The Revolution put an end to prostitution by giving women what they wanted: a job and a room of their own. – Maxine Hong Kingston
Short articles on the usual subject.
Lipstick on a Pig
If I were to feature every news story of a prostitution bust in the United States, my column would consist of little else. But this story from the August 15th Washington Examiner was noteworthy both for the appalling size of the operation and for the pathetic attempt to represent the same old police harassment campaign as some sort of feminist social work effort:
…In two separate six-hour periods, District [of Columbia] police arrested 54 men on prostitution solicitation-related charges…The men face up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, although Bray said most first-time offenders will be sent to a program to help them cope with their sexual desires. Police also said they arrested 14 women on prostitution-related charges, four men on pandering charges for allegedly trying to coax undercover female officers into working for them as hookers, and two men on robbery charges for allegedly trying to rip off female undercover officers who were posing as prostitutes. “The majority of the operation was focused on the customer side,” Bray said on Monday. “We hope that if we do that there will be no customers and prostitution in the city will not be as prevalent”…”We’re also looking for human trafficking victims,” Bray said. “We want to ID traffickers and pimps who try to trap victims.”
This “end demand” rhetoric is becoming much more common as police departments begin adding “Swedish model” propaganda to their usual ignorant statements in an effort to appeal to neofeminists and other anti-sex religious fanatics. And the “human trafficking” dogma tacked on at the end there might be funny if not for the chilling, Orwellian language in the second sentence: “first-time offenders will be sent to a program to help them cope with their sexual desires.” It makes my skin crawl to see cops parroting neofeminist pathologization of normal male behavior in order to excuse their pogroms; too bad we can’t force cops into a program to help them cope with the sick, sadistic sexual desires that drive them to beat and murder men and rape women.
My Readers Write
I’m very proud of the unusually high literacy level of my readership, and many of my regular readers are writers themselves; thanks to a link on Tits and Sass last Friday I discovered this “Open Letter to Australian Feminists Concerned About Sex Worker Exploitation” written by regular reader Because I’m a Whore, which appeared on Feminaust on August 20th. I think it’s important because it demonstrates a point I’ve made a number of times before: As long as our laws allow individual behaviors to be criminalized by government, whores are in danger even in places where our profession has been legalized because the busybodies and control freaks are hard at work trying to get it recriminalized, just as Donna Hughes and her lackies accomplished in Rhode Island two years ago and the last Labour government in Britain almost managed last year.
Seeking Balance?
After allowing Trevor and Maggie Neilson a pulpit from which to vomit out their prohibitionist propaganda, perhaps Huffington Post is trying to establish balance by giving column space to Ronald Weitzer, whose work I’ve cited on a number of occasions. Weitzer’s article, “Myths About Human Trafficking”, appeared on August 24th and directly refutes the bogus claims and statistics of which the Neilsons and their ilk are so fond. While I’m pleased to see this, it’s sad that a publication which claims to be “liberal” could have featured writers who advocate crushing individual rights by police tactics in the first place.
Workers’ Paradise vs. Gold Diggers
With rare exception, Marxists are anti-prostitution for obvious reasons: our trade is capitalism in its purest form. The communist states of the 20th century proudly boasted (as in my epigram) that they had entirely eradicated prostitution, but of course this was pure poppycock; there is no evidence that prostitution decreased in the Soviet Union, China or any smaller communist state, and if anything it increased as women strove to gain luxuries or even simple necessities amidst the eternal shortages which characterize communist economies. And though China no longer tries to pretend that prostitution does not exist within her borders, the Chinese government suppresses sex work every bit as brutally as the United States does, and unlike the U.S. it apparently doesn’t even allow whoring conducted under color of matrimony. According to the August 23rd Sydney Morning Herald:
With divorce rates soaring and widespread worries about a culture of materialism, the Chinese government is now trying to stop women marrying for money…the Supreme Court has ruled that the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it in the event of a divorce. ”Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much,” Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province, said. The ruling should help relieve the burden on young men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying an apartment. China’s property bubble has driven property prices in Shanghai up to $7934 per square metre when annual salaries average just $9521.
”There are more and more girls who want to marry rich men and improve their financial position. It has been a notable increase,” Wang Zhiguo, a consultant at Baihe, a Beijing-based matchmaking website, said. ”Most pretty girls now try to trade on their beauty. It is an unhealthy trend and the government is now trying to restrict it.” Recent statistics show there were 2.68 million divorces last year and divorces have multiplied at almost the same speed as the economy has grown: by 7 per cent a year for five years.
I wonder what American feminists would think upon hearing their rhetoric coming out of the mouth of an advocate for Chinese social engineering?
Whores On Whores
Politicians are, as I’ve said before, the biggest whores of all, and many if not most of them hate garden-variety whores because we are living proof of their inability to control everybody and everything. And now you can have a rare look at a few politicians’ uncensored opinions about us courtesy of Wikileaks and Furry Girl, who spent all day August 25th poring over this weeks’ new releases. She shares her results in her Feminisn’t column for August 26th, and though most of the results have to do with the annual State Department exercise in pomposity referred to as the “Trafficking in Persons Report”, there are enough other types of references to be interesting.
Oops
There aren’t many circumstances in which I would excuse a breach of confidentiality, but this is probably one of them:
A federal sex-trafficking case was declared a mistrial last week when a masseuse testifying against an allegedly exploitative massage parlor recognized the defense attorney as a former client. Liudmyla Ksenych, a Ukranian immigrant, worked at a massage parlor owned by Alex “Daddy” Campbell, where other women testified they were trained to give clients sexual favors and pay Campbell thousands of dollars to avoid deportation…when she left the witness stand last Monday, she told prosecutors that she recognized Campbell’s attorney, Douglas Rathe, as a former client. Rathe…told U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman that he had visited Ksenych four times for massages and given her a bottle of perfume as a gift, but that “nothing inappropriate” occurred during those visits…“It was a massage — that was all it was…What happened was embarrassing — there was no doubt about it. [But] I did nothing illegal or nothing that was considered improper. This was a very unusual circumstance.”
According to the indictment, Campbell is accused of coercing immigrant women into jobs at his massage parlors, confiscating their passports, trapping them in apartments and driving them to and from work and extorting thousands of dollars from them with the threat of deportation…An accomplice has already pled guilty to these crimes. Neither the prosecutors nor the judge seemed convinced that Rathe’s history with Ksenych interfered with his ability to do his job…and the government offered to withdraw Ksenych as a witness so the trial could continue. But Campbell, who had already filed a motion for a mistrial on a separate issue…[insisted] he could not trust Rathe, his court-appointed attorney, and would need to be assigned a new defense lawyer…The trial has been rescheduled for January.
Do I really need to point out that the only reason Campbell and his accomplice were able to extort money from these women is that prostitution is criminalized?
One Year Ago Today
“September Updates” was my very first “update” column and featured updates to “Legal Sundries” (August 17th) and “Nothing in the Dark” (August 8th).
Translation from legal speak: re-education camps. Orwell gets more right every day. This won’t work unless they castrate the men. What are they going to say? “Watch more porn! Cheat more!” The heart wants what the heart wants.
Incidentally, re: Chinese prostitution. A friend of mine who lived in China for a while always found it amusing that whenever he saw hookers, his Chinese friends would insist that they were not Chinese women, they were Mongolian. Because Chinese women would never do such a thing. This cultural attitude has consequences — information about the Rape of Nanking or the “comfort women” was very difficult to obtain since the victims were scared of being branded as whores and being blamed for what happened to them (which was precisely what the Japanese government did).
There is already a program to help men deal with their sexual desires. It’s called “prostitution.”
I can’t possibly emphasize enough how much that statement makes my skin crawl. It’s bad enough that neofeminists think that a man’s sexual desire is something to be “dealt with” rather than experienced, but when male cops go repeating it and a reporter reports it without comment…I have to wonder if this country has gone totally insane. 🙁
It makes my skin crawl, too. Sexuality and sexual desire in men are completely normal – it’s society that’s gone sick, trying to turn men into women.
The Magic 8 Ball says, “Signs point to yes.”
‘Do I really need to point out that the only reason Campbell and his accomplice were able able to extort money from these women is that prostitution is criminalized?’
I hate to have to disagree with you, but I have to say this is only one of the reasons. Our brutal immigration laws encourage this sort of crime as well. I’ve heard similar stories about domestic servants, farm workers, and even factory workers.
I can’t deny that the prostitution laws make the situation even worse, however. Especially considering that even legal residents can be deported if arrested on prostitution charges.
You are of course correct, and more’s the pity. 🙁
Oh, it’s MUCH worse than that. The criminals that illegals have been forced to use will sometimes kidnap them and call up their families demanding more money, even torturing them over the phone to get it. And people who escape are afraid to go to police because they’ll get deported or, worse, put into immigration limbo.
Thanks Maggie, Honoured to get a mention on your awesome blog!!
It was well-deserved! 🙂
“it’s sad that a publication which claims to be “liberal” could have featured writers who advocate crushing individual rights by police tactics in the first place.”
Maggie,
While the assertions that the Political Right is shot through with self-styled Christians wanting to stuff their morals down the throats of all and sundry are substantially correct, the Political Left – the ‘Liberals’ – is no better if not worse. Whatever their rhetoric, modern Liberalism is all about using the threat of force to coerce people into doing what they wouldn’t do on their own, often for reasons that are irrational and/or based on faith rather than facts. Hence we have San Francisco banning Happy Meals, the CAFE restrictions to force people to buy small cars, and so on and on and on. The difference – that Liberalism isn’t actually labeled a Religion – is entirely artificial and meaningless.
Anybody involved in government for any reason other than to make money should be viewed with considerable suspicion. So should any effort to spread the influence of government, regardless of reason. I am a 50 year old man with gout and bad teeth. I have no illusions about how I would fare in an Anarchy (somewhere near the bottom of the pile, whimpering). Nevertheless I view Government as a necessary evil, to be restricted wherever possible.
That’s exactly my point; the so-called “liberals” and the so-called “conservatives” are virtually indistinguishable in this country. As I’ve often demonstrated, both halves of the American Big Government Party advocate using armed thugs to brutally enforce their own agenda on individuals.
I would argue that there is one critical difference; the “Conservatives” are following a theology that has been around for two thousand years, and has been written down. Their religion may be irrational, but it is (so to say) “open source”. Further, from a historical perspective, Protestant Christianity isn’t all that bad as the basis for a society. it produced the first culture to spawn an anti-slavery movement made up in large part of the slaveholder class. It was the basis of the first culture to give even lip service to the rights of minorities and women. one could go on. By contrast; Catholicism seems to produce societies of peasants and overlords, Buddhism sounds swell but creates societies that treat people like farm animals, don’t even get me STARTED on Hindu practices and the caste system…
And, of course, then there’s Atheism, the “faith” of choice for the Anointed of the Liberal Left. It decidedly ISN’T ‘open source’ (they make it up as they go along, drat them). Further the societies that have embraced it racked up, in the 20 century alone, a record of death and misery that makes the Spanish Inquisition look like a bunch of dilettantes.
Of the top three political mass murderers in history, two were atheistical Communists, and one was a Socialist that preached a highly flavored version of Christianity to his serfs, while talking Atheism in private and dabbling in self aggrandizing mysticism.
That’s the Austrian Corporal with the funny mustache. Not that the Jovial paranoid father figure or the philosophical pedophile were all that different.
It is possible to argue with the Right, because one has access to their theology. The Left always, Always, ALWAYS shifts the ground as soon as it looks like you might win.
Your examples were about as “liberal” as ABBA was Melanesian. They weren’t “conservatives” in any way today’s conservatives would recognize either.
I do believe that the left and the right, liberal and conservative, are useful concepts, but we have to remember that few if any people are ALL LEFT or ALL RIGHT, and some people don’t fit the left-right axis at all.
The Western Intellectual Liberal twits are still fond of both Communism and Socialism (if there’s a difference, which I doubt) despite their horrible records. They act as if the litany of psychotic thugs who became heads of Communist states was a coincidence. I don’t have logical proof that an Atheistical State with the far reaching authority of Socialism (or Communism) must necessarily end up in the hands of a Stalin, but historically that has been the way to bet. My personal feeling is that if you put that much power in the centralized State, it just naturally attracts the power-mad.
Socialism SOUNDS great, but doesn’t seem to work all that well. Buddhism SOUNDS great, but seems to result in authoritarian power structures like Imperial China or Shogunate Japan, where the common man has no rights that anybody is bound to respect.
I’m an agnostic. I don’t know why Protestant Christianity seems to work out so much better than the alternatives, and I doubt that anybody else (PARTICULARLY the devout Protestants) does either. Maybe someday Atheism, or Buddhism, or Shinto, or Islam will produce a culture that I would freely chose to live in …. but it hasn’t happened yet.
Japan today has a society that isn’t nearly so bad as in the days of the Shogunate, or the days of WWII. Spain today is still largely Catholic, and so is Italy. They aren’t so bad. It seems to be a republican (small r) form of government more than religion which makes the difference.
I don’t hear American liberals venerating communism. I don’t hear American conservatives venerating Hitler.* What I do hear are American conservatives who see something they don’t like, quite correctly recognize that it isn’t conservative… therefor it must be liberal. Grrr, those damned libs! It would be nice to say that liberals are above that sort of silliness, but of course they’re not. There are plenty of American liberals who look at Hitler, see that he was nothing like them, and declare, “See what happens when you put conservatives in charge!”
Not everything fits on the left/right axis. Not everybody is a liberal or a conservative.
* Well, not usually.
There are lots of repressive republics. No form of government, be it dictatorship or oligarchy or fascism or democracy or theocracy, which allows the government to repress individuals is any better than any other. What makes any given government more tolerable is the degree to which the rulers respect the right of individuals to be individual, and that tends to be greater in most places today than in the past.
Any kind of government, from an absolute dictatorship to Summerhil-style democracy, can be oppressive. But some forms more naturally drift into oppression than others. Actually, I doubt the Summerhill thing would, but it could be mutated into something that would (most countries don’t have enough children to insure against it).
The reasons things are more free these days are because there are more republics and democracies (the US, for instance, is a constitutionally-limited democratic republic, which is a mouthful but there you go), and because of advanced technology. From the Industrial Revolution making slavery less necessary to the economy to automatic bottle-making machinery helping to end child labor to the Internet helping to overthrow dictatorships, technology is one of the greatest forces for freedom the world has seen.
In fact, the Protestant Reformation wouldn’t have happened without the printing press.
You’ve got it backward; the reason there are more republics is because of increasing acceptance of the idea of individual rights,not vice-versa. Unfortunately,most republics (including our own) aren’t really interested in recognizing the rights of groups too small to sway an election.
The reasons things are more free are because of such governments and technology; the reason there are more such governments is because the idea of individual rights is better known and more accepted.
The interest and desire, facilitated by technology, gives rise to the form of government most likely to protect those rights.
C.S.P. Schofield,
In regard to Protestant Christianity and its effects, I’d be more likely to cite the English Enlightenment, starting with the events leading up to 1688. I think that it modified Protestantism rather than the other way around.
For instance, look at John Milton. Under Cromwell, he was completely against political tolerance of other religious factions; when faced with the other side of the sword after the Restoration, he became a proponent of toleration. I’m not saying he was hypocritical; I think sometimes people have to experience in their own persons what repression really means before they understand how evil it it.
The conservative mythos regarding America is that the Pilgrims came here for religious freedom. Not so. They had religious freedom in Holland. They came to Plymouth Rock because their children were assimilating into the tolerationist culture in Holland and that was unacceptable. They established an authoritarian, non-tolerationist theocracy on these shores. Witness the fact that the first two Quakers who came to Massachusetts Bay Colony were hanged for heresy.
There were enough religious factions in the US that, after the Revolution, they couldn’t take control and so settled for no nationally established religion.
Jefferson’s quote about “Eternal hostility to any form of tyranny over the mind of man” was made in the context of some religious groups attempting to undercut the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment and his fervently expressed hope that the madness had passed.
Roger Williams and the Quakers were the first genuinely “American” religions in the sense of understanding religious freedom and toleration. And both were treated very badly by the Protestant establishment; the Quakers by both the Anglicans in England and the Puritans in America.
Abolitionists rose among Protestant sects – first among the Quakers and then spreading. This is a great “human rights” contribution of certain Protestant activists. But there were those Christians who were as fervently advocating for the contintuation of slavery; the winners write the history books so we are not as aware of the pro-slavery christians’ “contributions.”
If Protestants ever ditch the individual rights orientation of the founding American political philosophy, they will be as repressive as anything that came out of Cromwell’s Protectorate. The social purity movement and their descendants, particularly the one’s willing to make common cause with the left, are examples of this possibility.
Another way in which the history of abolitionism has been whitewashed is in its motives; many abolitionists’ chief arguments against slavery was that slaves’ lives were “indecent” (i.e. that they had sex outside of marriage)and that they were “lazy” (i.e. only worked when driven by others rather than by internal “morality”). The abolitionists mostly were not interested in what was right, but rather with “correcting” others, which is exactly the way those who have taken their name look on prostitutes today. I might point out that like modern soi-disant “abolitionists” the anti-slavery crusaders assumed that once their targets were “free” they would become low-paid, humble domestic servants and factory workers.
Thanks, Maggie.
I wasn’t aware of that aspect of the abolitionist agenda, but it certainly makes sense given their basic principles. I’ll have to do some more reading in that direction. Do you have any recommendations on the subject?
I ran across the story of Merry Mount and the “police action” the puritans took against them in this post via the Agitator. I hadn’t heard of this before. It really does bear out Mencken’s quote; Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
Thaddeus Russell discusses it at length in A Renegade History of the United States.
Thanks, Maggie.
I’ll check that out.
I know you said “many” and not “all,” but can we please acknowledge that some abolitionists opposed slavery because they thought that slave owning was morally damaging to the masters, and yes, some abolitionists opposed slavery because they thought that it was incompatible with all the high-falutin’ talk about freedom and liberty and all men being created equal and such.
I’m not denying that the abolitionists you have described existed, or even that they were a strong voice in the movement, but I fear that some people could miss your “many” and think “all.” The idea that nobody ever does a good deed because it is a good deed is distressingly popular these days.
Yes, absolutely, those two groups existed, and others opposed slavery because they believed work was a positive good and the existence of slavery tended to make it seem less attractive. The point is that people do things for their own reasons, and those reasons aren’t always as pure and noble (or as horrible and evil) as history tends to paint them.
This is a ridiculously old thread, but I just wanted to insert a correcting note for anyone who ever comes back to read this.
The imperial system in China was in place long before Buddhism came to the country, and Buddhism was never a state religion of China. The Chinese Imperial system, at least from the Tang Dynasty onwards, was the only one in the world that offered social mobility to anyone with the necessary intellectual skills or martial skills through the Imperial Examination system. Women were allowed to own property and to start businesses. Prostitution was legal (until Western influences arrived.) The worst civil war in Chinese history that resulted in 20 million deaths as a direct result of conflict (as opposed to starvation under Mao) was the Taiping Rebellion, which was led by a Christian convert who studied Christianity under a Southern Baptist missionary.
Shinto has nothing to do with Buddhism, and has more in common with Taoism. It was not the state religion of Japan until quite modern times. Most of the worst excesses against the peasantry was due to the fact that for much of its history, Japan was actually ruled by groups of competing warlords who constantly struggled for power and influence.
> It decidedly ISN’T ‘open source’ (they make it up as they go along, drat them).
What? That’s… that’s how open source – REAL open source, I mean – actually works. You make it up as you go along. Anyone who has an improvement to make, makes it.
Where you have a point is that it’s totally disorganized and hardly even categorized. That’s how you get humanists (i.e. ordinary atheists) lumped in with leviathan worshippers like the big bad three you mentioned.
Of course, that point undermines much of the rest of your point… in particular,
> The Left always, Always, ALWAYS shifts the ground as soon as it looks like you might win.
WTF. Over-generalization, much? The few examples I can think of are either 1) cases where sure you could find SOMEONE on the left who shifted ground, because the left is huge and heterogeneous and not every lefty is intellectually honest, or 2) cases where the conservatives *won the argument* so of course the ‘ground shifted’ in that many people came to agree. The first of these applies to every large group, left or right – and the latter case doesn’t exactly seem objectionable, does it?
A handy rule of thumb is that whenever you find yourself saying ‘always, Always, ALWAYS’, chances are high that you’re constructing things and choosing your terms very conveniently for yourself. There are very few cases where this is a useful thing to do, especially in an argument.
And I think that both parties’ leadership understands this very well. Look at John Boehner – he goes to the well 4 times to “cut spending” and ends up, once again, only (potentially) cutting the rate of growth in spending.
The leadership understands full well that if the big government is there, it can be used for their particular authoritarian ends. That’s what the fight is over; who gets to wield power.
The rank and file in both parties are sincere enough; I think that most common leftists really do want the gov’t out of their bedroom but think they are morally justified in picking our pockets or banning our happy meals.
The common conservatives don’t really want gov’t in their bedrooms; after all, they’re doing the sex for the right reasons, but they are willing to let the gov’t target those whose sexual proclivities they find distasteful or sinful. And they do want the gov’t to stop picking their pockets and making it impossible to run their small businesses. (Side note: my accountant tells me that there is so much new tax regulation coming down that, whereas two years ago they were meeting to discuss new regulations once a quarter, they’re now doing it 3 times a month just to keep up.)
The question is, if the rank and file of both sides realize, as do their respective leaderships, that this expansion of gov’t is destroying what they wish to hold free, will they vote out the bastards and stop the expansion? Or will their desire to dictate morality to other people (and don’t fool yourself, banning happy meals and picking the pockets of the rich is as much a moral issue to the left as sexual conformity is to the right) make them decide that the devil’s bargain embraced by their respective leadership will be embraced by them in turn?
Both feminists and radical moral religionists want to restrict men’s access to fufilling normal sex lives while shaming and incarcerating and financially and socially destroying such men at the same time. Both groups do this to make men beggars so that they will do anything to get sex and hence support the corrupt system which enslaves them. Prostitutes are hated by both groups because they throw a monkey wrench into all of this by providing their services. In addition, on average prostitutes are better looking than non-prostitutes. Both groups try to discourage prostitution by providing lurid tales of human trafiking, pimps, venereal disease etc. which for the most part don’t exist in prostitution. As a man who was married, had 2 children, and was only getting sex at best once a month from his wife which wasn’t nearly enough for him said,” Prostitution especially from call girls seems expensive, but call girls are really cheaper if you remain single, pay for call girls and get sex more often and the kind of sex that you want in the long run. I love my wife and adore my children, but if it wasn’t for my commitment to my marriage and children, I would find engaging in prostitution more satisfying and cheaper than marriage. Marriage is only for men who want to have children and raise them right and who feel they have a calling greater than being a Catholic priest these days. Marriage and/or having children for a man is taxing financially, spiritually and emotionally more so than paying for whores.” Men on average would be less inclined to get married, have relationships with physically ugly women and to have relationships with nasty personality women(even one night stands) if they could give up their stupid ideas about prostitution and find prostitution safer, legal(at least unenforced laws), and more reasonably priced these days.
>The men face up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, although Bray said most first-time offenders will be sent to a program to help them cope with their sexual desires.
This line got to me too. All the men waned was a good time with a woman. WTF is so wrong with that? What are they to be “re-educated” to? To being eunuchs? Do we really want that? I think not.
Problem is we’re fighting nature, yet again. We are a bunch of horny apes, sex stabilizes the tribe, we want it, like to watch it. The people who are so uncomfortable with that need the help with their desires.
Well stated. That’s what the cultural marxist feminists and the puritanical radical moralists/religionists never understand. The core of human nature especailly in regards to men can never be changed no matter how much one tries. It destroys lives and eventually makes the system collapse. The only thing which can be done is human nature can be managed in a sane rational manner which causes the most amount of harm reduction. There is no perfect world. You can deny the truth or reality all you want, but the truth and reality will not ignore you.
We should remind all people especially both groups how much alike both groups are: Cultural Marxist Feminists and Puritanical Radical Moralists/Religionists.
It’s not two groups, it’s one. People who want to use force to control voluntary private activity are ONE single group no matter what their rationale for doing so. To pretend they’re different from one another is like breaking the group “baseball cap wearers” into different groups based on whatever logo appears on their caps.
I see the rationale in what you have stated. The point is they are two seperate wings who attack men and prostitutes from different angles. Often, they join forces and attack from the same angle. I’ll use a military example to explain as I was once an American Soldier and a veteran of Iraq and Afgahnistan. One of the most common and well used formations used by the Army and Marines to destroy the enemy is the “L” formation. One line sweeps and destroys the enemy by pushing forward. The second line stays stationary, but destroys the fleeing enemy when it flees the first line. It may be one unit such as a company that does this, but the company is broken into smaller units such as platoons which form seperate lines. Sometimes the two platoons may or may not hate eachother. All too often they end up harming eachother with genuinely true “friendly” fire and sometimes they harm eachother with fake”friendly fire”. The two lines or two platoons will virtually always stick together enough to sweep and destroy the enemy even if they hate eachother and punch eachother out back on installation, because it is the only way they can complete their mission and even better survive against the enemy. Too many people pay too much attention to them punching eachother out on installation and not enough to the actual unnecessary destruction they cause off installation in a manner of metaphrically speaking. I hope I have provided you a better example. My point wasn’t that they, the culural marxist feminists and the radical puritanical moralists/religionists aren’t in the same company, but they are seperate platoons or lines attacking the enemy which are the prostitutes and the prostitutes’ customers. I was merely trying as briefly as possible to subtly plant the idea in peoples’ heads that even though they may see two different smaller units, platoons, it is really one larger unit, a company.
“first-time offenders will be sent to a program to help them cope with their sexual desires.”
Oh god, that’s just begging for a South Park episode:
“prostitution is bad! M’kay?”
Seriously though, what the heck good will that do? All it will end up doing is teaching people not to get caught and that you can enter a plea bargain.
“…the Chinese government is now trying to stop women marrying for money…the Supreme Court has ruled that the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it in the event of a divorce. ”Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much,” Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province, said… divorces have multiplied at almost the same speed as the economy has grown: by 7 per cent a year for five years.”
Can’t the Chinese officials understand that marriage is ALWAYS an economic arrangement, and that making it extremely difficult for women to find economic security through marriage will only lead to even MORE divorce and perhaps more and more women choosing not to marry at all?
The Chinese government still hasn’t dumped communist philosophy completely, so I suspect the idea of women relying on their own advantages rather than on the state annoys them.
Why do you use the term “whore” in a derogatory way? When you call politicians whores I don’t assume you want to explain how great they are.
No, I don’t; what I want to do is point out that their selling of their souls and loyalties is a far more profound and intimate sale than our selling of our time and sexual services, yet they’re honored while we are attacked with a label most people think of as derogatory.