Sign in to follow this  
.22 Tom

ESPLERP

Recommended Posts

ESPLERP

OK, so obviously they never worked for Congress and are terrible at the acronym thing.
 

Quote

 

A federal court heard arguments yesterday challenging California's criminalization of prostitution, in a case that could have implications for sex work laws across the nation.

Brought by the Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education, and Research Project (ESPLERP), the constitutional challenge claims that California's prostitution laws violate residents' right to privacy, free speech, and free association.

...

"Lambda Legal's landmark Supreme Court victory in Lawrence v. Texas, the case that struck down laws that criminalized sex between same-sex partners, underscored that our right to liberty protects our decisions about adult, consensual sexual intimacy," says Kara Ingelhart, a Lambda Legal law fellow. "It is merely logical that Lawrence extend to the adult, consensual sexual intimacy that occurs between sex workers and their clients; the fact that money is exchanged shouldn't matter."

 

In Lawrence, the court said of anti-sodomy laws:

Quote

 

The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.

    This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.

 

Is prostitution abuse of an institution that the law protects?

I don't think so but Justice Thomas' dissent in Lawrence suggests he does. It's short. Here's the whole thing:

Quote

 

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

    I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

    Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.

 

He specifically says it would be noncommercial conduct that he would vote to repeal if he were a legislator.

I'm not sure why that matters. The Griswold case was about commerce: selling contraceptives.

As for the right to privacy, I think he should look at the 9th amendment. James Madison thought so too.

Quote

 

In presenting the proposed Amendment, Madison said:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system, but I conceive that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment].

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they think of $10 blowjobs in the back of the john's car as "interstate commerce".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

As for the right to privacy, I think he should look at the 9th amendment. James Madison thought so too.

As they say, consider the source.

Well, let's see.

  • What Tom claims broadly about the ACLU's gun position is false.  They flat-out oppose The Standard Model.
  • What Tom claims Adam Winkler says about due process is contradicted by Mr. Winkler in the first line of Tom's source.
  • MLK's position on gun violence, and on non-violence, is violated by Tom. MLK's core values are intentionally mis-represented.
  • The fifth auxiliary right trumpeted by Hamilton in Federalist 29 has been denied 4X by Tom, on Political Anarchy.
  • The congressional ban of gun violence research is denied by Tom. 
  • Colonial era gun confiscation existed at all levels of local, state, and federal government. Tom claims there was no confiscation at that time.
  • Tom's "Brady's Best "was spammed for year's, but was useless.
  • The past few years of Tom's extensive Miller namedropping mis-represented the gun rights of fighting age males as gun rights of "The People."

I don't know squat about the Madison quote Tom has presented now...except that I wouldn't trust Tom's interpretation of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre Trudeau said it best - and very succinctly  1/2 century ago - "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".

I've noticed all my life that the people who think it does are consistently those individual freedom loving right wingers. I've never met a lefty who supported these kind of laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

As they say, consider the source.

Well, let's see.

  • What Tom claims broadly about the ACLU's gun position is false.  They flat-out oppose The Standard Model.
  • What Tom claims Adam Winkler says about due process is contradicted by Mr. Winkler in the first line of Tom's source.
  • MLK's position on gun violence, and on non-violence, is violated by Tom. MLK's core values are intentionally mis-represented.
  • The fifth auxiliary right trumpeted by Hamilton in Federalist 29 has been denied 4X by Tom, on Political Anarchy.
  • The congressional ban of gun violence research is denied by Tom. 
  • Colonial era gun confiscation existed at all levels of local, state, and federal government. Tom claims there was no confiscation at that time.
  • Tom's "Brady's Best "was spammed for year's, but was useless.
  • The past few years of Tom's extensive Miller namedropping mis-represented the gun rights of fighting age males as gun rights of "The People."

I don't know squat about the Madison quote Tom has presented now...except that I wouldn't trust Tom's interpretation of anything.

Maybe he is an expert on $10.00 blow jobs?  Let's give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Pierre Trudeau said it best - and very succinctly  1/2 century ago - "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".

I've noticed all my life that the people who think it does are consistently those individual freedom loving right wingers. I've never met a lefty who supported these kind of laws.

Because sex is evil, and morality must be legislated by a state that is prohibited from making intrusive regulations on business.

See how logical it is?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Pierre Trudeau said it best - and very succinctly  1/2 century ago - "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".

I've noticed all my life that the people who think it does are consistently those individual freedom loving right wingers. I've never met a lefty who supported these kind of laws.

I agree that it's predominantly the right, though I'd say "religious right" not freedom loving. They're often the biggest fans of drug prohibition too. Jeff Sessions, for example.

But do we really want to look up what kinds of laws Gov Bill Clinton agreed to enforce in Arkansas? We have a breed of religious lefties, particularly in the South, who aren't much better on these issues.

