Harry Reid Calls for an End to Legal Prostitution in Nevada
Remember when people called Harry Reid’s opponent a crazy right-wing religious fanatic? Now Senator Reid says that Nevada should prohibit prostitution in the rural counties that still allow it — and his reasoning makes me wonder who is paying him to push this.
There are arguments for allowing prostitution and prohibiting it, although I find the arguments for allowing it more persuasive. The only compelling argument that I can see for banning it is to make it very clear that our society does not approve of degrading sex in this way. Our society does approve of degrading sex in about a zillion other ways: pornographic movies, widespread adultery, the use of not very subtle sex as an advertising mechanism, Madonna, Lady Gaga. (Or is that Lady Gag-Me? I can never get that stage name quite right.) But you can immediately see the difference, right?
As much as the immorality of prostitution bothers me, the arguments for allowing it to be legal are pretty persuasive. It takes away at least some of the reasons why pimps exist. Where prostitution is legal, a prostitute does not need some guy with abominable fashion sense to bail her out of jail, protect her from rough customers, bribe police officers, make appointments with Planned Parenthood, take most of her money, and beat her up to show how much he cares for her. She may well end up with one of these pieces of sewage anyway, even where prostitution is legal, simply because the circumstances that drive some prostitutes into that line of work have bent their ability to make good judgments about men.
Where it is legal, governments can (and often do) make some effort to do health inspections. Nevada does regular disease inspections in brothels, and not surprisingly, legal prostitutes have very low STD rates. This alone is a strong argument for keeping it legal, Senator Reid.
On the downside, the regulatory process in Nevada has been abused in the past with corruption involving local officials. That might be an argument for limiting the power of local officials to exercise any discretion on licensing. Unfortunately, while legal prostitution leads to bribes to elected officials; illegal prostitution leads to bribes to vice cops. There does not seem to be a solution on this one, until we can hire Vulcans to work for the government.
Oh gosh, even when he is trying to do something right, he gets it wrong. Besides, did he give any context for why the Federal Government should be the one to outlaw this? Isn’t this strictly a state issue? That’s Harry Reid for you…
In Nevada now, it’s not even a state issue but a county issue.
What Reid wants to do is to extend the power/authority of the federal Government into an area traditionally reserved(tenth amendment) to the states.
If he got away with it, the same principle could be applied to almost any area currently controlled by states and thus give Federal government control of all aspects of our lives. For instance, all state laws, county and city ordinances could be supplanted by federal directives .Then some faceless bureaucrat in Washinton could direct our every breath and movement. Who is up for that?
I can’t imagine Reid suddenly finding his outrage at prostitution in NV. He is a prostitute suckering money from the Johns known as the American people and he is committing this criminal behavior at the national level. Prison is too good for him so how about staking him out on an ant bed?
You missed the teaching-moment in his comments. As a kid, he learned to swim in the brothel’s (where his mother worked) swimming pool with help from the prostitutes.
New Class Traitor has it right. Just another case of cronyism making it hard for the Big Prostitution’s competition.
What have you got against the ants?
There is an argument for legalizing independent but not retail prostitution. The evidence from European experience is that legalizing brothels leads to increased sex trafficking. Legalized prostitution empowers the pimps not eliminate them. Pimps are already being eliminated by information technology. An escort can develop a web presence with a $1000 picture shoot and a smartphone.
Nevada style legalization saves the pimps and the madams by imposing costs on independents that drive them out of the market. Just do the math. A web enabled escort can easily make $1000 per day tax free. Legalize her business and now she pays self-employment tax, and state and federal income taxes. She would face a 50% marginal tax rate. This is what happened when New York legalized bondage houses. Independent dominatrixes have pretty much disappeared in New York City proper.
Furthermore, the supply function for prostitutes does not look like a normal supply curve. It is more or less a discontinuous step function. So when prostitution is legalized the demand curve shifts to the right as the social stigma is reduced. However the supply curve shifts to the left because of the reduction in the after tax wage rate. Prices will rise from the excess demand. This creates an incentive for human trafficking as there are now big profits to be made.
