Prostitution Ads on Craigslist and Moral Majority Matters
Recently an Associated Press story, originating in Hartford Connecticut, stated Craigslist should remove its "adults services" section because it cannot adequately block ads advertising illegal prostitution and child trafficking. Seventeen state attorney generals have signed a letter to the company making this demand known. But why does society call it "adult" if adults don't have the right to freedom and liberty in the first place? Why does any government think it has a right to "dictate" morality to the American people and treat them like they are eternal adolescents? This is no sideline issue because it goes to the heart of what this culture is supposed to be about.
Prostitution Ads on Craigslist and Moral Majority Matters
Recently an Associated Press story, originating in Hartford Connecticut, stated Craigslist should remove its "adults services" section because it cannot adequately block ads advertising illegal prostitution and child trafficking. Seventeen state attorney generals have signed a letter to the company making this demand known.
But why does society call it "adult" if adults don't have the right to freedom and liberty in the first place? Why does any government think it has a right to "dictate" morality to the American people and treat them like they are eternal adolescents? This is no sideline issue because it goes to the heart of what this culture is supposed to be about.
More importantly, why should prostitution even be considered illegal if it occurs between two assenting adults? It seems a sea change is in order, because why do we not, as a culture, consider prostitution to be something grand, even sacred, rather than denigrating this activity, or as some state as a "scourge" as if our only sounding board should be that of old-time religion morality? The AP article quoted the AG letter to say prostitution in general, and female and child victims specifically, are a "scourge" onto this society that does not justify anyone making money.
But notice the hackneyed diatribe used as supposed dogma that all readers should just assume to be true—as if no subjective opinion was involved. First it is almost always women and children who are victimized; as if money, that is hard cash paid to women is somehow too terrible to ponder (and money they seldom pay taxes).
Secondly, the argument about children is a scare tactic of over-exaggerating the amount of child trafficking that happens; and insinuates that if Craigslist didn't exist child trafficking, to the extent that it actual is a reality, would simply disappear. Sexual victimization is our new social terrorism, and it leveraged and overstated against American naiveté, so as to continue to destroy human rights and the right to privacy and human freedom. So despite the Cold War's rhetoric against the Soviet tendency to snoop in on people, one can only imaging how many investigators are troubled while snooping because somebody might actually achieve a satisfying orgasm outside the penal institution of marriage.
After all that's what plenty of feminists called marriage—ain't it—a prison and form of slavery—a product of male chauvinism—even if it was equally true that plenty of both men and women jumped right into such shackles, even while Phyllis Schlafly, and her ilk, organized women's groups to destroy the ERA amendment claiming it would destroy some of women's privileges?
Yet this zealous effort on the part of government employees and law enforcement is a thinly disguised attempt to dictate more oppressive "Judeo-Christian" morality in our country that is supposed to have a separation of church and state—that is a polity that does not dictate religious creed and religious values onto all by some authoritarian regime. Unfortunately plenty of people still live with the "scourge" mentality that sexual pleasure and the reality of lust is somehow sinful and evil.
They can't stand the idea that someone is actually gaining sexual satisfaction, even if they are willing to pay for it, that is when their own guilt-tripping religions won't allow for it. They are attempting to enforce religious values on everyone—even people who do not agree with their own twisted and institutionalized ideals.
Certainly it can be argued, and has been argued, that marriage can equally be a scourge. Monogyny can be a form of imprisonment—especially when it demands so many "exclusive" rights and privileges. Why, one should ask, do so many people end up getting a divorce if marriage is so great? Equally, it can also still be argued from a male point of view, that more women have a choice as to whether they stay at home or engage as a second wage earner—still placing a proportionally large burden of bringing home the bacon to the male—because how many women are truly attracted to men who are not good wage earners—as opposed to women who can get a date simply on their looks? (But again that was part of the male chauvinist plot of "enslaving" and "victimizing" women—lest you forget the politically correct angle to adapt as far as self-righteousness goes.)