Some may have learned to look the other way on gay issues but prostitution? In their neighborhoods? There will be resistance from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I agree that it's predominantly the right, though I'd say "religious right" not freedom loving. They're often the biggest fans of drug prohibition too. Jeff Sessions, for example.

But do we really want to look up what kinds of laws Gov Bill Clinton agreed to enforce in Arkansas? We have a breed of religious lefties, particularly in the South, who aren't much better on these issues.

Some may have learned to look the other way on gay issues but prostitution? In their neighborhoods? There will be resistance from both sides.

Make it legal, and zone for it. Next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they don't play loud music or fuck up the street parking they can set up IMBY. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about control..for years in was illegal to sell your body but not to buy one.

Just imagine women being able to support themselves with an asset that belongs to them..shocking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Make it legal, and zone for it. Next?

Street walking is illegal here in Vic. But you can register a brothel and the people who work there just about anywhere. Women can work from their own homes with a permit. It works, sex workers get to work in a safe environment, get health checks and pay tax just like any other registered business.

I can't believe it's still illegal in the USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of right wingers are unable to grasp the underlying concept behind calling it "The Worlds Oldest Profession".

They really, truly believe they can make it go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

A lot of right wingers are unable to grasp the underlying concept behind calling it "The Worlds Oldest Profession".

They really, truly believe they can make it go away.

They don't want the competition to their own networks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

ESPLERP

OK, so obviously they never worked for Congress and are terrible at the acronym thing.
 

In Lawrence, the court said of anti-sodomy laws:

Is prostitution abuse of an institution that the law protects?

I don't think so but Justice Thomas' dissent in Lawrence suggests he does. It's short. Here's the whole thing:

He specifically says it would be noncommercial conduct that he would vote to repeal if he were a legislator.

I'm not sure why that matters. The Griswold case was about commerce: selling contraceptives.

As for the right to privacy, I think he should look at the 9th amendment. James Madison thought so too.

 

hookers make the world go 'round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Street walking is illegal here in Vic. But you can register a brothel and the people who work there just about anywhere. Women can work from their own homes with a permit. It works, sex workers get to work in a safe environment, get health checks and pay tax just like any other registered business.

I can't believe it's still illegal in the USA

Same thing in Germany.  In Poland prostitution is illegal however there are 'Night Clubs' all over and out in the open.  There are also mostly Ukrainian, Belorussian and Russian prostitutes on the side of the road often, looking for business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

Same thing in Germany.  In Poland prostitution is illegal however there are 'Night Clubs' all over and out in the open.  There are also mostly Ukrainian, Belorussian and Russian prostitutes on the side of the road often, looking for business.

You're never going to get organised crime out of the sex industry. 

Even our most famous Brothel (listed on the aussie stock exchange) has it's shady side..they also hold public open days :D

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/what-its-like-inside-daily-planet-melbournes-most-notorious-brothel/news-story/73d50bfc66ffd7a8fb8db0ca6c59c129 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Street walking is illegal here in Vic. But you can register a brothel and the people who work there just about anywhere. Women can work from their own homes with a permit. It works, sex workers get to work in a safe environment, get health checks and pay tax just like any other registered business.

I can't believe it's still illegal in the USA

It's legal in some places here.

Sounds like it's illegal in some places there, which is another way of saying it's legal in some places there.

But the question for the court is not about a specific area. It's about whether trading sex for money is a basic human freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's legal in some places here.

Sounds like it's illegal in some places there, which is another way of saying it's legal in some places there.

But the question for the court is not about a specific area. It's about whether trading sex for money is a basic human freedom.

And why shouldn't it be. Men have been selling their muscle for eons. How can one differentiate between selling your skills with one body part or another. What's the difference,  a rural worker/road worker/sex worker standing on a street corner selling your body for labour .

I don't understand, what is this?

"abuse of an institution the law protects"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

And why shouldn't it be. Men have been selling their muscle for eons. How can one differentiate between selling your skills with one body part or another. What's the difference,  a rural worker/road worker/sex worker standing on a street corner selling your body for labour .

 

That's what my elk have been saying for decades.

From the right, the objections are that God says it's wrong and (one you share) that organized crime follows this trade around.

There's a bit of that from the left but their objections are also that prostitution objectifies women and that someone is always looking for (and therefore always providing) teenagers for sex.

To the latter objection from both camps, I'd say legalization makes the problem better though it won't go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's what my elk have been saying for decades.

From the right, the objections are that God says it's wrong and (one you share) that organized crime follows this trade around.

There's a bit of that from the left but their objections are also that prostitution objectifies women and that someone is always looking for (and therefore always providing) teenagers for sex.

To the latter objection from both camps, I'd say legalization makes the problem better though it won't go away.

Um..organised crime only follows prostitution around because of the clandestine nature of prostitution..or the exploitation of illegal immigrants, or the needs of (illegal) drug users..it exploits vulnerability..the fact that the easiest way to exploit the vulnerable through sex is putting the cart before the horse.

