Should Prostitution Be Legalized?

David Vitter
Washington, D.C. Office
516 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: (202) 224-4623
Fax: (202) 228-5061

Thanks but I don't want to be where that perv has been. I do have SOME standards.

wow you can get that, sure hope its a PRN, or as needed perscription

I'll give ya a ^ on that.

If legalizing the sex profession, weed, gambling means that you can carry your fire arm, I have no problem with that, and I consider myself progressive as they come in most issues. Hey, if the electorate puts Jim Perry in the white house, I am going to consider my second amendment option for home protection and in case he sends his theocratic fascist army to my door.

That's not really a compromise. Based on my interpretation of the Constitution, all three should have always been permitted anyway......but I hear you.

Ya but the cops still don't know the rules in their own state. They think they are the only people that can carry in public. Some are down right nasty.

Be safe n double tap.

I'm fairly certain that open carry permits are allowed in all states. It's concealed permits I think that aren't legal everywhere.

If that's what you meant, I'm on board so long so long as it's carefully regulated such that crazies can't get their hands on them.

Agreed, I really like to know where the guns are also. It would be interesting to have a national "Wear your gun" day and see how the media covered it.

Some states are moving to shut down open carry by allowing open carry to and from ranges, to and from gun shops/stores, to and from hunting trips. Enforcement is another thing, as all of the LE's I've encountered say as long as your not being an ass your cool.

Agreed

Practice the Mozambique drill and El Prez.

I don't think Maryland allows open carry unless things have changed. Where I am now open carry is fine. I usually just sit mine on the front seat next to me when I am in the car. That constitutes open carry

Yep, when, Jim Perry and his Republican religious fascists take over and make it impossible for anyone to even flog their own dummies, I am glad for the second amendment option. I think I will buy a 12 guage magnum shot gun for home protection, and when the fascist religious puritan army tries to break down my door, it's going to be "TOP OF THE WORLD, MA!"

Tangible harm can be damn near anything nowdays, a guy dives into a 3 ft. deep pool and gets millions because the manufacturer didn't put a "do not dive" label on the pool.

But it does bring up the possibility of needing to be bonded and insured.

Look, if people were happy and not stressed out, they would not have the energy for more constructive things like race hatred, dangerous greed, and war violence. So keep all this stuff illegal and send us all to our places of worship each week to be told that while we are being f--ked now, just wait until we get our reward in the next world, and of course keep our hands or anyone elses off each others ding dongs ding a Lings and cunn a Ling etc. I agree with this person's post by the way, just making an additional comment.

During World War 2 the Military controlled the whore houses in Hawaii, the military brought the girls from America. I saw it on the history channel and DVD'd it.

You bring up important points (even if conflating with some unimportant ones).

I don't think the act should be taxed, but if a business was established and sex-workers rented a space/room in which to conduct their business that could be taxed. No sex-worker employees also takes care of most of your other objections.

I'm sorry to hear that, but how is it relevant to my post or the lack of forethought of this entire thread?

So, are we to assume you are "con" the "proposal"? I wish that we could discuss these matters, like the death penalty. If we could take some time out and try to discuss the subject w/o getting all "moral" (like that's helped the world so much and preachy about how we are all going to burn in hell for all eternity by a "loving" god). We have a matter that on its surface appears to be like the issue of alcohol prohibition. Like it or not some people always want some! ;-) Can we/should we is a discussion I would love to have. If all sex workers (and they already have a union! ;-) were required to have the cards and health checks they have in Nev, how does that change the issue? What about the uncollected taxes? We spend money to "catch and punish" those in the trade, so we wind of spending more money instead of at least breaking even! Que no?

Please do elaborate on what you feel were unimportant points.
Some states charge sales tax on service labor.
I would think that if a service is legal independant contractors have the right to work out of their vans, rv's etc.
Please forgive me but I am not understanding your last sentnce

I thought orgasm or your money back was an unimportant point.

Also, my last sentence was meant to address the workers comp, union, and ADA issues.

It's best not to assume any thing any where.
I find it is always better to spend a little time trouble shooting ideas for possible unintended consequences. Saves time and money.