An interesting point – but it fails on the details.
IF the only negative effects were those caused by a difference in tax rate (leaving the truth or falsity of that aside for now) the problem could be ‘cured’ simply by declaring the proceeds of prostitution to be tax-free income.
Note that I’m not argueing for this course. (Although it would cure the tax evasion scandels of the Dems. )
Is there any cure for your spelling?
Your argument falls flat. Most brothels do not use slaves. Many women would prefer to work for a brothel rather then be independent. Why should they be punished because of sex trafficking that has nothing to do with them? Solve the sex trafficking problem and keep your grubby hands off the professional whores.
If my argument falls flat it isn’t because you said anything to refute it. Nevada has only a few houses in a state where the main industry is gambling. The reason that Nevada legalized prostitution in rural counties was to get it out of Reno and Las Vegas. Both cities enforce the ban and it is difficult to work as an independent. Prostitution in Nevada is small change and attracts women from all over. The Nevada example doesn’t scale up to the national level. If European style prostitution laws come to the US the demand will outstrip supply and create the same kind of incentives for trafficking that are found on the continent
When I visitied Las Vegas (granted this was a few years ago) the streets and walkways were lined with people passing out advertisements for “escort services” and “massge parlors”. These were “free shopper” style flyers, and there were lots of pictures of bare-breasted or bare-bottomed women. (I joked at the time that no on Vegas needed to buy Playboy or Hustler because this stuff amounted to free porn,)
What’s he talking about? With the total disaster Obama has made of the economy, prostitution is probably the only growth industry that has any real future.
Times are tough. There is only room for one kind of legalized prostitution and the politicians want a monopoly on it. Plus, with all the unrest in the world, these girls were bound to start protesting that Reid and his cronies were giving whores a bad name.
And he’s trying to eliminate the competition.
Next!
I suspect you’ve missed the true point of it all. The legal business in Nevada does make money–lots of it. By threatening to make it illegal I suspect he is pressuring for the legal brothels to make campaign contributions to him to induce amnesia about wanting to shut them down.
And the even more cynical of us might suspect that elements of organized crime might be enticing him for whatever benefits. Legal prostitution cuts into the profits of organized crime that runs illegal prostitution rings.
Reid has as much understanding and respect for morality as my dog has of understanding the intricacies of doing brain surgery. If you want to understand his motives, follow the money and the political contributions.
When a wolf starts giving sermons about the virtues of vegetarianism you know that a scam is going on.
BINGO. . . we have a winner.
I’m reminded of the Mustang Ranch which was taken over by the IRS for tax evasion. . . and the IRS went on to prove that it literally could not run a whore house.
The army did make a profit when they set up brothels in Memphis, I think it was, during the war of northern aggression.
There are three main statistical differences between politicians and prostitutes:
(1) the average prostitute is far more attractive than the average politician.
(2) the average politician is far more expensive than the average prostitute.
(3) the average prostitute has a higher code of ethics than the average politician.
You left out the point that a prostitute only screws those who want it.
… and that doesn’t mean she necessarily likes it, but when a politician screws you, you know he enjoys it!
Unfortunately the comments play on Mr. Cramer’s horrid arguments. This is why libertarians are useless to a true conservative movement. Your amoral stands (like legal prostitution and legalizing drugs) only lead to hurt and misery in society. On those stands you are no better and maybe even worse than the leftists.
Just curious, but have you ever lived in a place where prostitution is legal?
I have. I grew up in a small town in Northern Nevada that had a brothel. In all the 18 years I lived there, I never once heard anyone complaining about it. It sure as hell wasn’t causing any “hurt and misery.” Hell, even the kids liked the place; they gave out king-sized candy bars during Halloween.
This kind of moral panic fear-mongering is why the Republican Party doesn’t win as often as it should. If it kept itself to small-government and fiscal conservatism, it could build a much larger base than the democrats could ever hope to.