And actually..the idea that "the left" object to prostitution because it objectifies women is a rather out dated "first wave" feminist position. Most second wave feminists( such as myself) and third wave feminists, don't hold this objection to prostitution where the sex worker is working freely without exploitation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

And actually..the idea that "the left" object to prostitution because it objectifies women is a rather out dated "first wave" feminist position. Most second wave feminists( such as myself) don't hold this objection to prostitution where the sex worker is working freely without exploitation.

I know but there are still some dinosaurs around.

Enough of them that places with legal prostitution are pretty few and far between in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know but there are still some dinosaurs around.

Enough of them that places with legal prostitution are pretty few and far between in this country.

I'd doubt very much that many second or third wave feminists have any objection to non exploitive prostitution these days..god botherers OTOH are many in the USA..you missed my query about the "abuse of an institution the law protects"

 

I'm guessing it's refering to marriage?

(you have no idea how infuriating the "marriage equality" debate is for me :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I'd doubt very much that many second or third wave feminists have any objection to non exploitive prostitution these days..god botherers OTOH are many in the USA..you missed my query about the "abuse of an institution the law protects"

 

I'm guessing it's refering to marriage?

(you have no idea how infuriating the "marriage equality" debate is for me :D)

Yes, marriage would be the referenced institution.

Like prostitution and cannabis, gay marriage is an issue on which my elk have disagreed with the Duopoly position for many years. Lately, the D's are starting to come around on the latter two issues. Maybe they will on prostitution too. They run plenty of our big cities and could make prostitution in them legal at any time. My elk would. They don't. Actions speak louder than words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, marriage would be the referenced institution.

Like prostitution and cannabis, gay marriage is an issue on which my elk have disagreed with the Duopoly position for many years. Lately, the D's are starting to come around on the latter two issues. Maybe they will on prostitution too. They run plenty of our big cities and could make prostitution in them legal at any time. My elk would. They don't. Actions speak louder than words.

Actually I was refering to the infuriating thing about having to cast a vote for gay marriage in order to support LGBTXYZ rights. Marriage is slavery doncha know ?

And your Dems like our Labor have become a soft excuse for neo liberal conservatives..no guts, no conviction and totally out of touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Marriage is slavery doncha know ?

Nah, just an agreement about property and sex. Like prostitution.

But I guess your hooker can be forced to testify against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Nah, just an agreement about property and sex. Like prostitution.

But I guess your hooker can be forced to testify against you.

Prostitution is honester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Prostitution is honester

So? Neither hurts anyone. If you like one better, fine. I think both should be within our rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So? Neither hurts anyone. If you like one better, fine. I think both should be within our rights.

Call me a cynic. But back on topic..if Marriage is the institution needed to be protected from prostitution then there's something seriously wrong with marriage...protection implies something is vulnerable...It's all bullshit..anti prostitution arguments like anti abortion arguments are all about controlling women their behaviour and what they want to do with their bodies and lives and upholding outdated patriarchal mores. 

And don't get me wrong, women are just as guilty in this connivance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been said here, if prostitution were legal and treated like any other business, the criminal influence would be diminished greatly.  It is the narrow minded, control and power hungry religious freaks that have created this problem.  There are few things as dangerous as a religious zealot on a mission.  Since there is no god, they can make up anything they like and claim it is god's will.  Yeah, right.  It is their will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a guy offers money for sex, that's OK with me. It's OK if a woman accepts the offer. If it ever happens with the sexes reversed, that's fine too.

But what about if Harvey Weinstein offers a job for sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So if a guy offers money for sex, that's OK with me. It's OK if a woman accepts the offer. If it ever happens with the sexes reversed, that's fine too.

But what about if Harvey Weinstein offers a job for sex?

false analogy ..a prostitute is offering sex for money..and well may accept a job offer in lieu. Weinstein wasn't offering prostitutes a job..he was bullying job applicants..but you knew that right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Call me a cynic. But back on topic..if Marriage is the institution needed to be protected from prostitution then there's something seriously wrong with marriage...protection implies something is vulnerable...It's all bullshit..anti prostitution arguments like anti abortion arguments are all about controlling women their behaviour and what they want to do with their bodies and lives and upholding outdated patriarchal mores. 

And don't get me wrong, women are just as guilty in this connivance. 

Yes, my estranged wife always blames the condition of our marriage on my latest female friend.  I tell her that we destroyed our marriage, my friends are not to blame, they are a symptom, not the problem.  It is always easier to find a scapegoat then to look inward.

I don't know why women allow men to control them.  Every woman should read the ancient Greek comedy, Lysistrata by Aristophanes.  The Greek women are pissed off that their husbands are always away at war so they band together and won't have sex with the men until they stop fighting.  The women get their way.  To put it crudely, the 'power of the pussy' is strong indeed.

