When Porn Stars Get Offended [Mike S. Adams]

Townhall.com ^ | 5/29/07 | Mike S. Adams

[highimpact]

I did not know any good could come out of marriage. I fell on the bad side. That is why it is best to take your chances and not get married. That way you will never be trapped. In short Marriage Sucks.

You might want to look into the mirror as to why "Marriage Sucks," Mr. Jack Daniels.

[Popocatapetl]

"Prostitution has always been present in human history and it has ALWAYS involved the exploitation of women BY men through violence, power, drugs, etc."

You say that with the same conviction that Andrea Dworkin who said "All heterosexual sex is rape".

Exploitation of people by other people covers the gamut from slavery to employment. In most of human history, women have been little more than chattel. Their entire lives were exploited, and their sexuality is only part of that.

Only in modern times, and in some places, do women have the opportunity to *not* be exploited from cradle to grave, so only now, when even the *law* must say that their sexuality is their own, and not the property of others, do they even have a chance to be a prostitute on their own.

"You apparently don’t have the moral and intellectual depth to discern this. Your belief that sexual relations are always a commercial transaction one way or another demonstrates this."

I do indeed have the moral and intellectual depth to discern this. But it seems that *you* might not. That is, if you persist in thinking that *you* should have some say, through force of law, as to what women can do with their sexuality.

And, I might add, that I *never* said that "sexual relations are always a commercial transaction one way or another", or anything to that effect. That is a construction of your mind, most likely based on the idea that a middle class woman, perhaps married and living in the suburbs would *not* have sex with strangers for money. Ever.

The vast majority of married sexual relationships are monogamous, and no prostitution in any sense of the word is involved. But that is not the *only* form of marriage out there.

Would it surprise you that many pornographic movie actors are married, and *not* to people they have sex with on camera? And they make a middle class amount of income, so why wouldn't they live in the middle class suburbs?

But they are a tiny minority, compared to the hidden middle class sex workers. And that doesn't include the "swingers" who don't have sex for money, just for fun.

I bet you wouldn't even guess that retirement communities and nursing homes often have members who prostitute themselves to other members.

"You are simply wrong in your understanding of human nature and your prescription for change will increase misery, not reduce it."

And you are quite wrong in thinking you understand human nature, and especially that you think that you have enough moral superiority to determine what others do with their lives.

Right now, by keeping prostitution illegal, prostitution is not controlled, in fact, it runs rampant. Serious crimes feed off of that illegality, not prostitution itself, because when legalized under tightly controlled circumstances, like Nevada, other crimes are kept at arms length.

The same argument was made about gambling, that permitting it around the country would destroy us. For many decades this idea was promulgated, and advocates of legal gambling were shouted down by those who said they didn't "understand human nature."

This is not to say that gambling or prostitution is harmless. Yet for the vast majority of people who gamble, or involve themselves in prostitution in Nevada, it is a not a life-shattering trauma.

[JackDanielsOldNo7]

You might want to look into the mirror as to why "Marriage Sucks," Mr. Jack Daniels.

I'm not the problem. My you are judgemental. Accusing someone because of a screen name. Are you Baptist?

[reagan_fanatic]

In short Marriage Sucks

No it doesn't.

I've been married since 1985 and, in spite of the usual squabbles and disagreements that crop up now and then, we still love each other as much as we did 22 years ago. I find it infinitly more preferrable to running around playing the field, not knowing what you might get (or catch.)

[Little Bill]

Libertarians do.

[JackDanielsOldNo7]

No it doesn't.

You got lucky. Finding the right girl is pure luck plain and simple. You have got to have a golden horseshoe up your rear end.

If you choose wrong, which is very easy, the consequences are very bad.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. So it is best to take your chances and NOT marry so one will not end up like me.

Congratulations!

[The Watcher]

"Prostitution has always been present in human history and it has ALWAYS involved the exploitation of women BY men through violence, power, drugs, etc." You say that with the same conviction that Andrea Dworkin who said "All heterosexual sex is rape".

Exploitation of people by other people covers the gamut from slavery to employment. In most of human history, women have been little more than chattel. Their entire lives were exploited, and their sexuality is only part of that.

And here you want to legalize making their sexuality for sale... About as dehumanizing as you can get. I don't see where you get off justifying codified legal dehumanizing with cultural historical wrongs. Wrong is wrong, period.