Christians are worried that if we don’t demonise prostitution, that their daughters will want to become brothel whores or something. It’s a pretty whacked-out belief system!
You clearly don’t understand the Christian objections to prostitution. Or perhaps even the non-Christian objections to it.
Why did Japan prohibit prostitution in 1958? Because of Christians? No, because while it is theoretically a victimless crime, Japan had a long tradition of starving rural families selling one of the daughters into prostitution to keep the rest of the family from starving. This is one of the sources of outrage that drove much of Japanese militarism–a lot of people from the rural classes angered at what was happening to their sisters drove a resentment of what they perceived as the evils of laissez-faire capitalism. You might read Mikiso Hane’s Peasants, Rebels and Outcasts: The Underside of Modern Japan (1982).
If America was a society where Christianity had any significant influence still, you might have a good point. But America is a society largely dominated by greed, lust, and selfishness, promoting sexual immorality and obscenity to the world. (Hollyweird: one of our most visible exports.) Adding hypocrisy to the list of America’s sins isn’t accomplishing anything, and as I point out, legal prostitution at least reduces some of the negative effects of something that is clearly a business that most Americans find acceptable.
Sounds like Rome. A place Christians thrived. As long as change is done by persuasion I’m all for it. No burning of Christians or sinners.
Mr. Cramer, what a negative attitude you have about the Hollywood community, obviously you don’t know much about the really hard working people in the entertainment industry or you wouldn’t voice such an uneducated stereotyped bit of bigoted trash. There are all kinds of people in all sorts of industries that are ethical and unethical, the ratio in Hollywood is about the same for all the others, it just gets more publicity because of the high profiles of some of the participants.
Or by looking at the output. When a children’s cartoon like Shrek 2 feels a need to put in transvestite jokes, it tells me a lot about where that industry on average is headed.
Sorry Clayton, but late night TV movies have definitely sunk below any threshold you may have in mind. Nobody believed McCarthy back then and everybody of any social influence believed Alfred Kinsey. McCarthy has history to prove his accuracy and Kinsey has the history of his data supplied by hired perverts to prove all wrong that followed his lead.
The lesson to be learned is that money not earned by sweat corrupts with only a few able to withstand the temptation of false pride.
That joke went over the kids head and you know it, or at least you should. And your remarks about Christianity, society, greed, all reveal a frustrated mentality. Like all true bigots you look for anything that will support your narrow mind, then you allow your inner frustrations to feed on your insecurities and other guilt ridden mind demons. Grow up, seek mental and spiritual and emotional help to get you out of your medival monk mentality. Time to put your guns away and become a man in the twenty first century.
McCarthy was a junkie supplied by Hoover. You see there is one law for the proles and another for the elite.
Mr. Cramer is joined by another, less likely, libertarian: Pat Robertson. That good reverend recently came out advocating legalizing drugs. Some of the fabric of society does not fit and never has. It needs to be re-tailored. The secular equivalent of “Was the Sabbath made for man, or man for the Sabbath?” needs to be repeatedly asked, and some alterations made in our social fabric. And prostitution in a couple of places in Nevada is the least of our problems. In fact, it’s not a problem at all.
1. Leftists want to use government to impose their world view on others.
2. Social Con moralists want to sue government to impose their world view on others.
3. Libertarians want government to do what it’s mandated to do by the Constitution and leave people alone to make and live with their own decisions.
Yeah, I see your point about libertarians being like leftists. . . do you have trouble finding a hat to fit it?
Nah, you’ve got it backwards, mdw. This is why conservatives are useless for a truly libertarian movement.
Of course, we could always try for an impure wins-election, non-socialist movement.
Whatever you decide , don’t get trapped by the terms “moderate’ or “moving forward”. They both lead to the same corrupt result.
Nah, you’ve got it backwards, mdw. This is why conservatives are useless for a truly libertarian movement.
A direct hit, sir, well played.
It is liberty which stands clear of Leftism and conservatism, ultimately; liberty opposes that which is common to the latter two.