Somehow being required to pay for the welfare of other dependents year, after year, was never considered a scourge unless it was argued as a scourge to women? Yet that is exactly the burden many people end up with—especially if they have children. And even if the news media, and women, choose to focus on cases of delinquent dads—the truth remains that a "lot" of male revenue still supports the enormous cost of raising children and helping pay for mortgages that benefit dependents—not to mention their college tuition so they can go to college to be brainwashed how singularly victimized women have been-and of course all white women were right up there as victims.
You heard about it—that epitome of physical and psychological ugliness, Andrea Dworkian, who argued in her hate diatribe of a book that "all" marriage was rape and exploitation. Yet she was insane enough to have her photo put on the back of her book, which left one wondering why any male would even linger to look at her, let alone think about her in some sexual way. No wonder she was such a loony tune. Yet can you imagine any college department worthy of the name higher education actually having the effrontery to assign her work as required reading? No wonder fewer and fewer men attend college or participate with alma mater events.
Still it is somehow "never" correct to question the value of having children, because the Bible supposedly says it is good and righteous to have them. Nevertheless children demand "more" resources that an economy is somehow suppose to cover, perhaps by invading and occupying more territories—and thus the killing of more people whether it be overt war or covert operation. Because that is exactly the moral dilemma that the moral majority would never understand—that they either have abortion or war—but either way people die. Still few dare claim child bearing is a negative consequence—and this is speaking from the child's point of view—because why would a child want to inherit so many human problems?
In fact the more sophisticated and materialist a society's economy the more demand there is on limited resources; and Americans especially use up huge amounts of world resource and produce an excess of trash and garbage. So childbearing here is even more of a dilemma than elsewhere. Nevertheless being good breeders is considered good citizenry? Why, because you have tax paying consumers, and canon fodder for future wars, and so they can continue to pay for legislative spending. Well that is real moral?
The AP article says that some encounters via Craigslist have ended in violence and death. One wonders the statistical significance of this argument. Has "overall" violence and death increased in this country because of the Internet? This sounds like more fear-mongering, in which some authorities have learned works with the forever fearful. And of course it is men who are viewed as the "potential" victimizers and criminals.
It's not like criminalizing prostitution itself doesn't keep the price high—precisely because it is illegal? It is not like other third party persons are not ever engaged in forms of blackmail because they have knowledge of illicit sex? It is not like there is not some police state justification for more reasons to keep tabs on Americans in general—and to police their personal lives?
And it's not like prostitutes always deliver a better dish than what they get paid? They would never scrimp on service while demanding to be paid upfront, or just take off with the money, that is if the "John" cannot complain to anyone without getting himself in trouble? No, rather we need to focus on the very small minority of cases in which women are arguably the victims. Plus women never get satisfaction or needs met from such a form of work—because the men to whom they associate must be viewed as loosers—after all they are paying for it—even if the dogma has them as equally the victimizers?
Yet, if you were to call, say an escort service, you would likely find that many who answer have a singular attitude—and that is can you afford me, how will you pay me, and how fast can I get the money in my hands. Yet the conceit of the escort service was she was an amiable woman with socially desirable traits and some worldly sophistication. But the way plenty of these services actually market themselves is that they have zero interest in the men that they deal—or respect. The attitude is one of gaining hard cash and the easier it comes the better.
Perhaps Craiglist allows for more competition and therefore women have market themselves, and their attitudes, a little more humanely. But apparently market forces are not acceptable when moral self-righteousness and denigration psychology rule? And of course we can't have sexual access to women too easy for it would make it so that single women, in general, could not use their sex as such a bartering tool—like a caret diamond. That is she would have to have to develop more psychological appeal and internal beauty rather than resting on the laurels of narcissism to what the body is worth. And that would be so unhealthy wouldn't it.
Yet, as the slight goes, a "prostitute" is someone who does what he or she does simply for the money, kind of like a mercenary, whether he or she enjoys it, or finds it psychologically acceptable. Well you can think of a "lot" of jobs that fit that definition? Besides all the labor jobs and dirty jobs, start with various pundits and radio hacks who write and screed ideological propaganda—say like Anne Coulter. After all she could have been more honest hiring herself out as a sex prostitute—maybe like a dom—you know she wanted to tie up the Breck candidate while wearing a tight outfit? Certainly she could sell some nude photos of her backside—as it could be her best asset? But apparently she enjoys what she does so then it doesn't fit a majority definition.
