Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurney Halleck
U.S law, with the exception a few rural counties in Nevada, forbids prostitution.
Now that I know that you can technically still engage the services of a escort, but the fact that the law forbids it -- and that you can be arrested for it -- pretty much casts a pall over the proceedings and affects for the worse the quality of the women available for such services and truly deters many men who would otherwise just engage the services of a **** on a friday evening rather than trolling some bar.
But I've realized something though: No one who is against men having the option of plain and direct purchasable sex will phrase their objection in such a way as to indicate they are for restricting men's freedom to buy sex.
They will not say "prevent men from being able to buy sex!" They will say "fight human trafficking!" or paint prostitutes as absolute victims of pimps or as desperate drug addicts. You see, society has become too liberated over the past fifty years to make religious prudes (who want to fight prostitution for religious reasons) and feminists (who want to fight prostitution because, like, patriarchy) too self-conscious to openly and plainly talk about restricting sexual freedom.
Here's an example. A few months back, 104 men in some county in New York were busted for soliciting the services of prostitutes:
Operation Flush The Johns Prostitution Sting - Business Insider
There was actually some backlash in a few media outlets and the DA (a woman) felt the need to justify herself in an opinion editorial. The language she used was entirely one of concern for the prostitutes, whom she paints as being mostly victims, drug addicts, children, etc:
DA: Naming johns helps to dismantle the dangerous business of prostitution - NY Daily News
She paints it as inconceivable that any normal woman would use her body to directly earn money as a sex object, never mind the fact that prohibition itself is what causes only the most desperate to enter that profession. In short, this DA's language is the language that organizations that claim to fight "human trafficking" mostly use, but they're real effective goal is only to deny the masses of men the option of legal purchasable sex. These organizations need not even consciously work toward that end in order to be considered a market response to woman-kind's soft desire to prohibit prostitution. |
Nevada not the only one. There used to be until recently a few other states that allowed indoor sex for sale. Virginia and N Carolina outlaw penetrative and oral sex but not manual sex.
Rhode Island until very recently allowed indoor prostitution, 2009... the new law:
11-34.1-2. PROSTITUTION
A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee.
and sexual conduct is defined as:
11-34.1-1. DEFINITIONS
"Sexual conduct" means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, and digital intrusion or intrusion by any object into the genital opening or anal opening of another person's body, or the stimulation by hand of another's genitals for the purposes of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either person.
NOTE: the 'sexual conduct' does not doesn't include using 'any object' externally for sexual stimulation.
There are in fact a number of other states using that very same definition.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