So does the "sex worker union" balance the wages of the old and ugly with that of the young and hot?

Yup tax collection is gonna be a bugger.

Ok i thought that was the point of unentangled sex, the orgasm.
I totaly disagree, them ADA lawyer are everywhere, and the workers comp issues are real. I'll admit the union thing was a little snarky but has merit.

Got the last sentance meaning now.. Using the model you put forward would anyone be able to engage in the sex for money trade or would individual licenses be required.

You are absolutely right (far right! ;-) As I was trying to say, we do need to talk about this issue and I hope that as a result we might be able to agree on recommend or alternatives. Now unless you think the human desire for sex is going away (look out "toy" women makers, didldo makers, porn film makers, gel and lube makers, ad makers, "OH MY"! Are you aware that at the present time, to the best of my knowledge and belief, you can pay a person to perform all sorts of acts on the vid and that is legal until you "touch". You can pay to "direct" a couple and have them do what you want. The point is we simians like sex and we only draw the line at "contact" as if that really made a diff even to the "holy" who can't bear to touch another human except when ordered to for repro. I think that whether anyone "likes" or "approves" we, the public" should try to discuss this subject with a modicum of decorum and let's see what we come up with? ;-) The alternative, as with drugs (catch the 35 people murdered and dumped on MC streets for "warnings" by the drug cartel that supplies our drugs?), we may not stop people's desire, but we can try to be human and make things as safe as possible without letting our "moral" judgments get in the way!

You sit around mentioning a few problems, most of them hilariously trivial or outright ludicrous, and pretend as if that's some sort of coherent argument against decriminalization or legalization.

Aside from being a non-sequitur (and a non-issue for the most part, the specifics of taxation and regulation really aren't as important as the larger goal), you forget that the practice is already legal in many places, including the United States, without any problems at all.

I hope you're just taking the piss, because these arguments are stunningly stupid if any of this was intended as serious objection to legalization.

What's especially annoying is that you're shitty about it, as if you thought up something so clever that no one else thought of.

You want to know how legal prostitution works? Look at places where it's legal.

Maybe crabbyoldguy got crabs from attractiveyounggirl and wasn't happy with his experience. One should consider that if it had been legalized she would have to have been screened or he could have sued for treatment. Sorry bout that crabbyoldguy. Next time you'll just have to get crabs for free

In the US it's way the hell out in the sticks. That is where prostitution is legal.

Let us review the current legalization of medical marijauna, lots of pot stores opend up, then the government said hey we got no rules, then the cities got rules, then half the pot stores close. citing California and Colorado.

Ok hot shot, post up a business plan, and the governmental regulations that they need to comply with. Dazzle me.

Pissy indeed.

I was trying to get a discussion going but it appears that few want to get involved.
Will making prostitution legal clear the streets of the toothless prostitutes looking to earn their next high, I doubt it. Could legalized prostitution have a negitive impact on the family unit and thus the community. I can see where it could.

As for workers comp. I am a self employed painter and I work under a workers comp. waiver. If I get hurt on the job there is no workers comp. for me. I also do not pay into it. Workers Comp. is an insurance policy that an employer pays into for the protection of the employee.

If a prostitute pays into workers comp. then they deserve to get paid if injury is proven.

As for taxes they would be held responsible just like any other business that receives cash for goods and services.

Thank you for your imput.

I do what I can.

This post has the exact same problem as the other one. I'm tempted to just say "so what?"

Firstly, your characterization of the medical marijuana issue is dumb and irrelevant, even as a metaphor. Even if I grant your narrative, why would it matter that "half of them closed down?" What does that have to do with the fact that people who needed it now have it and that a multimillion dollar industry has propped up around it?