Yours is a silly comment. Drugs are everywhere even though illegal and so is prostitution. You can’t cure stupid but one need not bankrupt themselves trying to prevent others from their own stupidity. Is it really worth the money and effort and lives ruined by imprisoning marijuana smokers? Or endless vice operations against hookers? Some things are best left alone (and made legal) even if seamy.
I find that lots of kids confuse “legal” with “ok”. Legalizing something sends a message. While it has problems too, the approach to smoking seems better – “no this is *not* recommended, but it is too expensive to try to stop you”. Just require brothels to include warnings about objective health hazards (as opposed to the fuzzier emotional damage arguments, although they are valid also) on their sign. And do we have to murder the children resulting from prostitution?
If Sen. Reid is demanding that Nevada outlaw immorality, will gambling be next? Or smoking in casinos? The most attractive feature of the Silver State (notwithstanding some of its holier than thou politicians) is that it generally avoids the worst sin of the current age: Hypocrisy.
In a private party in 2005, Reid was asked about gambling and the state. .. he commented that he thought Nevada should outlaw gambling… full stop… when asked to repeat that, he said it again… audience was norther NV business and political dignitaries… those in attendance won’t repeat it today for fear of retribution…
I don’t know why Reid is against prostitution. After all, he’s the biggest whore in Congress and his primary clients are the labor unions in Nevada. So it’s strange that now, all of a sudden, he’s finding “religion” and wants to end prostitution. Harry, give it up. A leopard can’t change his spots and you can’t change what you are, a whore.
#7 Tcobb – with your permission, I would like to add to your observations:
(4) the average prostitute has a higher I.Q. than the average politician.
(5) the average prostitute has a greater sense of honor than the average politician
(6) the average prostitute is up front with her profession and leaves a smile on your face when you have been ‘serviced’
(7) the average prostitute looks a hell of a lot better than that dried prune Reid does.
Last year Reid pushed for online gambling http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Reid-pushes-bill-to-allow-for-apf-1163515067.html?x=0&.v=6 so he’s with the casinos. Maybe the brothels didn’t donate enough to his campaign.
I doubt seriously that support from the all world prostitution could compete with just the political skim from the casinos. The teamsters union pension fund could be a world power instead of a democrat party millstone if Hoffa could have refrained from mouthing off.
Here is what makes the most sense to me:
Prostitution is going great guns in the casinos, through escort services that pay a cut to the casino owners. The outlying (as opposed to just plain lying) establishments don’t pay a cut to the casino owners. The casino owners put pressure on Senator Reid. Senator Reid threatens the outlying establishments.
It can’t be a positive moral argument on Senator Reid’s side. After all, he represents the Democrats’ “sex with anything at all, for no reason at all” lawlessness that has been rampant there for 40 years.
Having decided not to worship God, the Democratic Party and its leaders worship Money, and all the evils for which the love of Money is the root. That is the only other option.
Only Mr. Reid knows what is motivating Sen. Reid. But the trend will likely be in the opposite direction as more states look for new ways to balance their budgets: expanded or legalized lotteries, casino gambling, off-track betting, dog racing, drugs and prostitution.
On the plus side, when a prominent liberal Democrat like Reid calls for an end to legalized prostitution, it undercuts liberal trolls whose full time job is to accuse conservatives of trying to “impose their views” on the rest of society.
I notice he’s not pushing to end prostitution in DC. Too close for comfort, I suppose.
This is political payback for rural Nevada voting against Reid – the brothels provide a lot of tax revenue to some very rural counties.
“What? Does anyone seriously believe that there are businessmen in the technology business who would be horrified to open up shop in a county that has brothels.”
But that’s the point – the two counties where the vast majority of Nevadans live (the counties with Las Vegas and Reno) don’t allow prostitution. It is purely a rural business in Nevada.
While not debating the legality, there sure are a lot of prostitutes in Las Vegas. They even hand out cards to all and sundry. I’d say the police would not have a hard time finding them either – so illegal? Kinda sorta.
