progs are the new Puritans."

Eh. I agree with you on the college campus shit, but progressives are much more pro-prostitution than conservatives, so the argument doesn't really fly.

Conservatives are worse on this issue than progressives are. Some progressives are sex-positive and support sex worker rights, but then you've got uber-feminist progressives who oppose sex worker rights because of the dread horror of PATRIARCHY and the MALE GAZE.

Men finding women attractive is verboten to a certain kind of crazy prog, but there are more of them who support hooking than there are on the right.

[Irish ?s ESB]

Here's the polling:

"Political ideology is clearly a strong indicator of views on this topic. Over half of self-identified Liberals (56%) support legalizing prostitution; 42% of Moderates and 33% of Conservatives would agree. From those pro-legalization respondents, only 9% of Liberals think that legislation would primarily reduce the influence of organized crime. However, 35% of Liberals supporting legalization believe that the main benefit of legalization is better-regulated health controls."

[BearOdinson]

Maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part 🙁

However, I do think as the libs move even farther to the left, some cons are moving to the libertarian side on at least some of these issues. Maybe I am all wet. In which case I am supporting a party that I agree with 60% of the time instead of a party that I agree with 10% of the time. And I am sorry Harry Browne, Gary Johnson, Andre Maru, et al are not going to be the "Next President of the United States", however much the capital L Libertarians would like to believe it.

[SimonJester]

Bear, or you could just not vote. You don't NEED to support the Rs or the Ds. After all, a vote for the lesser or two evils is still a vote for evil.

[BearOdinson]

Yeah, but at heart I think I am an optimist trapped in a cynic's body! I guess I haven't quite had enough of banging my head against the wall.

[SimonJester]

Just bite down on the ball-gag a little harder. It'll help with the pain of your face in the wall. You know, as long as you are still voting...

[Cytotoxic]

It's also still a vote for a lesser evil. Not voting = pro-statism

[Careless]

And voting for statism is what, exactly?

[Cytotoxic]

Bad. That's why you must vote for *less* statism.

[Jam4Joy]

+1

[perlchpr]

And I am sorry Harry Browne, Gary Johnson, Andre Maru, et al are not going to be the "Next President of the United States", however much the capital L Libertarians would like to believe it.

Well, they certainly aren't as long as everyone who agrees with them ends up voting D or R anyway...

[Cytotoxic]

They still won't. The LP is still a dysfunctional mess.

[See Double You]

So even when liberals (slightly) favor the right result, they do so for reasons based on control.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Nonsense. The Progs are at least equil partners in pushing the Sex Trafficing hysteria that is the main impetus for anti-prostitution law these days. Oh, they mouth pious platitudes about helping the poor dowtrodden whores, but they always were good at Pious, and the new laws mean that instead of a finite sentence whores are turned over to Proggie orgs that "help" them while keeping them prisoner ( and collecting donations and government funds for each whore, natch).

[Hicks]

My brother's a poor missionary,
He saves fallen women from sin.
He'll save you a blonde for $5,
My God how the money rolls in.

[WoodchipperPatriarch]

They don't mind the free love, it's the exchange of money that makes it dirty.

[See Double You]

Yep. It's the profits they hate, not the act. It's always about $ to progressives.

[BearOdinson]

Just remember, folks. You don't pay her to have sex with you.
You pay her to leave!

Thank you, thank you. Tip your waitresses!

[Mindyourbusiness]

Unfortunately, this suit will probably be quashed, because Right-Thinking Citizens have to have someone to look down on, and who better than them hoors?

[WoodchipperPatriarch]

Donald Trump?

[Half-Virtue, Half-Vice]

Decedents of Johnny Reb?

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Politicians, Lawyers, and Progressive Buttinskis?

[Robert]

Hitler?

[BearOdinson]

Slightly OT:
Proof that men and women are really fundamentally different:

I see the video pic with that woman's leg and go holy shit that is hot!

A woman sees just a man's leg, no matter how muscular or defined and it is just a leg.

[Inigo "Chip" DuBois]

Not sure that applies to all women. I've had women tell me thick hamstrings and generally muscular legs on a guy really turns them on. But maybe that's just women who are really into fitness.

In any case, Warty is on the right track with squats and deadlifts.

[Reverend Draco]

I dunno about that. . . I have "horse-legs," and my wife (not the only woman to say so) likes my legs and the place where they meet my back.

Remember, back in the 90s, the wrestler called The Ultimate Warrior? Yeah, legs like his.

Get a group of women together. . . the things they say and do would make the most crass of men blush - they're a lot more sexual and visual than most men realize.

[Crusty Juggler]

Remember, back in the 90s, the wrestler called The Ultimate Warrior? Yeah, legs like his.

I do not care that this was posted days ago. I literally can't even.

[Homple]

"...and my wife (not the only woman to say so) likes my legs and the place where they meet my back."

The place where your legs meet your back, i.e. where you keep your wallet.

[Warty]

Nonsense. Chicks go weak in the knees for Thor.

[Heroic Mulatto]

THOR!

[Crusty Juggler]

You must have missed my story about being catcalled because of my sexy calves. Women, if they are inspired, are total creeps (and bless them for it). They will check out everything and anything (and bless them for it).

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Quit stealing my story

[Crusty Juggler]

Are we sexy calf bros?

[*GILMORE*]

"You must have missed my story about being catcalled because of my sexy calves"

someone meowed at your baby cows?

[Irish ?s ESB]

"Reason TV's video breaks down the legal arguments underlying ESPLER's lawsuit with the help of legal expert and former California Supervising Deputy Attorney General Jerald L. Mosley. The case leans heavily on the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas to argue that sexual privacy warrants protection under the 14th Amendment and also makes First Amendment arguments regarding freedom of association and, more specifically, "freedom to date.""

Don't see this going anywhere because EWWW PROSTITUTION.

At this point it's pretty obvious judges don't base their arguments on social issues on the actual law, so much as they do on their personal social ideas. Kennedy didn't legalize gay marriage because of any legal reasoning - he did it because he supports gay marriage. He wouldn't legalize polygamy (even though the same arguments apply) because he doesn't support polygamy.

Most judges aren't going to support hookers, so this will fail no matter the merits.

[Conchfritters]

You mean most judges aren't going to support hookers legally. I am sure a good number still support them financially.

[Cytotoxic]

Canada's supreme court struck down Canada's weird semi-legalization of prostitution and made it totally legal until our asshole government made it kind of illegal again (a bill that is being ignored everywhere except Regina and will almost certainly get struck down by the SC again).