As for the plan, I'm really not about to write a bill for you just because y.ou're incredulous on this issue. It isn't my intention to provide reasoning you're obviously capable of yourself. Furthermore, that would force me to grant the premise that your concerns about how it would be specifically regulated are more important than the issue itself. But if you're really that stubborn, it works like this :

Sex workers would need a permit to practice in designated areas and would be forced to either always use condoms or screen their clients on the basis of an std test before any intercourse took place. Their prices would have to be public and they'd have to disclose all their earnings so it could be properly taxed in payroll and income taxes. There would also be bimonthly inspections of any brothel establishment to ensure nothing illegal was going on and monthly std screenings half-paid for by the establishment (or the individual) and the rest by the city or the state to prevent the spread of disease.

Not necessarily exhaustive but it sounds reasonable to me. Happy now?

Whip a google on
medical marijuana robbery

About 7,680,000 results

Did people think that when they grew their plants, in their homes, that it would make them a target for robbery. These are the kinds of things that should have been considered.

Occasionaly more energy is invested in the fight than the plan.

Thank you for your imput.

A google search is not a crime report, and your entire post is a red herring that didn't even address anything I said about the original issue. Not even a yay, nay or meh on whether it made any sense or not. I'd like to be wrong, but that makes me thing you don't actually give a shit, you just wanted to be confrontational.

As for this post, assuming that is a problem, it's an unintended consequence of an incomplete reform. Not some sort of manifestation of "bad planning."

I'm thinking people having their limbs lopped off and being delivered to police stations in Mexico as a result of cartel violence is a little more serious, yeah? So between house robberies and full on drug war, I'm thinking legalization has far less serious issues.

From the top.

' Even if I grant your narrative, why would it matter that "half of them closed down?" What does that have to do with the fact that people who needed it now have it and that a multimillion dollar industry has propped up around it?'

With proper forethought the shops that closed down would never have opened in the frist place, a savings of time and money.

The "MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" is a multi billion dollar industry, so that makes it good?

"...the fact that people who needed it now have it..."

People that don't need it but want it also have it. So perhaps a little forethought to qualifying factors to "Weed" out the bogus scripts written by doctors would have been in order.
.....

Last thing on weed-----ANY FORIEGN SUBSTANCE INHAILED INTO THE LUNGS CAN CAUSE EMPHYSEMA, COPD, LUNG CANCER.
.....

Your usage of "incomplete reform" is bunk, it's an openended statement that allows for the shifting of responsibility away from "bad planning".
.....

"Sex workers would need a permit to practice in designated areas and would be forced to either always use condoms or screen their clients on the basis of an std test before any intercourse took place."

For insurance purposes how could we tell if a client got the aids from a prostitute ? If they don't have it already, a way to dna track std's to the source origin. I guess some sort of malpractice insurance needs to be inplemented.
.....

"..half-paid for by the establishment (or the individual) and the rest by the city or the state to prevent the spread of disease."

Nope, can't do that, the "business" needs to build those cost into the price of the service but there is the possibly the state and fed would apply additional taxes, similar to those on tobacco, to cover prevention and disease treatment.

...........................

So I guess I do not agree with the comments that you posted. But they are more stimulating than "damn the torpedos, full steam ahead".
Thank you.

And any form of booze can ruin the liver and make you an addict like hard drugs. And it is legal... Weed should be legal as well. If I want to smoke it and fill my lungs with it, that is my business... It is a hell of a lot better than being drunk. I've gotten drunk, and it ain't fun, especially if you are throwing up on someone else's floor because people who get drunk really don't give a shit for anyone else. This is the main reason why I don't drink to excess... but you can smoke all the weed you want, and you won't throw up on anyone.

I thought about that as I was posing the question and am unsure what the solution would be, but you're right, it should be addressed.

Perhaps something to the effect of not allowing sex-workers as employees, or not allowing those businesses to incorporate. If a business wanted to start that catered to this service, perhaps one centered around serving the women who do that work (or men?) and not the johns or janes.

So the business wouldn't be offering sex for hire, but offering people the room/space for rent to conduct their business, security, and common areas (music, dances, food, entertainment, etc.)

Thoughts?

yep, definitely, the gals should be independent contractors, like they are in Nevada. This means they negotiate their own price. A business model that corporatizes the process condones institutionalized slavery. Also, what is to stop these entrepreneurs from trying to recruit women from colleges or I don’t know Hooters. No doubt,. independent contractors only.