There is a good, brief background and synopsis of the play here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata   

Those damn Greeks were smart, funny, and had a good grasp of human nature.  In spite of having been first produced in 411 B.C., Lysistrata is still quite relevant and extremely funny in our present time.  I would love to know what "The lioness on the cheese grater" sexual position involves, it sounds intriguing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

Yes, my estranged wife always blames the condition of our marriage on my latest female friend.  I tell her that we destroyed our marriage, my friends are not to blame, they are a symptom, not the problem.  It is always easier to find a scapegoat then to look inward.

I don't know why women allow men to control them.  Every woman should read the ancient Greek comedy, Lysistrata by Aristophanes.  The Greek women are pissed off that their husbands are always away at war so they band together and won't have sex with the men until they stop fighting.  The women get their way.  To put it crudely, the 'power of the pussy' is strong indeed.

There is a good, brief background and synopsis of the play here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata   

Those damn Greeks were smart, funny, and had a good grasp of human nature.  In spite of having been first produced in 411 B.C., Lysistrata is still quite relevant and extremely funny in our present time.  I would love to know what "The lioness on the cheese grater" sexual position involves, it sounds intriguing!

Derp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BigUnot said:

That's mansplaining buddy.

OK, fine.  Aristophanes' comedy Lysistrata is a great read about human nature and empowering women, not to mention it's extremely funny.  

 

How's that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, soak_ed said:

OK, fine.  Aristophanes' comedy Lysistrata is a great read about human nature and empowering women, not to mention it's extremely funny.  

 

How's that?

Calm down, I'm just teasing. I pretty much agree with the post.

Saw the shot and hit a 3!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

Biggie, I made a suggestion, not a demand.

and a good one..perhaps it should be compulsory reading..year 10 :)

(biggie, you really are a suck)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

I still want to know about the lioness on the cheese grater.

flat cheese grater or round?

you can find anything on the net :D

standing on all fours’:the woman stood bending forward (sometimes resting her hands on the ground or on a bed), in a posture reminiscent of a lion crouched to spring, and was penetrated from behind (either vaginally or anally). The reference to a cheese-grater is due to the fact that the handles of such utensils were often made in the form of crouching animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

flat cheese grater or round?

you can find anything on the net :D

standing on all fours’:the woman stood bending forward (sometimes resting her hands on the ground or on a bed), in a posture reminiscent of a lion crouched to spring, and was penetrated from behind (either vaginally or anally). The reference to a cheese-grater is due to the fact that the handles of such utensils were often made in the form of crouching animals.

So getting back to the thread topic...

same price?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

and a good one..perhaps it should be compulsory reading..year 10 :)

(biggie, you really are a suck)

And you matter not atall atall.

Each 30 days I'm changing my display name to suit who you've claimed I am.

Note the bolding and font size. She's getting wound up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So getting back to the thread topic...

same price?

If you can find a animal handled cheese grater 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

If you can find a animal handled cheese grater 

I found one!

(If my wife could see the pic in my head I'd be a dead man.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine the cheese grater is an up charge item.

I must admit that I am a little disappointed that the act is question is just a glorified name for the old 'doggy style'.  I was expecting something a little more exotic, if not a bit painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally I think they've messed up the description..why would one be on all fours clasping a cheese grater?or in the bedroom with said household utensil ?(.even a animal handled one)..fucking Greek lit academics..probably British too..never done the sneak up in the kitchen attack :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

personally I think they've messed up the description..why would one be on all fours clasping a cheese grater?or in the bedroom with said household utensil ?(.even a animal handled one)..fucking Greek lit academics..probably British too..never done the sneak up in the kitchen attack :D

Toured several Greek islands, then Athens last week, large penises on key chains were on display at every tourist crap display everywhere, YCMTSU!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

Toured several Greek islands, then Athens last week, large penises on key chains were on display at every tourist crap display everywhere, YCMTSU!!

Yeah..accidentally bought my MIL a set of ancient greek pornographic beer mats in monistiraki flea market :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

A lot of right wingers are unable to grasp the underlying concept behind calling it "The Worlds Oldest Profession".

They really, truly believe they can make it go away.

Of course the human trafficking aspect has absolutely nothing at all to do with the discussion.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course the human trafficking aspect has absolutely nothing at all to do with the discussion.   

??..human trafficking goes on regardless of the illegality of prostitution..you know..illegal immigrants can't run to the police and say they've been prostituted..or at least they dont think they can...different problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

personally I think they've messed up the description..why would one be on all fours clasping a cheese grater?or in the bedroom with said household utensil ?(.even a animal handled one)..fucking Greek lit academics..probably British too..never done the sneak up in the kitchen attack :D

Sneaky kitchen sex is fun, all that food, oil, jam....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigUnot said:

I'm gonna take you back if you dare. I only know this because I lived there.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=png+penis+gourds&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia4uSk34bXAhVDvbwKHZz_AEgQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662

I have one and I look at the "attachment" and nah, not doing that.