We like to keep laws on the books we no longer enforce, just in case we need to really screw someone. You know, good old American arbitrary and capricious law enforcement?
That would mean Reid would have to resign his office. He’s the most active, and highest paid whore in the state.
What they should start, is elections for all prostitutes. Harry could be their party leader, and Obama could be their community organizer.
What a screwed up bunch. As Michelle Malkin calls it, a “clusterfark”.
Maybe he’s doing a little quid pro quo for the feminista?
http://minx.cc/?post=312602
The political prostitute class (for which Dingy Harry Reid is a poster boy) and particularly the political prostitution ring known as the Deemocratic [sic] Party simply want to outlaw competition from real prostitutes.
No whores in Nevada? Hell Harry. You don’t need another law. Resign.
“As much as the immorality of prostitution bothers me, the arguments for allowing it to be legal are pretty persuasive. ”
Please explain the immorality of prostitution if you intend use this argument as an intellectual crutch. Or do you mean you have a moralistic oppostion to prostitution? Hey, I don’t like paying for it either.
Your arguments (did you make one?) for or against prostitution were vague or non-existant.
If the point of this article was,however,to illustrate what kind of prostitute Harry Reid has become,( has always been) well done.
I gave specific arguments against prohibiting prostitution, including reduced exploitation by pimps, and reduced spread of STDs (with a link to a paper demonstrating this). Was that not specific enough for you?
Under legalization Pimps get legalized. They still exploit the prostitutes. It is the Pimps who support legalization because like all businesses threated by new modes of production they seek to limit the competition.
The internet has empowered women to run their own “escort” services without a middleman to skim off part of their earnings. Markets operate on information and before the internet prostitutes either worked in the streets or relied on someone to provide the client. Now she just posts her web or facebook page and lets client search her out. Pimps, also known as Madames don’t like this and will use legalization and the taxes that will come from it to drive out the independents.
Legal prostitution has always been an irritant and financial drain to Reid’s good friends in the Mob.
Seriously –
For us residents of the Silver State Reid’s move is obviously a pandering to his base, you just have to know what that base is…
The LDS Church.
Harry Reid is just trying to up his bonafides with fellow Mormons. The unstated reason this scumbag always gets reelected in Nevada is because he is LDS, not that there is anything wrong with that. Does the term “Jack Mormon” ring a bell, however?
and beat her up to show how much he cares for her.
In my estimation three quarters of the crime in this country is abused children acting out. Look at the wanted posters in any post office. The sullen defiance in the faces is not solely a response to Communist indoctrination.
In the abortion game liberals and lefties scream that it’s a woman’s right to control what she does with her body. Some how this goes out the window when it comes to prostitution.
Well, killing the unborn is fine but working to put food in the mouths of children these ladies actually bore. . . well, we just can’t have that now can we?
“clusterfark”
People with military experience are a little more genteel.
Charlie Foxtrot
Bearing in mind that Sen. Reid lives in a state with quite a few social conservatives, and last I checked was still a church-attending Mormon. He does, in fact, have to defend himself on both the right and left (unlike, say, Barbara Boxer.) The tech excuse was weird, but for a man in his position, is safer to say out loud than the moral argument would be.
Well if Mr. Reid is being so fastidious about harmful social behaviors maybe he would like to reexamine legalized gambling. Gambling addiction is a recognized mental illness and tens of thousands of individuals and families have been been devastated by it. A good friend of mine was one of the co-owners of a successful family business that went bankrupt when their accountant/payroll manager embezzled millions from the firm to feed his gambling habit. About forty people lost their jobs as a result.
Yet the government itself now endorses gambling in the form of state and multi-state lotteries. Every state is scrambling to enact legislation allowing casinos to be built and operated. I am reliably informed that gambling is an important source of revenue in Mr. Reid’s home state.
As far as prostitutes go I would contend that the employees of your average Nevada brothel are far less hypocritical and far more ethical than Mr. Reid.