Second, this is a very clumsy idea, but the state should manage the houses with a social worker. And if a man/woman is interested in using the service, he or she must registor and supply a recent blood test. All the information would be protected under the patient-doctor privilege. Of course the prostitutes would also be tested.

I think you will find support, the issue becomes exactly "why are we continuing to jail people"? Until we have that discussion and a majority agree, we can't really "change the law".

Dan....
Problem is we are jailing people for this and pot and wondering why we have a deficit and how we can cut off sick people and the elderly from benefits. It makes me sick, not just that the politicians and media and corporations are screwing us, but also the stupid people who buy into criminalizing this stuff.

I couldn't agree with you more. If I had more brains or was into conspiracy theories, I would start to think that this was part of "the plan". We certainly have enough evidence that pot or "illicit" sex do not "ruin" a civilization, greed does. But how to make "greed" acceptable? Well what if you make normal behavior (sex, drugs & rock & roll) "deviant" behavior? You marginalize those who want freedom to do what they will or smoke what they want, problemo solvedo! The question is what is the best tactic to show people how ridiculous it is to continue to jail people for behavior which is not "injurious" to the individual or the society, unless the society chooses to criminalize its citizens behavior. We no longer have the "excess cash" to throw away in hunting down, processing, jailing and tracking for life, people whose only "crime" is they want to live free!

I am in agreement with you. Why are our bodies not our own? What is the "justification" that says we cannot talk to fellow beings if the topic of money comes up? Does that make an offer of dinner and cab fare amount to "solicitation"?

Btw, I'm speaking as a mother of two.

Legality is the issue, but I can't help but think, as far as future generations are concern, a society that legalized the act would have more credibility if the sex most affected by the law were the only ones that decided on the issue.

Meaning, if women choose to legalize the issue, future generations would have a great deal of respect for the right of choice. But if it were the men who tipped the scale, one could never shake the self-serving stigma the law would have, and thus give more credence for it to be overturned based on moral grounds.

So because men are currently the most recognizable "agent" and therefore have "skin in the game" they should be excluded from decision making? Would that be that same as waiting til we all turn black or brown or Asian to vote for equality or do we have to be gay to vote down DOMA? It is not about "forcing" anyone to do anything, it is about saying, if you decide to, we will not put you in jail for participating. I am a man, but I have to understand that that is NOT a legal excuse for doing "my will" on any woman I choose. It would be neigh to saying that "slut walk" participants are "asking for it". We have to grow up to the point that the Israeli's are apparently at. The have nude beaches and thousands of Israel's finest are in their all together (families too) and no one decrying "men staring at naked women" or versa-vicea! ;-)

That info on Israel is so ironic in the land where the bible began. We live in this very Puritanical sociey. The idea of sex outside of procreation is repugant to these holy people. Unless you are having sex to procreate, YOU ARE A GODDAMNED SINNER!!!! However, if you want to use sex in order to make people spend money, by all means continue using it to sell cars, perfume, underwear, or anything else you want. Just so long as when we reach into our pockets its not to really fulfill our sexual fantasies but to by what ever they want us to.

To anyone who decides to go into the sex profession by their own choice because they wanted to, I support your right to become legit and take your place among all our honored professions. Our country has the progressive core but is hampered by its dark right wing
side. We can be so far ahead in many ways and yet in things like sex and infrastructure, we are still in the stone age. I speak for myself of course.

this is all theory, but as I mentioned in the earlier post, in practice gay men may be denied a right, so I no longer support the idea.

As far as the theory is concern sexual consent rises to the level of free speech and the right to vote:

Through out American legal history, those in power defined what were rights, and who would receive the benefits. For instance, black and hispanics didn't vote to be treated equal, and women didn't vote for their suffrage; rather it was the consent of Anglo-Saxon men that established those equalities. In the case of sex, the final consent is always with the woman. Therefore, a woman only has the right to decide if that power may be legally contracted for, like other goods and services. Now, if the consent benefits the male gender, so be it.

The moral bases for this pseudo-legal theory has been established in other posts.

