(CD update note: At the International Council Meeting (ICM) of Amnesty International in Dublin, Ireland on Tuesday, the human rights group voted to formally adopt a resolution authorizing the International Board to develop and execute a policy that would protect the human rights of sex wo
Gawd!!! If the Kochs and their like can make all that dosh for destroying our only planet, of course it has to be a crime if a woman makes a few bucks by doing what comes naturally...
Local police departments are always setting up prostitution stings using (undercover?) police women to lure "johns" into proposing sex for money. This is a misuse of my tax dollars which could be used to train police to de-escalate their temptations to shoot others.
We do not have equal protection of the laws when police departments do not target other forms of prostitution. I hope you are reading this, billion dollar lobby. Anyway, it should just be decriminalized across the board.
Notice that those are millionaire women who are opposed to de-criminalization. Might it cut into their business model?
When I work in heavy industry, and other jobs, in the US, it ruins my mind and body. I am coerced by economic necessity to work. Some women would prefer to work in the xxx industry rather than in offices, if it were made legal.
Telling women what they can do with their bodies Part 1: You've got to carry that baby to term.
Telling women what they can do with their bodies Part 2: You and/or your clients will be arrested if you engage in sex work.
Your remark is so suffused with sexism as to warrant a FINE for such a glaring lack of consciousness.
Any kind of sex work is demoralizing unless the woman is getting $500 an hour and choosing her clients carefully.
The idea of "making a few bucks for what comes naturally" implies that all women are whores and that all forms of sex can be performed "at the ready" for a few "bucks." It desecrates sex, puts love out of the equation, and turns the human body into another commodity to capitalize upon.
It's a disgusting view and suggestive of a soldier accustomed to paying women in occupied nations a few bucks.
The real issue is that some women believe they must resort to this form of "work" in order to survive.
Apart from a "like" button, a comment like yours warrants a virtual vomit one.
Actually, the system of patriarchal domination makes it more than possible--and FAR too frequent--for cops, prison guards, border detention center guards, and lots of other misogynistic thugs to take SEXUAL liberties with women--usually against their will--because their positions "entitle" that behavior.
A similar variation shows up in violence as a form of pornography in how too many cops turn killing Black boys into ritual murders. How about the anal penetration of the unfortunate Black man detained in N.Y.C. a few years ago?
Sex, power, rape, and violence are all related and most tie in through the wish (on the part of emotionally crippled persons) to dominate another human being.
You left out the part about pushing Viagra and the other male erection drugs. And I believe THESE (not women's birth control) are eagerly covered by insurance plans.
And you left out the way the entire culture is "sexing up kids." I'll provide a SCARY link to what I'm talking about:
JohnBoyH Your comment reads like you consider all women whores. Would you include your mother, sister, wife, girl friend, or daughter in that generalization?
The women (or men--no matter) who ply this trade are not doing so because "they always wanted to be a prostitutes since as long ago as they can remember". They are somebody's daughter, son, sister, brother, mother, father, or even spouse and they are desperate--not for sex, but for physical survival.
Amnesty International and those who defend this policy of theirs have truly lost whatever way they had and become irrelevant as a human rights organization.
Actually Amnesty International has it right. They support a woman's right to choose to earn money from sex. They want to remove unnecessary restrictions and the element of exploitation. They want to make sex work legal and safe.
You are taking the position of patriarchs and puritans: Women have to be protected from themselves. They can't decide what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
Your position not only harms women, it's been proven untenable over thousands of years.
You will know you are making progress when you:
don't get any of the allusions used by comedians or politicians (but then I repeat myself)
as laugh lines.
You neither know nor care who won the world series or super bowl.
You don't care any more about the opinions of some entertainer than you do about the entertainment of some political office holder.
You are as grateful that your youth is passed as you were for it while young.
Tweeting is just something done by birds.
The entire world and its current events and happenings have the predictability of old TV reruns.
This is my last comment on this specific article. Ten thousand prostitutes demonstrated for decriminalization of their modus vivendi, or love trade. And they have forgiven me for my dirty thoughts.
Agreed, for the most part. Although the concept of 'choice' with regard to the vast, vast, vast majority of sex work is almost as misleading as when in reference to abortion. I do know women who are sex workers, or who've had abortions but they are often choices made out of lack of choices.
All that being said, decriminalizing it, regulating it for health and safety...of the public as well as the workers themselves...after all, those who go to sex workers often have other sex partners not involved in 'the trade'...these are absolute necessities even if one's ultimate goal is a world without the buying and selling of human bodily functions and reducing people...particularly women and girls... to their constituant, marketable parts.
Like needle exchanges for addicts, safer is better, leave your judgements at the door.
(reminds me that the name of a union of prostitutes I heard about in the late sixties or early seventies: COYOTE: Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics)
What a stupid reply. My comment was limited strictly to the paradoxical application of the law within our culture. Good, bad, right or wrong, the fact is that some women sell their bodies for money. Deal with it. I'm not moralising about it. What view are you so disgusted about? That the law criminalises women driven to prostitution but assists the Kochs? Get that big chip off your shoulder for god's sake. Your posts are otherwise excellent.
PS: I was protesting against war at age 14 and have never used prostitution services. I say that not for my own ego but to help you realise that others simply do not fit within your neat little pigeon-holes.
Sioux Rose is much like Donald Trump: obsessively compulsively expressing her grudges and characterizing doing so as proof that she (if she really is a "she") alone has the courage to speak "truth to power." I like it when she accuses one of us and our "pals" of being paid by the Shadow Elite to dispense prefabricated "talking points" on this little known site, home for pundit wannabes (I include ME in that number) who spout off here because we can't manage to have our say somewhere else where it could be heard. If I'm being paid for what I write here, I need a raise (you hear that, Secret Government sponsors?; if you don't pony up I'll change my screen name and use one of the ones I abandoned when WE got kicked off Disqus, and take my opinions over to TruthDig).
The poster who uses the handle Sioux Rose always jumps all over everyone to make the point that the US populace can't be held in any way accountable for some share of blame for how things are by being so easily bamboozled by the electric bread and circuses and cowed by the sheer size and big budgets of Mainstream Media. Saying that the people are at least partly to blame always draws an angry ("We Frame Bad!") response from SR. One might (the insidious "one might' frame) suspect that SR is the one who is the paid troll whose assignment is to deliberately drive people away from that particular idea, an idea that has more merit than the oft repeated hostile repetitive diatribes would have us believe. If someone SR disapproved of could get the thought crumb through to the scared abused starved for truth that's In critical short supply common folks that they don't have to always be victims, might that not be a revolutionary good thing?
Another example: SR always makes the point that the Big Media are inaccessible to all but those who are vetted by the Establishment. To help persuade people that the media are that "closed off" works to discourage anyone from even thinking about trying to come up with ways to get through to the people by outwitting the media managers. Who benefits from that "meme"? Someone holding a grudge about not being paid "appropriate" attention to, perhaps?
On the subject of screen names, I have asked this several times during the bygone Days of Disqus: What exactly is it that entitles her to use the word "Sioux" as part of a posting handle? If she has a blood connection to the Lakota Dakota Nakota Oglala Indigenous Nation (referred to by others, never themselves, as the "Sioux"), one would think one would be proud to identify that connection. I have gone so far as to ask if "she" really is a "her." And since she has no discernible hint of a sense of humor, always a red flag and rarely a false one. So who is REALLY the purveyor of these constant same-o same-o "talking points," and to what is this person, whatever its REAL name is, seeking to have WE believe or try to do or, more important, not do?
If CD want to delete this as an unfair inappropriate take down, I will understand and accept this decision.