Jeffersonian:
The moral argument against using or engaging in prostitution is that sex is far too valuable to be treated so shabbily, and money is not the proper currency or reward for intimacy with another immortal soul. We justly feel disgust when a person marries for money or convenience but not for love and companionship and children because money and convenience are not the proper currencies or reward for marriage whereas love and companionship and children are. But sex is the ceremony of marriage: You have never made love to another human being without in some sense marrying your soul to theirs.
It is true that pornography and masturbation and cynicism and love affairs conducted foolishly and ended badly and the cheapening of the whole subject in Hollywood movies and by the example of others have, collectively, rendered most folk insensate to the above. It is like deadening a nerve, or building calluses on one’s fingertips. A lifetime of staring at the sun or a moment of stabbing out one’s own eyes can render a person oblivious to the beauty of a magnificent painting even when standing right in front of it: The painting is still beautiful; he has lost the faculty of seeing it.
The person who does not intuitively perceive at least some inkling of the way the nature of sex makes it unbuyable without doing violence to the intrinsic dignity of humanity is in the same position as a man who cannot gaze up at a redwood tree without thinking “lumber” and who cannot perceive the ocean as anything more meaningful than so many billion tons of cold salt water. It is not (unless they are a psychopath in general) that they were born without the ability to sense the holiness of human physical love. It is only that modern life and culture and our own decisions so often tend to kill this awareness in us, just as southern plantation culture used to kill awareness of slavery’s evils in the hearts of otherwise good folk in the early 1800′s.
There’s the moral argument. Of one’s own volition, one ought not be a prostitute or use their services.
Having said all of that, prostitution should probably be legal. For the question of legality greatly involves morality (there is no such thing as legislation that does not, in some sense, “legislate morality”) but the question does not end with “is the thing moral or not?” For prostitution, both its offer and its use, we have that answer: But now we proceed to further questions, such as:
1. Is it moral for me to use or threaten force against my fellow citizens to prevent them engaging in sexual activity for bad reasons, when they are the only two persons harmed by it?
2. If the answer to Q.1 is “No,” then the further question is, “Is it moral for me to employ an intermediary or agent to do something on my behalf which it isn’t moral for me to do, myself?”
I think the answer to Q.1. is “No”: It would not be moral for me to wave a gun at someone to prevent them from harming each other through consensual sexual activity, immoral or not. It is not that they have a “right” to do it, in the moral/natural-law sense, for there is no such thing as a natural right to do a morally wrong thing. It is only that, if they do the wrong thing, I have no just moral right to prevent or punish it by the use or threat of force.
I am even more confident that the answer to Q.2 is “No”: I have no just moral authority to send an employee (which includes the government) to do something I myself have no just moral authority to do. After all, the government “derives its just authority from the consent of the governed” and is delegated any authority it has from the states or the people (c.f. Amendment X). One cannot delegate what one does not have.
Therefore,
YES, prostitution is immoral; and,
NO, it ought not be outlawed because using force to prohibit prostitution is also immoral, whether that force is exercised personally by the individual or by his employees, the government.
Many marriages and relationships are de-facto prostitution with the guy paying the woman for steady sex. It’s just a more monogamous form of prostitution. But shouldn’t that cause as much moral panic or MORE then brothels?
Marriage with stead sex. . . no comment.
Bottom line IMHO, all human interaction is aimed at the fulfillment of some need, sex for a house, a car etc., vs sex for the cash that represents these items makes no difference. Just as marriage can not be based solely on sex, nether should it be endangered solely by sex.
Sexual prostitution (as opposed to working in non-sexual ways)has a lot of draw backs as a career choice. Why society insists on making it tougher is really beyond me, it makes no sense at all.
Motivations for prohibiting prostitution in the Western world are usually disease related–especially in the era when syphilis had no cure, and would lead to blindness, insanity, sterility, and death. This was certainly the case when prostitution was criminalized nationwide during World War I.
Except for the fact that brothels decrease stds. That’s why the union army opened one during the civil war and the US army opened one in Libera during WWII. In both cases the incidences of STDs among the troops plummeted.