(As far as anti-DOMA laws are concern, the church must still consent to marrying the gay couple. The laws would only mean that on a federal level, that marriage would be acknowledged.)

P.S. Yeah I agree, open sexual attitudes is preferable, in fact, I would rather be in society that had a pg rating for sex and xxx rating for violence.

It is always amazing to me to meet a "churchy" "in the flesh". I honestly don't care what voices you may hear or what they may tell you to do. As an American, my principle right is our Constitution and its separation of church and state. While you may believe all that you wish to, your beliefs in a "magical" being cannot be allowed to determine my life unless I choose to do so and I do NOT! ;-) I can never understand this seemingly male viewpoint that women are chattel and they have no rights except those granted them by the men who wrote your bible. Well, newsflash, we are in the "future" and ALL people of the world are recognizing what we wrote into our constitution 200 plus years ago. We are ALL equal under the law and we all have inalienable (look it up, please!;-)

OK, now, you are an American, right? Not that it makes a difference in our talking to each other, but on the assumptions I make i.e. our Constitution (might want to re-read this part) holds that we are all born with "unalienable" rights. Which to my simple mind is an extension of our belief that no person "grants" rights to another. We recognize that enslavement of other and trashing of their cultures are acts of aggression which we no longer believe are "good". It has always amazed me how big a deal (or is it just "convenient and obvious" that we use skin color (the melonated and the less m'd?;-) My point is that you don't seem to understand the country you aspire to be part of. We, the people, have declared these things, not just "white men" granting favors to the poor and "needy". This is "class warfare" truly because those "granting" power that was obtained through force, don't have that luxury. Recognition of that fact is important as the world is awakening to the fact that we are all chimp based humans and equal. "Palestinian Spring" will be followed by other groups as we slowly try to undo centuries of conquest, destruction of our environment and the degradation of other humans.

Did you read my post or just scan it? I don't know where you got the idea that I am a religious person... I am not... I believe in open secular societies that respect the separation of church and state.. I also can't stand this male dominated world we live in. The entire literary output of the western religions is so patriarchal that it is disgusting. I also wish it would be illegal for men to have any kind of power at all. Male rule has given us every form of aggression and war for over 50 thousand years. Let's give the ladies a chance to run things.

I apologize if I made assumptions that are not true of you. I was "assuming" (yes I know, the U me thing) and you say I am wrong. I say, the larger issue I was trying to address, was the statement you seemed to be making that "all rights flow from white males". Now I am a male (and nowhere near ready to "cut the boys off" as you appear to me to be). It is my belief that our constitution talks about "unalienable" rights and this is the seat of the point I was trying to make. We can't have a good conversation if some of US believe that the accident of their "coat" color is how we know who has power and who does not. Well, look at any pic of the Congress of 1964 when Lyndon Johnson took over as President, and you see a sea of white faces. Today, that same congress has more "colored coats" participants in our government ;-) I like to think that it makes not a diff to anyone anymore, but old habits, ideas die hard and you did not really say anything about this major issue of how rights are recognized and not "granted". I don't want to try to "blame game", just make the point of rights becoming recognized and are NOT granted. We recognized that women should have had the vote from the start of the country and we fixed it by "recognition" not "granting" as if we considered ourselves "kings ordained by dog" to rule over all others.

GC says "shit"! (not personal, just my way of wagging my middle finger at "the man" as they try to figure out "censorship 101"! ;-)

Ok, now, you did go to highschool,,right? Because it does make a difference in our talking to each other, but the assumptions "YOU" do in fact make, is that our Constitution ( might want to "study" that) holds we are born with "inalienable" rights. But in fact it is a social contract. Which to your simple mind may be hard to comprehend.

SHOW where it is written in the constitution or prove that the constitution endows us with "unalienable" rights.

My proof that it is a social contract that binds these rights: 1. Any laws related to the "selling of sex" is govern by the social contract established by "We the people" (you might want to re-read the preamble, it’s very short)

"We the people": implies a social contract which asserts that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules. This is reinforced by Ala. State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 463 (1945)

"Only those to whom a statute applies and who are adversely affected by it can draw in question its constitutional validity in a declaratory judgment proceeding as in any other."