Only in modern times, and in some places, do women have the opportunity to *not* be exploited from cradle to grave, so only now, when even the *law* must say that their sexuality is their own, and not the property of others, do they even have a chance to be a prostitute on their own.

Oh, geeze, what a ridiculous concept. "You don't own yourself unless you can prostitute yourself..." And then you proceed to pretend there's actually some positive side to prostitution for society?

"You apparently don’t have the moral and intellectual depth to discern this. Your belief that sexual relations are always a commercial transaction one way or another demonstrates this."

I do indeed have the moral and intellectual depth to discern this. But it seems that *you* might not. That is, if you persist in thinking that *you* should have some say, through force of law, as to what women can do with their sexuality.

Oh... So, male prostitution should be illegal, but we single out women for this privelege? What a pile of dung! You set yourself up as some kind of superior moral and intellectual authority, claiming yourself to be better than the person who rightfully recognized your own severely lacking skills in this area... And then you invoke a premise so absurd it wouldn't be accepted by a 2nd grader.

And, I might add, that I *never* said that "sexual relations are always a commercial transaction one way or another", or anything to that effect. That is a construction of your mind, most likely based on the idea that a middle class woman, perhaps married and living in the suburbs would *not* have sex with strangers for money. Ever.

Well, I can respond, since your comments were to someone unknown to you, but since I tend to agree with them, I'm certainly willing to take on the argument. The vast majority of middle class, married women do NOT have sex for money. And the vast majority of prostitutes are NOT well off people in the suburbs. But your point was to obscure the whole issue in the first place with irrelevancies. It is not actually relevant WHERE prostitutes live or whether they are married or not. What is, is that our society is worthy of continuing, and that the downward spiral of morality in law and deed by our country WILL end this society and all the reconized advances in liberty, freedom, and equality under law that it achieved in the past. Adding "legalized prostitution" doesn't exactly raise the status of our nation... but degrades it.

The vast majority of married sexual relationships are monogamous, and no prostitution in any sense of the word is involved. But that is not the *only* form of marriage out there.

It is the only VALID form of marriage out there. There are lots of substandard substitutes, but there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by redefining a high standard to the point of being deviancy.

Would it surprise you that many pornographic movie actors are married, and *not* to people they have sex with on camera? And they make a middle class amount of income, so why wouldn't they live in the middle class suburbs?

I guess the question is... "Why would I care?". Certainly these people are not anyone to pattern my life after, and certainly cannot in any way point to ANYTHING they have done in their lives to elevate themselves, their corner of the world, nor the lives of ANYONE, ANYWHERE. Just on this basis alone, they are a waste of humanity. I'm not suggesting making it illegal, but your attempt to paint them as "normal" borders on the obscene.

But they are a tiny minority, compared to the hidden middle class sex workers. And that doesn't include the "swingers" who don't have sex for money, just for fun. I bet you wouldn't even guess that retirement communities and nursing homes often have members who prostitute themselves to other members. "You are simply wrong in your understanding of human nature and your prescription for change will increase misery, not reduce it." And you are quite wrong in thinking you understand human nature, and especially that you think that you have enough moral superiority to determine what others do with their lives.

You say that with the same certainty with which Andrea Dworkin called all sex "rape". Oh, and with no more intellectual validity than her proclamation, either.

Right now, by keeping prostitution illegal, prostitution is not controlled, in fact, it runs rampant. Serious crimes feed off of that illegality, not prostitution itself, because when legalized under tightly controlled circumstances, like Nevada, other crimes are kept at arms length.

So, Nevada is known as a bastion of peace and law-abiding with astoundingly low crime rates? Maybe you should investigate the REALITY around you before you attempt to make arguments that on their face refute themselves. Nevada may have legal prostitution, but illegal prostitution in Nevada happens to be as much of a problem as it is anywhere else. I wonder how this fits within your assininely stupid statement?

The same argument was made about gambling, that permitting it around the country would destroy us. For many decades this idea was promulgated, and advocates of legal gambling were shouted down by those who said they didn't "understand human nature."

The evidence continues to mount that the arguments were as right then as now, gambling is destroying us from within, and that the supposed 'benefits' of gambling DO NOT EXIST.

This is not to say that gambling or prostitution is harmless. Yet for the vast majority of people who gamble, or involve themselves in prostitution in Nevada, it is a not a life-shattering trauma.

It isn't? I've never met anyone who used to be a prostitute...legal or not, who could not say that it was not life-shattering. Evidence says as it did long ago, that there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by approval of prostitution, and much to be lost.