So, STD’s may have been the excuse, but the reality was quiet different, sort of like the sexual version of “Reefer Madness”.
I am sorry that your experience has been so bad. That certainly is not my experience of being married, nor is that typical of most relationships that I see.
Well yes. Sex is unbuyable. Why would any man want to when it is available for free.
If Reid is successful in ending legalized prostitution in Nevada, does that mean that he will have to resign? Just asking.
Harry Reid’s call for a ban on prostitution is another lefty smokescreen. Just like the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) issue, O’Bama and his Lefty friends are trying to take the spotlight off of their collossal failures in Foreign Policy, the Economy and this Country’s Energy Policy. Republicans and Conservaives are taking the bait everytime they engage in the discussion of these less important diversions.
I don’t know, I was looking forward to that expanded health care individual mandate that requires getting a state certified brothel membership to go along with the health insurance mandate. Nevada is such a trend setting state. And the medical research is in: regular paid fornication is good for cardiovascular longevity and mental health. Preventive health care is expensive with no hedonistic incentive. What’s good for brothels is good for America! Surely all those 49 state laws that outlaw recreational prostitution violates the commerce clause and the growth potential of Nevada bordellos? I ask you, would all those women’s shelters require state subsidies if, instead, they were converted to the best little whore houses in America? Looks like the subject for a good Hollywood exploitation screenplay to me.
LMAO, I had the same thought. While we’re at it, since the leftist insist that healthcare is a “right” and so the government has to provide it, when do we get our government issued weapons and ammo to go along with the second amendment?
you have to feel sorry for poor oale Harry the fairy–Too old to get on his knees apparently
As far as morality goes…
Charging for sex sure beats being in a continual “pump and dump” loop with men who won’t even pay for your dinner, little lone call you in the morning.
With all of the women and men who have irresponsible sexual encounters and cost the state and the country a lot of welfare, I’d say prostitution is a much better and more moral solution since most legal prostitutes are fare more sexually responsible and careful than your average drunken hook-ups at clubs.
Would decent women want to marry or have a long-term relationship with a man who frequents prostitutes? Obviously not, but I doubt those types of men are looking for that kind of commitment in the first place.
Gay marriage should be perfectly fine too for that matter.
It takes a cynic to say it, but with Harry Reid the cynics are almost always right: the lobbyists for the “Nevada Association of Gentlemen of Leisure” got to him.
The occasional blending of self-interest and public morality is an old story to those familiar with the history of alcohol in the South of past decades: in “dry” areas, the regularly contested referendums to go wet were unfailingly opposed by an alliance of the Baptist preachers and the bootleggers. As I’m sure Harry Reid is finding about money that is coming to him from sources other than churches or decency groups, the bootleggers’ “campaign contributions” were just as sweet and significantly larger than those of the faithful.
If Reid has something on his mind IT will have to include Gambling, and Unions.If he gets it banned then it becomes a Federal crime.But after that I am lost.There has to be money in the scheme somewhere?????HELP.
Perhaps a collapsing economy demands elimination of competition to protect one’s bottom line. Legislated monopoly has been broadly accepted in congress for a century. Study patent extension techniques permitted by the FDA. You either drink their legislated cool aid and smile or search for alternatives but be careful how you write about any health benefits that you find. You could be charged with false advertising.
Why doesn’t Harry just give up his salary? If he’s doing it for free he’s not a prostitute.
Maybe if they joined a union? And gave Harry a dress?
A dedicated shop steward was at a convention in Las Vegas and decided to check out the local brothels. When he got to the first one, he asked the Madame, “Is this a union house?”
“No, I’m sorry, it isn’t,” said the Madame.
“Well, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?” he asked.
“The house gets $80 and the girl gets $20.”
Mightily offended at such unfair dealings, the man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable shop. At the second one, he asked the Madame, “Is this a union house?”
“No, I’m sorry, it isn’t,” said the Madame.
“If I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?” he asked again.
“The house gets $80 and the girl gets $20.”