So if a U.S. state declrares women can’t vote, no male can ask the courts to consider the illegality of the law. Only a woman who was directly denied a voting oppurtunity can pursue the violation of the contract aka The U.S. constitution.
( (p.s.I agree with your sentiment; however,that agreement is based on the arguments I have made on this and previous posts. And that is the social contract is the basis to consider the legalization of prostitution, an not the so-called “inalienable” right to sell sex ;-)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/325/450/case.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html

Yes, I have a US HS diploma, thank you very much. The issue of whether or not prostitution shall be legal in the US is open to discussion, because we are already doing "it"! ;-) Sex for sale between human beings is legal in a number of locales in Nevada, so it is not "unknown" and "impossible to do". It was legal in SF (Barbary Coast anyone? I know, your educational achievements were in other areas, no doubt! ;-). It is not a question of whether it can be done but whether we will it to be. Narrow minded individuals, such as you have demonstrated yourself to be, seem to find it difficult to expand beyond your confines. The issue has many aspects, whether you agree that the "work" is what you like to do or whether it is someone else who chooses it, it should be possible to make such a "trade" in safety for all. Right now, a prostitute can be beaten up and has no legal protection. I would advise not to try the same at the "houses of ill repute" in Nev, as you will not get away with it. Now why should US citizens be treated so differently because they engage in an occupation you consider "immoral" but like the death penalty, you don't seem to mind the needless pain and suffering of those who cannot depend on police assistance or allow to die by "legal" neglect. Moral high ground is terrif, never have to get your hands "dirty" dealing with the needs of real (not imaginary voices in the head) people.

Our civilization has been dominated by males in general. The entire basis of western religion is patriarchal. Also just as an aside, when I refer to a sex professional, I mean both female and male adults who went into the profession by choice. I do not like the terms hooker or the like. Back to the main point. I would like to see male rule outlawed for 10 thousand years. I wish I could be around to see the kind of world we would have. But I often wonder about it. In fact, there was a great episode on female rule on the new Outer Limits that aired on Showtime. I know that this sounds extreme, but so far, I think that the guys have really f---- things up.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... aren't these the unalienable rights the constitution speaks of... The big three above are quite general, but the constitution is about trying to make a framework from which we can get to the ideal point of having such a society based on those big three. Obviously, if my idea of happiness is to go and kill people and take their money, the contitution cannont be used to justify my actions. Your post was enjoyable to read because there is a mind at work there.

And we could put on hair shirts to also try to make up for the pain and suffering. My culture used to cut people's beating hearts out to placate the "gods", but we can't assume all the blame, rather I think it's time to take that guilt and try to figure out a way to make some small amends (and I too am referring to all variations of "joy" male/female/trans LGBT and any others I am ignorant of). The "gesture" or look for positive action or means to work towards that goal, seem much more preferable to me than advocating for action which has no chance of materializing in our lifetimes (me male too! ;-)

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," if so then why didn't it apply to blacks, or for that matter women until much latter?

p.s. thxs, by the way I luv the Outer limits, good to know they picked it up again, thxs for the info, I'll have to get Showtime.

This is a thoughtful question... I am hoping that we as a species are stiil evolving. Actually, we are still in a quite savage part of our evolution, all the more dangerous because we have religous hatreds and weapons of mass destruction at our disposal. On the other hand, there is a nobel part, an unselfish part that says: we have to share this space. We also understand the selfish and dark nature of humanity as well (see above). We create laws that both inhibit and promote freedom. It seems like a contradiction of terms. But law helps us to understand the complexity of what is called freedom. It helps us to understand that there can never be total freedom in any society, and yet, it gives us the opportunity to enjoy some very good aspects of freedom. How does the law inhibit our freedom? No big deal: I can swing me fist around around all that I want to, fast, slow, maybe a jab, maybe an upper cut. I am free to do this as much as I wish as long as my fist does not connect with any other living being.