And then there is the Japanese penis festival.  Those inscrutable Japanese people.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

KanamaraMatsuri_PenisFestival_japanlife1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 organized crime follows this trade around.

The same way it follows the drug trade around - because of the illegality, not because of the product.

Not a lot of organized crime in the liquor industry these days but they owned it 90 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

The same way it follows the drug trade around - because of the illegality, not because of the product.

Not a lot of organized crime in the liquor industry these days but they owned it 90 years ago.

Yes, my elk have been saying those things about the drug war and prostitution for decades. The usual result is that right wingers call me a pothead. It's pretty similar to how lefties react to me, but they favor a different prohibition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really nothing between wide open and total prohibition for you is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

There's really nothing between wide open and total prohibition for you is there?

I

Hmmm..legal prostitution has to come with licenses and regulation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I

Hmmm..legal prostitution has to come with licenses and regulation. 

and taxes. It aint reputable until there are taxes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

I

Hmmm..legal prostitution has to come with licenses and regulation. 

Sort of supports my point - guns don't in Tommy Guns world so why should hookers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Sort of supports my point - guns don't in Tommy Guns world so why should hookers?

People who read and understand my posts know I say things like these:

On 10/18/2017 at 7:28 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Govt can regulate the gun business. That means they can draw the lines that define who is in the business and those lines can be a bit fuzzy.


and

 

On 10/18/2017 at 8:12 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

We already have that. Collectors get those kinds of licenses and I agree that it's both reasonable and constitutional as a regulation of the gun business.


and

On 10/19/2017 at 4:52 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

There are lots of unobjectionable parts of the status quo and that's one of them for me.


I have no problem with a regulated market in hookers, drugs, or guns. That's why I've been saying the same things about them that Sloop says. But when you say them about guns, it means you're crazy, don't want any rules, probably a murderous racist, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, buying CVS gift cards is promoting prostitution.
 

Quote

 

If you're confused, you're not alone. Not only do the initial reasons for this investigation make little sense, but it's hard to buy someone basically blurting out to a cop, "hey, I'm going to take this totally mundane purchase here and use it to engage in illegal activity!" People are all sorts of idiots, however, so it's possible Nakonechny did precisely this (I wasn't able to get in contact with him).

In any event, the case highlights how thin and arbitrary the line between illegal prostitution and permissible courtship can be. Nakonechny isn't even accused of having sex, or soliciting it—simply purchasing gift cards, which he allegedly planned to exchange for sex somehow.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, Rand Paul and Ron Wyden seem to be our only Senators who have any clue about the dangers of power.

"In the absence of Section 230, the internet as we know it would shrivel," warned Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) from the Senate floor Wednesday. "Civic organizations protecting their right to free speech could be [ruined] by their more powerful political opponents" and "there would be an enormous chilling effect on speech in America." That's why big companies like Facebook like efforts like this to weaken it, Wyden added—"because it would pull up the ladder in the tech world" so new companies couldn't afford to get in.

...

In defense of his bill, Portman also cited an increase in the number of "sex trafficking cases" reported to a national hotline run by Polaris Project—an entity that counts any call, text, or email as a "case" of sex trafficking (even though the vast majority are simply requests for information or unsubstantiated "tips") and that has spent the past decade lobbying for state laws requiring all sorts of businesses to post the number.

...

And yet, Portman isn't introducing legislation to hold the street corners—or the government entities who own them—accountable as sex traffickers when prostitution takes place there.

They lost but the article points out that the courts might very well overturn it on first amendment grounds. That would count as another good application of corporate first amendment rights to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Um..organised crime only follows prostitution around because of the clandestine nature of prostitution..or the exploitation of illegal immigrants, or the needs of (illegal) drug users..it exploits vulnerability..the fact that the easiest way to exploit the vulnerable through sex is putting the cart before the horse.

And actually..the idea that "the left" object to prostitution because it objectifies women is a rather out dated "first wave" feminist position. Most second wave feminists( such as myself) and third wave feminists, don't hold this objection to prostitution where the sex worker is working freely without exploitation.

 

Didn't you tell us above that organized crime had dealings with your legal brothel?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Didn't you tell us above that organized crime had dealings with your legal brothel?

 

Hmm did I write that? Sometimes I amaze myself. what's happened to the quote from thing? You can't see who your quoting anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

And then there is the Japanese penis festival.  Those inscrutable Japanese people.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

KanamaraMatsuri_PenisFestival_japanlife1.jpg

I kind of regret not taking the far east tour I was offered when I found out that inscrutable didn't mean what I thought it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I kind of regret not taking the far east tour I was offered when I found out that inscrutable didn't mean what I thought it did.