[C. Anacreon]

Might I assume the reason Regina has different prostitution laws than the rest of Canada is due to the city's endearing frustration that their city name 'Regina' rhymes with 'vagina'?

[Conchfritters]

I was never previously aware of the Erotic Service Provider Legal, Education, and Research Project. I'll donate $100 if I can get invited to the Christmas party.

[WoodchipperPatriarch]

And donate another few hundred at the Christmas party?

[Conchfritters]

I'll quote my grandfather, the most conservative person I ever knew, who had a canned response to anyone who asked about his personal affairs: "None of your dam business!" Since when did the party of "none of your dam business" become the party of "everything is our dam business" ?

Reagan used a similar quote that applied to the Democratic party, but I believe it applies with many views of the current GOP: "I never left the Republican party, the Republican party left me."

But, since you asked, I'm always generous around the holidays.

[Antilles]

It's OK to buy sex with fancy dinners, expensive gifts, or a wedding ring (worth at least 3-months salary, of course), but using cash is wrong and must remain illegal! Because icky feelings.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Historically, because middle class and upper middle class matrons don't like facing that if you don't feed the dog you got, he's soon gonna be found under somebody else's porch. The upper classes and lower orders aways knew it, and conducted themselves accordingly, but the middle class women, who longed for "respectability" the way a man dying of thirst longs for water, didn't want to admit that they were sisters to Judy O'Grady. THEY were DIFFERENT. And so were their men. Or at least they bloody well BETTER be.

The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive establishment is thoroughly bourgeois, always has been thoroughly bourgeois, and despite its Aristocratic aspirations always will be thoroughly bourgeois.

[Reverend Draco]

Direct payments for sex = bad

Launder that money through a bartender = good.

[Sapient Mulch]

+1 roofie

[GamerFromJump]

Drunkenness = rape, shitlord.

[bassjoe]

The best way to cure the alleged abuses of the sex trade currently in this country is to make it legal; make it easy/safe for them to advertise their services, open and use bank accounts, and call the cops if they absolutely need to. Those who abuse sex workers will be shunned/arrested.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Yes. Just as the best way to deal with "The drug Problem" is to ashcan 99% of the prohibition laws, the bast way to make heal care cheap is to get the govern,net the heal out of the way, and so on and on.

Which doesn't mean any of that will happen in my lifetime. Or before the sun burns out.

[MeatBorg]

To appropriate a slogan from another controversial cause: "Prostitution should be safe, legal, and rare". That's one way to move progressives toward the correct position. Crusading for women's reproductive rights by supporting abortion while at the same time opposing prostitution is hypocrisy.

[BulletGibson]

What another person does, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another, is none of my damned business. Period.

[Reverend Draco]

Does it really matter what these affectionate people do, so long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses?

[Hicks]

Why should shy people with autism be denied sex just because they can't lie to women, or fill out the consent firm in the heat of heat?

[Mindyourbusiness]

Bullet, I'll go with what you say with one exception: It isn't anybody'sdamned business. Especially government at any level.

[TommyCelt]

Selling is legal. FUcking is legal. Why isn't "selling fucking" legal??? - G. Carlin

[See Double You]

Hell, paying for sex in-kind is totally legal. It's called dating.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Because without a web of silly-ass laws making one variation of human behavior legal and another illegal, with no rational difference between them, the Political Class would have no way to extort money from the rest of us.

[JFree]

DAMMIT. Again with the confusion/stupidity re 'freedom' v 'rights'. You have the natural liberty/freedom to buy/sell sex. You do not have the natural freedom/liberty to walk on water. You do not have the natural freedom/liberty to vote. When you use the correct terminology, it becomes really freaking clear how self-evident these natural liberties/freedoms are. And these freedoms/liberties are pretty much universal too - as you would expect of anything created outside 'society'.

There is NO SUCH THING as a natural right - only a natural freedom/liberty. Rights emanate from govt/society/agreement - NOT FROM NATURE. The phrase 'natural rights' was used way back when - but it was a creation of social contract theorists. It was a normative term - not a descriptive term. The only way that govt (the creation of the contract) can be subordinate (consent of the governed) to individuals-in-agreement (the creators of the contract) is if there are promises that govt shall not be able to infringe on natural freedoms/liberties. Those promises were called 'natural rights' if they aligned with natural freedoms/liberties - but the 'right' is a social creation.

In modern usage, the more we conflate 'rights' and 'liberties' and 'natural rights', the more we are calling for govt involvement in this that and the other - and the more we calling for the creation of that contract to become superior to the creators of that contract.

[Robert]

Right on. See also L.A. Rollins' "Natural Rights?", or, for more entertainment value & even better philosophy, R.A. Wilson's "Natural Law, or Don't Put A Rubber On Your Willy".

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Right on x2. I'd also recommend Anthony de Jasay, who does a great job defining liberty and distinguishing it from rights.

I've had the "Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays" on my reading list for years now. And I just see now that Rollins died back in May. Unfortunate.

[IceTrey]

Right and liberty are synonyms.

[JFree]

No they aren't.

You have the natural freedom/liberty to seek shelter from predators and the elements in order to sleep and heal yourself. That is about as fundamental a natural liberty as exists. And it even crosses species lines.

You do NOT however have the RIGHT to do that. In the US or most places - if you're human. Because we have chosen, as a society, to align 'property rights' with the natural liberty to claim exclusive use of a territory. Two different liberties - both of which are self-evident and universal and even cross species lines. One right.

Can those natural liberties be reconciled? Probably. Can a 'right' (negative or positive) then be created that does align itself with those liberties? Again probably. But it ain't EVER gonna happen as long as people take the lazy way out and treat rights and liberties as 'synonyms'.

[peter302]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com

[BearOdinson]

I know how Peter is making $8596 a month.......

[Hicks]

I see the train pulling in right about now.

[JayMan]

Does anyone here know how to be a man or woman? Man or woman does not concern themselves with "legal." Legal is for persons. Man or woman concern themselves with lawful - has another man or woman been harmed, injured or caused a loss. Once "you" know how to be a man, all this legal talk is simply mental masturbation. Pardon the pun.
Besides, any transaction between man or woman is simply a contract, and government has no authority to interfere in contracts.

[Reverend Draco]

If mental masturbation is good enough for Sammy Hagar. . . it's good enough for me. . .

[Wildbill2u]

For mental masturbation to be satisfying, you need two attributes: Ignorance and Confidence.

If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you haven't tried and see if it works better for you.

[DEATFBIRSECIA]

+1 Way to Rock

[Johnx]

I completely agree with the video. I have been saying the same thing for a long time now.Legalizing prostitution will make it safer while at the same time help to eliminate sex trafficking.Just like Prohibition , (both marijuana and alcohol), keeping prostitution illegal does more harm than good.

[wspackman]

I think this is such an excellent initiative. I had a course at Duke recently called Thinking Sex which used Gayle Rubin's seminal work on deviant sex as an anchor point to look at a broad set of issues concerning sex, gender and sexuality. I strongly recommend the team take look at Rubin's essay (http://tiny.cc/myq00x) and also consider how the evolutionary anthropology studies concerning the development and maintenance of prosocial altruistic, empathetic and cooperative behaviors are being understood in other species such as the bonobos (http://tiny.cc/2yq00x) and how all of this is buttressed by biochemical studies concerning oxytocin and oxytocin receptors (http://tiny.cc/0zq00x and (http://tiny.cc/20q00x)

[Wildbill2u]

If I have a right, supported by government funds and the power of the State, to buy and sell body parts of myself and my unborn children, why can't I buy a little boom-boom?

[Domina Elle]

The way to go is decriminalization! Legalization gives power to the state opens the door for corporate brothels. SCREW THAT! power must be in the hands of the individuals providing the service NOT government sanctioned pimps who historically ABUSE providers Nevada has what amounts to a two tier system- a LOT of people are arrested because they don't want to work under a pimp! They don't want to hand half their earnings over! They don't want to be held captive unable to come & go as they please; if you work in a brothel your shift likely will be 2-3 weeks and you can't leave! Even though you can legally work there and the law forces you to stay at the brothel during your shift, you still have to pay rent to the brothel on top of giving them half of your earnings! SCREW THAT TOO!

Decriminalize to STOP THE DAMAGING ARRESTS. Decriminalizing puts power in the hands of the individual. Sex workers do not deserve to be treated as infants! We are capable of running our own businesses & with equal protection under the law, with access to financial institutions, we can certainly handle ourselves appropriately. We've been doing it ALL THIS TIME. Only we've been doing it with BOUNTIES ON OUR HEADS- under threat of arrest- we've been doing it despite the dangers posed by police who are by far the worst threat most sex workers face. With equal protection under the law sex workers will finally be SAFER, able to report able to defend themselves and better negotiate safe working conditions.

[Domina Elle]

The lawyer in the video mentions the 'majority' not being able to determine morally for everyone else. Thing is- I don't believe for one second that the vast majority of people are against prostitution, from what I can tell the majority would be fine with legalization or decriminalization. It has been the loud mouths- vastly faith based ideologically driven minority who has been the squeaky wheel. Religious and feminist fanatics who believe they are entitled to control what other people do sexually in private. It is time to acknowledge this and honor the sexual privacy rights of ALL CONSENTING ADULTS and that's what this case is attempting to do- beyond simply decriminalizing.

EVERY adult sex worker or not- will benefit from this case. This case is about LIBERTY! This case is about the right to be left alone to be the master of one's own destiny! And to limit the reach of the governments authority in certain spheres of our lives! (Text from the first paragraph of the response to the government's motion to dismiss our case and can be read at esplerp.org).

This case will set a MUCH NEEDED legal precedent establishing sexual privacy rights for ALL consenting adults.

PLEASE SUPPORT THE CASE BY DONATING TO THE LEGAL FUND! Esplerp.org

[Crusty Juggler]

Good news for all of you freaks: I am currently accepting bids for those of you who want to experience my exquisite lovemaking.

[lap83]

I thought you said you'd never touched a woman before.

ohhh, I see

[Crusty Juggler]

If you don't use it you lose it.

[*GILMORE*]

I think sex-by-highest-bidder auctioning is a little too much like real-life. I'm looking for something more like the WalMart of Sex = everyday low prices.

[DEG]

Lookup Pascha in Cologne, Germany.

[DEG]

Not safe for work by the way, but that shouldn't matter, it's the weekend.

[DEG]

I took my own advice. Not safe for work if you're working.

[Winston]

14th Amendment being used to legalize prostitution and polygamy. Hilarious.

"freedom to date."
Can't see this going wrong!

Also it interesting to see the law being exposed for how arbitrary it is. Gay marriage didn't happen because people pressured politicians to pass legislation to change marriage laws but because judges liked it. If there were 5 commies on SCOTUS then censorship and gun confiscation would be legal along with rights to free healthcare and free housing. With 5 libertarians on SCOTUS the Income Tax and the Post office would be unconstitutional.

[Hyperion]

I like the post office, along with roads and bridges, fire fighters, the military (not in it's current scope), and law enforcement (not in it's current form). It's the other 90% of government services that I think we can do away with and that I don't want to pay for.

Just replace the income tax with a flat consumption tax and I'm good on that too.

[Winston]

I like.... roads

Your Somalian residency has been revoked.

[Hyperion]

Damnit!

[Cytotoxic]

Fuck off Tulpa. You lose again.

[Winston]

Uh huh, so I'm Tulpa now? I suppose my differing views, posting history and arguments with Bo prove it?

Oh and say hi to Rachel for me. And I suppose the fact that I know who that is proof that I'm Tulpa

[Cytotoxic]

The fact that you act just like one of Tulpa's many sock-puppets is why you can fuck off. Tulpa also 'argued' with Bo. Either way, fuck off. Your comments are almost constantly worthless except as an exercise in building up smug self-satisfaction from making insipid, faux-clever remarks such as 'say hi to Rachel'.

[Homple]

FFS can we not come up with counter arguments better than "you're one of Tulpa's sock-puppets"? Jezus Cripes, this isn't a fecking middle school playground.

[Winston]

Your comments are almost constantly worthless except as an exercise in building up smug self-satisfaction from making insipid, faux-clever remarks

Projection, thy name is Cytotoxic. Tell us more about how free people should be able to invade and annex territory of unfree people.

[Cytotoxic]

And better yet you don't understand what projection is. How Tulpical.

[Winston]

I'm not even from the same country as Tulpa and have a totally different posting style so I'm him obviously.

[Winston]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/10.....nt_4859392

[Cytotoxic]

Oh well as long as we have your word.

[Hyperion]

Wait until the virtual sex industry gets rolling, because it's coming. And then we can especially look forward to the robot sex industry to get going, because that's coming as well and nothing can stop it. And by robots I mean ever increasingly realistic sexbots, until the point they will be very difficult to differentiate from a human, except the negatives will all be gone. The SJWs will prove that there really is no such thing as peak derp when this happens.

[Mr Lizard]

The ifuck or iphuk, Assdroid, iNookie, iGina, iPune, tangdroid...Windows 6.9

I'm here all night

[Hyperion]

The MyPhuck 3000 fully customizeable sexbot. Never again get victimized by a boring fat overly entitled human companion. Get it now, at your nearest Hyperion store.

[lap83]

I've always wondered how child support would be handled if prostitution was made legal.

[lap83]

I guess this is one possibility
http://www.news.com.au/nationa.....5765009352
Seems like pretty much more of the same then. Meh, why not? It's not like the rate of single parent households is going to do anything but increase without legalized prostitution.

[lap83]

I guess this is one possibility
http://www.news.com.au/nationa.....5765009352
Seems like pretty much more of the same then. Meh, why not? It's not like the rate of single parent households is going to do anything but increase without legalized prostitution.

[Mr Lizard]

Yes but can you keep the sqlrs from reproducing?

[Hyperion]

They'll pass a law where a woman can just choose a victim who is responsible to support her.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

I don't follow.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Oh, I needed to refresh.

Include it in the contract. It brothels were legal and competitive, I assume the ones that guaranteed no babies or child support would do more business.

[lap83]

That's probably why in that article they did have a contract that "guaranteed" no babies. It didn't seem to help him in the trial. Let's face it, it's going to take more than an amendment to change the social consensus about guys who cheat on their wives with prostitutes.

[lap83]

My two cents - people are idiots when it comes to sex and I don't think legalizing prostitution is going to make it better. But I don't think it makes sense to make it illegal either. I think it should be legal, but I think people are kidding themselves to think there will be fewer problems on net balance.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

As far as I'm concerned, people being idiots about sex is irrelevant under the law. The problem will exist regardless, similar to the WoD. The question is: how much worse does prohibition make it? I think any honest, informed person will come to understand that it makes it much, much worse.

We have an element of society that is pushed to the fringes for no good reason because of prohibition. If I end up dead on the side of the interstate somewhere, I want my killers brought to justice, and it would be reasonable for me to expect that to happen in my case. However, that's not something that usually happens for the people who are marginalized by these laws.

[lap83]

My two cents - people are idiots when it comes to sex and I don't think legalizing prostitution is going to make it better. But I don't think it makes sense to make it illegal either. I think it should be legal, but I think people are kidding themselves to think there will be fewer problems on net balance.

[lap83]

grr

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Hmm, then maybe insurance, similar to workers' comp?

[Cytotoxic]

Sorry if someone posted this already but OT: Hornet Tor alternative for high-speed anonymous browsing revealed

http://www.zdnet.com/article/h.....-revealed/

93 Gigabytes/sec

the team claims their system "provides stronger security guarantees than existing network-level anonymity systems" as the system does not store per-session states.

Instead, Hornet offloads session states to end hosts by default, encrypting each packet to reduce the risk of data leaks.

The article doesn't say it can be downloaded yet.

[PapayaSF]

PA bill would require strippers to register with the state.

[*GILMORE*]

"Deckard: Excuse me, Miss Salom?, can I talk to you for a minute? I'm from the American Federation of Variety Artists.
Zhora: Oh, yeah?
Deckard: I'm not here to make you join. No ma'am. That's not my department. Actually, uh. I'm from the, uh, Confidential Committee on Moral Abuses.
Zhora: Committee of Moral Abuses?
Deckard: Yes, ma'am. There's been some reports that the management has been taking liberties with the artists in this place.
Zhora: I don't know nothing about it.
Deckard: Have you felt yourself to be exploited in any way?
Zhora: How do you mean, exploited?
Deckard: Well, like to get this job. I mean, did you do, or- or were you asked to do anything lewd or unsavory or otherwise, uh, repulsive to your person, huh?
Zhora: Ha. Are you for real?
Deckard: Oh yeah. I'd like to check your dressing room if I may.
Zhora: For what?
Deckard: For, uh, for holes.
Zhora: Holes?
Deckard: You'd be surprised what a guy'd go through to get a glimpse of a beautiful body.
Zhora: No, I wouldn't."

[Paul.]

When the same state is passing mandatory condom use? Good luck with that.

[Troy muy grande boner]

I offer my services for $20.00/hour. Only women rated 5 +, 20 to 50 No fatties.

"You get more than the tip."

[*GILMORE*]

I don't know. We just got finished establishing the cosmotarian party-platform as " weed, ass-sex and mexicans". I'm not sure "Whoring" really needs to be added until we've made solid progress on those.

[PapayaSF]

OT: Explaining the Cultural Revolution: signaling arms races as bad fiat currency

Compare with the current mania for hunting racists, sexists, and homophobes.

[*GILMORE*]

eerie parallels, and boy would i enjoy a mango smoothie right now

[Notorious G.K.C.]

OT (?) - Former NYT writer and nail-salon businessman questions the accuracy of NYT nail-salon article

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/n.....got-wrong/

[*GILMORE*]

Wasn't that story over a year ago?

[*GILMORE*]

"Needless to say, it is not like The New York Times to get things so demonstrably wrong, or, if it did make a mistake, to show no willingness to correct it"

(choking from laughter)

I seriously doubt this piece will ever get even so much as "noticed" by the Paper of Record

[Rhywun]

But their job is done. It is now common knowledge here that the nail salon industry is full of slave labor and requires massive government intervention to inspect, inspect, inspect.

[*GILMORE*]

"and well, if they happen to ruin a lot of chinese people's lives in the process, well at least they're not getting EXPLOITATIVE PROFIT TAKEN from them. No, now the regulatory cost of opening a nail salon will triple and it will just mean that its far harder for these people to live decent lives. PROGRESS!"

[Rhywun]

You act as if standing on a dole line isn't a decent life.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

OK, I'm going to out myself as a fascist.

I understand the pragmatic arguments of legalizing adult prostitution in order to minimize the opportunities for police corruption.

What I don't get is the attempt to put prostitution under the "consenting adults" paradigm, at least where married "clients" are concerned.

Do the clients' spouses consent to them getting together with a hooker? If not, then we have a very relevant adult who refuses consent.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

OK, so the hookers' legal brief specifically uses the phrase "consenting adults."

And again: "The rights of adults to engage in consensual, private sexual activity (even for
compensation) is a fundamental liberty interest. That right is one that is, objectively
speaking, deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and one that is implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty."

OK, where is the "consent" of the betrayed spouse? They can't wrap themselves in the "consenting adult" mantle while at the same time endorsing the betrayal of marital vows.

"forsaking all others...except Candi over at the Bunny Ranch." No.

And you want to invoke "this nation's history and tradition" and "the
concept of ordered liberty, " bitches?

OK, then, look up what Americans have historically and traditionally believed about marriage.

Or just come out and admit that you don't give a *&^% about tradition, and it's just a wizard-word to gull the reader.

[*GILMORE*]

"Do the clients' spouses consent to them getting together with a hooker?"

Eddie, we get it. You have a bizarrely inflated notion of the Sanctified Bonds of Matrimony which is apparently supposed to apply to everyone on Earth regardless of their personal relationships.

I've actually met married people where the wife actually tried to encourage the husband to see a prostitute. More than once. Maybe you need to get out of the house more often.

note: i'm not suggesting people cheating on their spouses is to be encouraged or apologized for. I'm saying its none of the 'hooker's' (or your) goddam business.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Outside of Riyadh, a marriage contract doesn't allow one spouse to control what financial transactions the other spouse engages in using force of law. Is seeing a prostitute behind your wife's back a morally shitty thing to do? Of course, but so is not calling your elderly mother on her birthday. Do we need to codify into law prohibitions against not calling your mother?

[*GILMORE*]

Are your replying to Bishop Ed or me?

I am not the one suggesting we need a modernized Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice

[Heroic Mulatto]

Yes, that was a reply to Eddie.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

OMG, I've *rejected* the idea of such a Saudi-style police seeking out violators.

But you won't be content until I say there's a *right* for one spouse to betray the other.

[Heroic Mulatto]

But you won't be content until I say there's a *right* for one spouse to betray the other.

You conflate the right of a spouse to be unfaithful with the "right" of a spouse to be unfaithful and free from censure.

Again, someone has the right to choose not to call his or her kind, elderly mother in hospice but he or she doesn't have the right to prevent me from calling him or her an asshole.

Having said that, I do admit that in the case of a marriage, the offended party does have the right to bring the common law tort of alienation of affection to court; however I don't see a need for government to get involved beyond that*. We shouldn't base our criminal code on hurt feelings; look where that got the Greeks.

*A charge of reckless endangerment might be appropriate if he brought back a serious VD.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"I do admit that in the case of a marriage, the offended party does have the right to bring the common law tort of alienation of affection to court"

Then we have no disagreement on principle.

And based on the reactions I got when I endorsed alienation-of-affection lawsuits...welcome to the Catholic Church!

[Heroic Mulatto]

Pax vobiscum to you too, my friend.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I recall a class in family law where the teacher informed us that suits for alienation of affection, criminal conversation and the like were "heartbalm suits" whose only purpose was to assuage the betrayed spouse's hurt feelings. Naturally, as the teacher explained, all the cool and enlightened states have abolished such actions because who could be so retrograde and theocratic as to support this sort of lawsuit in the modern age, with all its modernity?

[Hamster of Doom]

Let's apply every notion Eddie comes up with to the "but only in a perfect world where cops can be trusted" theory of relevance.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Yes, the tendency of law-enforcement officials to be corrupt and abusive is *totally irrelevant* to any debate on how much the government should have.

I'll keep that in mind.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

how much *power* the government should have

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"I've actually met married people where the wife actually tried to encourage the husband to see a prostitute. More than once."

Then they're not a "betrayed spouse," are they?

I'm discussing those cases (and there are a lot of them) when the "client" hasn't gotten the prior agreement of their spouse.

You may as well justify a husband blowing his wife's money at the track without her consent on the grounds that you know some men who actually had their wives' consent to blow money at the track.

With all due respect, this is simply a diversion tactic.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"a bizarrely inflated notion of the Sanctified Bonds of Matrimony"

Really? So the phrase "forsaking all others" is "bizarrely inflated?" Why, then, is this included in the marriage vows in so many cases?

[Heroic Mulatto]

"The marriage vows"?

I don't remember stating the phrase "forsaking all others" during my marriage ceremony, but I do remember my wife and I chanting parts of the Sigalovada Sutra.

And rice whisky. I remember a lot of rice whisky.

[*GILMORE*]

My friend Lars got married in Guatemala, and the ceremony involved a snake.

He was so mad when his parents insisted he needed to do it again, and this time wear a tie.

[Heroic Mulatto]

I would have worn Cobra Commander's suit.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

*sigh*...first you say that faithfulness to one's spouse is a bizarrely inflated notion of the Sanctified Bonds of Matrimony."

I reply by pointing out that "in so many cases" the phrase "forsaking all others" is included in the marriage ceremony.

To rebut me, it's not enough to say, "well, *I* never promised to forsake all others!" Your claim is that forsaking all others is "a bizarrely inflated notion."

So what do you call those who still insist on including that phrase in their ceremonies?

Why not face up to your own logic and say that those who, during their marriage ceremonies, pledge to "forsake all others" are adopting "bizarrely inflated notions."

If you can't assert *that,* then GTFO.

[*GILMORE*]

"what do you call those who still insist on including that phrase in their ceremonies?"

Grounds for a divorce, but otherwise none of your business.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Are you still contending that the "forsaking all others" phrase is "a bizarrely inflated notion"?

[*GILMORE*]

No = your assumption that it applies to everyone, or that its something of interest to anyone outside that 1-1 contract is the bizarrely inflated part.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

All right, I'll admit I don't understand what you just said.

But I'm guessing you haven't fairly represented my position. Which means you don't understand your *own* position.

[*GILMORE*]

You seem to think you make a lot of sense. Tell me about your mother.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I'll have your mother call my mother.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

*

So are you actually arguing that prostitution should be illegal because married men cannot help themselves but fuck prostitutes? Is that what you are saying?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

No.

Next question.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

No.

THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU FUCKING BLABBERING ABOUT?

Or did you just want to give us all a sermon?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Shorter F D'A: "It's *your* fault I don't understand you!"

Sorry, Francisco, I'm not sure I can dumb it down enough for you.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Dumb it down? Do you even know what your point is?

Tell me asshole, what is the point you're trying to make? If that's not it, what is it?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Wow, you give me a lot of power - the power to irritate and offend you, and to elevate your blood pressure.

Isn't it possible that you're letting someone to wield excessive power over you by virtue of disagreeing with me on the Internet?

I ask this because you so very frequently post angry responses to my remarks, uttering spittle-flecked insults, and generally flying into a rage.

Couldn't you direct that passion and fervor into more constructive channels?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Stop deflecting and answer the question asshole.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

The question is whether I hold some weird position you just made up? And you're going to ask that question again and again and again and again and again and again, and each time accuse me of not answering the question?

OK, I will reply to each of your questions. Each sentence represents a single anser.

No. No. No. NNo. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. o. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

etc.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

No...idiot...

The question is:

WHAT IS YOUR FUCKING POINT?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

See, I answered your questions.

But to answer your most recent question, the answer is FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE.

[Warty]

His point is that he's a vile little man. I'm not sure why you need to read any more into it.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

OMG, Warty, why do you think Hitler had some good points?

[PapayaSF]

"But he built the Autobahn." ? My former high school German teacher.

[*GILMORE*]

Its not a diversion because you don't have a point to begin with. Its none of your business if a person sleeps with someone else outside of marriage, whether paid for or otherwise. You can poo poo it all your want, but that's just you expressing your moral outrage, which is of no interest to anyone but yourself.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"Its none of your business if a person sleeps with someone else outside of marriage, whether paid for or otherwise."

Perhaps it's none of *my* business if I'm not married to said "person." But is it the business of the person's spouse? And if it is, is it automatically wicked for that person to call in the assistance of the government against their faithless spouse?

Now, from a utilitarian standpoint, maybe we could tell the betrayed spouse, "we won't prosecute prostitutes because that would involve too much discretion on the part of a corrupt police force."

But can you look the betrayed spouse in the eye and say that it's none of their business, on philosophical principles?

[*GILMORE*]

You really still think you have a point?

No, its not your business or the governments business or the prostitutes business if the John is unfaithful.

Spouse has grounds for divorce, and possible take hubby to the cleaners, but no, its in no one elses interest to enforce marital fidelity.

or see 'sex outside of marriage' as anything but just 'sex', which is also no one's business.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

is it automatically wicked for that person to call in the assistance of the government against their faithless spouse?

She can divorce him and take all his shit. And in the libertopian scenario, she can file civil suit and obtain whatever was agreed upon in the case of a spouse cheating.

Prostitution has fuck-all to do with any of it.

[Gojira]

More of his, "I never said I wanted the state to enforce my moral preferences!"

[Notorious G.K.C.]

You mean the part where I said "Spouse has grounds for divorce, and possible take hubby to the cleaners"?

Or the part where I said "She can divorce him and take all his shit. And in the libertopian scenario, she can file civil suit and obtain whatever was agreed upon in the case of a spouse cheating."

No, wait, that wasn't me, that was a couple of guys who have the balls to say *I'm* the one who wants the government to intervene in such situations.

Can retardation get any lower?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Seriously, imagine if *I* said the betrayed spouse should take the cheating spouse to the cleaners?

Principals, not principles.

[*GILMORE*]

State in a single sentence what you think is wrong with the situation I describe

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"State in a single sentence what you think is wrong with the situation I describe"

If you can remind me what situation you described, I can tell you whether I think it's wrong, and, if so, why.

[*GILMORE*]

How its no ones business if people are unfaithful except the married parties.

And here you are accusing everyone else of being bad-readers.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"How its no ones business if people are unfaithful except the married parties."

OK, given that my original point was that you can't invoke the "consenting adult" paradigm without taking into account the betrayed spouse, then I think that we've managed to reach a consensus.

[*GILMORE*]

" I think that we've managed to reach a consensus."

The only "taking into account" was to grant that the spouse has a right to divorce the cheating motherfucker.

It still has zero to do with prostitution. But please, pretend you won, its gotten boring.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Oh, for crying out loud, I only challenged the use of the consenting-adult paradigm in a situation where the betrayed spouse didn't give consent.

Winning is a relative term on H&R - I would be content simply to have people stop "summarizing" my points as "OMG you think Hitler is a nice guy!"

[Gojira]

Are you seriously going to contend that using the courts to dissolve a social contract is the same as making something illegal and calling the police in terms of involvement of the state? I don't believe you to be stupid, so it just makes you disingenuous.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"using the courts" *means* calling in the aid of the police. Go ahead and defy a court order and find out whether the police are going to get involved.

[Gojira]

Well there we have it folks: in Eddie's world, a civil suit is exactly the same thing as making something illegal. Must be why so many people are rotting in jail from being sued.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Hey, all I said was that if you disobey a court order in a civil suit, the police are going to come after you.

Am I wrong?

[Gojira]

No, what you did was shift from answering a direct challenge (that you would use the state to enforce your moral preference re: spousal cheating) and shifted the conversation to what happens if someone doesn't pay alimony.

So you didn't deny the initial accusation, you just tried to shift the focus to how, in a convoluted way, eventually, in a civil suit you can be found in contempt for refusing to pay and get some jail time.

You are a disingenuous shit because 1) instead of affirming or denying the accusation as regards yourself, you tried to shift the conversation onto what others believe, and 2) you are purposefully conflating a contempt of court ruling (which does not always, but may, result in jail time, after a lengthy process) with criminal liability. They are NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING, which is why they are treated differently under the law.

So now that I've pointed out what a disingenuous little shit you are, would you care to answer the following in a straight-forward manner:

Do YOU, not Gilmore, not Heroic Mulatto, not FDA, nor anybody else, do YOU believe prostitution should be a crime?

If so, do YOU, not anybody else, do YOU, believe there should be criminal liability for cheating on your spouse?

[Gojira]

I'm going to pull an Eddie and start responding to myself over and over and then claim victory if he doesn't show up to respond to the 7:04 post.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Up

[Notorious G.K.C.]

yours

[Notorious G.K.C.]

you

[Notorious G.K.C.]

ratched

[Notorious G.K.C.]

skank

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"Do YOU, not Gilmore, not Heroic Mulatto, not FDA, nor anybody else, do YOU believe prostitution should be a crime?"

No - for utilitarian reasons, not because there's a right to prostitution based on "OMG consenting adults!" which is what the lawsuit referenced in this post says.

"If so, do YOU, not anybody else, do YOU, believe there should be criminal liability for cheating on your spouse?"

No, because civil liability ought to be enough - I agree with HM that there should be civil liability under the alienation of affection tort. I also believe that criminal conversation should be a tort.

Now, explain, plaintly and without dodging, whether you *agree* with the following positions of your fellow posters:

"Spouse has grounds for divorce, and possible take hubby to the cleaners"?

"She can divorce him and take all his shit."

[Gojira]

Spouse has grounds for a divorce - yes.

As to "taking someone to the cleaners", I believe, it would depend on the structure of the suit. It's possible she could, but then again, the husband could introduce evidence of his wife being an intolerable shrew, and the judge might fine him a token sum. I honestly couldn't speak to that aspect of it.

You do understand though that throwing out, "But somebody else said civil suit!" is not an answer to the accusation of, "you would use the cops to enforce your morality."

It's not an answer, but it's the one you gave anyway. I'm glad you finally just said something straight and without dodging it or twisting it. Took goddamn long enough.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"I'm glad you finally just said something straight and without dodging it or twisting it."

Wow, I wish I could return the compliment.

But I can't, because you disingenuously suggest that "using the courts to dissolve a social contract" is different from "making something illegal and calling the police in terms of involvement of the state"

What exactly do you *think* will happen if you defy a court's order to "dissove a social contract?" I will tell you - the police will get involved ("in terms of involvement of the state"), they will arrest you, and the judge will condemn you for the *crime* of contempt of court.

I think that under normal circumstances you would acknowledge this to be true, but you have such an emotional investment in "OMG I gotts refute this theocrat" that you've set aside your rational faculty and are operating only with your lizard brain.

[Gojira]

And here we come round full circle. You state below in your comment from 7:06 that you have been falsely accused of conflating a civil suit with criminal liability.

Here, let me quote it for you:
Here are some examples of stuff I never knew I believed:

...

"in Eddie's world, a civil suit is exactly the same thing as making something illegal. Must be why so many people are rotting in jail from being sued."

So suggesting that you do NOT, in fact, view them as being functionally the same thing.

With me so far?

Now above, you say this:

...you [Gojira] disingenuously suggest that "using the courts to dissolve a social contract" is different from "making something illegal and calling the police in terms of involvement of the state"

In which you are NOW saying that the penalties for civil suits are functionally the same as for criminal liability.

You're *completely reversing your own thoughts* because, being a liar who will say anything to gain a temporary "point" in an argument, you can't hold a consistent thought in your head for longer than it takes to make a few posts.

[Warty]

Jesus, Gojira. Could you be any more of an anti-Catholic bigot?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

So, you're saying that there are "so many people rotting in jail for being sued"?

You can't mix up two unrelated points, then when challenged on one of those points, say "but, but, my other point was true!"

You attributed to me the position that there were lots of people "rotting in jail for being sued."

Prove it.

[Gojira]

Pointed out already below. I did not attribute that position to you. At all. It was a sarcastic jab at your conflation of civil and criminal liability. Your attempt, even after reading my post below in which I explicitly state that I did not attribute that to you, to call me out on it AGAIN proves what a lying sack of shit you are. But anyway I'm off now, so toodles.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"I did not attribute that position to you. At all. It was a sarcastic jab at your conflation of civil and criminal liability."

Oh, so you weren't being serious? Why didn't you say so before?

What's the point of even having a common language if we keep talking past each other?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

What is it you are calling for? WRT prostitution? Do you even know?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Please don't freak out.

[The Hyperbole]

Gil, Franc, listen.. Someone made a Pinky swear and then broke it, if that isn't a good enough reason to throw them and anyone/everyone else who was complicit in said Pinky swear breaking into rape cages then I don't know why we even bother to have a government at all!

[*GILMORE*]

Also = I personally think the term is "rent" sex.

[Hamster of Doom]

You mean, if you ordered more than you could have in one sitting, you can't take the rest home with you? That doesn't sound right, I'm certain everyone has assured me that it's "buy", and dammit, I was looking forward to all possible new meanings for the term "doggy bag".

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

You can always rent with the option to buy.

[*GILMORE*]

Ah, but I've seen Pretty Woman, and I've heard the song Roxxane

I have my own musical version of the idea, titled, "My baby, she aint no Time-Share"

[Heroic Mulatto]

Trying to turn a ho into a housewife is a fool's errand.

[*GILMORE*]

I am told the other way around is in fact more common.

[Winston]

So Zola was right.

[Heroic Mulatto]

What lay on the pillow was a charnel-house, a heap of pus and blood, a shovelful of putrid flesh.

[*GILMORE*]

That's how it go when you marry a ho

[*GILMORE*]

What happens when you mix George Duke, Steely Dan, and Samurai Warriors?

[Winston]

Warriors of Virtue.

[Heroic Mulatto]

I really dug that.

Some stanky funk!

[*GILMORE*]

the sounds were very "this"-ish, the arrangement was very Donald Fagen

[*GILMORE*]

Also, you've heard those drums before many times

[Heroic Mulatto]

Indeed...

Now I want to binge watch Soul Train line dance videos...

[*GILMORE*]

this is sort of the closest example of the Fagen style influences

but the steely dan influence is enormous for anyone trying to make pop music that also has jazz cred

[Cytotoxic]

The US military has done some excellent work this week. They killed an AQ commander in Afghanistan and in Syria. The Syrian one had American blood on his hands and was part of the actively dangerous Khorosan group.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201.....an/6647274

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/.....san-group/

[Gojira]

When are you northern bastards going to get off of your frozen asses and help a brother out?

Also I would like for there to be more than like two places that serve poutine in the entire metro area I live in.

[Cytotoxic]

Canada already played an active part in Afghanistan and is an active part of the anti-ISIS campaign.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

And they will turn the crank and make another to fill the vacant spot at the bottom when everyone else moves up.

Just like they have for the past 14 years.

But I think it might work this time. I think AQ is about ready to give up.

[Cytotoxic]

Because turnover never hurt an organization before.

You're like a pro at disingenuous argumentation. Truly you are Air Force John. Is everyone in the air force as much of a disingenuous cunt as you are?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Yeah, we are doing a great job at eliminating terrorism by bombing them.

What's the cost per kill? A billion dollars per? And it never accomplishes the objective, because there aren't enough money or bombs in the world to eliminate terrorism.

You are simply a fucking retard. A fucking child who has no grasp of what terrorism is or how it works, banging his fists on the table screaming kill them all, kill them all. Spending trillions to eliminate a flea on a camel's ass. Fuck, Cytotoxic, you should run for office.

14 years...how's that workin out for ya? Moron.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

If we just stick with it a little bit longer...

[BigT]

2 down, 1.2 billion to go. Progress!

[Warty]

Hitting the bottle hard today, are we, Eddie?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

One of the advantages of going on H&R is that I get to find out what I *really* believe. This is useful information to have, in that without the H&R commenters, I wouldn't even know I believed certain silly things. Indeed, I would have assumed I'd expressed the *opposite* of such beliefs in my comments.

So obviously you're doing yeoman's work in exposing my *true* views, views which I have until now managed to so successfully conceal.

Here are some examples of stuff I never knew I believed:

"So are you actually arguing that prostitution should be illegal because married men cannot help themselves but fuck prostitutes?"

"in Eddie's world, a civil suit is exactly the same thing as making something illegal. Must be why so many people are rotting in jail from being sued."

"suggesting we need a modernized Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice"

[*GILMORE*]

LOOK HE WEARS A CROWN OF THORNS!!

[Gojira]

Shorter Eddie:

Eddie: "When you add 2+2, you get a whole number which falls between 3 and 5".

Anybody responding: "So you're saying you get 4"

Eddie: "That's not what I said stop putting words in my mouth!"

[Gojira]

Actually, this makes perfect sense that a Catholic would be so perfidious and shifting in his use on language. It's the only way you could take what's written in the Bible and twist it into justifying the absurd doctrines of their faith.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Just to be clear, are you claiming that I believe "prostitution should be illegal because married men cannot help themselves but fuck prostitutes"?

Because, if you claim that, you're full of shit.

Are you claiming that I believe "people are rotting in jail from being sued"?

Because, if you claim that, you're full of shit.

Are you claiming that I believe that "we need a modernized Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice"?

Because, if you believe that, you're full of shit.

On the other hand, if you admit that I *don't* hold those positions which others attributed to me, then why are you denouncing me for rebutting these misattributions?

[Gojira]

Actually one of those is a prime example of how you twist words.

The "rotting in jail from being sued line" was mine, and I wasn't accusing you of it. I was using it to refute the argument that you were *seeming to make* that a civil suit is the same thing as criminalizing behavior.

It seemed that you were making that argument, because when pressed about the criminalization of prostitution, instead of answering the charge, you deflected onto what Gilmore and some others had said about civil suits. Because you are disingenuous.

So I said that (about jail / civil suits) sarcastically, to emphasize that there is a vast gulf of difference between civil suits and criminal liability.

And now you come down here and claim that I accused you of holding that belief. So you're taking something and twisting it, which is what you always do. Because you are disingenuous.

The other Catholic stuff was just a barb, because I was raised protestant (though am now agnostic/atheist), and have read a great many denunciations on Catholic doctrine.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"read a great many denunciations on Catholic doctrine."

As have I. But as I matured, I realized that these denunciations were not entirely rational.

"a vast gulf of difference between civil suits and criminal liability."

OK, let me see if I can put this in a way you can understand.

1) Up yours.

2) I was talking, IIRC, about illegality, not criminal vs. civil.

3), but anyway, If, in the course of a civil suit, you disobey an order of the judge, and you get caught, you will be subject to charges of criminal contempt of court - unless of course the judge chooses to proceed against you civilly, that is, to hold you in prison until you agree to obey the court's orders.

But if you're charged with *criminal* contempt of court, that means you can be punished *as a criminal.*

So, to sum up...put your lips on my dick, and such my asshole, too.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

suck, not such.

My sincerest apologies.

[Gojira]

I believe I've said everything I need to say in my 7:48 post up above, so I'll leave you to your delusions of intellectual superiority now. I'd just hate to be accused of having run away when you post to yourself ten times and proclaim yourself the winner of an internet argument.

So, to sum up...put your lips on my dick, and such my asshole, too.

Keep practicing that Christian forbearance, you hypocritical fuck. Oh that's right, you're a Catholic. You can do anything you want as long as the magical man casts the spell on you to make it alright Upstairs.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

So, to be clear, you never intended to impute to me the claim that people are rotting in jail from being sued.

You let that phrase drop, you imputed it to me, but it was an accident and you didn't mean it.

Apology accepted.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

So, to be clear, you never intended to impute to me the claim that people are rotting in jail from being sued.

You let that phrase drop, you imputed it to me, but it was an accident and you didn't mean it.

Apology accepted.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"I'd just hate to be accused of having run away when you post to yourself ten times and proclaim yourself the winner of an internet argument."

Shorter Gojira: I accused someone on the Internet whom I had never met of being a liar, but I haven't been able to prove the accusation. So I'll pretend that if only I had a couple more hours I'd be able to prove my assertions, but gosh, I just don't have the time.

[*GILMORE*]

WSJ highlights the fact that the Kurds, America's Favorite ISIS Fighters, are some crazy feminist Marxist motherfuckers that really make our current SJW types look, well, like big fat lazy pussies.

"Safe Space? HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA"

"Ms. Ruken said she typically fights with an AK-47 or a Soviet-era heavy-infantry machine gun about as long as she is tall. . "We fight our enemies whoever they are," she said. "Perhaps Islamic State will stand for a while. But they will fall.""

[Cytotoxic]

Israel used to be quite socialist too. They changed, and so will the Kurds. The Kurds of Iraq are not commies that's for sure.

[Crusty Juggler]

OT for those who have not yet read: In Iraq, I raided insurgents. In Virginia, the police raided me.

Both well-written and well-reasoned.

[*GILMORE*]

Does anyone use RSS readers on Android?

if so, do you know of a way to get partial text feeds converted to full-text? None of the intermediary things are working for me. I think its my reader app but i don't know.

[Chuck in CR]

You do not pay the woman to have sex with you...

You pay her so she will leave when you are finshed...

[darleenclick]

I want to thank you so much for a balance video that includes interviews with the district attorneys, prosecutors and victim/witness advocates who deal with gangs, pimps and human traffickers on a daily basis.

Oh, wait ...

[AlmightyJB]

Excellent video

[Dana]

You don't have a Constitutional right to buy or sell sex. The government simply does not have the right to tell you you cannot engage in those behaviors according to the Constitution. I don't think the gov't can bend the Commerce Clause that far!

Why do we have to prove that a "right" is in the Constitution when we should be making the other side prove that a "right" isn't in there.

[springjourney]

Marriage is a fundamental right of any person. Temporary marriage is no different from marriage.
Polyheterosexual person have constitutional right to be married and have the same dignity and as homosexual people.

[JoeInMissouri]

My god could you get things worse?
For starter the courts are not there to legalize things.
That is the job of the legislature.

Secondly if the government has no inherent power to criminalize a consensual act ( a right)
then they certainly do not have a right to legalize it. For the legislature to legalize a right, you
would have to accept that your rights come from the legislature.

A more intellectually honest course of action would be for the legislature to recognize a particular thing as right and to further state that since it is a right they they can not ever regulate, legislate, or infringe upon this right. Better yet would be to state this in the state constitution.