Law, the constitution, etc illustrate the better part of human nature. The media sometiimes downgrades lawyers. I would like them to study the volumes and volumes of law books. I want them to study the Pacific Reporter, The Atlantic Reporter. I want them to read Prosser on Torts among others. I want them to sit and write a brief. I want to see them take shit from some cranky judge because his or her honor can. Imagine having to work with Judge Judy and she hates you.

Law and Constitutions reflect our good nature, but there is still that dark nature to contend with such as our greed, our racism, our sexism et al. We had a constitution and yet we had slavery and only rich white men could vote. The abiltiy to evolve and to adapt is part of our good nature, and part of that went our Constitution, a still evolving document.

By the way, I see nothing wrong with laws. Some people think that they inhibit freedom. In fact they do just the opposite.

Does this mean that the law can't be tainted by the dark side? Prohibition was one of the worst amendments ever adopted. We allowed religion to dictate our lives. The laws against the sex profession are also stupid and reflect that dark religious side of our natures. You may then ask, would I approach a sex professional? I may think that the law is stupid, but it is still the law and must be respected. While the sex profession is illegal, the people who practice it are not protected and are not being taxed for their services. Sex professionals should have a union, a pension, a health plan. A course of study should be offered at institutions of higher learning.

I also think that the marijuana law is stupid, but this law I ( and I guess I should be sorry to say this) ignore as much as possible.

Shit!!!! You see what you made me do, you made me think!! How dare you when I could be watching America's Biggest Loser Jackass Storage Wars.

I understand how long it will take to bring about female rule. but here is how we can begin. 1. Make sure sexism is illegal everywhere. 2. In any public place like a mall or a movie theater, there should be three women's restrooms for every single male one. 3. Every woman past the age of puberty will not be forced to work during her period. This is a beginning. By the way, I can't even imagine what it must be like for a woman with PMS having to go to work, headaches and cramps to, and take shit from her boss or from her board of directors...

Lets get this clear, you have a narrow mindedness in regards to my argument, but yet you have no proof of narrow mindedness on my part.

I can however prove that any indictments made from you are more likely hostile rants. These rants, as you have acknowledged, were based on assumptions. Now this does beg the question, why would someone assume something? Did you not read the entire comment. But here is how you handled that:

From Dan to ingsoc

" I apologize if I made assumptions that are not true of you. I was "assuming" (yes I know, the U me thing)."

Got to love that " IF I made", yeah you're sincere.;-)
---
in terms of the topic:
I love how firm you are in your opinions:

From Dan:
"but the assumptions I make i.e. our Constitution (might want to re-read this part) holds that we are all born with "unalienable" rights. "

later:

From Dan:
"It is my belief that our constitution talks about "unalienable" rights "

Oh so it only talks about it....lol, however, that is not an answer

Prove that the Constitution endows us with "unalienable rights." anyone? But I know, your educational achievements were in other areas, no doubt! ;-)

Furthermore, if in SF, prostitution was legal, and now not legal and in Nevada it is legal but nowhere else in the U.S., then how could the trade possible be "unalienable".

To be fair there is an answer, but since you seem to know it all, why not ask you.

My argument rests on all my previous posts. I will not further reply, because, frankly you have exhibited bully behavior.

Good day, sir.

"Law and Constitutions reflect our good nature, but there is still that dark nature "

[For sure, and I'd like to add some laws are changed by the vote, and others are challenged through civil disobedience, and still others enforced by war. "Our evolution", takes many different roads. Personally, I hope prostitution is legalized by the vote.:-]

"We create laws that both inhibit and promote freedom. It seems like a contradiction of terms"

[No doubt, for every law stated, there are an unknown number of possible exceptions, interpretations and applications that limit the law, but nevertheless do not violate the spirit of the law. That being noted, sometimes there are to many laws]

"On the other hand, there is a nobel part, an unselfish part that says: we have to share this space."

[that is the hope, that the law becomes a realization of human potential that expresses an expanding tolerance for human differences and choices.]

"Sex professionals should have a union, a pension, a health plan. A course of study should be offered at institutions of higher learning. "

[Absolutely, if prostitution becomes legal, then they are "workers", and should be respected as such.]

P.S. I think you understand my previous post, but if I could summarize:

A woman, in our world, is given the final consent in terms of sexual contact. I hate religious moral arguments as the basis of law. With that in mind, and considering future generations of women, if only women voted on legalizing prostitution it may diffuse any future religious moral arguments. The rest of the posts are an argument that, this kind of democracy (allowing only women to vote) is legal. As the constitution itself is a contract where those in power have "evolved" to: 1. include more types of people, 2. to allow more rights, and 3. to broaden the protection of those rights.

(((sorry about the thinking, but it does seem to come natural to you)))

Nyah, nyah, got you mad! ;-) Well, I will somehow try to stumble my way forward without your laser like mind to guide my feeble meanderings! All kidding aside, I wish peas to you and best wishes, I get "into" arguments but I bear no ill will and if I have overstated or misstated, (I hope I never said I was "perfect" because I certainly have more than enough proof that I am not), I apologize.

Well, I wish you well, but I for one (male) will not willingly give up my rights because of our childish inability to have "the sex talk" as a nation. We do owe "due diligence" in looking for our cultural sexism, but as "whites" were not asked to give up citizenship because they had people of non-color ;0) who owned slaves. We are imperfect beings (no thanks to our many 'gods' ;-) and we have to live with that fact. That's why we may have invented "sorry". It's not enough for this case and I admire your energy, just not sure it is the "best" way to try to ensure rights in this imperfect world.

I enjoy reading a post from someone who thinks... This is important if we are to get anywhere anytime soon. I just want to add that I don't assume all sex professionals are women. In any event, all who practice it should be protected and taxed. Right now, they have no protection at all and neither do the clients. Notice that I don't call them Johns or Joanns... Be safe and keep thinking...

The new Outer Limits is not being broadcast on Showtime right now, but it is shown on other cable channels edited with commercials (UGH!) However, the entire season one was released on DVD.They also have themed episode sets with some good episodes... Check Amazon or Movies Unlimited. This episode about future female rule appeared in season 3 or 4 I think. I have to tell you, I was quite pleased with this series. It was a great homage to the original series. PS there were some good epidsodes in the second season of the original show, but I liked season one better... In season one, they used some accomplished cinematographers as well as a good music score by Dominic Frontiere. He also scored The Invaders as well as the music score for Hang Em High. I like westerns too.

You can say this again, but remember we are all sinners here sob sob sob and shit.

Exactly the way I feel about it too! ;-) Sex is an option and doesn't have to be the "sin" it has been made out to be. In addition to the "thrill" that nature developed so we would have much more sex, it can be some many things. Whether we like it or not, we are social animals and as such, we like to touch and be touched (by permission only! ;-). We only go around once, why are we wasting so much time on war, hate and allowing so much money to the rich that the rest of US aren't getting enough fun! ;-)

Thank you for your opinion.

I would argue that, like drugs, places that decriminalize 'sins' don't see a statistically significant change in use/participation.

Two parents working, kid at the babysitter (TV, Computer games) Family in debt up to their eyeballs with their future wages, retirement, and health care being attacked by Conservative politicians. War, Americas number 1 export. Family values only matter when, as a part of values, you respect other peoples values.

It depends on the family. I don't know how you equate legalizing the sex profession with infanticide... would you pleas enlighten me?

You are right on that one.

I say, we've tried the "churchy" way and look at the mess we are in! Could it be because a church need parishioners and one way to "keep em coming back" is to scare the shit out of them? If you inculcate people with the "certainty" that their "loving" god will gladly torture them for all eternity for the things they do in the all too brief (and unknown length) period of time they get to live. How grotesque to think of people using other people's fears and ignorance to riddle their lives with fear and thoughts of damnation! It's a wonder our society isn't even more screwed up! I say if the Israeli's can "control" themselves with thousands frolicking in the nude in the "holy land", there may be a chance that we will "lighten up" and "grow up" enough so we stop acting like pimply 12 yrs old boys seeing their first "nude" (If I can still remember that far back, I seem to recall "horny" and "ashamed" in equal measure! ;-)