I think that word was invented to describe Japanese people to westerners.  They are extremely polite, kind and generous to foreigners.  But it is very unusual for them to open up to you beyond a certain point.  And they will take you to the best restaurant in town and treat you to dinner but it is unlikely they will ever invite you into their home.  It's a weird, wonderful strange place and Tokyo is one of the coolest cities in the world.  It's well worth a visit but a brief stay as a tourist will leave you even more dazed and confused than when you arrived, it takes years to even begin to understand those folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2018 at 6:20 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Once again, Rand Paul and Ron Wyden seem to be our only Senators who have any clue about the dangers of power.

"In the absence of Section 230, the internet as we know it would shrivel," warned Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) from the Senate floor Wednesday. "Civic organizations protecting their right to free speech could be [ruined] by their more powerful political opponents" and "there would be an enormous chilling effect on speech in America." That's why big companies like Facebook like efforts like this to weaken it, Wyden added—"because it would pull up the ladder in the tech world" so new companies couldn't afford to get in.

...

In defense of his bill, Portman also cited an increase in the number of "sex trafficking cases" reported to a national hotline run by Polaris Project—an entity that counts any call, text, or email as a "case" of sex trafficking (even though the vast majority are simply requests for information or unsubstantiated "tips") and that has spent the past decade lobbying for state laws requiring all sorts of businesses to post the number.

...

And yet, Portman isn't introducing legislation to hold the street corners—or the government entities who own them—accountable as sex traffickers when prostitution takes place there.

They lost but the article points out that the courts might very well overturn it on first amendment grounds. That would count as another good application of corporate first amendment rights to me.

The bolded part of Sen. Wyden's statement above seems to me to apply to the Backpage Case, though they're not exactly a civic organization.

Anyone old enough to remember their New Times publications and other "alternative" newspapers knows they survived in part on what are broadly called "personal ads" and those can get weird, kinky, and illegal. And attractive to ambitious prosecutors like Kamala Harris.

New Times would also talk about taboo subjects.

Quote

In Arizona, that meant taking ample swipes at Sheriff Joe Arpaio—who would eventually demand years' worth of personal data on New Times readers and have Lacey and Larkin jailed for writing about it—as well anyone who cozied up to Arpaio, Republican Sen. John McCain, or his wealthy wife, Cindy. The paper would report on the McCains for their involvement with savings-and-loan scammer Charles Keating; dredge up Cindy's dad's connection to mobsters and murdered Arizona Republic journalist Don Bolles; and out Cindy as an opioid addict who forged prescriptions and stole pills from the children's charity she founded.

Senators can have long memories.

So now the founders of Backpage are "sex traffickers" and wear ankle bracelets.

The nature of their crime?

Quote

The conspiracy Hyer admitted to was working with Ferrer and former Backpage executive Scott Spear to entice posters from other adult-ad forums to Backpage and moderating ads for adult prostitution to disguise their true nature.

"Say it like this or you'll get busted."

OK, so that's helping adult prostitution, which in my view should be legal anyway.

There's also this:
 

Quote

 

"We've never, ever broken the law," Larkin says. "Never have, never wanted to. This isn't really—I know this is probably heresy—this isn't about sex work to me. This is about speech."

"This is the biggest speech battle in America right now," Lacey adds. "The First Amendment isn't about protecting the rights of the McLaughlin Group to speak their mind on television. This is specifically what the fuck it's about. Unpopular speech. Dangerous speech. Speech that threatens the norm. Not only do we have that right, our readers have that right. The [Backpage] posters have that right.

"We spent 40 years doing journalism, groundbreaking journalism, and they want to take all that away," he says—because "they don't like who exercised their constitutional rights to use our advertising platform. And that has no goddamn bearing. The law doesn't say, 'You get to pick and choose who exercises their constitutional rights by whether or not you like their lifestyle.' It's just incredible."

 

I'm a yuge fan of unpopular, dangerous speech that threatens the norm.

And this:
 

Quote

 

In theory, the January 10 hearing was focused on the narrow question of whether Backpage had "knowingly" edited user posts in a way that would deprive it of Section 230 protection and allow the feds to target it under the SAVE Act. In practice, it was a show trial designed to publicly shame all three men.

"It was a star chamber experience," Larkin says. "They didn't have any interest in anything other than their political grandstanding."

 

If you're just providing a public forum, Section 230 applies. If you're knowingly editing user posts, maybe not. So it's probably just as well that it is not named "Section decimal two two"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2017 at 11:17 AM, jocal505 said:

As they say, consider the source.

Well, let's see.

