Posted on 11/15/2002 7:10:03 AM PST by NYer
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Hillary Clinton backs "voluntary" prostitution.
Friday, November 15, 2002 12:01 a.m.
Irving Kristol once joked that, confronted with an 18-year-old girl having sex on stage, a liberal's only question would be whether she was being paid the minimum wage. Mr. Kristol was being facetious. But the mindset he lampooned is all too real, and today it threatens to undermine an encouraging effort targeting perhaps the most egregious scandal of our day: the global sex trade in women and children.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Bingo!
Next thing you know organized labor will be involved. Who want's to have sex with a Teamster?
In Germany I beleive that prostitution is legal and actually HAS been unionized.
Oh goody. You get assigned a prostitute based on her seniority?
Wow! I'm impressed that you were so quickly able to apply anti-WOD rhetoric to this situation!
As for a market for kidnapped teens -- it will be there, whether or not prostitution is legal. There are people who would pay a lot to have sex with a pretty, 12 or 13-yo blonde virgin. There's a market for kidnapped children, too.
What you're telling us is this: we have no right to define the conditions under which our communities, or even our own neighborhoods, will operate. You're telling us that we must instead acquiesce to every perversion in the name of "freedom," no matter the cost to ourselves and our community.
This is just another example of how the libertarian mindset is morally corrupt, because it is based on "what I want," and not what is right.
It worked for Clinton. Bill Clinton, that is.
Sounds like an upcoming Fox series.
For $55K bribe donation you can dump dioxins into SF bay. Kinda makes arsenic in the water sound tasty!
Barb in Los Angeles
That reminds me of a story.
A hardcore union man walks into a whorehouse. He goes up to the madame, asks how much for the really cute girl standing in the corner, and the madame tells him $300 for an hour. He asks if the house is unionized, and when the woman says no, he stomps out, yelling "I ain't staying in no nonunion whorehouse".
He walks down the street to another brothel, where he notices that there is union bug on the sign. He asks the cigar smoking, beefy goombah at the counter if the house is unionized and how much services cost. The goombah replies "Why yes, it is. Our girls are $300 for an hour."
Pleased, the union man hauls out his wallet and hands over his money, looking happily in anticipation at a line of young and nubile Teamster beauties. Out from behind the line steps an old crone, warty, heavyset, pasty, with varicose veins and false teeth, smiling at him and beckoning with a withered claw.
"B-b-b-but whats this about?", he sputters to the goombah. "That's Gert", says the goombah, taking the cigar out of his mouth. She's got seniority. You got a problem with that?"
It certainly applies because they both arise from the desire to control other's vices, conducted in private.
As for a market for kidnapped teens -- it will be there, whether or not prostitution is legal. There are people who would pay a lot to have sex with a pretty, 12 or 13-yo blonde virgin. There's a market for kidnapped children, too.
The market may still be there, but it will be much reduced if there is a legal outlet that is "almost" as good to most of the potential customers. A black market supporting hundreds of thousands of clients may be able to support a few teen virgins as well, but a legal market supporting 99% of customers will leave little room for a black market supporting only one or two teen virgins - and the latter case will make it easier to distinguish the teen kidnappers from the "regular" whores, making law enforcement efforts to catch the kidnappers easier.
What you're telling us is this: we have no right to define the conditions under which our communities, or even our own neighborhoods, will operate. You're telling us that we must instead acquiesce to every perversion in the name of "freedom," no matter the cost to ourselves and our community.
And what you're telling us is that you should have the right and power to dictate your version of morality onto everyone at government gunpoint, and that anyone who would disagree is immoral, dangerous, and/or defective.
This is just another example of how the libertarian mindset is morally corrupt, because it is based on "what I want," and not what is right.
Hypocrite! You are the one who wishes to dictate laws based on what you want - namely, no prostitution, and you would inflict these on everyone. I don't care for prostitution and wouldn't patronize them, but I wouldn't point a gun at those who would. You believe you alone have the moral authority to dictate what is "right" and force that on others. Whence the presumption?
Bravo! Well said! Bears repeating.
Anyone who understands the psyche of women would know that selling her body ruins her self-esteem, among other things. Prostitution is not a 'career' for strong, self-reliant women. It is the career of women who feel they have nothing to offer but that little orifice between their legs.
It came about when a staffer at our paper told us that her roommate's life had been threatened by her Pakistani pimp when she said that she didn't want to turn tricks in a downtown Pittsburgh "massage parlor" anymore.
The investigation turned up startling results. At one massage parlor (you could get hand, mouth and full body "massages" there), our intrepid investigator turned up 3% of the girls at Pitt's Nursing School earning some extra money on the side (or was it on their backs???) at just this one brothel! He also ran into the vice president one of the sororities on campus earning pocket money with these extra curicular activities, and got to watch coming and going (or should I just say coming???) various well-known local businessmen, a suburban mayor, a ROTC recruiter, a City Councilman, etc.
When the story broke, more leads started coming in, including one from a friend who was an Resident Assistant at CMU who had to help with expelling from the dormitory system a girl who had turned her room into an on-campus brothel.
Here the liberal hypocrisy was at its finest. She was a bad girl for charging the men money. But if she had just done it for free, like Pitt girls did for their many one-night stands, or connived the boys into buying gifts as "tokens" of "friendship" like the girls from Chatham did, she'd be praised as a well adjusted modern woman.
To All the Freeper Father's: Do you know how your daughters have really gotten their money at school?
Excellent!
Someone else knows that Liberty is the right to choose the good. License is the absolute right to choose to do whatever I want.
Libertarians are really Licensetarians. They are for Licentuousness, not Freedom. Ludwig von Mises tome on Socialism has a whole section on sexual "freedom" (and similar nonsense) being part and parcel of marxist socialism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.