But then there was the late, great Randi Rhodes who rightfully called the x-lead Walmart lawyer, namely Hillary Clinton a whore. And of course she is arguably one, but then every legislative person who takes bribery money, euphemistically called lobby money, is equally a whore—and this whoring has "serious" repercussions as a corrupting influence to society at large. And was not Barack Obama performing as prostitute when he surrounded himself with Wall Street banker friends and enough of a team to appease the AIPAC? Still it seems state attorney generals are too busy worrying about those women who "choose" to market themselves, or is it they are not getting hygienic training?
But why not make prostitution legal? And why not consider prostitution a form of enlightenment, as something positive in which "sophisticated" women engage in as a form of art? Why must women constantly be portrayed as helpless, naïve, and vulnerable, even when many are serviced with pimps, guards, and other contacts? Their dogma gets a tiresome.
But this is not to argue that there is no potential for crime, or that such services are affiliated with other issues such as drugs, etc. Certainly these are a variety of realities. But the fact is society pushes this stuff underground and compounds a lot of the negative issues in the first place. While can't sexologists train professional prostitutes to work within some reasonable boundaries rather than all the sanctimonious blue-nosing?
And why can't people have a right to the kinds of services the sexually squeamish and prudish are loath to provide? Why can't a guy just get laid once in a while even if he is not married or involved in a monogamous relationship? What can be so wrong with living out an erotic fantasy—even if the professional learns to lie and fake it? Is sex really that much of a scourge—and if so what part does the moral majority take as their fault in constantly seeing it in a negative light?
Does not a women have a right to her own body—just as does a man? And does not both a women and a man have a right to create their own self-esteem rather than adapting the stultifying views of a repressive society? Maybe some who work in the so-called sex businesses are, in fact, more fun and psychologically healthier people, at least in theory, than the normal run of the mill, or those women who have all these psychological chastity belts around their auras—that is those who have little desire to actually want sex with mere men.
One can suppose there a plenty of women who have little interest in having sex with men. After all haven't we spent decades training women to think how lowlife men are. And how can you be attracted to what you have taught to hate and look down on? Still when a man took a women out on a date, back in the days that gender roles were acceptable, and wined and dined her in hopes of getting her in bed—was that not some a kind of "payment" even if there was no guarantee?
But somehow we are suppose to believe that most men and women today really are soooo intellectually and spiritually attractive that the mere idea of physical desire for the sex object is too sand castle. Yet why so much emphasis on clothes, makeup and other allurements if the physical is just a game? Yes, we are all platonic saints who adore the ideal of love. Love is soooo pro-social—and lust so taboo. But can we love those who have trouble loving themselves?
Nevertheless people should have a right to see "adult services" advertising and to engage such services. It is not the moral majorities business to push an oppressive, guilt-trip, mentality onto everyone else in this country. If they don't want to engage in adult service then they do not have to choose to do so. But nobody is forcing them to worry about other peoples' lives.
And furthermore why is it that so many right-wing saints end up having so many sexual scandals? It seems they ones who scream the loudest are the ones who have closets to hide. Maybe they should spend more time attending to their own issues rather than worrying about whether the sexual revolution was such a big deal.
Good sex requires skill and knowledge. It takes sophisticated people who engage the company of others—rather than a breed of women who fall for the cheap and eternal "victim" psychology and who are given an excess of permission to blame everyone but themselves about what happens in their lives. Maybe this country would be a happier place if the Puritan just sat down and had a beer.
Sex can be good. Sex can be fun. Sex can be sexy. Deal with it. There are a lot of unmarried and separated people in this culture for whatever reason. Family values should stay within the family. One real scourge here in America is living in a culture with so many dense and self-righteous people—who think they know better than anyone else—and think they should rule all peoples' lives.
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
view discussion from this article