  • What Tom claims broadly about the ACLU's gun position is false.  They flat-out oppose The Standard Model.
  • What Tom claims Adam Winkler says about due process is contradicted by Mr. Winkler in the first line of Tom's source.
  • MLK's position on gun violence, and on non-violence, is violated by Tom. MLK's core values are intentionally mis-represented.
  • The fifth auxiliary right trumpeted by Hamilton in Federalist 29 has been denied 4X by Tom, on Political Anarchy.
  • The congressional ban of gun violence research is denied by Tom. 
  • Colonial era gun confiscation existed at all levels of local, state, and federal government. Tom claims there was no confiscation at that time.
  • Tom's "Brady's Best "was spammed for year's, but was useless.
  • The past few years of Tom's extensive Miller namedropping mis-represented the gun rights of fighting age males as gun rights of "The People."

I don't know squat about the Madison quote Tom has presented now...except that I wouldn't trust Tom's interpretation of anything.

You are like one of Pavlov’s dogs. Tom rings the bell and you start gushing from the mouth. 

At least this time you were truthful about not knowing squat 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2017 at 12:30 PM, SloopJonB said:

Pierre Trudeau said it best - and very succinctly  1/2 century ago - "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".

I've noticed all my life that the people who think it does are consistently those individual freedom loving right wingers. I've never met a lefty who supported these kind of laws.

Pierre had a hard time getting into his own bedroom. What with the long lines and all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2017 at 11:40 PM, Shortforbob said:

It's about control..for years in was illegal to sell your body but not to buy one.

Just imagine women being able to support themselves with an asset that belongs to them..shocking!

Sitting on a money machine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit busy..we can talk about the prostitute angle when the Steele tapes come up with Cohen.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So from what I am reading here, cheese graters aside, is that Republicans should lighten up about prostitution. And should a brothel owner run as a Republican and win nomination the Dems will not say shit about it because we are moving in the right direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still frosts my ass to learn that such vital, and beneficial establishments of cross societal melding in the 1885 Saloon.

and the undeniable cultural exchange of the  attached,  umm,, 

                                     ;) Hotel fer Single Ladies and Social Club.

Saloon.jpg.14cdc3803ef8f45a1184c701d81c0328.jpg

 

fell on hard times.

 

B)     Maybe, the time is right ta BUY  the buildings,

  ,  , some oil lamps

,  nekkid wimenz painted on the walls over the bar,,

 

Restore the place,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

So from what I am reading here, cheese graters aside, is that Republicans should lighten up about prostitution. And should a brothel owner run as a Republican and win nomination the Dems will not say shit about it because we are moving in the right direction. 

The depends..... does he (or she) grab his employees by the pussy?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

It still frosts my ass to learn that such vital, and beneficial establishments of cross societal melding in the 1885 Saloon.

and the undeniable cultural exchange of the  attached,  umm,, 

                                     ;) Hotel fer Single Ladies and Social Club.

Saloon.jpg.14cdc3803ef8f45a1184c701d81c0328.jpg

 

fell on hard times.

 

B)     Maybe, the time is right ta BUY  the buildings,

  ,  , some oil lamps

,  nekkid wimenz painted on the walls over the bar,,

 

Restore the place,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theme park?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Theme park?

The Trump Arcade of Hookers, Call Girls and Pinups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

The Trump Arcade of Hookers, Call Girls and Pinups?

Wholesome entertainment for the kiddies :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chinabald said:

So from what I am reading here, cheese graters aside, is that Republicans should lighten up about prostitution.

Kamala Harris isn't a Republican.

I'd say the lesson of the Backpage story is that the Duopoly should lighten up about censorship.

Powerful Senators from both halves of the Duopoly want to shut them down because they carried naughty personal ads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2017 at 11:40 PM, Shortforbob said:

It's about control..for years in was illegal to sell your body but not to buy one.

Just imagine women being able to support themselves with an asset that belongs to them..shocking!

Your chatterbox is an active asset indeed. Would you mind coming here and blowing me for money? Don't listen to those guys above. My budget for internet entertainment runs as high as $20, not $10.

Sorry to pick on you, Meli, but there's a distinct shortage of women around here, so...

The thing is, I may have just created a legal liability for The Ed.
 

Quote

 

Today was a dark day for the Internet.

The U.S. Senate just voted 97-2 to pass the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865), a bill that silences online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users. As lobbyists and members of Congress applaud themselves for enacting a law tackling the problem of trafficking, let’s be clear: Congress just made trafficking victims less safe, not more.

The version of FOSTA that just passed the Senate combined an earlier version of FOSTA (what we call FOSTA 2.0) with the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693). The history of SESTA/FOSTA—a bad bill that turned into a worse bill and then was rushed through votes in both houses of Congress—is a story about Congress’ failure to see that its good intentions can result in bad law. It’s a story of Congress’ failure to listen to the constituents who’d be most affected by the laws it passed. It’s also the story of some players in the tech sector choosing to settle for compromises and half-wins that will put ordinary people in danger.