Again offended, the man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable shop. His search continued until he finally reached a brothel where the Madame said, “Why yes, this is a union house.”
“And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?” he questioned.
“The girls get $80 and the house gets $20.”
“That’s more like it!” the man said. He looked around the room and pointed to a stunningly attractive redhead. “I’d like her for the night.”
“I’m sure you would, sir,” said the Madame while gesturing to a grotesque transvestite in her seventies in the corner, “But Harriette here has seniority.”
The pro/cons of prostitution isn’t the issue. The issue to me is why is the federal government messing around with a State issue in the first place? Sure, this time it is prostitution, but what about next time? Give the federal government an inch of precedent, they’ll try to stretch it into a mile.
What`s wrong Harry, no more freebies?
in “dry” areas, the regularly contested referendums to go wet were unfailingly opposed by an alliance of the Baptist preachers and the bootleggers.
I have long argued that if the drug cartels were smart, they would find a way to fund the drug Prohibition advocates here. As with all forms of Prohibition throughout history, all it achieves is to take a powerful economic engine out of the hands of law-abiding business and relocate it into the hands of extra-legal operators … Criminals, in other words. That engine then works to finance the expansion of their other operations, buying them better armaments etc. Making them much more powerful and dangerous than they would or could otherwise have been.
Don’t think for a moment that modern-day drug cartels are any less aware than the bootleggers were.
Sen.Reid is owned by organized crime that wants the entire monopoly on prostitution. As with corrupt Unions, those in control of the urban Nevada centers want to own the rural as well. The best way to strangle competition is to make it illegal so that you can send in your own tools to rake in the dough. Sell the lie in the whole cloth garment of “virtue”, dirty old man.
This Post is really interesting and more detailed keep it up good work.
“Well yes. Sex is unbuyable. Why would any man want to when it is available for free.”
Your not paying just for the sex. You are paying the prostitue to give you sex and then GO AWAY.
That is what many men find appealing, and (IMO) why many women are against legalized prostitution.
And sex is never free. You always pay somehow. A nice thing about a prostitute is the cost is known up front, it is a straight forward business deal, and when the transaction is done you are finished paying. It is in some sense more moral (if like me you consider honesty a high moral virtue) than other ways of obtaining sex.
“Your not paying just for the sex. You are paying the prostitute to give you sex and then GO AWAY.”
there is a reason this is the oldest profession and like another poster stated: legal prostitution infringes on the cashflow of the crooks… so send in sen reid, the cronies on the casino licensing commissions and the rest of the hoods to look for any extra place to enforce their strong arm tactics
These attitudes from the original post and the commentors make no sense. Somehow, it’s incredibly threatening to marriage to allow gay marriage, but prostitution, that’s all right then. Suddenly pajamas media turns into libertarian danes.
I’d expect you all to at least be consistent. If heterosexual marriage is an important cultural thing to be encouraged and preserved, legal prostitution is going to be much more of a threat to it.
Which explains why divorce rates are so much lower now that when prostitution was legal. If the existence of legal alternatives for sex threaten a marriage, that marriage was not worth having in the first place.
Honesty and liberty are what need to be encouraged and preserved, if those are intact other institutions will stand or fall by their own worth rather than artificial life support from an oppressive state.
They don’t stand on their own worth when they are being undermined. Prostitution is an attack on the sexual exclusivity marriage and relationships are supposed to be for. You simply cannot legalize paid sex on a wide scale and expect it not to effect marriage rates or cause societal harm.
It’s like repealing Prohibition and expecting people to drink less. It just doesn’t happen. You trade illegality for an upsurge in use. That upsurge has its own consequences.
Also, please cite the study where divorce rates were lowered in Vegas specificially due to pros.
Why don’t you go ahead and write out what is best for everyone, I’m sure no one would mind. It isn’t about modifying behavior, it’s about choice, sex is ALWAYS paid for.
As for divorce and Vegas, maybe you should do some research. . . prostitution is NOT LEGAL in Vegas.