Conference back40::soapbox

    legalizing prostitution can be viewed in several ways.
    
    from one viewpoint, it would increase tax revenues, decrease the burden
    on the criminal system, and probably improve the health conditions of
    hookers and johns alike.  all good outcomes.
    
    on the other hand, it is antithetical to the mores of most religious
    groups and some significant number of areligious people as well. 
    promoting immorality is a bad outcome.

    
    One could also view it in the same light as the drug trade, in as
    much as prohibition has been virtually useless and quite expensive.
    

  Yes it should be legalized. Think of the following situation. 

  There are two sets of twins, to male twins Frank and Ralph and two female
sisters Wanda and Girtrude. 

  Frank and Ralph each decide to go out drinking on Friday night and go into a
bar where they meet Wanda and Girtrude. Frank takes Wand back to his room and
Ralph takes Girtrude back to his room. Both couples have sex. 

  As Wanda and Girtrude leave the two respective rooms, Frank gives Wanda a
rose and Ralph gives Girtrude a $100 bill. 

  What Frank and Wand did was perfectly legal. 

  What Ralph and Girtrude did was a felony.

  Does this make any sense? 

  George 

    
  Note 289.3

  >Does this make any sense? 
    
    Nope.
 

    >   on the other hand, it is antithetical to the mores of most
    >	religious groups and some significant number of areligious people 
    >	as well. promoting immorality is a bad outcome.
    
    Ah, but it is only society that says that it's immoral...by legalizing
    it wouldn't we be assisting in removing that stigma?

    .5
    
    > by legalizing
    > it wouldn't we be assisting in removing that stigma?
    
    i refer you to the abortion topic for the answer to that question.

    While in the military in Germany you come to accept it rather easily. 
    Many Americans (at first) have a hard time accepting it and a lot of
    other things as part of the cultural changes. However, all is NOT rosy
    even with legalization. During one session of training we had the
    Colonel in charge of military health services in Germany, give us an
    eye-opener. Tests conducted on legal prostitutes still showed many to
    be HIV positive. Frankfurt had close to 40% positive while Hamburg, a
    port city with ships and sailors from all over the world, was below 5%,
    just the opposite of what I would have expected. I am sure the
    difference has to be in the use of condoms although we did not get into
    such specifics. Last I heard Frankfurt had dispersed it's redlight 
    district further away from train station and out of the "tourist"
    areas. Still haven't figured out the rationale for such a move as those
    who want to go to a prostitute can still find one with no trouble. I do
    not believe for a minute that legalizing it in the U.S. would be a
    great harm IF condoms were mandatory and used. Legalization is not
    going to alter the morals of those opposed to it, nor will it suddenly
    draw people who have no interest in it.
    

    It should be legalized simply to clean it up, clear out some of the
    mob, and I think, ease drug traffic. Then I could start my second
    business legally and be my own best customer. :')

    
    Just a question: Does anyone know how prostitution has worked out in
    Nevada?  I think it is legal in that state.
    
    Thanks
    

    
    It's only legal in certain counties, not the entire state. It's still
    illegal in Las Vegas for example, but you couldn't tell by all the
    brochures you find all over.
    
    Mark

    In nevada they also have to have a house or as they prefer a ranch in
    which to do business, It is still illegal to walk the streets or to hit
    on johns at the hotels, but it is still done

re .3:

I don't think you're right.  If the $100 was a precondition for sex, it's
prostitution.  If it wasn't, it's not.  If Wanda agreed to have sex with
Frank only if he'd give her a rose, it's prostitution.

    RE: .0
    
    Legalize it.  Make it safe for those that will seek it out and take the
    danger from pimps etc. out of it.  Regulate it, generate tax revenues. 
    Use the tax revenues for promoting STD awareness, prevention, and
    education.  
    
    Brian

The Ottawa Police chief said he wanted to regulate it along with soft drugs.
No not drugs to make you soft.

The reason behind his statement was that his staff is short and they have
higher priorities of crime to deal with. He then cancelled his morality squad.

The city of Ottawa then made a lot of one way streets in the downtown core
to try and re-route the John patrols. The neighborhood that the hookers
were using as a place of business was noisy, had spent needles and condoms
lying around.

The city has passed a by-law to move all strip clubs and shops which sell
erotic videoes to industrial parks.

With the re-route of traffic the hookers just moved to other busy areas
with thier clients.

I tend to agree with previous noters. Setup a district.

BTW would they tax by the inch?

	Allan

    .15
    If they taxed by the inch I`d go broke rather quickly!

>    If they taxed by the inch I`d go broke rather quickly!

Yes, your nose is growing already.

    
    
    
    Maybe there needs to be a well hung boxer note.  All the recent notes
    to this effect.........
    
    signed,
    
    
    stubby

    
    
    If prostitution was legalized, wouldn't that take alot of the 
    excitement out of it??  Kind of defeat the purpose??  (for the
    *woodford* version of the definition of 'purpose', please watch
    Steve Martin in the movie "The Jerk") hehehehe
    
    
    Seriously, legalizing this 'career' is fine with me, as long as it is
    regulated very carefully.  
    
    
    Terrie
    

    >The city [of Ottawa] has passed a by-law to move all strip clubs and 
    >shops which sell erotic videoes to industrial parks.
    
    This is something I've been saying for a long time...legalize
    prostitution as an *industry* so that they have to locate the bawdy
    houses in areas that are zoned industrial.  There may be some diffi-
    culties, but at least it would discontinue the "victimization" of 
    Mr. Bill and others in residential areas.

    By the way, for your amusement...in Canada, prostitution is not
    illegal.  BUT, doing it in the same place more than once is illegal,
    and `living off the avails' is illegal (I guess it's just supposed
    to be a *hobby*), and `communication for the purpose of...' is
    illegal.
    
    Wacky stuff.
    
    jc
    

    In some of the European countries were they tried legalizing it they
    found it was almost impossible to regulate because some people will go
    to almost any lengths to avoid paying what they think is a tax. Maybe
    North America should take a look at some of the things that did work
    and learn from them, it might help cut down the crime that seems to go
    with the trade.
    
    Joan 
    

    Re: .21
    
    >>                                        ... because some people will go
    >> to almost any lengths to avoid paying what they think is a tax. ...   
    
    Yeah, we do the same thing over here.  It's called voting republican.
    
    -- Jim

    this may be a dumb question, but with the threat of aids, how does
    one insure that prostitutes are 'clean'?  Doesn't one need to wait
    a certain period of time between testings to be sure one hasn't 
    rec'd a false negative?  The ideal being that one has not had any
    sexual partners between tests? 

Oh, but sex with condoms is safe, isn't it?



Of course it is, it's sex with a partner that's the problem.

Badoom-boom-boom.

    It could take 6 months to show up in some and years in other but they
    have to start some place. If they are never tested on any STD then the
    problem becomes much worse. There are some strains of STD`s that could
    be simpley treated with penicillin and now it can`t be treated with
    anything. 

    In Amsterdam it`s legal,and it seems to be ok.
    
    Once me and a friend of mine went into the Banana Bar,in which you
    pay an entrance fee,then you get a certain amount of time inside
    (about 45 minutes or so). Inside are nekkid wimmin plying their wares,
    but the reason we went in is that you get free lager for the time
    inside. 
    
    ho!ho! Did we get some bemused looks and "typical Englishman"comments as 
    we declined the sex side of it asked for "another pint of lager,please".
    
    Mind you,I did have a big conversation with one of the ladies about
    the Van Gogh museum and other art galleries etc which was quite
    interesting. 
     

She didn't ask you to cut off your ear, did she, Stu?

    legalize it, illiminate the pimps and the girls (for the most part)
    would still make more even after taxes.
    
    Legal only in licensed establishments and the pro's would have to be
    certified on a regular basis.
    
    Please pick your own meaning of "certified"
    
    No need to volenteer for that job now
    
    Brian V
    

    
    I can just imagine the representatives of the prositution industry
    lobby "pursuading" our elected representatives to vote their way.
    Oh wait....nothing would change. :-)
    
    Dave

Just curious...does anyone have a profile of the typical customer
for this service?  I've often heard that the 'typical' customer is 
white, middle-class, lives in the suburbs, and is married.  Has 
anyone heard differently? 

    	re .23
    
    	'Tine.  If anything, certification and testing would remove the
    	diseased stock from the business once it is discovered, which is 
    	a far cry from what exists today.

    > certification and testing would remove the
    > diseased stock from the business once it is discovered
    
    how many partners does the average aids carrier kill, before he or she
    is diagnosed?

    	Well, gee, Dick, I really don't know.
    
    	BTW, please don't take my last entry as support for legalized
    	prostitution.  All I was doing was commenting that testing, in
    	spite of its lag time, is better than what's in place now.
    	Do you agree?

    .33
    
    i don't take your remarks as support for legalizing hookers, joe.  i
    know you a little better than that.
    
    i agree that testing would cut down the transmission of syphilis,
    gonorrhea, herpes, genital warts, chlamydia, and several other
    diseases.  all of which are uncomfortable and unattractive to varying
    degrees but none of which, if treated, is fatal.  aids, on the other
    hand, i dunno.  the jury is still out because we simply do not know
    enough about the disease yet.

    	It would HAVE TO help, Dick.  Today we have hookers with AIDS
    	still in business.  Just eliminating those would have to make
    	a difference.  (I'm making no suggestion about the degree of
    	that difference.  Just that it will make a positive difference.)

    question... do you think a "black market" of sorts would develop due
    to the regulation?
    
    i mean, what kind of work can an ex-hooker with AIDS get anyway?
    
    Chip

    .36
    
    > black market
    
    only if the licensed article is too costly, or otherwise more difficult
    of access.  which is inevitable, given the nature of governments.
    
    > what kind of work can an ex-hooker with AIDS get anyway?
    
    any job that calls for the skills he or she possesses.  not all hookers
    are dim bulbs; some are very bright and choose hooking as an easier way
    to earn a living than other things they might do.

    .37 agreed... i would think that having your "license" revoked
        because of AIDS would provide an employer biased enough on
        top of having been an ex-hooker. 
    
        naturally, the bias is unethical and discriminatory, but it
        would make it tough to secure another position (IMHO).
    
        Chip

    .38
    
    of course it can be difficult.  but there are businesses, and business
    people, who are willing to look at a candidate's positive side.  they
    are often people who have been down themselves and know what it is to
    be at the end of one's rope.

Wouldn't the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) make it illegal to fire
an HIV+ hooker?

    I suppose they could work in an HIV+ brothel.

    .40
    
    they don't have to fire an hiv+ hooker.  the state revokes her license,
    which makes her automatically ineligible to hook legally.  the state
    sends a notice of her decertification to her employer, so she can't
    hide the fact.  the employer isn't firing her, the state is putting her
    out of a job.
    
    but not, most likely, out of work.  so she was getting $25 a trick at a
    legit place, she finds a pimp for whom she can turn tricks for $15 and
    no questions asked.
    
    the final responsibility would devolve onto the john to require the
    hooker to show her license - which of course doesn't work if the
    expiration date on the decertified hooker's license hasn't passed yet. 
    or if she finds, as some are bound to, a source of fake credentials.
    
    the only way to make it work would be to license the hookers free and
    make ZERO other demands on the business.  any other demand drives up
    the cost and paves the way for the black market.

>    or if she finds, as some are bound to, a source of fake credentials.

And the price of PrintShop Deluxe and PhotoShop are likely to climb as
a result . . . 

FWIW, there's a new USENET newsgroup called alt.politics.prostitution.

    
    <--------
    
    To discuss, or proposition?
    

    							-------->

    .34
    There are certain strains of syphilis and gonorrhea that is no longer
    treatable and will also kill you.

Last night, on a TV show (forgot the name of it) about human relations,
they interviewed a guy who said that many men pay for prostitutes because
their wives or girlfriends won't perform certain sexual practices.  Like oral 
sex, for example.  Also, among some couples, communication breaks down to 
such an extent that sharing sexual fantasies becomes impossible.  So the men
visit prostitutes for the things they're just not getting on the homefront.

    .48
    
    so what do the gals do to get what they're not getting on the home
    front ?
    
    

    .49
    
    some of the women visit prostitutes, some have affairs, and some just
    live without.  remarkably similar to what the men do, isn't it.

    .50
    
    hey back that up with hard facts and references !!!
    
    ric
    :-)

    .51
    
    > back that up with hard facts and references
    
    actually, i could do so, even to the citation of individuals' names,
    but i will not.  i respect the privacy of people who confide in me.
    
    :-)

Re: .49

Well, three gals interviewed on this show went out and had affairs.

Another segment on this show that I found quite fascinating was
an interview with a Japanese _male_ escort who worked at a very
posh men's club.  The club's business was to cater to Japanese
women looking for a 'good night out'.  Three men sat at a table
with a woman and chit chatted with her until the time came for
her to make her choice.  She made her choice and exited the club
with her escort for the night.  

I was surprised because the situation with the 3 men
and a woman seemed totally reversed from the standard, and also,
this took place in Japan, a culture well-noted for, shall we
say, male dominance?

    
    The city of Boston approved plans last week to tear down the last 2
    establishments in it's Red Light district, affectionately known as
    the Combat Zone. The Naked I and another place (whose name escapes
    me) will be torn down and the space will become a parking lot.
    The memories remain...
                          Jim

Another facet of the customer/prostitute dynamic that I find
interesting:  Is there an added element of excitement brought
on by paying money for the woman?  (I'm talking the typical 
john/hooker situation here.)  Sort of like cutting to the chase -
you do this and I'll pay you that.  Quite an honest transaction,
actually.  

    .52,.53
    
    so how many women use male (or female i just thought of that)
    prostitutes ?
    
    ric$innocent

re .56:

Is this a survey?

Re: .56

>    so how many women use male (or female i just thought of that)
>    prostitutes ?

Gee, I don't know.  But I would guess that the male customer/female
prostitute is the most typical configuration, wouldn't you?  You seem
to be a bit on the defensive.  Here, try this exercise.  When you 
hear the word prostitute, does the image of a female or a male come
to mind?  Oh, I know, you immediately think of Jon Voight in Midnight
Cowboy, right?

>Is this a survey?

It could be.  Just asked a question, is all.  But I'm sure no one
from this company has EVER purchased sex. :-)

    
    Prostitution is immoral and victimizes women and therefore should be
    illegal.
    
    jeff

    .59
    
    > Prostitution is immoral
    
    iynsho.
    
    > victimizes women
    
    there aren't any male prostitutes to be victimized?  there aren't any
    male victims of hiv?
    
    > therefore should be
    > illegal.
    
    from point no. 1, it is impossible to legislate morals.  therefore,
    prostitution should not be illegal.

    
    > Prostitution is immoral
    
>    iynsho.
 
    No.  In fact.  In truth.
       
    > victimizes women
    
>    there aren't any male prostitutes to be victimized?  there aren't any
>    male victims of hiv?
 
    this is irrelevant to the argument.
         
    > therefore should be
    > illegal.
    
>    from point no. 1, it is impossible to legislate morals.  therefore,
>    prostitution should not be illegal.
    
    	I expect better from you blender.  
    
    jeff

 
>>    No.  In fact.  In truth.

	_The World According to Benson_

	

    
    immoral: not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong
    behavior; contrary to the moral code of the community; wicked;
    sometimes, specifically not in conformity with the accepted standards
    of proper sexual behavior; unchaste; lewd.
    
    Prostitution is immoral.

| <<< Note 289.59 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>


| Prostitution is immoral and victimizes women and therefore should be illegal.

	Christianity can victimize women too Jeff. Should it become illegal? Or
will you fight to have things changed?

    .62
    
    > In fact.  In truth.
    
    cite your incontrovertible sources, please.  without such citation, or
    equivalent proof, your argument fails.
    
    >> male victims?
    
    > this is irrelevant to the argument.
    
    i can hardly see how it is irrelevant.  however, the fact is that
    prostitution does not per se victimize the people, men and women, who
    choose it as a profession.  certain individuals, usually identified as
    pimps, victimize their hookers, and those victims include some who did
    not enter the profession of their own volition.  however, A does not
    equal B.  your argument again fails.
    
    > I expect better from you blender.
    
    you can force people to behave a certain way only if you have the power
    to do so and the ability to monitor their every moment to ensure that
    they comply.  neither of these preconditions is true in the real world
    of law enforcement, nor do we desire that they should be.  and even
    when you can enforce behavior, you cannot enforce volition.  you cannot
    suddenly, magically, pass AND ENFORCE a law that says people do not
    want to engage in prostitution.

>	Christianity can victimize women too Jeff. Should it become illegal? Or
>will you fight to have things changed?


 Great...here we go again..

    .64
    
    >immoral: not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong
    > behavior
    
    accepted standards of sexual behavior differ rather dramatically
    between people's bedrooms and people's self-righteous proclamations.
    were this not so, there would be no prostitution.

Oh er  SNARF!

    
    > In fact.  In truth.
    
   > cite your incontrovertible sources, please.  without such citation, or
   > equivalent proof, your argument fails.
    
    i don't think it is necessary to provide a thirteen page argument on
    why theism is true and anti-theism is false in order to have a
    discussion, which is what would be required to provide an
    incontrovertible source. 
    
    >> male victims?
    
    > this is irrelevant to the argument.
    
    >>i can hardly see how it is irrelevant.  
    
    sure you can.  my argument does not have to include *all* prostitutes to be
    valid.  
    
    >however, the fact is that
    >>prostitution does not per se victimize the people, men and women, who
    >>choose it as a profession.  certain individuals, usually identified as
    >>pimps, victimize their hookers, and those victims include some who did
    >>not enter the profession of their own volition.  however, A does not
    >>equal B.  your argument again fails.
    
    the term prostitution is used to include all that is normally and
    actually associated with the system; customers, prostitutes, pimps,
    rape, drug addiction, death, disease, physical abuse, mental and
    emotional abuse, slavery, lewdness, sex, etc.  my argument stands.
    
    > I expect better from you blender.
    
    >>you can force people to behave a certain way only if you have the power
    >>to do so and the ability to monitor their every moment to ensure that
    >>they comply.  neither of these preconditions is true in the real world
    >>of law enforcement, nor do we desire that they should be.  
    >>and even
    >>when you can enforce behavior, you cannot enforce volition.  you cannot
    >>suddenly, magically, pass AND ENFORCE a law that says people do not
    >>want to engage in prostitution.
    
    the issue is not volition, it is law.  the will may be changed by the
    law (laws clearly instruct) but laws are not defined to regulate the
    will as much as the actions of a person. 
    
    jeff

Actually, the john/hooker relationship says so much about
sexuality.  

The john has a need.  The john makes a contract with a hooker.
The john pays the hooker money.  The hooker makes good on the 
contract.

Why does this sound so familiar, and yet so unseemly couched
in those terms?

    Anyone know the etymology of the term hooker?

    
    Skip that, just tell us where it came from.

    
    Fishing ?  bb

    .70
    
    > i don't think it is necessary to provide a thirteen page argument...
    
    au contraire, mon ami.  you have posited on theistic grounds that
    prostitution's immorality is based in absolute truth.  for anyone who
    does not hold that there is such a thing as a god, all theism is
    inherently false; hence, in order to make your point you must prove it
    by some means other than assertion.  indeed, any religious argument
    whatever is suspect; you must make your proof by logic as rigorous as
    that used in mathematics and geometry.
    
    > the term prostitution is used to include...
    
    used by you, for the purposes of this discussion.  you are at pains to
    define the word as you choose.  i reject your definition because it is
    too broad a brush to be useful.  prostitution is the act or profession
    of exchanging sexual favors for tangible assets; all the baggage you
    have larded into the word is exactly that: baggage.
    
    > the issue is not volition, it is law.  the will may be changed by the
    > law...
    
    no.  compliance with a law is not prima facie evidence that the person
    complying does so out of free will.  when a prisoner is shackled, he
    shuffles - but you can bet he isn't shuffling because he likes doing
    the old soft shoe.
    
    because it is in fact impossible to legislate will, the most that can
    be done by making prostitution illegal is to interfere with the
    periphery of the business.
    
    as has been pointed out, if john and bill take mary and joan out on a
    date, then john and mary have sex and a $100 bill changes hands, that's
    prostitution - but if bill and joan have sex and a rose changes hands,
    that's NOT prostitution despite the fact that in both cases the exact
    same sequence of relevant events occurred, from the sex act to the
    subsequent exchanging of valuta.  it's a finely honed moral difference
    there, isn't it.
    
    in the end, prostitution will continue under the most restrictive
    possible legal framework.  the price may rise, but the business will
    continue to thrive because sex, like salt, has an almost infinite price
    elasticity.

   Re: etymology

   One supposed source of the term "hooker" comes from the U.S. Civil
   War.  Gen. Hooker (Union) was known for the large numbers of
   prostitutes he kept on hand during his campaigns.  These were other
   the usual camp followers that catered to the common soldier.  These
   women became known as "Hooker's women."  Later it was truncated to
   just "hookers."

The activities of Christian Missionaries in Asia, the South Pacific,
Africa and the Western Hemisphere from the 15th through the 19th
centuries (and quite probably longer) were immoral, as were their
goals.

How's that one strike ya, Benson? It's every bit as in/valid a claim
as yours regarding the im/morality of prostitution.

    
    > i don't think it is necessary to provide a thirteen page argument...
    
>    au contraire, mon ami.  you have posited on theistic grounds that
>    prostitution's immorality is based in absolute truth.  for anyone who
>    does not hold that there is such a thing as a god, all theism is
>    inherently false; hence, in order to make your point you must prove it
>    by some means other than assertion.  indeed, any religious argument
>    whatever is suspect; you must make your proof by logic as rigorous as
>    that used in mathematics and geometry.
 
    then we'll simply use the definition of immoral (provided earlier) to
    validate  that prostitution is immoral. (i can provide the argument for 
    theism over anti-theism, btw).
       
    > the term prostitution is used to include...
    
    >used by you, for the purposes of this discussion.  you are at pains to
    >define the word as you choose.  i reject your definition because it is
    >too broad a brush to be useful.  prostitution is the act or profession
    >of exchanging sexual favors for tangible assets; all the baggage you
    >have larded into the word is exactly that: baggage.
    
    you support the premise, then, that prostitution is immoral by
    your definition.  the 'baggage' supports the premise that prostitution
    victimizes women.
    
    > the issue is not volition, it is law.  the will may be changed by the
    > law...
    
    >no.  compliance with a law is not prima facie evidence that the person
    >complying does so out of free will.  when a prisoner is shackled, he
    >shuffles - but you can bet he isn't shuffling because he likes doing
    >the old soft shoe...
    
    you're confused.  i'll put it another way; law enforcement is directed
    primarily toward acts, not wills.
        
    >in the end, prostitution will continue under the most restrictive
    >possible legal framework.  the price may rise, but the business will
    >continue to thrive because sex, like salt, has an almost infinite price
    >elasticity.
    
    in the end, murder will continue under the most restrictive possible
    legal framework...
    
    jeff

    
    immoral: not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong
    behavior; contrary to the moral code of the community; wicked;
    sometimes, specifically not in conformity with the accepted standards
    of proper sexual behavior; unchaste; lewd.
    
   so mr. delbalso, what were the immoral acts of the missionaries?  
    
    jeff

    re: Note 289.76 by DYPSS1::COGHILL
    
    correct! 
    
    You win the cement hat!
    
    8^)
    
    Oh and Deb, thanks little buddy.

    .76
    I agree.

    .79
    
    > immoral: not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong
    > behavior
    
    killing and beating non-european people, forcing said people to convert
    from their religion to xianity, destroying not only the literature of
    said people but also their cultures.  somehow i do not believe such
    acts were in conformity with the accepted principles of right and wrong
    among the people so maltreated.  hence, those actions were immoral.

    No Dick, they were just Christ rejecters getting their due punishment.

    .78
    
    > then we'll simply use the definition of immoral
    
    but i have already shown you that it is an invalid definition.  if it
    were valid, then there would be no prostitution among christians.  but
    there is - clearly, the christians engaging in prostitution (in which i
    include making use of prostitutes) do not accept for themselves the
    standards they proclaim.  i cite jimmy swaggart as a prime example of
    such a person.  your definition is not acceptable.
    
    > you support the premise, then, that prostitution is immoral
    
    no.  i say that you are trying to tip it into the "immoral" realm by
    heaping on baggage.  if i say that mother teresa *is* squashed flat
    because she *would* be if i were to heap a ton of lead on her, does
    that statement reflect reality?
    
    >>> the issue is not volition, it is law.  the will may be changed by the
    >>> law...
    >>
    >> no.
    >
    > you're confused.
    
    no, i'm not.  you're inconsistent.  first you say, in so many words,
    that a law can change the will.  i take issue with that statement, and
    you then say i'm confused?  oopsie.  of course law enforcement is
    directed toward acts, not wills.  not "primarily" directed, ENTIRELY
    directed.  no law EVER caused a person not to want something that that
    person wanted before the law was enacted; any such law caused nothing
    more than that the person eschewed whatever it was that was desired
    rather than face the legal consequences.

    .84
    
    due punishment at the hands of men?  hardly.  you are either joking
    or very sick.

    er, I'm joking. Other people who believe that sort of clap trap are
    sick. Unfortunately, many people do.

| <<< Note 289.84 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Weird Canadian Type Geezer" >>>


| No Dick, they were just Christ rejecters getting their due punishment.

	Yeah, but they forgot that Christ was supposed to be doing the
punishing, not them. Funny how with many of "todays" Christians the same
thing keeps on happening...... 

re: Richard's .83 re: Benson's .79


Dick got here first. I couldn't have put it better, Dick. Thankyou.

No one granted the christian missionaries the "right" to destroy civilizations
and cultures and subjugate their people, as that was no one's "right" to begin
with. The acts were quite clearly immoral by your very definition, Benson.
To claim that they weren't is, how shall I say, disingenuous, to put it
mildly?

Now, my point here is not to invoke brickbats against christians, but to
try to open your eyes to the fact that your view of morality doesn't
necessarily define the bounds for the rest of humankind. I hope you
can see the parallel without requiring further guidance. It _does_ get
tedious.

    RE: .88
    
    
    never fail to take a jab.. do ya?
    
    

| <<< Note 289.87 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Weird Canadian Type Geezer" >>>

| er, I'm joking. Other people who believe that sort of clap trap are sick. 

	Too bad we can't treat them like the Clapper..... clap off!

| <<< Note 289.90 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| never fail to take a jab.. do ya?


	Tell me it ain't a true statement Andy. 

    
    > immoral: not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong
    > behavior
    
    >killing and beating non-european people, 
    
    missionaries did this?  all missionaries?  some missionaries?  did the
    non-european people kill and beat non non-european people?  i'm certain
    they did.
    
    >forcing said people to convert from their religion to xianity, 
    
    really?  what missionaries specifically did this?  what percent of
    conversions were forced?  what is your definition of convert?  don't
    you really mean forcing people to adhere to "christian" religious
    practice?  did those peoples have missionaries?  did their
    missionaries force conversions on others?   
    
    >destroying not only the literature of said people but also their cultures. 
    >somehow i do not believe such
    >acts were in conformity with the accepted principles of right and wrong
    >among the people so maltreated.  hence, those actions were immoral.
    
    did they destroy other peoples' literature and culture?  of course they 
    did.  therefore it was not immoral to them.  or at worst, they
    sanctioned immoral behavior?
    
    jeff
    
    

So the christian missionaries were faultless and should be not only
totally exonerated, but perhaps cannonized for their efforts, eh Benson?

Far out.

Wake me when we get back to Earth, will ya?

| <<< Note 289.93 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>


| >forcing said people to convert from their religion to xianity,

| really?  what missionaries specifically did this?  what percent of
| conversions were forced?  what is your definition of convert?  don't
| you really mean forcing people to adhere to "christian" religious practice?  

	Hey Jeff, reread what you wrote above. Now apply it to Christians
converting gays into heterosexuals. Sound familiar bud? Funny how you can see
the obvious for one, but not the other.....



Glen

    I would prefer the term non-gay, as in "This non-gay uses Ben-Gay".
    
    Heterosexual sounds too tinny.

Canonized.

| <<< Note 289.96 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Weird Canadian Type Geezer" >>>


| I would prefer the term non-gay, as in "This non-gay uses Ben-Gay".

	Ok, from now on I will use the term non-gay...... when talking about
Ben-Gay :-)

| Heterosexual sounds too tinny.

	YOUSE BLOKES MADE UP THE WORD! :-)

    .93
    
    >> killing and beating non-european people, 
    >
    > missionaries did this?  all missionaries?  some missionaries?
    
    it was the standard practice in latin america, and it was followed
    religiously, if i may use such a term, by the spanish missionaries who
    came among the aztecs.  the actual beatings and killings were mostly
    executed by soldiers at the missionaries' direction.  it's documented.
    
    > did the
    > non-european people kill and beat non non-european people?  i'm certain
    > they did.
    
    yes, they did.  in the context of war, not in the context of religious
    conversion.  the natives did not "enjoy" the benefits of a
    proselytizing religion.  surely you do not equate war with religion,
    except in that some wars have been triggered by religion as a proximate
    cause.
    
    >> forcing said people to convert from their religion to xianity, 
    >
    > really?  what missionaries specifically did this?  what percent of
    > conversions were forced?  what is your definition of convert?
    
    again, in mexico it was the rule.  definition of convert in this
    context is to follow the christian religious behaviours and eschew the
    old ways on pain of pain.  sorta like what the (nobody expects the)
    spanish inquisition did to the marranos.
    
    > did they destroy other peoples' literature and culture? of course they
    > did.  therefore it was not immoral to them.
    
    they would certainly have considered it immoral were the destroyed
    literature and culture their own.  but you make a very good point for
    my side in this debate - "therefore it was not immoral to them" seems
    to say that doing what they did, despite its DEFINITELY being counter
    to the accepted practice among the aztecs, was moral to them.  which
    can be used to show that prostitutino is not immoral to anyone who
    engages in it - it's the classic "if it feels good, do it" position.
    i do appreciate the elegant, although tediously verbose, way in which
    you have shot down your own position.

	How much ya charge for this snarf?

	DAMN DAMN DAMN!!!

What is the etymology of the phrase "missionary position"?

    
    > then we'll simply use the definition of immoral
    
>    but i have already shown you that it is an invalid definition.  if it
>    were valid, then there would be no prostitution among christians.  b
    > there is - clearly, the christians engaging in prostitution (in which i
    >include making use of prostitutes) do not accept for themselves the
    >standards they proclaim.  i cite jimmy swaggart as a prime example of
    >such a person.  your definition is not acceptable.
    
    you're still confused.  i am not obliged to appeal to theism in calling
    prostitution immoral.  the common definition for immoral fits
    prostitution.
     
    >of course law enforcement is
    >directed toward acts, not wills.  
    
    we're in agreement then.
    
    >not "primarily" directed, ENTIRELY
    >directed.  no law EVER caused a person not to want something that that
    >person wanted before the law was enacted; any such law caused nothing
    >more than that the person eschewed whatever it was that was desired
    >rather than face the legal consequences.
    
    you brought this up in your assertion that because the law
    cannot change the will then prostitution should not be illegal.  i then
    argued that law enforcement is not directed toward will but toward
    acts.
    
    tangentially, i disagree with your assertion that no law EVER changed a
    desire.  such a premise cannot be supported.
    
    jeff
    

| <<< Note 289.105 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>


| tangentially, i disagree with your assertion that no law EVER changed a
| desire.  such a premise cannot be supported.

	How about naming some.

Note 289.89
    
>Now, my point here is not to invoke brickbats against christians, but to
>try to open your eyes to the fact that your view of morality doesn't
>necessarily define the bounds for the rest of humankind. 
    
    The absolute authority defines the bounds of moral behavior.  If God
    exists (and I believe He does, as does Benson), then He defines
    morality.  Even if all of mankind decides prostitution is quite moral
    and exceptable by whatever standards, it does not mean that it is moral by
    God's standards for our behavior (thus considered immoral by the
    absolute authority).
    
    So, if there is an absolute authority, what we say or rationalize into
    our morality means nothing in the end if it goes against God's will.
    
    
    -steve

>So the christian missionaries were faultless and should be not only
>totally exonerated, but perhaps cannonized for their efforts, eh Benson?

no.  but you digress.
    
    

    
    Note 289.107
    
    >The absolute authority defines the bounds of moral behavior.  If God
    >exists (and I believe He does, as does Benson), then He defines
    >morality.
    
    And if God doesn't exist (and I believe he may well not)?
    
    Then who defines morality?
    

    .107
    
    steve, it still comes back to the simple FACT that god is not an
    authority figure for people who don't believe in him.  so any xian
    morality is inadequate reason in the eyes of nonxians for ceasing a
    practice that they like.
    
    to prove a given practice immoral, it is necessary to produce a
    morality that transcends all religious lines because it is not based on
    religion.  that morality must also transcend all ethnic lines because
    what is immoral to a western european may well not be immoral to an
    asian.

>i disagree with your assertion that no law EVER changed a
    desire.

Sorry, but you can't legislate human behavior.  It's been tried
before.  Prohibition, for one.  

Do you have an example of a law that changed a desire?

RE                    <<< Note 289.107 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

>    So, if there is an absolute authority, what we say or rationalize into
>    our morality means nothing in the end if it goes against God's will.
                                           --

  I have no problem with this but the line above does contain a rather large
"if". 

  There are many religions that attempt to tell us what God says and in most
free nations citizens have the freedom to decide for themselves what God says
or if God exists at all. 

  That being the case, while the morality of prostitution is an interesting
question to ponder it should have nothing to do with the legality of
prostitution. That is a matter of law which should be determined by reason,
not by adherence to any particular morality.

  George

>Sorry, but you can't legislate human behavior.  It's been tried
>before.  Prohibition, for one.  

Murder is human behavior.  Do you think it's wrong that it's illegal?

    i will retract my assertion that no law EVER changed a desire because
    it is impossible to prove a negative.  i therefore ask mr benson to
    cite an instance of a law that has changed a desire.  i specifically
    reject the laws of any religion because we are here discussing temporal
    authority, not spiritual.

    But does the fact that it is illegal change the desire of a murderer?

    Obviously not.

    It may prevent a murderer from committing the act but it doesn't change
    the desire.

    
    prostitution is immoral as immorality is commonly defined and
    understood. 
    
    you may attempt to change the definition of immorality but
    that is not an acceptable method of argument (and most of you know this i
    would presume). so give it up.
    
    if you want to argue that you do not consider prostitution immoral then
    you'll have to argue with yourself.  if you would like to argue for a
    change in the definition of immoral, knock yourself out.  if you would
    like to argue that prostitution is immoral but should still be legal,
    go ahead.  if you would like to argue that the law should not address
    issues of immorality, feel free.  there are others of course.
    
    just don't attempt to argue with the valid argument that prostitution
    is immoral.
    
    jeff

RE         <<< Note 289.116 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

>    prostitution is immoral as immorality is commonly defined and
>    understood. 
>    
>    you may attempt to change the definition of immorality but
>    that is not an acceptable method of argument (and most of you know this i
>    would presume). so give it up.

  Prostitution is not immoral as I understand morality. I can observe that
you feel it is immoral and others feel it is immoral and I respect your
opinion but to me and many people like me prostitution is not immoral, it
is simply illegal.
    
>    if you want to argue that you do not consider prostitution immoral then
>    you'll have to argue with yourself.  

  No I don't, I can argue with you.

>    just don't attempt to argue with the valid argument that prostitution
>    is immoral.
    
  So what is this, some sort of threat?

  George

    
    this is terribly tangential but i'll give it a go.  
    
    a person who is contemplating murder, for example, can, by the sheer 
    knowledge and contemplation of the existence of the law against murder 
    with its subsequent serious consequences, come to the conclusion that 
    murdering is condemned by the society he lives in as a grave wrong. he
    may then decide that he is at odds with right (he is wrong).  this 
    conclusion may cause him to seek to understand why he is
    wrong, why his desire to murder is wrong.  through this exercise he may
    come to understand that human life is more valuable than his right to
    express his rage or desire, for example.  or he might come to understand 
    the concept of justice in society.  or he might have a religious 
    experience.  through an acceptance of new (authoritative) knowledge his 
    desire to murder may be neutralized.
    
    jeff
    

>    prostitution is immoral as immorality is commonly defined and
>    understood. 
>    
>    you may attempt to change the definition of immorality but
>    that is not an acceptable method of argument (and most of you know this i
>    would presume). so give it up.

>>  Prostitution is not immoral as I understand morality. I can observe that
>>you feel it is immoral and others feel it is immoral and I respect your
>>opinion but to me and many people like me prostitution is not immoral, it
>>is simply illegal.
    
>    if you want to argue that you do not consider prostitution immoral then
>    you'll have to argue with yourself.  

>>  No I don't, I can argue with you.

    No you can't because i will not argue over the definition of immoral.
    
    jeff

    .119
    
    > No you can't because i will not argue over the definition of immoral.
    
    the world according to jeff.  q.e.d.

re: .110
         
>    steve, it still comes back to the simple FACT that god is not an
>    authority figure for people who don't believe in him.  so any xian
>    morality is inadequate reason in the eyes of nonxians for ceasing a
>    practice that they like.
 
    Agreed. 
       
>    to prove a given practice immoral, it is necessary to produce a
>    morality that transcends all religious lines because it is not based on
>    religion.  that morality must also transcend all ethnic lines because
>    what is immoral to a western european may well not be immoral to an
>    asian.
    
    What do we do about those who think murder of a specific
    race/nationality is okay?  How about primitives who still practice
    cannibalism?  What about the people in China, due to the one-child law,
    who abort females (abortion for no other reason than sex of the child)? 
    How about the anti-semitism rearing its ugly head in Russia?
    
    Now, we can all look at these things and say they are immoral, but who
    are we to tell these people that *their* views are incorrect, immoral?
    
    There is no morality consensus amoung mankind.  This is the problem. 
    Even in the US, we have distinct factions on many subjects, sexual
    morality being just one.  
    
    How do you define immoral behavior, when there is always one group who
    will argue against your definition.  Do numbers really matter when
    defining morality?  Do the majority get their morality validated simply
    because they outnumber the other groups?
    
    I know I'm digressing a bit, but morality comes from God.  Without God,
    there is no absolute morality, which sort of takes the meaning away
    from "immoral" (what is immoral to you may not be for me, etc.).  So,
    if God doesn't exist, we are stuck with no absolutes...we can all do
    anything we like and call it moral within our group.
    
    The only logical test of immoral/moral behavior are the results that
    such beahaviors bring to society (in which case, promiscuity and 
    prostitution are immoral, as is theft, lying, etc.).  Of course,
    without absolutes, we are stuck in a mire of rationalizations and
    situational ethics.
                
    
    -steve             

    Re: .121
    
    >The only logical test of immoral/moral behavior are the results that
    >such beahaviors bring to society
    
    That might not work.  Different cultures have different societal
    values.  If the culture prizes stability over all things, divorce
    becomes immoral because you're disrupting the stability of the family. 
    If the culture values a diversified gene pool or a fast-growing  
    population, polygamy becomes moral.  If the culture values zero
    population growth, having more than two children becomes immoral.

>    >The only logical test of immoral/moral behavior are the results that
>    >such beahaviors bring to society
>    
>    That might not work.  Different cultures have different societal
>    values.  
    
    	But the def'n of immoral given way back there was precisely
    	about values within a particular society.
    
    	Different cultures have different moral codes because they have
    	different societal values.

    Fine with me, as long as no one tries to assert some kind of global or
    default society.

    
    Show me a culture in which "whore" is not a term of contempt or
    reproach, and in the context of that culture, we can have a
    discussion about prostitution as being "morally neutral".
    
    However, even if you accept the idea that it is prima facie
    "immoral", that in itself may not be a sufficient basis for 
    outlawing it, which point George made some notes ago.

re:         <<< Note 289.108 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

>no.  but you digress.
    
Perhaps. Let's examine why.

You presented a definition of "morality" and posited that prostitution
was immoral gievn that.

I proposed that by that definition, the acts and goals of christian
missionaries were likewise immoral.

You asked for justification.

Dick and I both presented that.

You decided to sidestep the proof by attempting to rationalize their
activities and demonstrating that their subjugates "weren't any better",
thereby missing the point of the matter completely.

So I pursued your misdirected meanderings with a digression.

You're more than welcome to rejoin the original track of the discussion
at this point and respond to the matter at hand, that being, it's just
as inappropriate for you, as it was for christian missionaries, to foist
your beliefs, values and moral system on others. Failing your recognition
of that point, we'll be more than happy to to listen to any treatise you
might like to present as to why "YOUR" morality is superior and by what
right you are privileged to practice the oppression of others with same,
in the same manner that the previously alluded to christian missionaries
did.

    .125
    
    > Show me a culture in which "whore" is not a term of contempt...
    
    "whore" is deliberately pejorative.  how about if you use another word
    for the same thing?  we all know what a call girl is, but that's not a
    term of contempt.  nor is escort.
    
    q.e.d.
    
    you now have a culture in which prostitution is morally neutral: ours.
    discuss.

    What ever became of Mary Magdilin (I hope I selled it right, I don`t
    have my Bible handy)?

    first of all, there is no direct evidence in the bible that mary
    magdalene was in fact a prostitute - in luke she is first mentioned
    (8:2) after the mention of one such (7:37-38), but she is not herself
    so stigmatized.
    
    in any case, there is also no direct evidence of what happened to her
    after jesus rose.  she was probably one of the early xian community,
    but there is no mention of her by name outside the gospels.
    
    tradition has it that she, and also jesus' mother and andrew and
    philip, went to ephesus.
    

    .129
    Do we use the same bible (King James)?
    
    Thanks.

re .130

Doesn't matter; all the Christian bibles say the same thing about Mary
Magdalene:  The only thing said about her origins in any Christian bible
is that Jesus cast seven demons out of her.

/john

    .131
    Have those "Demons" ever been identified or were they just the run of
    the mill Demons? :') 

    
    The philosophical basis for ethics has always been problematic,
    back to Aristotle/Plato and beyond, and is still up in the air.
    
    No problem for "revealed ethics", Moses+tablets,Jesus,Muhammed.
    There, it's like the rulebook for a sport.
    
    Without such a reference, you cannot confound the sophomoric logical
    positivists who argue that ethics is meaningless.  All you can do is
    demonstrate the pernicious effects of its absence, which are obvious.
    
    In a majoritarian democracy, we have compromised on a relativistic
    definition which reveals our own flaws, but which has practical
    benefits.  The idea boils down to voting, but requiring
    super-majorities in certain enumerated cases.  It has no philosophical
    basis, but it keeps the peace.
    
      bb

	.133  For some reason, that sounded to me like something the
	scarecrow might have said after the wizard gave him his diploma.
	I don't know why.

RE         <<< Note 289.119 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

>    No you can't because i will not argue over the definition of immoral.
>    

  But we are already arguing. I say prostitution is not immoral. That would
contradict your argument that prostitution is immoral. Sounds to me like we
are arguing as to whether prostitution is immoral.

  George

    George, why is it not immoral?

	Jeff, will you be addressing .95 anytime soon? I'm dieing to hear your
explaination of it. 


Glen

RE                    <<< Note 289.136 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

>    George, why is it not immoral?

  The question as to what is morality is a religious question and the 1st
amendment guarantees us freedom of and freedom from religion. Therefore,
prostitution is only immoral if you decide it is immoral. 

  I have decided that it is not immoral therefor it is not immoral for me.

  If you decide it is immoral then it is immoral for you and I respect your
choice.

  George

    
    RE: .139
    
    Sorry Meowski...
    
     I looked up the word "immoral" in the dictionary and found no
    reference to religion or the word "religion" in there, so by
    definition, it's not a religious question at all...
    

>	Jeff, will you be addressing .95 anytime soon? I'm dieing to hear your
>explaination of it. 

>Glen
 

          <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 289.95             Prostitution/Red Light Districts               95 of 137
BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me"                         16 lines  16-FEB-1995 15:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 289.93 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>


| >forcing said people to convert from their religion to xianity,

| really?  what missionaries specifically did this?  what percent of
| conversions were forced?  what is your definition of convert?  don't
| you really mean forcing people to adhere to "christian" religious practice?  

| jeff

>>	Hey Jeff, reread what you wrote above. Now apply it to Christians
>>converting gays into heterosexuals. Sound familiar bud? Funny how you can see
>>the obvious for one, but not the other.....

>>Glen

no it doesn't sound familiar. it sounds stupid.   i know it is tempting to
respond off-the-cuff and i am certainly guilty of it myself at times but please
Glen, do yourself a favor,  spend just a few more minutes thinking before
posting and maybe we can have a conversation.  as it is, it is too laborious
to discern what you're really intending to talk about (or want me to talk
about).

i personally know of no forced conversions of homosexuals.

jeff

    boy did i miss a lot last nite 
    
    re missionary position - i thnik this derives from the xian missionaries
    who in their all-knowing wisdom for all mankind decided that was the only
    "holy" way to do it
    
    re morals - of course these are relative and culture-specific. absolute
    morality is an oxymoron
    
    ric

RE: 289.141 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung"

> i personally know of no forced conversions of homosexuals.

Look up Alan Turing.


Phil

What would the job description look like?

Would there be different classifications of the job title?


What would be the criteria be for certification?

In the job interview, what kind of questions would be asked?

RE   <<< Note 289.140 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>     I looked up the word "immoral" in the dictionary and found no
>    reference to religion or the word "religion" in there, so by
>    definition, it's not a religious question at all...
    
  I guess we have different dictionaries:

  From the American Heritage Dictionary

    morality n. 1. The quality of being moral. 2. A set of ideas or customs of
a given religion, society, or social class. 3. Virtuous conduct.


  George

    re .139

    George, does this not open a Pandora's box?

    For some, murdering is not immoral, they simply do it because they find
    it necessary to kill.

    re: "absolute morality is an oxymoron"
    
    Only if God does not exist.  If He does, then there is indeed an
    absolute morality that He defines for us.  The question arises (and the
    argument goes on) about whether God does exist, and if so, did He leave
    a guide for us to follow (so we can avoid the relativism).
    
    
    -steve

RE     <<< Note 289.146 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Weird Canadian Type Geezer" >>>

>    For some, murdering is not immoral, they simply do it because they find
>    it necessary to kill.

  That may be but murder is illegal and most people believe it is reasonable
for murder to remain illegal.

  When someone is brought to trial accused of committing a homicide the state
must show they broke the law, not that they did something immoral.

  George

    .147
    
    fair point - i agree.
    
    ric
    
    ps. i've been readonly in wommannotes watching your spirited defence re
    evolution. keep going !!   

    Let's ensure that the terms in question are defined.  Definitions following
    are from Webster's 2nd College Edition.

    moral: 1. relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction
              between right and wrong in conduct. 2. relating to, serving to
	      teach, or in accordance with, the principles of right and
	      wrong. 3. good or right in conduct or character; sometimes,
	      specif., virtuous in sexual conduct.
    SYN. - moral, ethical, virtuous.  virtuous implies a morally excellent
           character, connoting justice, integrity, and often, specif.,
	   chastity.
    ANT. - immoral

    morality: 1. moral quality or character; rightness or wrongness, as of an
              action. 2. the character of being in accord with the principles 
	      or standards of right conduct; right conduct; sometimes, specif.,
	      virtue in sexual conduct.
    
    immoral: not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong
             behavior; contrary to the moral code of the community; wicked;
             sometimes, specifically not in conformity with the accepted 
             standards of proper sexual behavior; unchaste; lewd.

    chaste: 1. not indulging in unlawful sexual activity; virtuous; said esp.
            of women. 2. sexually abstinent; celibate 3. pure, decent, or 
	    modest in nature, behavior, etc.
    
SYN. - virtuous, in this connection, imply moral excellence manifested
       by forebearance from acts or thoughts that do not accord with virginity
       or strict marital fidelity.

ANT. - immoral, lewd, wanton

    lewd: 1. showing, or intended to excite, lust or sexual desire, esp. in an
             offensive way; lascivious.

    prostitute: 1. to sell the services of (oneself or another) for purposes
                   of sexual intercourse. 2. to sell (oneself, one's artistic
                   or moral integrity, etc.) for low or unworthy purposes.
		n. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse for
		   pay; whore; harlot.

    law: 1. a) all the rules of conduct established and enforced by the
            authority, legislation, or custom of a given community, state,
            or other group. b) any one of such rules.

    illegal: prohibited by law; against the law; unlawful; illicit; also,
             not authorized or sanctioned, as by rules.

        

I have argued that prostitution is immoral and victimizes women and should
therefore remain illegal.  Below is the supporting data for my valid argument.

Prostitution is immoral:

Prostitution is immoral by definition (see previous note for definitions). 
Prostitution is:

	- not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong as
          evidenced by the ordinances and statutes (laws) prohibiting it.
	
	- contrary to the moral code of virtually every community in the U.S.
          as evidenced by the presence of ordinances and statutes (laws) in
          virtually every community in the U.S.  Even in the 12 counties in
          Nevada where prostitution is a regulated activity the regulations
          for its practice are severely restrictive and isolating the practice
          from the communities.  Furthermore, 300-400 prostitutes per month
          are arrested for prostitution in these communities.

	- wicked in that it is morally bad or wrong (see definitions)

	- specifically not in conformity with the accepted standards of
          proper sexual behavior as evidenced by the ordinances and statutes
          against it in virtually every community.

	- unchaste in that it is unlawful sexual activity; is unvirtuous
	  and sexually active.

	- lewd in that part of the practice by and large involves the 
          intention of publicly exciting and creating a sexual desire in
          its customers through manner, dress, location, etc.


Prostitution victimizes women:
Prostitution victimizes women as evidenced by:

	- the conditions of this "profession":

		- extreme sexual, physical and psychological abuse.
		- 70% of prostitutes are raped repeatedly by their customers-
		  an average of 31 times per year.
		- 65 % are physically assaulted repeatedly by customers and
                  more by pimps.
		- 65% or more are drug addicts
		- increasingly, prostituted women are HIV positive.
		- survivors testify to severe violence, torture and attempted
                  murders.
		- the mortality rate is 40 times the nat'l. avg.
		- a substantial portion of streetwalkers are homeless or living
		  below the poverty line.
		- most women who work in outcall svcs have no control of their
		  income but are subject to pimps or pushers.
		- most will leave prostition without savings.
		- in the U.S. and globally the ranks of prostitution are filled
		  with society's most vulnerable members, those least able to
		  resist recruitment.
			- women, especially the poor
			- the working class
			- racial and ethnic minorities
			- mothers with young children to support
			- battered women fleeing abuse
			- refugess and illegal immigrants.
			- children - average age of entry to prostitution - 14.
				- 65% are runaways
				- most have experienced a major trauma such as
				  incest, domestic violence, rape or parental
				  abandonment.
		- wherever regulated prostitution exists it is matched by
		  a flourishing black market.
		- regulated brothel prostitutes in Nevada are captive in
		  conditions analogous to slavery:
			- women often are procured for the brothels from
			  other areas by pimps who dump them at the house for
			  a finders fee.
			- women work in shifts commonly as long as 12 hrs even
			  when ill, menstruating or pregnant, with no right
			  to refuse a customer request of any kind.
			- prostitutes pay up to 50% of their earnings for 
			  room and board and pay extra for medical exams,
			  clothing, etc.
			- rapes and assaults continue in the brothels but are
			  covered up by management.
			- local ordinances restrict the women's activities
			  outside the brothels.
				- confined to certain parts of town and 
				  permitted out on certain days only.
				- are isolated as virtual prisoners with
				  ordinances requiring brothels to be located
				  in uninhabited areas at least five miles from
				  any city, town, mobilehome park or res. area.
				- legal codes describe the women as "inmates".


Prostitution is immoral and victimizes women therefore prostitution should 
remain illegal.

jeff


 

    
    re, .134 - Well, Fridays are best for ponderous pontifications.
    
      We do not ask if hyenas are moral.  Ethics stands apart from science.
    
      If the relativistic definition is not accepted, you are left with the
     struggle for existence, and the winners are moral, the losers not.
    
      Binder claims something is moral because he thinks it is.  Benson
     challenges this by pointing out that Binder is outvoted in the
     society he is in, which is true.
    
      If both of these claims don't bother you, you are more satisfied
     with building an edifice on shifting sands than most people.
    
      Who was the SCOTUS justice who said, "I can't define obscenity,
     but I know it when I see it ?"  Doesn't all morality have this
     quality ?  "Do your own thing" has been tried.  It results in the
     unequivocal death of all standards, even those of the majority,
     whether wise or not.  No, Benson is right - morality in a democracy
     is a matter of voting, or it is nothing at all.
    
      bb

    .152
    
    > Binder claims something is moral because he thinks it is.
    
    no.  that's meowski.  i haven't stated my position; i've merely set
    forth arguments against, and counterexamples to disprove the validity
    of, jeff's claim to possession of an absolute morality.

    .151
    
    a short q to a v long note :-)
    
    where do you stand re "up market" call-girls ? most of your note seems
    to be addressed towards street-walkers and brothels and i agree with
    most of it. but as in all human activities there exists a spectrum of
    behaviours/situations. where do *you* draw the line ?
    
    ric 

    
>    where do you stand re "up market" call-girls ? most of your note seems
>    to be addressed towards street-walkers and brothels and i agree with
>    most of it. but as in all human activities there exists a spectrum of
>    behaviours/situations. where do *you* draw the line ?
    
    all forms of prostitution are immoral.  all forms of prostitution
    (where women are concerned) victimizes women whether slightly, severely
    or somewhere in-between and therefore should remain illegal.
    
    a short a to a short q.
    
    jeff

    .155
    
    hmm, if wot one reads about is true, there may be a few up-market
    call-girls who ended up marrying their punters who might disagree with
    that !
    
    ric

    > I know I'm digressing a bit, but morality comes from God.  Without God,
    > there is no absolute morality, which sort of takes the meaning away
    > from "immoral" (what is immoral to you may not be for me, etc.).  So,
    
    That's not a proof, you know.  Perhaps there is no 'absolute
    immorality' either.
    
    I would say that morality comes from the social contract; from the
    recognition that people living with each other know they have to
    accomodate each other a bit in order to get along, or the society isn't
    viable.  When the social contract for a given society happens to
    include a recognized mythology/religion, then sometimes the people will
    want to attribute all sorts of moral imperatives according to the
    mythology's dictates, but that simply can't help us to understand all
    of the peoples who act morally without benefit of such unnecessary
    anthropomorphising.  So: religious people are going to be inclined to
    believe that their political institution/religion is the 'absolute'
    source of morality, but this belief-construct simply fails to explain
    all the data.  Recognizing that the social contract is the source does
    include all the data, and is my current working hypothesis.
    
    DougO

    
>    I would say that morality comes from the social contract; from the
>    recognition that people living with each other know they have to
>    accomodate each other a bit in order to get along, or the society isn't
>    viable.  When the social contract for a given society happens to
>    include a recognized mythology/religion, then sometimes the people will
>    want to attribute all sorts of moral imperatives according to the
>    mythology's dictates, but that simply can't help us to understand all
>    of the peoples who act morally without benefit of such unnecessary
>    anthropomorphising.  So: religious people are going to be inclined to
>    believe that their political institution/religion is the 'absolute'
>    source of morality, but this belief-construct simply fails to explain
>    all the data.  Recognizing that the social contract is the source does
>    include all the data, and is my current working hypothesis.
    
	that's not a proof, you know.  perhaps there is an absolute
    morality and perhaps it comes from God.    
    
	jeff    

    	.148, George --
    
>  That may be but murder is illegal and most people believe it is reasonable
>for murder to remain illegal.

    	And prostitution is illegal, and most people believe it is
    	reasonable for prostitution to remain illegal.
    
    	You as an entity have determined that prostitution is not immoral
    	for you, so therefore it is not immoral for you.  I'll buy that.
    	By the same token society as an entity can (and up until now the
    	society in which you live has) determine(d) that prostitution is
    	immoral, so therefore within that society it is deemed immoral.

    It wasn't offered as a proof, Jeff, merely as a working hypothesis that
    accomodates all the current data, which yours fails to do.
    
    DougO

    
>    It wasn't offered as a proof, Jeff, merely as a working hypothesis that
>    accomodates all the current data, which yours fails to do.
    
    i don't think steve was offering a proof either and i think that was
    obvious to you.
    
    >...hypothesis...which yours fails to do.
    
    what hypothesis are you referring to?
    
    
    jeff
    

| <<< Note 289.158 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>


| perhaps there is an absolute morality and perhaps it comes from God.

	EXACTLY!  Which you, being human, can not have in your grasp the entire
thing, unless you feel you're on the same level as God. I would say that Mr.
Binder is correct when he stated you are not in possesion of absolute morality.
None of us are.


Glen

	Sigh of relief Jim?

From:

 Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged)

 immoral - :not moral: inconsistent with purity or good morals: contrary to 
conscience or moral law: WICKED, LICENTIOUS < an ~ man > < such ~ acts >;
broadly: opposed to, critical of, or in conflict with generally or 
traditionally held moral principles < refusal to acknowledge the boundaries 
set by convention is the source of frequent denunciations of art as ~ - John 
Dewey > - compare UNMORAL

    
      Well, if it comes to a question of whether a God or a social
     contract is a more believable myth, I'll pick the god.  There
     is no proof or disproof of the god.  The silly idea of a social
     contract flies in the face of reality.
    
      bb

    I still want to know about those demons in poor ole Mary M! 

    Good heavens! What did I do now!  I wasn't even following
    this topic!
    
    Mary-Michael

    re: .162
    
    An argument that is very effective at rationalizing any behavior...

    >The silly idea of a social contract flies in the face of reality.
    
    one wonders, idly, what your position is on the 'reality' of the
    'invisible hand' postulated by Adam Smith to guide free markets?
    
    DougO

    
    hmmm ... immoral as defined by the standards of society ... I don't buy
    it.
    
    the best counter argument ... slavery ... it was legal and was considered
    within the norm in society.  I don't but it ... slavery
    is/was immoral no matter what the norm of any society was at that time.
    
    
    hmmm ... but what about murder ... very bad analogy ... with a murder
    there is a very obvious victim ... the dead person usual didn't enter
    this situation by choice. The "moral" restrictions on prostitution, 
    prohibition, gambling do not involve an obvious victim ... they are
    maintained on some definition of restricting consenting adults for the
    good of society.
    
    Greg
     

	Steve, do you believe, without a doubt, that you have your morality
100% equal to God's?

    
    You really enjoy playing the court jester.. don't you!
    

    
    A logical human believes in gravity, radio, the odds on various
    human behaviors - lots of things he can't see.  He believes in
    them because he CAN see the results, and it's the best he can do
    for an explanation.  Adam Smith, a pedantic Scotch beancounter,
    observed the effects of government policies in 18th century England,
    on various industries, such as the Scotch herring fisheries.  He
    discovered, somewhat to his surprise, that no government policy
    was more efficient (and most all were less efficient) than complete
    government inaction.  He asked how come ignorant fishermen and fish
    dealers, who didn't even communicate with each other, could arrange
    a more efficient market than all the government experts.  The result
    was the theory of the invisible hand.  It remains only a theory today,
    but it is still measurable that any regulation of markets harms BOTH
    buyers and sellers, and you can count by how much.
    
     The "social contract" was a theory on the origins of government power,
    and come from Rousseau.  He hypothesized that the social inequalities
    he saw in ancien regime France were tolerated because they were part
    of a long-ago agreement between citizens.  He was wrong.  It was due
    to oppression and fear.  As soon as power became available, those who
    were oppressed rose and chopped off the heads of all the silly French
    noblemen who fell for this notion.
    
     Perhaps, DougO, when you walk down the streets of your area, you
    imagine there to be some social agreement between yourself and passers
    by, that you will be civil to one another, and that all you meet share
    in this delusion.  Don't try it in a Massachusetts rotary.
    
     bb

| <<< Note 289.174 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| You really enjoy playing the court jester.. don't you!

	Surely you jest Andy. To be serious, what is wrong with the question?

    
>    hmmm ... immoral as defined by the standards of society ... I don't buy
>    it.
 
    you may not buy it and that is fine but you cannot refute the argument
    that prostitution is immoral because that which is undeniable is true.
       
    >the best counter argument ... slavery ... it was legal and was considered
    >within the norm in society.  I don't but it ... slavery
    >is/was immoral no matter what the norm of any society was at that time.
   
    slavery is not a counterargument at all. there were significant
    divisions in society around slavery leading to a civil
    war, which ended it.  there is no significant or analagous division
    around the immorality of prostitution which might lead to a civil war
    or even a significant change in the laws prohibiting it.
    
    >hmmm ... but what about murder ... very bad analogy ... with a murder
    >there is a very obvious victim ... the dead person usual didn't enter
    >this situation by choice. The "moral" restrictions on prostitution, 
    >prohibition, gambling do not involve an obvious victim ... they are
    >maintained on some definition of restricting consenting adults for the
    >good of society.
    
    
    joe's analogous use of the illegality of murder was a perfectly logical
    response to meowski's flawed premise. 
    
    i believe that the i adequately demonstrated the premise that women are
    obviously victims of prostitution.
    
    the laws restricting prostitution represent the morality of the
    community and are not directly interested in the role of the victim.
    
    jeff

    RE: .176
    
    
    Because you have no concept of context...
    
    God said:
    
    Be ye holy as I am holy....
    
    
     Does that mean you're to be another God as He is? Does it mean you're
    to walk on water as He did? Part the Red Sea? Feed the multitude?

                                       YES        NO

     1.	Should extra-marital sex be   |   |      |   |
	illegal?                      |___|      |___|


     2.	Should extra-marital sex that |   |      |   |
	involves the exchange of      |___|      |___|
	money be illegal?

| <<< Note 289.178 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>



| Does that mean you're to be another God as He is? Does it mean you're
| to walk on water as He did? Part the Red Sea? Feed the multitude?

	Andy, I have no problem with the concept of STRIVING to be like Him.
But because of free will, we will never fully understand everything, which if
we can't, how can we have absolute morality for ourselves? Does it exist? Yes.
He has the key for absolute morality. Will we ever fully understand it? Yes,
when we enter into Heaven. Are you one who believes that humans are capable of
fully understanding every little thing about God? If not, how could you ever
think that while we're on this planet, we could understand or even grasp the
full knowledge of absolute morality. 



Glen

    
    Then strive...
    
    Don't ascribe "absolute morality" to someone who might be striving
    harder than you and seems "more" moral than you...

| <<< Note 289.181 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| Don't ascribe "absolute morality" to someone who might be striving
| harder than you and seems "more" moral than you...

	Have you been following this topic? Dick mentioned that Jeff did not
have absolute morality in his possesion. I commented on Jeff's response to that
and said the same thing. You basically stated above that it's strive and not
have, so why the hell did you start going off?


Glen

    
    By the way, onto another rat-hole, let's examine the supposedly
    cogent distinction between "victimed" and "victimless" crimes.
    
    While this SEEMS cogent, it isn't.  Who is the victim if I drive
    recklessly ?  If I cheat on my taxes ?  No actual physical victim
    complains, none can be identified.  It is "society" that complains.
    
    The identifiability of the "victims" is a gradation on a spectrum,
    one that would not be a good test for legality.  Not even better
    than what we do now.
    
      bb

>	Have you been following this topic? Dick mentioned that Jeff did not
>have absolute morality in his possesion. I commented on Jeff's response to that
>and said the same thing. You basically stated above that it's strive and not
>have, so why the hell did you start going off?

>Glen
    
    I think you misunderstood blender's entry.  dick stated that i 
    could not prove that absolute morality (not actually his words) exists
    outside of a theistic context (actually we're probably talking about 
    ultimate or absolute truth or reality, if you will, not morality).  
    neither dick nor myself were talking as if i said i am personally 
    absolutely moral (i.e.that i have attained moral perfection. i have
    not nor would i try to convince you of such).
    
    jeff

    
    RE: .182
    
    I suggest you really and honestly do one of two things...
    
    Take of those damned blinders of yours or...
    
    Take a comprehension course at your nearest high school...
    
    Remember... ignorance is curable... stupidity isn't
    

    jeff's synopsis of my position re absolute morality is accurate.

RE                     <<< Note 289.183 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    While this SEEMS cogent, it isn't.  Who is the victim if I drive
>    recklessly ?  If I cheat on my taxes ?  No actual physical victim
>    complains, none can be identified.  It is "society" that complains.
>    
>    The identifiability of the "victims" is a gradation on a spectrum,
>    one that would not be a good test for legality.  Not even better
>    than what we do now.
    
  If people cheat on their taxes, everyone who does pay taxes is a victim
because they must pay more to make up for what someone didn't pay. If someone
drives recklessly, they increase the chance of an accident which is likely
to result in injury to victims.

  With legalized prostitution, no one suffers. It's not a matter of there being
unidentified victims, rather there are no victims at all. 

  George

    
>  If people cheat on their taxes, everyone who does pay taxes is a victim
>because they must pay more to make up for what someone didn't pay. If someone
>drives recklessly, they increase the chance of an accident which is likely
>to result in injury to victims.

    so there are no victimless crimes.
    
>  With legalized prostitution, no one suffers. 
    
    absurdly stupid.
    
    >It's not a matter of there being
>unidentified victims, rather there are no victims at all. 
    
    victim: 1. a person or animal killed as a sacrifice to a god in a
    religious rite. 2. someone or something killed, destroyed, injured or
    otherwise harmed by, or suffering from, some act, condition, or
    circumstance.
    
    jeff

    
    But George - this is a distinction with no practical consequences.
    
    If nobody claims to be a victim, who decides there is one ?
    
    And how do you know there are no third party victims of the actions
    of a hooker and a john ?  And how do you prove there were "possible"
    victims of my reckless driving ?  Chains of causation are like ripples
    in a pond.
    
    The test of whether there are victims is the same as the test for
    morality - a matter of voting.  There are victims if a majority think
    there are victims.
    
      bb

>try to open your eyes to the fact that your view of morality doesn't
>necessarily define the bounds for the rest of humankind. I hope you
>can see the parallel without requiring further guidance. It _does_ get
>tedious.

    mr. delbalso.  have you changed your mind about the immorality of
    prostitution?  if not, why not?
    
    jeff

  I'm really struggling with .188 and .189 trying to find something rational
enough to even debate. Those notes are really hard to understand. 

  It's really simple. Either harm comes to someone or it does not. 

  With things like not paying taxes, murder, driving to endanger, harm comes to
someone. Someone has to pay an unfair share of taxes, someone ends up dead,
someone ends up injured in a traffic accident. 

  If Ralph and Wanda have sex because of a financial agreement rather than just
for fun, what harm comes to anyone? Where is any financial loss to anyone other
than Ralph and Wanda? Where are the bodies? 

  George

    > The "social contract" was a theory on the origins of government power,
    > and come from Rousseau.  He hypothesized that the social inequalities
    > he saw in ancien regime France were tolerated because they were part
    > of a long-ago agreement between citizens.  He was wrong.  It was due
    > to oppression and fear.  As soon as power became available, those who
    > were oppressed rose and chopped off the heads of all the silly French
    > noblemen who fell for this notion.
    
    While the specifics of the example you cite were the primary ones used
    by Rousseau as well, he didn't stop there, and other thinkers have
    used the general idea of a 'social contract' to describe the implied
    understanding that mutual coexistence is advantageous, a part of any
    society that deserves the name.  I use this more general description as
    was indicated in my first note.  What is 'silly' is your insistence
    that I must have meant something else.
    
    Do tell us why communities exist, without any such notion of the
    benefits of mutual coexistence, as implied by my use of the words
    "social contract", if you're so certain that it is a 'silly' notion.
    
    DougO

>  I'm really struggling with .188 and .189 trying to find something rational
>enough to even debate. Those notes are really hard to understand. 

    it has been said that "all justification must end".  there's no need
    for you to debate. simply accept the truth.

>  It's really simple. Either harm comes to someone or it does not. 
       
>    If Ralph and Wanda have sex because of a financial agreement rather than just
>for fun, what harm comes to anyone? Where is any financial loss to anyone other
>than Ralph and Wanda? Where are the bodies? 

    your "benign" definition of prostitution is equivocation.  your
    implication that a victim must be either dead or suffer financial loss
    is at odds with the definition of "victim".
    
    jeff

         <<< Note 289.193 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

>    it has been said that "all justification must end".  there's no need
>    for you to debate. simply accept the truth.

  I don't understand. Are you saying that you have some sort of divine sight
and that we should just accept what ever you say without debate? Is this some
sort of variation on Plato's allegory of the cave? 
 
>    your "benign" definition of prostitution is equivocation.  your
>    implication that a victim must be either dead or suffer financial loss
>    is at odds with the definition of "victim".
    
  From the American Heritage dictionary:

    victim n. 1. A living being slain and offered as a sacrifice to a deity. 2.
    One who is harmed or killed, as by accident. 3. A person who is tricked,
    swindled, or injured. 

  In the case of someone not paying taxes, other tax payers are harmed since
they have to pay more than their share. In the case of someone driving
recklessly, others may be harmed or killed. 

  If Wanda agrees to have sex with Frank for financial reasons rather than just
for fun, there is no victim by the definition given above.

  George

    
    Meowski...
    
     What if Frank or Wanda have HIV+???
    
    What if it's in its first stages and undetectable? What if Frank and/or
    Wanda go home after their financial transactions are complete and have
    sex with their wives/husbands/SOs/lovers/whatever? Two years down the
    road some of these people are married... have kids...
    
      No one's hurt? No victims?

>  I don't understand. Are you saying that you have some sort of divine sight
>and that we should just accept what ever you say without debate? Is this some
>sort of variation on Plato's allegory of the cave? 
 
    no.  i'm saying that what is undeniable is true.  i have sufficiently
    proven that prostitution is immoral and that it victimizes women. 
    
>    your "benign" definition of prostitution is equivocation.  your
>    implication that a victim must be either dead or suffer financial loss
>    is at odds with the definition of "victim".
    
>>  From the American Heritage dictionary:

>>    victim n. 1. A living being slain and offered as a sacrifice to a deity. 2.
>>    One who is harmed or killed, as by accident. 3. A person who is tricked,
>>    swindled, or injured. 
    
    your dictionary's definition is significantly more limited than the 
    definition in the 2nd college edition (which i posted earlier).

>  If Wanda agrees to have sex with Frank for financial reasons rather than just
>for fun, there is no victim by the definition given above.

    see above.
    
    jeff

RE   <<< Note 289.195 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>     What if Frank or Wanda have HIV+???
>    
>    What if it's in its first stages and undetectable? What if Frank and/or
>    Wanda go home after their financial transactions are complete and have
>    sex with their wives/husbands/SOs/lovers/whatever? Two years down the
>    road some of these people are married... have kids...
>    
>      No one's hurt? No victims?

  But that would be no different if they decided to have sex for fun.

  Remember, it's not against the law for strangers to have sex. It's not
against the law for strangers to pay each other for most services. It's
only against the law to pay someone for sex.

  The question is, what harm comes to someone because two people who have
already had sex with each other exchange money?

  George

    
    But many DO see many victims in this, George (whether they exist or
    not), and many DON'T see victims in the tax case.  Other people will
    be aware of this arrangement.  The other businesses in the area where
    the arrangement took place will change their behavior.  So will people
    who know the participants.  If I claimed there are no victims of
    littering, how do you show there are or aren't, except by what the
    public wants to be around, and what it doesn't ?  This is not
    hypothetical.  If you open a auto body shop on my street, you will
    be sued and told to dismantle it, although two streets over, it would
    be legal.  If you open a whorehouse on my street, you will also be
    arrested and tried for a crime.  If those on my street were on the
    jury, you would certainly be convicted.  They would claim to be victims
    of your behavior, no joke.
    
      bb

    
    re, .192 - humans are not like the social insects - they act as
     much in their own interests as they can.  Sometimes they act in
     concert, sometimes in conflict.  In the latter, rituals are
     sometimes employed, to reduce the losses of the participants with
     respect to non-participants.  Sometimes not.  I reject the notion
     that a society can "deserve" a name or anything else - societies
     are phenomena, and can deserve nothing anymore than an insect can.
    
      No society lasts forever, but some cease under less challenge than
     others.  To the extent that members of societies are loyal to them,
     they can engage in altruistic behavior, eg "dying for their country".
     While we make statues in Washington DC of the flag going up on Iwo
     50 years ago, recall the motto below : "Uncommon Valor was a Common
     Virtue".  I don't deny humans can do breathtaking things when they
     work in teams.  I deny that they "usually" do this, that's all.
    
      So the "social contract" might be great if everybody signed.  But
     mostly folks don't, and what you have are antisocial aggregations
     based on fear, greed, and envy.
    
      bb

RE         <<< Note 289.196 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

>    no.  i'm saying that what is undeniable is true.  i have sufficiently
>    proven that prostitution is immoral and that it victimizes women. 

  Well so what if it is immoral? With all your definitions of the word
"immoral" I see nothing that really applies to this topic. Adultery is immoral
by most of those same standards yet hardly anyone is ever arrested and put in
jail because of adultery. 

  As for victimizing women, no you have not proven that, you have just stated
your opinion that you believe it to be true. 

>    your dictionary's definition is significantly more limited than the 
>    definition in the 2nd college edition (which i posted earlier).

  This is DEC. The American Heritage Dictionary is the DEC standard issue
Dictionary. At least it's the one they gave me. But feel free, go ahead and
show us that part of the definition that you feel applies here and make your
case.

  George

RE                     <<< Note 289.198 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    But many DO see many victims in this, George (whether they exist or
>    not), and many DON'T see victims in the tax case.  Other people will
>    be aware of this arrangement.  The other businesses in the area where
>    the arrangement took place will change their behavior.  So will people
>    who know the participants.  

  Just because people change behavior that doesn't make someone a victim.

>If I claimed there are no victims of
>    littering, ...  If you open a auto body shop on my street, ...


  I have no problem with zoning a house of prostitution nor do I have any
problem with laws that prevent people engaging in prostitution from creating
a public nuisance, having sex in public, leaving condoms around, etc. The
problem is that the law is too broad. As it now stands, a couple that meet
in a bar and go off to the privacy of a hotel room are considered felons
even though no one is likely to even be aware of their actions.

>If you open a whorehouse on my street, you will also be
>    arrested and tried for a crime.  If those on my street were on the
>    jury, you would certainly be convicted.  They would claim to be victims
>    of your behavior, no joke.
    
  Right and that's not fair. People who violate zoning restrictions are not
normally arrested, that's usually handled as a civil matter.

  George

    
    Back to the basenote...
    
    I say legalize it with the objective of cleaning up the sex business 
    from pimps, mobs etc, as well to have a means to control or monitor
    and perhaps solve some public health issues. This is more applicable 
    towards the entry level of the market which we have heard so much about.
    
    
    Secondly legalizing would be potentially a means to collect
    revenues from the top end of the market - call girls, escort services
    etc. No one likes to pay taxes, but if they are considered ordinary
    business, apart from the usual taxes, the revenues could be business and
    health permits, zoning permits with special high-rate parking,
    whatever. The various city father/mothers will be creative enough, I'm
    sure!!
    
    Thirdly, the service providers will have some means income and
    retirement protection - they'll have to participate in soc sec, etc. 
    They would become a contributing member of the society.
    
    Before you turn on your flamethrowers, this is not as liberal as one 
    might guess. There is no reason why such privilege of legalization cannot
    come with heavy conditions and restrictions eg. prostitutes must be
    registered, they must undergo routine medical exams, condoms must be
    used, they must be HIV-positive etc. 
    
    Frankly, I do not see how prostitution could be legalized in the
    US because the issue is too emotional and it challedges the
    hypocritical social attitudes here. For example, on one hand sexual
    activities is condoned and accepted at an early age, but education
    on sexuality and contraceptions may not.
    
    Let's face it, unless demand dries up, prostitution is here to stay.
    So how about discussing how to REDUCE that demand? Would shaming the
    johns by publishing their names in pictures in the local newspaper
    be one?   
    
     

    .199 - rather off the track, I think.  We were discussing the term
    'social contract' as an understanding among human beings who band
    together for mutual advantages, being the source, if such there is, of
    any 'morality' that's worth talking about.  This was offered as a
    theory to encompass the apparent dichotomy that some folks insist
    morality comes from their religious myth-structure, while others insist
    it must arise from something else, because people quite apparently can
    and do live morally without such myth-structures.  The notion that an
    implicit understanding, a social contract broadly sketched, serves as
    the basis from which individuals learn to live morally, resolves the
    dichotomy.
    
    You have quite departed from the discussion of the roots of morality to
    discuss altruistic behavior among soldiers, social insects and
    motivating factors among individuals, it seems.  If you were trying to
    discuss something relevant to the things I was, please try again.  If
    you weren't, then never mind.
    
    DougO

>                           -< calling mr. delbalso >-

Yo!

>    mr. delbalso.  have you changed your mind about the immorality of
>    prostitution?

Let me check. <pause> No, I don't think I've changed my mind on the matter.
Perhaps you'd do well to enlighten me as to what that opinion is, especially
since, if I recall correctly, I haven't stated it yet.

>  if not, why not?

Let's deal with the above first, shall we? You have this tendency to derail
at the slightest distraction . . . 

As an aside, I haven't a clue why you use the extracts you do for the
leadins to your ramblings. Including the one of mine you posted most
recently, as you still didn't respond to the matter at hand.

>    mr. delbalso.  have you changed your mind about the immorality of
>    prostitution?

>>Let me check. <pause> No, I don't think I've changed my mind on the matter.
>>Perhaps you'd do well to enlighten me as to what that opinion is, especially
>>since, if I recall correctly, I haven't stated it yet.

    maybe not directly.  you did clearly complain when i first entered my
    argument from immorality to the valid illegality of prostitution.  you
    are one of the first to object to any argument based on immorality as i
    recall and we have tussled over this in the past.
      

>As an aside, I haven't a clue why you use the extracts you do for the
>leadins to your ramblings. 
    
    context.
    
    >Including the one of mine you posted most
>recently, as you still didn't respond to the matter at hand.
    
    your "matter" is immaterial to the argument at hand, which has been
    settled.
    
    jeff

RE         <<< Note 289.208 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

>    your "matter" is immaterial to the argument at hand, which has been
>    settled.
    
  The matter at hand has hardly been settled. Do you see agreement with
everything you are saying?

  I went back and looked and I found arguments you made concerning morality
but I found no note in which you proved that there were victims of prostitution
or that women would be further victimized if prostitution were legal.

  Instead of spending so much time bleating out note after note about how
you are right and the rest of us are wrong, why don't you try addressing
these issues?

  George

    
    is there anyone in the 'box who will find fault with (invalidate) my 
    argument (aside from meowski)?
    
    is there anyone in the 'box who will corroborate the validity of my
    argument?
    
    is there anyone in the 'box who has argued in support of legalized
    prostitution that will admit publicly to changing their mind based on
    my argument?
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 289.184 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>


| I think you misunderstood blender's entry.  dick stated that i
| could not prove that absolute morality (not actually his words) exists
| outside of a theistic context (actually we're probably talking about
| ultimate or absolute truth or reality, if you will, not morality).
| neither dick nor myself were talking as if i said i am personally
| absolutely moral (i.e.that i have attained moral perfection. i have
| not nor would i try to convince you of such).

	Read .153 Jeff.....

RE         <<< Note 289.151 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

  I've located it.

>Prostitution is immoral by definition (see previous note for definitions). 

  Perhaps it is, I could care less. Adultery is considered immoral by most of
the people who consider prostitution immoral yet that's legal.

>Prostitution victimizes women as evidenced by:

>		- extreme sexual, physical and psychological abuse.
>		- 70% of prostitutes are raped repeatedly by their customers-
>		  an average of 31 times per year.
>		- 65 % are physically assaulted repeatedly by customers and
>                  more by pimps.
>		- 65% or more are drug addicts
>		- increasingly, prostituted women are HIV positive.
>               ...
>			- children - average age of entry to prostitution - 14.
>				- 65% are runaways
>				- most have experienced a major trauma such as
>				  incest, domestic violence, rape or parental
>				  abandonment.

  Much of this is caused by the fact that prostitution is illegal. If it were
legalized, these problems could be addressed and controlled

>		- wherever regulated prostitution exists it is matched by
>		  a flourishing black market.

  So should we make watches illegal because they are sold by a black market?
What does this have to do with anything?

>		- regulated brothel prostitutes in Nevada are captive in
>		  conditions analogous to slavery:

  Again that's because legalized prostitution is so rare. If it were legal
all over the country it would be less likely to be controlled by the seedy
part of our society.

>			- women work in shifts commonly as long as 12 hrs even
>			  when ill, menstruating or pregnant, with no right
>			  to refuse a customer request of any kind.
>			- prostitutes pay up to 50% of their earnings for 
>			  room and board and pay extra for medical exams,
>			  clothing, etc.
>                       and other problems listed ...

  If this is true, and I've heard other people claim that conditions are much
better than the picture you paint, then that's just a matter of the brothels
being run poorly. If there were more competition, women could go to better
establishments where they would be treated better. 

>Prostitution is immoral and victimizes women therefore prostitution should 
>remain illegal.

  Prostitution victimizes women because it is illegal, therefore it should
be legalized.

  George

	After reading Dick's note AFTER the one I responded to, you are correct
Jeff. Having Dick himself back what you said adds more credibility to it, as he
was the one who's opinion was being talked about.

>    maybe not directly.  you did clearly complain when i first entered my
>    argument from immorality to the valid illegality of prostitution.  you
>    are one of the first to object to any argument based on immorality as i
>    recall and we have tussled over this in the past.

That's a goddam crock, Benson. What I complain about regarding your notes,
repeatedly, is your positing that your view and opinion of the matter is
"THE" way things are. If you'd been paying attention, there are several
respondees in here who have specifically taken you to task for that. And
you continue to fail to recognize that THAT is the issue that bugs the
living hell out of us, not the im/morality or il/legality of prostitution.
      

>    context.

!>try to open your eyes to the fact that your view of morality doesn't
!>necessarily define the bounds for the rest of humankind. I hope you
!>can see the parallel without requiring further guidance. It _does_ get
!>tedious.

Another crock! There's the extract. The point is quite clear and
explicit regarding the claim that "your" view of morality doesn't define
the world anymore than did the views of christian missionaries (which
was actually the context). What the hell does that have to do with
your question about whether or not I've changed my mind about something?
You apparently are experiencing some sort of delusional disorder
whereby you think you've presented a case for yourself here, when in
fact, no such thing has transpired. You'd work especially well in a tag
team with Colin Ferguson, I believe.

>    your "matter" is immaterial to the argument at hand, which has been
>    settled.

My matter wasn't the least bit immaterial, however it has become apparent
that you are either too blinded by your "morals", or perhaps are simply
too intellectually incompetent, to recognize that fact.

    > - regulated brothel prostitutes in Nevada are captive in
    >   conditions analogous to slavery:
    
    Is there any evidence to support this claim? As a piece of counter-
    evidence, a friend of mine became _very_ friendly with a woman who
    worked at the infamous Las Vegas "Chicken Ranch". She was there
    because she was saving her money for law school!!! She's now in
    Kaliph, studying law, with no regrets. She says there was no other
    way in which she could make enough money, in a relatively short
    amount of time, and do it legally. She once told my friend about
    the various screenings they went through on a regular basis to
    check for disease, and they were required to refuse any john who
    would not wear a condom. They also used spermacidal foam as an
    additional disease prevention mechanism (not to mention additional
    birth control), and many carefully regulated their menstrual cycles
    with BC pills... and they did not work during their period because
    they were prohibited by law (further disease prevention built into
    the law).
    
    Anectodal evidence to be sure, but is there even anectodal evidence
    to support the claim that the woman are in "conditions analogous
    to slavery?"
    
    -b

================================================================================
Note 289.77             Prostitution/Red Light Districts               77 of 217
MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"              8 lines  16-FEB-1995 14:15
                  -< Not the morality thing again, puhleeeze >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .188
    
    >> With legalized prostitution, no one suffers.
    >
    > absurdly stupid.
    
    
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT!  thank you for playing.  if george has sex with a
    woman named mary, whom he has met in a bar, and the price of the sex
    act is $25.00 plus two black russians, who suffers?
    
    you insist on equating the GENERIC word "prostitution" with SPECIFIC
    injurious way in which some (even most, but NOT all) people exercise or
    control it.  are you unable to think in abstract terms?

    One way or another, we _all_ pay for sex!!! :-)
    
    -b

    > - regulated brothel prostitutes in Nevada are captive in
    >   conditions analogous to slavery:
    
>    Is there any evidence to support this claim...
    
>    Anectodal evidence to be sure, but is there even anectodal evidence
>    to support the claim that the woman are in "conditions analogous
>    to slavery?"
    
    why don't you just ask for sources?  stats and descriptions i listed
    are from:
    
    1993 issue of the "Cardozo Women's Law Journal".
    
    Justice Department
    
    sociologists mimi silbert and ayala pines in a study for the Delancey
    Foundation.
    
    Council for Prostitution alternatives
    
    anastasia volkonsky, founding director of PROMISE (a san fran org
    dedicated to combating sexual exploitation) - interviews with "legal"
    prostitutes in nevada.
    
    the book "Uneasy Virtue" by Barbara Hobson.
    
    NOW's Intl women's rights task force

    re: .219
    
    that sounds like a kinky foursome to me.

> who suffers?
    
Well, hopefully not either one of the black Russians, or we'll have
an entirely different matter on our hands.

re: .221 (Benson)

>    why don't you just ask for sources?  stats and descriptions i listed
>    are from:

Oh good grief.  _Mother Jones_ writes that gun-lovers are the scourge
of the earth.  Doesn't make it true.  It IS interesting that you're now
quoting NOW, since until you found this pamphlet or whatever, you weren't
one for seeing their way on things.

For the record: you, using their information, failed to convince me.

\john

    hey i missed lots last Friday evening !!
    
    BENSON, i would break your argument down like this :
    
    1) immoral -  this has several sub-plots
    
    	morality - absolute ?
    		   relative ?
    		   consensus ?
    
    	immoral --> illegal - is this valid ? open to question - there are
    lots of "immoral" activities that are not illegal.
    
    2) broad brush term - "working conditions".
    
    	bad working conditions --> illegal. open to question - some have
    argued that legalising things would improve working conditions.
    
    
    personally, my stance is morality is a consensus idea from within a
    society. if some individuals disagree with the consensus, they should
    be free to try and change that consensus by rational argument. though
    whether that should then be enshrined in the law is a different thing
    entirely.
    
    regards the "working conditions", firstly, as i said in a previous reply,
    there is a broad spectrum involved but on the whole i think
    legalisation would do more good than harm - a pragmatic test.
    
    ric

    
    Jeff,
    
    Here's a sample of why your arguments don't work for me ...
    

>Prostitution victimizes women:
>Prostitution victimizes women as evidenced by:
>
>	- the conditions of this "profession" ...
    
>    		- 70% of prostitutes are raped repeatedly by their customers-
>		  an average of 31 times per year.
    
    Rape is already illegal and that has little to do with prostitution.  
    I would guess that far more rapes occur on dates.  Should dating be
    outlawed to prevent these rapes?  Finally, IMO legalizing prostitution
    would dramatically improve this.
    
    
>		- 65 % are physically assaulted repeatedly by customers and
>                  more by pimps.
    
    Same as above just substitute assault for rape
 
    
    
>		- 65% or more are drug addicts
    
    So driving durg addicts underground is helping?  Seems to me making
    their profession legal and (in some cases) their habit legal would
    improve this situation A LOT!
    
    
>		- increasingly, prostituted women are HIV positive.
    
    So what ... the population on the whole is increasingly HIV posiitve
    ... should dating be outlawed?  Once again I would guess legalized
    prostitution would help this situation a lot.  (testing, counseling,
    precautions, etc)
    
    
    
>		- survivors testify to severe violence, torture and attempted
>                  murders.
>    		- the mortality rate is 40 times the nat'l. avg.
>    		- a substantial portion of streetwalkers are homeless or living
>		  below the poverty line.
>		- most women who work in outcall svcs have no control of their
>		  income but are subject to pimps or pushers.
>		- most will leave prostition without savings.
>		- in the U.S. and globally the ranks of prostitution are filled
>		  with society's most vulnerable members, those least able to
>		  resist recruitment.
    
    
    and how much of that is caused by the illegality of the "oldest
    profession" which drives these folks from legal protection, licensing,
    testing, counseling, etc
    
    
>			- children - average age of entry to prostitution - 14.
>				- 65% are runaways
>				- most have experienced a major trauma such as
>				  incest, domestic violence, rape or parental
>				  abandonment.
    
    hmm ... I wonder how many kids work in legal brothels in NV or
    Amsterdam for example.
    
    
>		- wherever regulated prostitution exists it is matched by
>		  a flourishing black market.
    
    proof?  and is that black market as big as the illegal prostitution
    activity in places without legal prostitution.  (One hint ... don't use
    Las Vegas as an example ... prostitution is not legal in Las Vegas)
    
    
    
> Prostitution is immoral and victimizes women therefore prostitution should 
> remain illegal.

    Personally I believe women should be able to decide for themselves what
    they want to do for bucks.  I think one of the great victimizations of
    women is society deciding for them what they can and can not do if it
    deals with consenting adults.


 
    GReg
    

    

The entire argument here as I see it can be PROVEN with only two points:

1.  ( ref: .116)
    USAT05::BENSON is cranio/rectally inverted  as cranio/rectal inversion
    is commonly defined and understood. 
2.  ( ref: .196)
    i'm saying that what is undeniable is true.  i have sufficiently
    proven that USAT05::BENSON is cranio/rectally inverted  and that it
    victimizes any person who has ever had an original thought.    

kb

	.227  <chortle>  yes, that pretty much sums it up. 

    re: .211
    
    Yes.
    
    No.
    
    No.
    
    Bob

    See what I mean?

    Mean what I see?

    jes.

    
    re, .206 - Well, DougO, I was trying to explain why, in my opinion,
       no social contract in fact exists.  I COULD just say, I never
       signed one or agreed to one, and neither did you.  Q.E.D.
    
       In the formal sense, of course, I'm right.  You weren't arguing
      I'm not.  You were saying, there is this thing which nobody can
      see but I'm sure it exists, in which people have a set of rules
      they all apply to their fellow humans even though it's not explicit.
    
       Occam's razor.  The simplest explanation is best.  I can explain
      what I see without it.  So it only exists between your liberal ears.
    
       In my world, I see no such thing, nor do I need any either.  I
      cannot prove a negative.  But you've shown no evidence for the
      positive.  Because there is none.  In fact, your strange theory
      is worse than theology, since you have to explain away many more
      disconcerting behaviors which we can see every day in the papers,
      which seem inconsistent with a social contract existing.
    
       bb
    

    you're picking nits.  seemingly inconsistent behaviours can easily be
    reconciled by recognizing that individuals have different views on the
    personal benefits to them of civil society.  You claim never to have
    'agreed' to any such social contract, but to me you easily have; you
    participate in the economic system, you don't live as a hermit in the
    woods eschewing social contact with other people.  You get the benefits
    of civil society, and you have to make compromises to get those
    benefits (its lonely out in the woods by yourself.  And the firemen
    will come and try to save your house if it starts to burn down. 
    Evidence aplenty for the social contract.)
    
    And you have yet to provide an alternate theory that explains moral
    behavior that encompasses the data.  Please try to address that next
    time.
    
    DougO

    
    "Seemingly inconsistent behaviors", eh ?  Would that be, say, Colin
    Ferguson ?  Yeah, right.
    
    "I participate in the economic system."  So what are you saying - that
    anybody that buys a bag of cheezits signs up for DougO's New World
    Order ?
    
    "I don't live as a hermit."  Irrelevant - are you saying that any two
    living beings in proximity somehow magically have a contract ?
    
    I get no "benefits of civil society".  In fact, I wish I could afford
    (as my brother-in-law can) to live out in the woods.  The New England
    woods are the best place to live.
    
    Firemen will NOT come to try and save my house if it burns.  The fire
    station in our area closed, as I voted along with property tax relief.
    The only fire we had on our street burned to the ground, even though
    I reported it.  The cops came out and saw it was not occuppied.  Later,
    they indicated a case of arson, and the guy's insurance company
    welshed.
    
    I mean it, there isn't any social contract.  Yes, there are nice guys.
    There are also bad guys.  But the veneer of civilization is thinner
    than you think.  You think your fellow citizens will come to your aid
    if you are in trouble.  My friends will.  My relatives will.  And a few
    scavengers will sniff about looking for looting opportunities.  The
    rest will walk past me writhing on the sidewalk.  You are a pollyanna.
    
      bb

>  I've located it.

>Prostitution is immoral by definition (see previous note for definitions). 

  >>Perhaps it is, I could care less. Adultery is considered immoral by most of
>>the people who consider prostitution immoral yet that's legal.

George,  If you will notice there are two slightly different meanings applied
in the term "morality" or "immorality".  One meaning is the rules of conduct
and/or standards of what society has declared is right or wrong.  These
standards very often result in laws.  And then there is the other meaning which 
specifically speaks to rules or standards for sexual conduct.  Prostitution
is immoral in both meanings.  Are you going to argue that laws are unnecessary
all together?  I believe that adultery is still illegal in many states.  I'm
fairly certain that it was illegal in almost every state up until the last
20 years or so.  In any case, the practice has only increased.
 
>		- wherever regulated prostitution exists it is matched by
>		  a flourishing black market.

>>  So should we make watches illegal because they are sold by a black market?
>>What does this have to do with anything?

It has a lot to do with prostitution.  Are you arguing for regulated 
prostitution?  There are still 300-400 arrests *per month* for illegal 
prostition (in casinos and on the streets) in the communities where prostituion
is regulated. Regulating prostitution does not stop the common type.
 
>		- regulated brothel prostitutes in Nevada are captive in
>		  conditions analogous to slavery:

>>  Again that's because legalized prostitution is so rare. If it were legal
>>all over the country it would be less likely to be controlled by the seedy
>>part of our society.

It is the "seedy" side of society that is in the prostitution business.  This
will never change because its a seedy practice.  Are you arguing that if 
prostitution were not illegal the average (non-seedy) person would
pursue the business with pride and community support?


>>  Prostitution victimizes women because it is illegal, therefore it should
>>be legalized.

  Murder kills people because it is illegal, therefore it should be legalized.

I'm somewhat surprised at the ignorance in logic you and others here demonstrate
in your argumentation.  For example, the argument I entered above in response
to yours clearly demonstrates that your argument is invalid.  Almost everyone
will admit that the illegality of murder is not what kills people and that
the legalization of murder will not diminish it (it would most certainly 
increase the practice).

jeff

>That's a goddam crock, Benson. What I complain about regarding your notes,
>repeatedly, is your positing that your view and opinion of the matter is
>"THE" way things are. If you'd been paying attention, there are several
>respondees in here who have specifically taken you to task for that. And
>you continue to fail to recognize that THAT is the issue that bugs the
>living hell out of us, not the im/morality or il/legality of prostitution.
 
You are obviously immune to logic.  Logic does illuminate reality or truth.     
It is not uncommon however when one lacks a valid argument one resorts to
ad hominem fallacies.

>    your "matter" is immaterial to the argument at hand, which has been
>    settled.

>My matter wasn't the least bit immaterial, however it has become apparent
>that you are either too blinded by your "morals", or perhaps are simply
>too intellectually incompetent, to recognize that fact.

The matter of the morality of others is not relevant to the argument for or
against the morality of prostitution.  Try to accept this.  Furthermore,
I never used my definition for (im)morality (as if I might have one that 
differs from the rest of the world's) but the dictionary's which is an
adequate arbiter of the meaning of words.

jeff

>For the record: you, using their information, failed to convince me.

>\john

Then you cannot be convinced by truth.  But we knew that about you already.

jeff

<yawn>

>The matter of the morality of others is not relevant to the argument for or
>against the morality of prostitution.
    
oh dear
    
    ric 

| <<< Note 289.237 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>


| >That's a goddam crock, Benson. What I complain about regarding your notes,
| >repeatedly, is your positing that your view and opinion of the matter is
| >"THE" way things are. If you'd been paying attention, there are several
| >respondees in here who have specifically taken you to task for that. And
| >you continue to fail to recognize that THAT is the issue that bugs the
| >living hell out of us, not the im/morality or il/legality of prostitution.

| You are obviously immune to logic.  Logic does illuminate reality or truth.
| It is not uncommon however when one lacks a valid argument one resorts to
| ad hominem fallacies.


	Jeff, you are a piece of work. People have for ever been down your
throat about the way you continuously take your opinion and make it out to be a
fact. Maybe if you would put an imho in there, people wouldn't call you on it
so often. Maybe that's the logic you lack?

| The matter of the morality of others is not relevant to the argument for or
| against the morality of prostitution.  

	But it is Jeff when we are dealing with people Jeff. Not everyone
believes as you do. So not everyone will find prostitution immoral. Again,
another life according to Jeff. 


Glen

| <<< Note 289.240 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

| -< i'd be tired too if whipped so badly >-

	You mean after you took the smile off of your face Jeffy boy?

                   -< i'd be tired too if whipped so badly >-

Er, sure, Colin, whatever you say . . . 

    
    
    
    Glen m'boy,
    
>	Jeff, you are a piece of work. People have for ever been down your
>throat about the way you continuously take your opinion and make it out to be a
>fact. Maybe if you would put an imho in there, people wouldn't call you on it
>so often. Maybe that's the logic you lack?

Thank you, Glen.  I have had a sore throat but don't recall folks for ever
being down it.  I only respond to your note for one reason; to tell you that
arguing from logic is not arguing an opinion.  You probably didn't know that.
Go to your nearest library and checkout the term "Logic" in the catalogue.  
You'll find a wealth of information and if you pursue understanding and apply 
what you learn to your arguments, you'll find yourself making sense like 
you've truly, literally never done before.

Your friend,

jeff

You must be out there with George, catching all those towels that you
perceive folks to be tossing in.

re: nobody in particular

Joe:  My, what a pretty blue sky.
Blow: It's green.
Joe:  I'm sorry, it's blue.
Blow: Greengreengreengreengreengreen!
      Have I convinved you yet that it's green?
Joe:  No.
Blow: Then I win.
Joe:  Taxi!

\john

    good one Mr. Harney!  and since when does faith/belief equate to
    logic?

Virginia City, Nevada:

Jessi Winchester, a 52-year-old grandmother who entered
the Mrs. Nevada pageant, has raised eyebrows because
she's also a $500-an-hour prostitute at the Moonlight
Bunny Ranch.

Winchester, a former movie motorcycle stuntwoman,
already is "Mrs. Virginia City."  She entered the April
state pageant in Las Vegas to prove women "can still be
strong, vital and sexy" after age 50.

Her husband, Michael, encouraged her to work at a
brothel five years ago when he was hurt in a
construction accident.

Prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada and does not
violate pageant rules.

Winchester, who has four grown children from a former
marriage, and two grandchildren, said she entered the
pageant to make a statement "that ladies in my
profession can be just as normal as women in other
fields."

    	I was going to post that in the Wacky News Briefs topic.

    
    Twenty men take their places in the windows of Amsterdam's famous
    red-light district today, kicking off a one-day experiment to see 
    whether women will pay for sex with men.
    

    
    <-- do they put a bed in the window too for the guy to take a
        nap when he's finished?
    
    -b

Brian, silly, they don't _do_ it in the windows any more than you stand in
the display window to buy the shirt that's displayed there.

    
    Oh, I know that... I just figured they could kinda kill two
    birds with one stone, so to speak, by putting a bed in the
    window... after all, one would assume these are the young,
    verile type of male we're talking about... the kind that
    could make it all the way back to the window before he
    had to take a nap... :-)
    
    -b

Reminds me of the old story about the guy who was so cheap he had to
use the roof on the brothel during the winter. Seems as though they
froze solid in a wintry gust and got blown off, falling to the ground,
where a passing drunk saw them, rang the doorbell and announced that
the Madame's sign had fallen down.

Ex-Soviet Moldova can't cope with sex trade boom

CHISINAU, March 15 (Reuter) - Police in Moldova, with a population of
just 4.3 million, uncovered 540 illegal brothels last year and
legislation cannot cope with a booming sex trade, local newspapers
said.

The weekly newspaper Moldavskiy Vedemosti quoted a vice squad officer
as saying prostitutes and pimps faced fines of between $8 and $20 --
the equivalent of an hour's work.

"Many prostitutes are offering to pay police officers their fines in
advance for the whole year, so that their work routine is not
disrupted," vice squad inspector Mihai Burlea said.

He said just 187 pimps and 317 prostitutes were fined in Moldova last
year and legislation offered too many loopholes.

The government newspaper Nezavisimaya Moldova called on the government
to legalise prostitution and bring it under state control.  "The
morality of society will obviously rise and taxes paid by the brothels
will add to revenue to the state budget," the paper said.

Moldova's newspapers are full of advertisements for saunas and massage
services with names like Baby Tonight, Geisha and Pretty Woman.  One
advertisement offers a round-the-clock apartment service and accepts
"payment in kind."

    Hookers for all!!!!!
    

    Prostitution is cool. Huh,Huh  Huh,Huh
    

    If you saw the hookers where I live, you can have them!! They're all
    strung out on crack and heroin, skinny, missing teeth, black eyes, open
    wounds. Sad. It's too bad human beings can sink so low as to sell
    themselves and deny themselves the love and respect that make a sexual
    relationship rewarding.
    
    					lunchbox

         Who says you need love & respect to have a rewarding sexual
    relationship?
    

         Love and respect?!? What kind of a man are you? That's the lamest
    thing I ever heard. 

    Sex without love and respect is just like eating a pizza. It's great at
    the moment; satisfying, etc. But the next day when you wake up you
    don't say "Wow, that was a great pizza". It's really 2-D.
    
    Love and respect add such a healthy rush to sex that it cannot be
    described. Now that I've had both I can't imagine going back to sex
    without love and respect.
    
    						lunchbox

         Lunchbox, you've been had. Your girlfriend has obviously used some
    sort of secret, evil power to take control of your mind. If it's not
    too late, resist! Take back your lost masculinity! Otherwise you'll end
    up driving around in a minivan with ten screaming children, wondering
    "How the hell did I ever get here?!?"

    My masculinity is intact, Ed. I'm sorry you feel this way about
    relationships, you're cheating yourself out of a really nice part of
    life. I know I sound like a Hallmark Card on crack, so I'll stop.
    
    					lunchbox

    If I had a teat rolling down my cheek I would hit it with a newspaper.
    

    What are you talking about?
    

    Ah, the old make a mistake and delete the note trick, eh? I know the
    truth!!!

         See, Lunchbox, you're already starting to use the word "nice". It
    may be too late for you. I used to think that way, back in my younger
    days. I had a girlfriend who took over my mind for a while. Bit by bit,
    she reduced me to a hollow, pathetic shell. The trouble started when
    she began to make remarks like "Why do you need more guns?" and "I
    think you're too old for video games", and the often-used "I think you
    spend too much time with your friends". Then, one day, I noticed the
    classified section of the newspaper left open on my kitchen table. It
    was open to the "car sales" section, and a number of Ford Bronco ads
    had been circled. How strange, I thought, I also own a Ford Bronco.
    When I asked her about this, she replied "I was just trying to figure
    out how much we could get for that old Bronco of yours. I can't drive
    it, and you already have a truck". That was it. An hour later
    everything she owned was out in the street and I was running over her
    possessions with my Bronco. I learned my lesson. Will you learn yours
    before its too late? 
    

    See, my girlfriend is cooler than that, though. She lets me watch
    hockey and cartoons, she lets me see my friends whenever I want, she
    lets me drive whatever I want. She hates guns, but, hey, nobody's
    perfect!!! I really think I found a keeper here, Ed.
    
    
    					lunchbox

         Are you sure she's really a woman?

    Yeah, completely sure. 

	Well he ain't datin me, Ed. And I like guns! :-)

	Btw, Ed...about your girlfriend....wow...you should be real happy you
got out, huh? You need someone who will not state her opinion, as that is where
the evil starts, and they take over their victims mind. You need someone
submissive to your will. I hope you enjoy your life....alone.

Well, if she lets you watch cartoons, then you've got it made, Lunchbag.

         I would rather have my 1970 Ford Bronco than another girlfriend. I
    would marry her, except that I can't find a judge anywhere who would
    help me out (maybe I should try Las Vegas). 

    Your bronco is a 1970? You would rather have it than another
    girlfriend? You must be a real 'handy' guy, eh ed?
    
    				lunchbox

    Ouch!!Gotta hurt!

         Hey, Lunchbox, speaking of prostitutes, let's hear more about this
    "girlfriend" of yours. 

| <<< Note 289.277 by BSS::E_WALKER >>>

| I would rather have my 1970 Ford Bronco than another girlfriend. 

	Which is probably what is going to happen. :-)



Glen

    re: .280
    
    That was uncalled for.

    Anybody see the Boston news a couple of nights ago when they reported
    on the police pressure on prostitutes?  The newsmodel said they were
    cleaning up a business that had been around "hundreds" of years.  What
    amazing insightful perspective the most excellent television news
    brings us.  
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	I think you misunderstood the report, Eric.
    
    	They didn't say the police were pressuring the prostitutes,
    	they said the police were fingering the prostitutes.
    

    How long has Boston been around?
    
    -Stephen

       Z     They didn't say the police were pressuring the prostitutes,
       Z     they said the police were fingering the prostitutes.
    
    Did you do this on purpose?

    
    	Jack, if you have to ask then it takes all the humor out of it.
    
    	8^)
    

    Re.272
    
    "She lets me watch cartoons and hockey".
    
    What a very sad thing to say. And what if she didn`t let you watch
    cartoons and hockey,I suppose you would stop watching them?
    
    Sad,sad,sad. But all too common,in this day and age. 
    
    Women are taking over the world!!!! 
    
    

    
>>    Women are taking over the world!!!! 

	Which is the only sensible thing to have happen - given what men 
	have done to it..........

	Right???

	I knew you'd agree....    :-)
    
    

	Hi Pat!


	What have men done to this world???? :-)

    Picked up hitchhikers for one thing.

    
    	If the hitchhikers were female, there's a very good chance they
    	picked them up "for one thing".
    

    What is the issue with legalizing prostitution, and doing the right
    regs, for health and safety of clients and providors alike?  Face it,
    we are all selling our services for money it is only a m,atter of what
    services.
    
    meg

    My services don't spread disease...

        Neither would prostitution if it was regulated.

    It's regulated in Thailand and look at their AIDS rate...

    Ha! Regulated? Not. Legal? yes.

    Can you really imagine our Puritan government setting up a commission
    to make sure prostitutes protect themselves? It will never fly.
    
    					lunchbox

    It's not so much that your government is so pure, is more that
    organized crime likes things just the way they are, thank you very
    much.

    I think prostitution is sad, but I think it should be
    legalized/regulated. There are too many 14 year olds out there.

    
      Well, it's legal and regulated in Nevada, but illegal in Las
     Vegas.  Both prostitute and customer must be over 21.
    
      bb

    Do you have any idea of the rape/violent crime stats where it is legal?
    Just wondering if any connection could be made. I would imagine that
    anybody that felt they could buy a woman like an item would also feel
    it's OK to smack them around.
    
    						lunchbox

    
    .268
    
    > If I had a teat rolling down my cheek I would hit it with a
    > newspaper.
    
    If I had a teat rolling down MY cheek, I wouldn't be thinkin'
    newspapers.

    Actually,
    
    Japan has legal, regulated prostitution, as does the Netherlands.  They
    both have much lower sexual assault rates, and apparently lower spousal
    abuse rates. 
    
    It wasn't that long ago that prostitution was at least tolerated, if
    not legal, in many states.  One of mom's friend's fathers was a doctor
    in VA, and used to inspect the women and premisis of a couple of
    parlour houses there.  Somewhere between WWI and II, prostitution
    became the next great experiment in prohibition, with about as much
    effectiveness as prohibition in general.
    
    meg

    Meg-
    
    	Doesn't it disturb you that people think women can be bought and
    sold? That's yukky.

    No more than that men can also be bought and paid for.  Actually it is
    more like renting a fantasy for a few minutes to hours.  
    
    If you look at it from my perspective, I am rented daily, at least 8
    hours/day by a corporation.  So are you and everyone noting in this
    file.  
    
    meg

    You are rented, but because you are an asset to the company. When men
    'rent' prostitutes, the prostitutes are viewed as Shake N Bake bags.
    All of these women are somebody's daughter, or mother, etc. A woman
    should be viewed as more than a 'rentable' bag of flesh for a man to
    get his rocks off.
    
    					lunchbox

    
    
    	Rumor has it the Victorian apartment house I just moved into
    	used to be a bordello.
    
    	When I have some spare time I plan on doing a deed search
    	and then attempt to do a history of the house.
    
    	Interesting seeing as my better half and I moved in together...
    	and his last name is HOOKER.   =)
    

    
>    You are rented, but because you are an asset to the company. When men
>    'rent' prostitutes, the prostitutes are viewed as Shake N Bake bags.
    
      I'm an asset because of what I can do for the company just as a
    prostitute is an asset to her john for what she can do for him.
    
    
    
>    All of these women are somebody's daughter, or mother, etc. A woman
 
    All are daughters, yes. Not all are mothers. What does this have to do
    with anything. I'm someone's son and someone's father.
    
>       should be viewed as more than a 'rentable' bag of flesh for a man to
>    get his rocks off.
    
    	She may be viewed as something more to a number of people in her
    life.
    
    
    ed

    Good place to hide smut films eh?

    It just bothers me that people can see sex that way, and it bothers me
    that people can see women that way. I feel bad for all involved.
    
    				lunchbox
    

    Having seen the treatment of some of our recently and soon to be
    departed employees, I would say some of them probably might feel they
    were treated as "shake and bake bags."  
    
    The difference in what I do and a hooker of any gender does is that I
    use my brain, they use their bodies, but both of us are using them to
    the same ends, survival, money and leisuretime.
    
    meg

    The hookers in my neighborhood are certainly not doing it for
    leisuretime, they are doing it because they are drug addicts and they
    are desperate. The whole thing is sad to watch from my porch on a
    summer night. It kind of puts a damper on the season.

    What really bother you about it,
    
    Don't you realize some people could feel the same way about you, or is
    that what really bothers you?   
    
    I would prefer that people would view prostitutes as the professionals
    many of them are.  
    
    meg

    It's just sad to see these dysfunctional people all over the place. The
    hookers are always getting beat up, too. I took one to the hospital a
    few years ago. Maybe that would change if they regulated it, but it's
    just too bad. I do see them as professionals, but I see porn stars as
    professionals too, and they are just as sad to me. The whole thing is
    exploiting women. 
    
    					lunchbox

    There are people who work at all kinds of awful jobs to feed bad habits
    or recover from bad choices.  What is your point
    
    

    My point is that I'm not comfortable with the concept of people selling
    their bodies to others. I can't imagine anybody who does that will be
    able to salvage their self-respect after a few months.

    about 3 miles from my house in Bowie, MD is the ole Red light
    district...they actually still have the red bulbs above the transom at
    the front door.

    I'm a stickler for tradition...

    One of my duaghters finds my choice of profession to be sad, as she
    much prefers the outdoors and working there, and knows I would be
    happier in the fresh air and sunshine as well.  However, as I pointed
    out to her, I have 4 other mouths to feed, and my professional choices
    had to be based around that.  I didn't have the time without dependents
    to work the entry-level migratory jobs to get into a stable one and be
    able to then have kids.  She, so far, has made the choices that will
    enable her to do what she wants.  
    
    So, some people find geekism to be a sad profession.  
    
    meg

    So if your daughter likes the outdoors, you wouldn't mind if she were
    out walking the streets?

    Better yet, is it OK if the town you live in decides your street is the
    best place for the 'red light district'?  

    oh no, that's never okay.  you're supposed to drive
    into the city for that sort of thing.  leave the 'burbs
    nice and clean.

    Re: JJ
    
    I can see it now...
    
    "Marge, have you met that Judy Hooker woman?  You know, the one who
    lives in the old whorehouse?"

         RE.321::
    
         That was uncalled for. 
    

    If it's OK for somebody else's daughter to do it in somebody else's
    neighborhood, than I think it's fine for her daughter (and all of the
    working girls where I live) to do it in her neighborhood.
    
    					lunchbox

         That didn't make any sense at all. 
    

    That's because you have to think about it, Ed.

         I think your girlfriend is at work on that street you were
    referring to. 

    I think you can think of a better comeback than that.

         I could, but the moderators always get in the way. You're really
    starting to get on my case, lunchbox. Why don't we take this to the
    ring?

    What note is that famed ring? I don't feel like hunting for it.

    re .332
    
    That's note 16.  Yeah fight-fight

    Lunchbox,
    
    If my daughter wanted to go into the oldest profession, that is her
    business, she is free and over 21.  I live just outside of the
    historical red-light district in Old Colorado City, in what used to be
    a small boarding house for single railroad workers.  What the heck do
    you think probably went on around here?  
    
    Appropriately regulated houses of prostitution would be less annoying
    that street walkers, and at least no more annoying than living within 4
    blocks of several bars, a sheltered workshop, and a major tourist
    shopping area/historic district.  It is certainly preferable to someone
    deciding to re process the tailings over by the old smelter, less than
    a mile from my house.
    
    meg

    I would advise against your daughter becoming a farmer, Meg.

    Actually I think she may wind up being a sustainable agriculture
    consultant.  ;-)  but her main loves are wildlife biology nd natural
    resource management, so most likely she will wind up paying her dues in
    any of several western nat'l forests, parks, monuments, or blm areas. 
    Yes I am working on teaching her how to shoot straight, in some areas
    this profession is probably more dangerous that streetwalking.  :-(
    
    meg

	Like it or not, we're all whores for somebody -
	be it our "brains" or our bodies = we all do it for
	the $$$$. 

	Pat

    well, at least we don't have to worry about crabs
    and whatnot.

    The ministry of fisheries and oceans in Canada is very worried about
    crabs amongst other things.

    makes you wonder.  the people in this ministry,
    just _how_ have they been conducting themselves?

	Depends on how well the choir sings, I think.

    Re .307:
    
    > You are rented, but because you are an asset to the company. When men
    > 'rent' prostitutes, the prostitutes are viewed as Shake N Bake bags.
    
    With an attitude like that, you certainly should not hire a prostitute
    until you can respect them more as a human being.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    I fink prostitutes should be admired,really.
    
    After all,I`m sure they must keep a few perverts at bay who would 
    get their end away by other means.
    
    

    please parse "finking prostitutes". i thought i had heard it all (and
    done most) before i read that. :-)

    The following is from http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful.  This is the
    text version.  After a form-feed below it, I have included the original
    HTML with the links.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
   The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) List on Legal Prostitution in Nevada.

                        Last modified : March 28, 1996

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.0 Version History

2.0 Introduction.

     2.1 "Say what?!? Prostitution is legal somewhere in the United States?
     Yeah, sure!"
     2.2 "Just who are you (the author of this FAQ), and what makes you think
     that you are an authority on legal prostitution in Nevada?"
     2.3 "What restrictions are there on my use of this FAQ?"
     2.4 "I don't trust you. You must have a hidden agenda of some sort."

3.0 Legal Status of Prostitution in Nevada.

     3.1 "You mean that a woman can just, uh, set up shop in Nevada?"
     3.2 "What about AIDS?"
     3.3 "Why haven't I heard of these legal brothels before?"
     3.4 "What is the history of legal prostitution in Nevada?" (New as of
     March 16, 1996)

4.0 Where to find Nevada's legal brothels.

     4.1 "Get to the point, man! Where do I go to get laid?"
     4.2 "Do they have telephone numbers?"
     4.3 "Fine. But how do I find out where the other brothels are?"

5.0 What to expect when choosing a lady.

     5.1 "What should I expect when I first get there?"

6.0 Negotiating the contract.

     6.1 "How about the business end?"
     6.2 "What does it cost?" (Updated March 06, 1996)
     6.3 "Anything to look out for?"
     6.4 "What about after sex?"

7.0 The do's and don't's of sex.

     7.1 "You mean I have to wear a raincoat?"
     7.2 "Anything else taboo?"
     7.3 "So then everything else is okay?"
     7.4 "Isn't anonymity wonderful? No one else need ever know!"
     7.5 "How old do I have to be?" (New as of March 16, 1996)
     7.6 "Can women procure sex? Can my wife/girlfriend visit a brothel with
     me?" (New as of March 16, 1996)
     7.7 "Are there any gay brothels?" (New as of March 16, 1996)

8.0 A Sermon.

     8.1 "The Golden Rule says that you should treat others as you would have
     them treat yourself, but does this apply to prostitutes?"
     8.2 "How can something immoral like prostitution be legal?"

9.0 "Tail" Tales.

     9.1 "What do the girls look like?"
     9.2 "So you've only picked out nice-looking chicks?"
     9.3 "Do you have any pet peeves?"
     9.4 "Have you had any embarassments?"
     9.5 "But are they good people?"
     9.6 "Any strange goings-on in the brothels?"
     9.7 "Just how different are the `ranches'?"
     9.8 "All you need is money and a clean, healthy wanger?"
     9.9 "What is your sexual fantasy?"

10.0 A Recommendation.

     10.1 "Well, who should I visit?"
     10.2 Honey update (Wednesday, December 21, 1994)
     10.3 Honey update (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)
     10.4 Honey update (Saturday, August 19, 1995)
     10.5 Honey update (Saturday, September 16, 1995)
     10.6 A Report from The Mustang Ranch (Friday, November 03, 1995)
     10.7 A Report from The Old Bridge Ranch (Monday, December 11, 1995)
     10.8 A Report on Reno and Carson City Ranches (Wednesday, December 20,
     1995)
     10.9 A Report on "Jennifer" of the Old Bridge Ranch (Sunday, January 07,
     1996)
     10.10 A Report on "Honey" of the Mustang Ranch (Tuesday, February 06,
     1996)
     10.11 A Report on the Reno Ranches (Monday, February 12, 1996)
     10.12 A Report on an Old Visit at The Chicken Ranch (Friday, February 16,
     1996)
     10.13 A Report on an Old Visit at The Kit-Kat Ranch (Sunday, Febuary 18,
     1996)
     10.14 A Report from The Mustang Ranch 2 (Sunday, March 03, 1996)
     10.15 A Report from a Highway 95 Tour (Saturday, March 09, 1996)
     10.16 A Report from The Sagebrush Ranch (Thursday, March 28, 1996)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          mailto:bashful@paranoia.com

             Back to Main Page : [http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
<HTML>
<HEAD><TITLE>The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) List on Legal Prostitution in Nevada.</TITLE></HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000FF" VLINK="#FF0000" ALINK="#FFFF00" >
<CENTER>
<H2>The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) List on Legal Prostitution in Nevada.</H2>
</CENTER>
<CENTER><B><H5>
Last modified : March 28, 1996
</H5></B></CENTER>
<HR>
<B>
<P>
1.0 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq01p00.html">Version History</A>
<P>
2.0 Introduction.<BR>
<UL>
2.1 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq02p01.html">Say what?!?  Prostitution is legal somewhere in the United States? Yeah, sure!</A>"<BR>
2.2 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq02p02.html">Just who are you (the author of this FAQ), and what makes you think that you are an authority on legal prostitution in Nevada?</A>"<BR>
2.3 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq02p03.html">What restrictions are there on my use of this FAQ?</A>"<BR>
2.4 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq02p04.html">I don't trust you.  You must have a hidden agenda of some sort.</A>"<BR>
</UL>
<P>
3.0 Legal Status of Prostitution in Nevada.<BR>
<UL>
3.1 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq03p01.html">You mean that a woman can just, uh, set up shop in Nevada?</A>"<BR>
3.2 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq03p02.html">What about AIDS?</A>"<BR>
3.3 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq03p03.html">Why haven't I heard of these legal brothels before?</A>"<BR>
3.4 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq03p04.html">What is the history of legal prostitution in Nevada?</A>" (New as of March 16, 1996)<BR>
</UL>
<P>
4.0 Where to find Nevada's legal brothels.<BR>
<UL>
4.1 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq04p01.html">Get to the point, man!  Where do I go to get laid?</A>"<BR>
4.2 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq04p02.html">Do they have telephone numbers?</A>"<BR>
4.3 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq04p03.html">Fine.  But how do I find out where the other brothels are?</A>"<BR>
</UL>
<P>
5.0 What to expect when choosing a lady.<BR>
<UL>
5.1 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq05p01.html">What should I expect when I first get there?</A>"<BR>
</UL>
<P>
6.0 Negotiating the contract.<BR>
<UL>
6.1 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq06p01.html">How about the business end?</A>"<BR>
6.2 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq06p02.html">What does it cost?</A>" (Updated March 06, 1996)<BR>
6.3 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq06p03.html">Anything to look out for?</A>"<BR>
6.4 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq06p04.html">What about after sex?</A>"<BR>
</UL>
7.0 The do's and don't's of sex.<BR>
<UL>
7.1 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq07p01.html">You mean I have to wear a raincoat?</A>"<BR>
7.2 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq07p02.html">Anything else taboo?</A>"<BR>
7.3 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq07p03.html">So then everything else is okay?</A>"<BR>
7.4 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq07p04.html">Isn't anonymity wonderful?  No one else need ever know!</A>"<BR>
7.5 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq07p05.html">How old do I have to be?</A>" (New as of March 16, 1996)<BR>
7.6 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq07p06.html">Can women procure sex? Can my wife/girlfriend visit a brothel with me?</A>" (New as of March 16, 1996)<BR>
7.7 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq07p07.html">Are there any gay brothels?</A>" (New as of March 16, 1996)<BR>
</UL>
8.0 A Sermon.<BR>
<UL>
8.1 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq08p01.html">The Golden Rule says that you should treat others as you would have them treat yourself, but does this apply to prostitutes?</A>"<BR>
8.2 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq08p02.html">How can something immoral like prostitution be legal?</A>"<BR>
</UL>
9.0 "Tail" Tales.<BR>
<UL>
9.1 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq09p01.html">What do the girls look like?</A>"<BR>
9.2 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq09p02.html">So you've only picked out nice-looking chicks?</A>"<BR>
9.3 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq09p03.html">Do you have any pet peeves?</A>"<BR>
9.4 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq09p04.html">Have you had any embarassments?</A>"<BR>
9.5 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq09p05.html">But are they good people?</A>"<BR>
9.6 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq09p06.html">Any strange goings-on in the brothels?</A>"<BR>
9.7 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq09p07.html">Just how different are the `ranches'?</A>"<BR>
9.8 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq09p08.html">All you need is money and a clean, healthy wanger?</A>"<BR>
9.9 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq09p09.html">What is your sexual fantasy?</A>"<BR>
</UL>
10.0 A Recommendation.<BR>
<UL>
10.1 "<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p01.html">Well, who should I visit?</A>"<BR>
10.2 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p02.html">Honey update (Wednesday, December 21, 1994)</A><BR>
10.3 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p03.html">Honey update (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)</A><BR>
10.4 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p04.html">Honey update (Saturday, August 19, 1995)</A><BR>
10.5 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p05.html">Honey update (Saturday, September 16, 1995)</A><BR>
10.6 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p06.html">A Report from The Mustang Ranch (Friday, November 03, 1995)</A><BR>
10.7 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p07.html">A Report from The Old Bridge Ranch (Monday, December 11, 1995)</A><BR>
10.8 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p08.html">A Report on Reno and Carson City Ranches (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)</A><BR>
10.9 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p09.html">A Report on "Jennifer" of the Old Bridge Ranch (Sunday, January 07, 1996)</A><BR>
10.10 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p10.html">A Report on "Honey" of the Mustang Ranch (Tuesday, February 06, 1996)</A><BR>
10.11 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p11.html">A Report on the Reno Ranches (Monday, February 12, 1996)</A><BR>
10.12 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p12.html">A Report on an Old Visit at The Chicken Ranch (Friday, February 16, 1996)</A><BR>
10.13 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p13.html">A Report on an Old Visit at The Kit-Kat Ranch (Sunday, Febuary 18, 1996)</A><BR>
10.14 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p14.html">A Report from The Mustang Ranch 2 (Sunday, March 03, 1996)</A><BR>
10.15 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p15.html">A Report from a Highway 95 Tour (Saturday, March 09, 1996)</A><BR>
10.16 <A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful/faq10p16.html">A Report from The Sagebrush Ranch (Thursday, March 28, 1996)</A><BR>
</UL>
</B>
<HR>
<H2>
<P>
<CENTER><B>mailto:</B><I><A HREF="mailto:bashful@paranoia.com">bashful@paranoia.com</A></I></CENTER>
<P>
<CENTER>Back to Main Page : [<A HREF="http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful">http://www.paranoia.com/~bashful</A>]</CENTER>
<P>
</H2>
<HR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
    

    re.342
    
    I would never hire a prostitute, regardless of how many years it had
    been since my last encounter with a woman. You see, I have too much
    respect for women than to buy them like some piece of meat. Besides,
    what you buy or rent from a prostitute is something any 'real man' gets
    often and for free.
    
    
    hth
    
    
    lunchbox

    haw haw.

    hee haw

    I cannot deny, there have been several women I'd wish I could buy.
    -ss
    

    They say everybody has a price, steve. Start saving...

    Engine in the Bronco I used to own snarf!

	ss...are you Nipsey Russell? :-)

    Who?
    

<---thanks for making me feel old. :-)

    <---thanks for making me feel like a whippersnapper.
    

    He used to sell Jif Peanut Butter, did he not?
    

    >I would never hire a prostitute, 
    
     Never say never. If you insist on sayng never, remember your words so
    you can feel appropriately chastened should it ever come to pass.
    
    >You see, I have too much respect for women than to buy them like 
    >some piece of meat. 
    
    >Besides, what you buy or rent from a prostitute is something any 
    >'real man' gets often and for free.
    
     The juxtaposition of these two sentences is, well, precious. :-)
    
     And what is it that you think you know about real men? :-)
    
    PS- Nothing is free.

    <----   :)
    
    Peter

    When it comes right down to it, what is the differnence between
    engaging the services of a prostitute versus any other service
    provider?  A lawyer, accountant, service technician, dentist?  All are
    professionals, all provide a service for a fee.  
    
    Brian 

    don't think you'll get any STD's form yer accountant [at least, i
    don't]

    
      None in the sense you mean.
    
      Neither is there any difference in hiring a hitman, a burglar,
     a getaway car driver, or an impersonator of cops.  They all also
     provide services for a fee.
    
      bb

    The page I pointed to has a link to the Prostitutes Education Network,
    which contains an article by a woman who worked in the Nevada brothels. 
    She doesn't have any complaints about the customers.  It's the brothels
    and the Nevada regulations that bother her -- the brothels take a big
    cut of the money and constrain the prostitutes in various ways
    (conditions on leaving the premises, what customers they can refuse, et
    cetera).  It's pretty clear that having sex for money is a choice she
    is comfortable with -- there's no issue of dehumanization or whatever
    for her there.  It's a service, and she's in control as far as that
    goes.  But the Nevada laws require prostitutes work only in brothels,
    which gives the brothels too much control.
    
    When you are moving from one apartment/house to another and you hire a
    man to move your furniture, you are just treating him like a piece of
    meat.  You have hired him for his muscles, not for his sparkling
    conversation.  Why should this use of meat be considered moral and
    other uses not?
    
    The fact is, people ARE physical objects.  And until we have a utopia
    where our thoughts control devices to perform physical acts for us, it
    is NECESSARY that people use their bodies for many things, from digging
    ditches to having sex.
    
    Now, people are not JUST objects.  They are objects AND human beings. 
    It would be wrong to DENY a person's humanity and treat them ONLY as an
    object.  This is why slavery is wrong.  If you own somebody, you have
    denied their human rights.  But if you merely hire them, their rights
    off the job are not suppressed, even though you receive some use of
    their body while they are on the job.  This is why hiring a furniture
    mover is moral -- and so is hiring a prostitute.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .361:
    
    > Neither is there any difference in hiring a hitman, a burglar, a
    > getaway car driver, or an impersonator of cops.  They all also provide
    > services for a fee.
    
    That is false; there is a difference.  The services you list above are
    illegal and immoral EVEN IF THERE IS NO FEE INVOLVED.  It is not the
    fee that makes the hiring immoral in these cases; it is the act itself. 
    The acts listed in .359 are not immoral, and so paying a fee for them
    is not immoral either.  Similarly, having sex is not immoral, and
    neither is paying a fee for it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
      Deciding what is "moral" or "immoral" is up to individuals.
     Neither in Soapbox, nor in the world, do people agree on what
     is immoral, nor on what the criteria are for deciding this.
    
      What is LEGAL is up to governments, using the process known
     as politics.  In Nevada, prostitution is legal, in some other
     places, not.  There isn't any other mechanism for doing this.
    
      bb

    >  Deciding what is "moral" or "immoral" is up to individuals.
    
     A moral relativist! So I can unilaterally decide that killing you is a
    moral thing?

    <----- What EDP said.  

    
      Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
      (2) And early the morning he came again into the temple; and all
         the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
      (3) And the scribes and pharisees brought unto him a woman taken
         in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
      (4) They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery,
         in the very act.
      (5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned :
         what sayest thou ?
      (6) This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse
         him.  But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the
         ground, as though he heard them not.
      (7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and
         said unto them, He that is without sin amongst you, let him
         first cast a stone at her.
      (8) And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
      (9) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience,
         went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last :
         and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
      (10) When Jesus lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he
         said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers ? hath no
         man condemned thee ?
      (11) She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do
         I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.
      (12) Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of
         the world : he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but
         shall have the light of life.
    
      John 8:1-12, KJV

    >  Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
    
     Which may work just fine for Christians, but the world is not exactly
    religiously homogeneous.

>>from a prostitute is something any 'real man' gets often and for free.

    lunchbox,

	Oh, my!   Please, let us know who you mean......

    
      Well, OK - here it is without the Bible.  If I were to go have
     sex with a prostitute, and this were discovered by my family, it
     would hurt them deeply.  No amount of handwaving by libertarians
     would cure this hurt, which would last forever.  I would be a sinner.
    
      The moral stance of the temptress is quicksand.  For profit, she
     tempts others to hurt those they love.  She does not actually hurt
     them herself, but she is the indirect cause of misery.
    
      bb

    >  Well, OK - here it is without the Bible.  If I were to go have
    > sex with a prostitute, and this were discovered by my family, it
    > would hurt them deeply.  
    
     Who would be the aggrieved party if you were single? Or if your
    relationship with your wife were nonmonogamous by mutual agreement?
    
     In a situation such as the one you find yourself (and I find myself),
    engaging in carnal delights with a temptress would be sinful _because it
    could harm others_. That is not to say this is the only possible case,
    which is the way you see things.

    bb, simple solution.  Don't go to one if it would hurt your
    relationship with your family.  The mere presence of a prostitute
    however does not have any impact on you unless you choose to use one. 
    Ditto gambling or bars or porno flicks or <insert vice> here.  

    Re .370:
    
    > If I were to go have sex with a prostitute, and this were discovered
    > by my family, it would hurt them deeply.  No amount of handwaving by
    > libertarians would cure this hurt, which would last forever.  I would
    > be a sinner.
    
    Okay, you have shown that if YOU had sex with a prostitute, it would
    hurt your family, so you should not do it.  Of course, assuming you are
    married, you have made a commitment to be faithful -- and libertarians
    hold commitments in very high regard.  Your slander is undeserved -- if
    you really want to be moral, shouldn't you refrain from insulting
    people who do not deserve it?
    
    But you have not shown that other people should not visit prostitutes. 
    There are many people whose families would not be hurt if they had sex
    with prostitutes.  So you have not shown there is anything wrong with
    prostitution in general.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .364:                                                      
    
    > Deciding what is "moral" or "immoral" is up to individuals.
    > . . . .  What is LEGAL is up to governments, using the process
    > known as politics.
    
    It is nonsense to maintain that morality has no place in law or
    government.  We outlaw murder because we have a consensus that it is
    immoral, not just because it seemed like a fun idea to outlaw it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    <-- True.  For laws to be just, they must be moral and ethical.  But
    what morality do we base these laws on?
    
    As a society, we have decided that prostitution is immoral, thus should 
    be illegal.  But society's is slowly throwing off its moral base, which
    is Judeo/Christian in origin, replacing it with...  ??  (I have no idea 
    8^) ).   The consensus is changing, so once immoral thing are accepted
    today.
    
    My point is that I agree with your statement, yet I wonder what
    morality we use to base our laws upon- changing consensus?  This is
    troublesome at best, quicksand at its worst.  Maybe the consensus of
    the future will be that killing off certain "undesirables" will be
    morally okay (like unwanted children, while in the woumb).
    
    By systematically tossing out our historic moral 
    foundation, we end up in a mire of relativism- the result being laws 
    befitting our moral (or lack thereof) state.
    
                                        
    -steve

    
      edp - of course the citizens' views of morality affect the
           laws their government legislates.  The linkage is loose,
           but it's there, all right.  Some laws are more linked
           than others.  If you try to put an autobody shop on my
           street, you'll get fined, jailed if you persist.  Although
           nobody thinks auto body shops are immoral.
    
            My quarrel with libertarianism as a philosophy, and the
           Libertarian Party, is that I do not believe libertarians
           properly evaluate the value of Order.  Order has so much
           value that we are willing to impose arbitrary rules on
           everybody, yes even the unwilling, to secure it's benefits
           to society.  Sure, by making prostitution illegal in our
           state, we limit our freedoms.  But that is not the test.
           The test is the greatest benefit to society as a whole.
    
            The one good thing I can say about libertarians is that I
           prefer their views to those of the socialists and liberals,
           with their terribly erroneous preoccupation with "fairness".
           I swear that fairness will be the death of us all - in its
           name, if the liberals get their way, we will eschew every
           societal benefit until it can be equally distributed.
    
            bb

    Re .375:
    
    > But society's is slowly throwing off its moral base, which is
    > Judeo/Christian in origin, replacing it with...  ?
    
    Try "liberty" or "freedom" or "human rights".
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    <-- But only as society sees it at a given moment.  It is the quicksand
    approach to societal morality, and our laws will reflect this.
    
    "liberty", "freedom" and "human rights" will inevitably change, if you
    have no firm moral foundation on which to base these concepts.
    
    
    -steve

    I have no problem with saying 'never'. I have too much pride to pay for
    sex.
    
    
    lunchbox

    We know about your pride, lunchbox.  It also affects your ability to
    admit a mistake.

    Hafta take the good with the bad, Dick. 

    Lunchbox,
    
    your pride may be fine, but apparently there are a significant number
    of men and women in this country who don't have a problem with
    exchanging money for services rendered in the sexual realm.  If there
    wasn't any demand, there certainly wouldn't be the supply out there.  
    
    I prefer having this business regulated and taxed, so maybe my burden
    from the system might be reduced.  I also want the people involved on
    the supply side to be certified as healthy and working in a safe
    location where some snuff freak can't kill them, as well as protecting
    the customers from being robbed, picking up an STD or worse.  As it is
    now, I pay taxes for the cops who decoy as prostitutes while trolling
    for Johns, the cops who decoy as customers trolling for prostitutes,
    the time fingerprinting and jailing both side, the court time, and jail
    time, not to mention the fact that the cops trolling for people
    involved in commercial sex are not walking a beat or working to catch
    violent criminals, a much more significant threat to me than having the
    local redlight district in my neighborhood.
    
    meg

    I said before I would like to see it legalized for similar reasons,
    Meg. I don't think prostitution is right, morally, but if people are
    going to do it anyway, we might as well make it as safe for all
    involved as possible.
    
    
    
    lunchbox

    
    Lunchbox,
    
    Now take that particular line of thinking to the Drug topic.
    
    

    I bought a prostitute in Amsterdam a drink one time.
    
    She was very pleasant and told me what the best Art museums were to go to 
    in Amsterdam.
    
    Er,that`s about all my fleeting experience is with "ladies of the night".
    
    
    
    

    Thinking about it, just because there is a demand for something doesn't
    mean it should be legalized. There is a big demand for kiddie porn,
    wanna legalize it? Certain drugs such as marijuana and LSD don't bother
    me, but when people start talking about legalizing ALL drugs I get a
    little scared. I've seen too much damage done by crack to agree with
    that.
    
    
    lunchbox

    Crack _exists_ because drugs are illegal. 

    Stuff and nonsense.
    
    Crack exists because there are people willing to sell it and people
    will to buy it.  If all drugs were legalized, crack would still exist.
    If some drugs were legalized, crack would still exist.
    
    Illegal gaming exists side by side with legal gaming.
    Illegal drugs exist side by side with legal drugs.
    Illegal prostitution exists side by side with legal prostitution.
    
    The filthy used condoms and the empty crack viles will *not* go away
    with "legalization"....
    
    								-mr. bill

    i thought crack existed because it was way cheaper
    than regular cocaine.

    
      And there is a pretty good size market for smuggled cigarettes
     and bootlegged alcohol, too.
    
      But then, actually realizing that substance abuse is a severe
     problem, and will remain so no matter what laws you pass or repeal,
     gets no attention in here.
    
      Fortunately, in the real world, people realize there is a problem
     and it needs dealing with SOMEHOW.  What we are doing isn't working,
     but doing nothing will be worse.
    
      And contrary to what's been said here, the position that substance
     abuse is a major US problem is declared by both the major political
     parties, by both the current administration and its predecessor,
     and by the majority of our citizens.
    
      The 'Box is WAY out of tune with the country on this - parents are
     alarmed, teachers are alarmed, even the kids are.  But all you will
     hear about in Soapbox is how to tinker with the laws, as if it
     mattered in this epidemic catastrophe.
    
      bb

    re: .388
    
     How ignorant of history.
    
     When prohibition happened, people's desire for alcohol did not go
    away. It went underground. Since it became illegal to deal in alcohol,
    people who wanted to cater to the desire were subject to arrest,
    confiscation, incarceration and other rather unpleasant punishments at
    the hands of "the law."
    
     The effect of this is that a country that consumed x% of its alcohol
    in the forms of beer and wine and y% in hard liquor became a country
    that now consumed a much greater percentage of alcohol as hard liquor.
    The reason for this is quite straightforward. It was just was illegal
    to transport a bottle of wine as it was to transport a bottle of
    liquor. But a bottle of liquor has much more alcohol, thus is more
    capable of causing intoxication. Thus, one can charge more for the
    bottle of liquor _because it's contraband and the normal relationship
    between cost to produce and cost to consumers does not apply_. The
    profit motive provided the impetus to shift the nation's drinking
    habits as a direct result of the dangers of smuggling. 
    
     It's not too difficult to understand. A smuggler can choose between a
    bottle of wine which can satisfy perhaps two people or a bottle of
    liquor which can satisfy a dozen. Which do you think offers the
    greatest profit potential per unit of risk? What's more difficult to
    smuggle, $100 worth of whisky or $100 worth of beer? 
    
     Precisely the same thing has happened with drug prohibition. Smuggling
    $1k worth of coke is much easier than smuggling $1k worth of marijuana.
    The big focus on pot interdiction has led to greater domestic
    production and reduced reliance on importation. Coke became more
    attractive, but it's rather pricey and therefore has a more limited
    market. But if you could make something like coke that was cheap, now
    we're talking about a better mousetrap. So they did. Please, don't
    believe me. Ask the DEA why crack was created. 
    
     What happened to per capita consumption of hard liquor once
    prohibition was repealed? Why it plummeted. And, oh, gee whiz, the
    murder rate dropped for 11 straight years, too. But it was only "bad
    guys" killing "bad guys". Wasn't it? No such thing as stray bullets
    back in the days of the tommy guns. Or were there?
    
     What's happened to per capita alcohol consumption of all kinds since
    the government started educating people about the dangers of
    overindulgence? It's dropped significantly (especially for hard
    liquor).
    
     How many people do you think we could treat for substance abuse
    problems if we diverted the $20+ billion we spend annually for use in
    detox and outpatient services? 
    
     The lessons of history are left to the reader. 

    Re .386:
    
    > There is a big demand for kiddie porn, wanna legalize it?
    
    There is very little demand for kiddie porn, and most of the kiddie
    porn in this country is published by the United States Government.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    There is very little demand for kiddie porn, and most of the kiddie
>    porn in this country is published by the United States Government.

{waiting for the other shoe to drop}

    {plunk?}

    Re .393:
    
    The government reproduces kiddie porn to use for entrapment.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>      <<< Note 289.395 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    The government reproduces kiddie porn to use for entrapment.

	you would term that "publish"ing it?

	Kitty Porn is cool. Best little homepage I have seen in a while! Them
cats really keep me laughing!

    hey, why bother with porn?  for those so inclined, a nice
    tour of southeast asia will do the trick!
    
    a message taken from the internet:
    
    "you can get a 6-year old for $3US"
    
    (new york times, 4/14)

    Re .396:
    
    In the course of trying to entrap people, the government distributes
    the kiddie porn as well as reproducing it.  That constitutes
    publishing.  Do you have some reason for believing the printing and
    distribution of material is not "publishing"?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

   .399  

    >Do you have some reason for believing the printing and
    >distribution of material is not "publishing"?

	No.  I have some reason for believing that stating it the
	way you did is somewhat hyperbolic, and that surprised me
	coming from you. 

    .400
    
    An ellipse is not a hyperbola.

    Hyperbola - someone who gets a strike with every ball.

  .401  was i being ovally critical?

    This is his baiting technique, Di.  Surely you've seen it before.
    
    Make a provocative statement (gov't publishes most of the kiddy porn)
    tell half the facts backing it up (they reproduce it)
    Wait for someone to take the bait (that isn't publishing)
    pull out the sledgehammer (they distribute it too, publishing, nyah nyah.)
    
    Boring, really.  Most of us simply won't take his baits after awhile.
    
    DougO

Eric _is_ a master baiter.

    Di knew you were going to say that.

>             <<< Note 289.404 by SX4GTO::OLSON "DBTC Palo Alto" >>>

>    pull out the sledgehammer (they distribute it too, publishing, nyah nyah.)

    Believe it or not, I reckoned that would be his comeback, but was hoping
    against hope that he wouldn't pull the got-you-on-a-technicality routine.
    So much for that.  It's not the first time I've had my hopes dashed by
    the 'box intelligentsia and I'm sure it won't be the last. ;>

    Re .407:

    What technicality?  I said they reproduce it for entrapment.  I had no
    suspicion you would for some reason think this is not publishing.  What
    do you think they do to entrap people -- pile the child pornography in
    a warehouse and wait for people to come get it?  If you think about it
    for a minute, you'll realize that it gets advertised to people
    (sometimes repeatedly for years) and shipped to them when they order
    it.  You have to make the shipment in order to get the child
    pornography in the possession of the subject so you can make the charge
    of "possession of child pornography".
    
    This information was available to you; don't blame me if you didn't
    think about it.
    
    Nor is there anything hyperbolic about it.  It might be hyperbole if
    government publishing weren't the majority, but it is.  Child
    pornography is very rare -- I read an editorial by an author who had
    inquired about child pornography in adult shops around the country, and
    the response was universally one of condemnation.  The only large
    organized distributor of child pornography in this country is the
    United States Government.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    So, in order to "stamp out" child porn, the government publishes (and
    distributes) it?  Funny way to go about it, if you ask me.

    
    
    I would be more inclined to believe the gov't uses the confiscated
    material in their stings...
    
     Why bother printing/reproducing/publishing when you have a plethora of
    material available?
    

    
    I doubt very much that the US government is the major distributor
    or publisher of kiddie porn. I'm not aware of any factual evidence to
    support that, anecdotal or editorial comments notwithstanding.
    
    

>      <<< Note 289.408 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    Nor is there anything hyperbolic about it.

	You're right, Eric, as always.  Nothing the least bit hyperbolic
	about your original note.  Nosirree.

    Re .410:
    
    > Why bother printing/reproducing/publishing when you have a plethora
    > of material available?
    
    What plethora?  Where have you seen child pornography?
    
    
    Re .412:
    
    If the government is the major publisher, how would you state the
    government is the major publisher without stating "the government is
    the major publisher"?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    re: .413
    
    >What plethora?  Where have you seen child pornography?
    
    
     About 8 years ago, I worked with a man in my group who was caught in
    a child porn sting...
    
      He related to me in detail, the availability of child porn on the
    market was extensive...
    
      He is no longer with the company, and if you want his name, I believe
    he's still in the Nashua area..
    

    Of course, we are all expected to overlook the fact that the government
    is breaking laws right and left to entrap kiddie-porn users.  But
    that's okay, it's for our own good.

>      <<< Note 289.413 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    If the government is the major publisher, how would you state the
>    government is the major publisher without stating "the government is
>    the major publisher"?

    I guess that would depend upon whether my intent was to be hyperbolic
    or to inform.  If my intent was to be hyperbolic, I might say it 
    like this:
    
       >...most of the kiddie porn in this country is published by the
       >United States Government.

    If my intent was to inform, I might say it like this:

	...most of the kiddie porn in this country is published by the
        United States Government for entrapment purposes.

    Re .416:
    
    Apparently you see the reason government publishes child pornography as
    relevant.  I don't.  The ends do not justify the means, and I do not
    excuse or forgive their actions.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	When I read Eric's original entry on the subject, I figured he
    	was referring to the regular shipments to the Senate.
    

    "Entrapment" is the process of baiting somebody into committing a crime
    they would not have done otherwise. If somebody is into kiddie porn, it
    seems they would go about getting it with or without the government.
    NYC police have undercover cops dress as businessmen and ride the
    subway pretending to be drunk, somebody comes along and picks his
    pocket and gets arrested. Entrapment has been tried as a defense a
    couple of times, but has yet to be successful. Before anybody jumps
    down my throat, I acknowledge the government violates its own laws by
    publishing and distributing this garbage, but I disagree that it is
    entrapment.
    
    
    lunchbox

    
    	I understand the concept of entrapment, and I have a faint
    	understanding of what it takes to avoid entrapment, but it's
    	still pretty hazy to me.
    
    	An undercover cop working as a prostitute seems very close to
    	entrapment to me, especially when compared to a druggie that
    	approaches an undercover cop and tries to buy/sell drugs.
    
    	Hmmm, maybe it's pretty similar after all.
    
    
    	[Wouldn't it be funny if 2 undercover cops were on opposite
    	 sides of a "druggie sting" operation, and tried to arrest
    	 each other simultaneously?]
    

    re .420
    
    Shawn,
    
    This has happened before in colorado.  Must have been fun explaining to
    the dispatcher, "I have  in custody a (code for streetwalker) who claims
    to be a police officer and is trying to arrest me. "
    
    FWIW I think a fast thinking attorney could get entrapment, by the
    sheer fact that most of the decoys are better looking and in obviously
    better health than most of the streetwalkers on S nevada here.  
    
    I would still rather see this trade legalized, regulated for health,
    located indoors and away from obvious dangers to both sides of the
    trade, and TAXED.  Spend the taxation on cleaning up the unsafe trade
    if you wish.
    
    meg

    This might be something to wonder about, but it kinda goes with what
    Shawn was wondering about.
    I was wondering if the actors on "America's Most Wanted" are ever
    harrassed or reported to the police by viewers who have a hard time
    deciphering between the reenactments and the actual footage. I can see
    10 police cars pulling up to a McDonald's to arrest some guy that
    portrayed an armed fugitive on the show, and not believing his "I'm not
    the criminal but I played him on TV" alibi.
    
    lunchbox

re .420:

If two officers are trying to arrest each other in the case of the opposite
ends of two stings, it means that either one of them must have done something
that is entrapment, or is willing to lie that the other did.

In the case of a "bag the hooker" sting meets a "bag the john" sting, for
example, it means either one cop propositioned the other, or is willing
to arrest the other and falsely claim the other propositioned the first cop.
If neither propositioned the other there should be just a lot of word games
as each tried to trick the other into committing the arrestable offence but
doesn't commit an arrestable offence themself.

re .422:

I heard of one story on AMW where the actress who played the part of some
criminal did trigger many calls to the police department in her city
where people claimed to know where the criminal was, it was the actress.

    Re .419:
    
    > . . . I acknowledge the government violates its own laws by
    > publishing and distributing this garbage, but I disagree that it is
    > entrapment.
    
    You disagree that WHAT is entrapment?  How do you think these
    government stings work?  Do you imagine a person decides to seek child
    pornography and somehow knows to write to the undercover government
    agents and ask for it?  Maybe they call the psychic hotline to find out
    the address.
    
    When a child or parent or other witness reports that somebody solicited
    a child or that they saw somebody with child pornography, that's a
    clean arrest -- it is not entrapment.  But when the government is
    publishing child pornography, the only way to get in touch with the
    subject of the investigation is to MAKE AN OFFER.  How else would the
    subject know to order from you?  The government sends advertisements to
    their targets.  That constitutes entrapment.  Often the government
    sends advertisements repreatedly, because the targets do not bite and
    need to be pushed again and again and again.  In one case, the
    government sent a guy catalogs he did not want and had not ordered, and
    they sent him catalogs for YEARS.  Out of sheer curiosity, he finally
    ordered something to see what it was, and when they delivered it, they
    charged him with possession of child pornography.
    
    That is entrapment.  The government created a crime that never would
    have existed otherwise.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>      <<< Note 289.417 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    Apparently you see the reason government publishes child pornography as
>    relevant.  I don't.

	Point well taken. 

| <<< Note 289.425 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

| Point well taken.

	Isn't that something which is said to prostitutes?

Found this today on the WWW - thought it was pretty interesting,,,,



Prostitutes in the Middle Ages: A Choice Between God or Husband 

By Mary Ann Weaver 

St. Augustine said that "if prostitution were to be suppressed, capricious lusts
would then overthow society;...this sentiment was reiterated by [Thomas]
Aquinas, who wrote in his Summa Theologica, apropos of prostitution, that if you
wree to take away the sewer, the whole palace would soon be filled with
corruption. Prostitution was, in other words, a necessary evil" (McCall, 180).
Despite this "necessity", however, the leaders of medieval Europe, especially
England, still "paid lip service to the Church's ideals of sexual
purity"(Karras, 105) by placing certain restrictions on where and when
prostitutes could ply their trade, what part of town, usually a street, they
could live on, and even what clothes they could wear. It was generally known,
though, that, despite the regulation of prostitution and prostitutes, the
practice continued to flourish, supported by those who would have it removed, or
at the least controlled, in their communities. 

Prostitutes who wished to leave their occupations had two methods of doing so
respectably: either marry or enter a convent. "The appearance of religious
orders for repentant prostitutes and movements to provide dowries so that poor
women, including prostitutes, could marry did provide an alternative for at
least a few [prostitutes]" (Karras, 105). Various religious houses were opened
throughout medieval Europe to provide shelter for former prostitutes, and many
people took up goodwill collections to provide dowries for "unfortunates" who
wanted to leave their trade and marry legitimately. 

In 1224 an effort began to create a special religious order of penitential nuns
to harbor reformed whores, as in 1227 Pope Gregory IX . . . gave the highest
ecclesiastical sanction to the order of St. Mary Magdalene, which subsequently
established convents in numerous cities. These sisters wore a white habit,
whence they were sometimes known as the "White Ladies" (Brundage, 96). Mary
Magdalene's role in Christianity was being reconsidered during the high Middle
Ages. Some religious leaders were viewing her as the ultimate example of God's
love for the lowliest and His forgiveness of all sin, including sexual. In a
sermon dated about 1000, Odo of Cluny discusses why Magdalen's role was
changing. "This was done so that woman, who brought death into the world, need
not remain in disgrace. Death came into the world though the hand of woman, but
news of the Resurrection came through her mouth. Just as Mary, always a virgin,
opens for us the gates of Heaven from which we were excluded by the curse of
Eve, so, too, is the female sex saved from disgrace by Magdalene" (Dalarun, 34).

In the Middle Ages, the fear of pleasurable sex was so great that some church
leaders demanded sexual restrictions even in marriage, an "attitude that was to
be responsible for the appearance in the later Middle Ages of the chemise
cajoule, a sort of thick nightshirt [worn by the wife] with a strategically
placed hole in it, through which a pious husband might impregnate his wife with
the minimal risk of experiencing pleasure in the discharge of his duty" (McCall,
179). What a threat, it is easy to see, were prostitutes to such zealously pious
men and women! It is no wonder, then, that the only choice a prostitute had to
leave her profession was to enter into marriage, where her husband could keep an
eye on her, or enter into a convent, where God and the other nuns could make
sure she didn't fall into her old habits again. 


Return to Domestic Life 

    If the government could figure a way to tax prostitutes, they'd
    probably legalize it.

 >   If the government could figure a way to tax prostitutes, they'd
 >   probably legalize it.

It is legal in most counties of Nevada, but you knew that.

I wonder if the scholarship of that article is on the same level as another
one in the same directory concerning May Day.

Talks about the May Day festival: May Pole, Queen of the May, etc.

Then it says that the May Day festival in the United States has been moved
to the first Monday in September and called Labor Day.

/john

    
    	RE: .429
    
    	Waaahahaha!!
    

>>I wonder if the scholarship of that article is on the same level as another
>>one in the same directory concerning May Day.


	Good point, John

		Again - I thought it was interesting - yet cannot in
		anyway vouch for it's reliability.



	(heard an interesting conversation on just this issue on
	NPR's The Connection not long ago.....)


Pat

I believe "The Connection" is just a local WBUR program, not an NPR one.

    RE .428
    Prostitution is taxed indirectly. Go to New York or any large city some
    evening. The Vice squad is running up and down the street picking up
    the ladies. They end up in jail. The pimp and the lawyer bail her out
    in front of the judge. She is out on the street in about an hour where
    she uses some dope and the police pick her up again, this time for
    drugs. More cops, lawyers, judges and more bail money and fines. You
    always have to have fines (the tax). Then she is out on the street
    again to possibly get killed, more cops, the coroner etc. or maybe
    a beating which brings in the medical field. Cops are paid to leave
    the girls alone, a bribe, by the pimps, a form of tax to augment the
    poor wages of the cops and judges and we go around again. I have a
    friend who works as a lawyer, she said that the amount of money moving
    around at the expense of the girls is amazing. Why change anything,
    everybody gets their cut.