Silencing Internet Users Doesn’t Make Us Safer

SESTA/FOSTA undermines Section 230, the most important law protecting free speech online. Section 230 protects online platforms from liability for some types of speech by their users. Without Section 230, the Internet would look very different. It’s likely that many of today’s online platforms would never have formed or received the investment they needed to grow and scale—the risk of litigation would have simply been too high. Similarly, in absence of Section 230 protections, noncommercial platforms like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive likely wouldn’t have been founded given the high level of legal risk involved with hosting third-party content.

 

You never know what those third parties might do. Ask an Aussie chick for a blow job and suddenly this site is enabling sex trafficking.

The bill has since been signed into law. I wondered who were the Uncooperative two. Ron Wyden and Rand Paul, with McCain not voting but showing as a cosponsor on a parallel bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kavanaugh confirmation hearing illustrates why "controlling our bodies" is only important sometimes.

I wasn't sure whether to put this one in this thread or the drug prohibition thread. We don't have a thread on the draft or that would be another candidate...
 

Quote

 

While grilling Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about whether he'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) posed a question she thought was so clever that she decided to highlight the exchange on Twitter:

Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?

Some tweeters immediately shot back with "conscription." It's a good point—federal law requires men to register with Selective Service and face the possibility of being drafted to fight in wars—but it doesn't go far enough. Harris' wording inadvertently reminds us that virtually all laws give the government the power to make decisions about bodies, both male and female. The drug war, for example, is all about controlling what people put into their bodies.

Harris is a former prosecutor, and she was California's attorney general before getting elected to the Senate. In those roles, she was not just a willing participant but a loud advocate of the war on sex work. As a prosecutor she went after the men behind Backpage.com, aiming to hold them responsible for the existence of online sex trafficking.

Surely laws against sex work give the government the power to make decisions about male and female bodies. If you are a woman (or man, but really we only talk about the women) who wants to offer up your body for sexual pleasure in exchange for money, Harris is here to use government force to try to stop you. Harris is no supporter of women's right to decide what they do with their body in areas outside of abortion, and it's cynical and grotesque (but sadly predictable) that she'd use Kavanaugh's hearing to present herself as such.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

While grilling Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about whether he'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) posed a question she thought was so clever that she decided to highlight the exchange on Twitter:

Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?

Some tweeters immediately shot back with "conscription." It's a good point—federal law requires men to register with Selective Service and face the possibility of being drafted to fight in wars—but it doesn't go far enough. Harris' wording inadvertently reminds us that virtually all laws give the government the power to make decisions about bodies, both male and female. The drug war, for example, is all about controlling what people put into their bodies.

Harris is a former prosecutor, and she was California's attorney general before getting elected to the Senate. In those roles, she was not just a willing participant but a loud advocate of the war on sex work. As a prosecutor she went after the men behind Backpage.com, aiming to hold them responsible for the existence of online sex trafficking.

Surely laws against sex work give the government the power to make decisions about male and female bodies. If you are a woman (or man, but really we only talk about the women) who wants to offer up your body for sexual pleasure in exchange for money, Harris is here to use government force to try to stop you. Harris is no supporter of women's right to decide what they do with their body in areas outside of abortion, and it's cynical and grotesque (but sadly predictable) that she'd use Kavanaugh's hearing to present herself as such.

 

The Kavanaugh confirmation hearing illustrates why "controlling our bodies" is only important sometimes.

I wasn't sure whether to put this one in this thread or the drug prohibition thread. We don't have a thread on the draft or that would be another candidate...
 

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/07/kamala-harris-foe-of-legal-sex-work-ques/print

I'd have to read more about Kamala Harris before commenting.

and do us a favour and post LINKS  ..please

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

and do us a favour and post LINKS  ..please

You mean like

12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You mean like

 

I do prefer to read whats in the link before opening it...After one charmer directed me to a rather violent porn site :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

I do prefer to read whats in the link before opening it...After one charmer directed me to a rather violent porn site :rolleyes:

 

Did the excerpt I provided suggest it's a violent porn site?

It's just boring dweebs who support our right to create a porn site, or sell a blow job. You didn't answer my question there, btw... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Did the excerpt I provided suggest it's a violent porn site?

It's just boring dweebs who support our right to create a porn site, or sell a blow job. You didn't answer my question there, btw... ;)

I just dont open non descriptive links anymore..nothing personal. I found your link by google searching a phase from your excerpt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I just dont open non descriptive links anymore..nothing personal. I found your link by google searching a phase from your excerpt.

OK, but asking for a link then saying you don't open links is kinda odd behavior, especially if you already found the link yourself.

No matter, I'm not picky. Now, about that blow job, if price is a problem I could go as high as $25 since it would be a special occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK, but asking for a link then saying you don't open links is kinda odd behavior, especially if you already found the link yourself.

No matter, I'm not picky. Now, about that blow job, if price is a problem I could go as high as $25 since it would be a special occasion.

Hmmm as you'll be wanting Board and breakfast...make it $550 :D

And I can't get busted because prostitution is legal here.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites