Prostitution and Mitt Romney

|
(26)
Italian Prostitutes
lanazione.it

Four and a half years ago, San Francisco had the chance to make history as well as eliminate a major social problem. Measure K would have eliminated the prosecution of sex workers in the city. Sensible, sane and prudent, this ballot initiative would have finally given some legal recourse to one of the city's biggest underground businesses. Because it is sex-based, however, hysteria ruled the day and the measure was defeated.

The arguments against it are the same arguments one hears when one discusses recreational drug legalization. That if legal, street walkers would spring up like so many weeds on heels in every neighborhood and that pimps and hookers would flock to San Francisco en masse. Never mind that the exact opposite would have been the result--no longer in the shadows and with their business legitimate, sex workers could part ways with the parasitical pimps without recourse and also if legal, a "red light district" could exist anywhere (I opt for City Hall myself, as it has been home to courtesans for centuries now). Lost tax revenues reclaimed, better public health for the workers and clients and a win for all.

One would think in the supposed progressive and free-thinking capital of America, this would have been a slam dunk. It lost resoundingly. Which proves that for all of San Francisco's bluster, at heart it is a provincial city filled with a lot of sexually uneasy residents. That our next door neighbor, the generally "red" Nevada has had legalized prostitution for years speaks volumes about what "liberals" really believe. "Not in my backyard" times ten. Prostitution is called "the world's oldest profession" and yet it is rarely legal anywhere--why?

As human beings are one of only a few species to have sex for pleasure, you'd think we'd clearly admit same. And that sex between consenting adults is already legal anyway, why does it become illegal when money is involved (unless filmed and sold)? These are incontrovertible facts. I suspect that the real reason prostitution is illegal and has been for eons is that it empowers women at the expense of men (the male escort being about 1/10th as popular as the female, sexual ratios being what they are). A woman that can negotiate the price for her "favors" directly now has some say in her destiny. Yes, it would probably be better for her physical and mental health if she chose another line of work, but in a capitalist system where money talks, a 300 dollar an hour escort is higher up on the ladder than a nine dollar an hour barrista. A couple of grand a day and a person whose educational and class background placed them at the lowest rung on the ladder now has say--it's the same reason that gambling and drug dealing are decried by moralists. Folks with no options are now equal to the privileged at birth and that upsets the so called "natural order of things". So, they have to be denigrated.

I got to thinking about that paradigm and realized that in reality, a hooker is part of a much more honest profession than someone that runs or ran an equity capital group. Namely Willard "Mitt" Romney. When a john makes contact with an escort or sexworker, they negotiate a fixed price for a certain act or acts. Upon consumation (or at some time during or before), payment. Both sides happy. Compare that to Mr. Romney's manner of acquiring businesses. Putting 10% down, leveraging the other 90% as tax free debt larded onto the acquired entity and then tacking on enormous fees paid to backers. Usually what happens with these companies is massive layoffs and often bankruptcies. One side very unhappy. Yet this perfectly legal version of a Mafia bustout is applauded by Wall Street--the same Wall Street that poo-poos sex workers as a moral scourge (while utilizing their services).

Taking advantage of the human tic of discomfort when it comes to acknowledging the sex drive has kept the church alive for centuries and jackasses like William Donahue and L Brent Bozell in cash. Simply recognizing biological normalcy would end a lot of misery. Next time this comes up, be sane San Francisco, be sane.

Comments

Thanks for this carefully thought-out article, although many would think the legalization of prostitution is a no-brainer. I lived in San Francisco (back in the early 70s, trying to prove that I didn't need my parents paying my tuition and travel expenses to school--don't ask me how that worked out.) I knew where the various "districts" were in the city, just as I knew all the various "districts" (and "go-to for" locales) in NYC. No prostitute ever bothered me, nor did any "john." Chances are, they wouldn't bother any other disinterested people, either. Okay, I'll qualify that and say perhaps a "desperate-looking man" would be a "tempting" target "consumer".

San Francisco is that "Progressive Small Town That Thinks It's a Big City", and I think it would be a the most appropriate place to try such an experiment, and watch the attendant tax revenues go up. Not just a sales tax, but tax revenue from the sales of ancillary items, such as condoms. I think it would work, and having seen "red light districts" in European cities famous for their sex trade, such as Amsterdam and Hamburg, it's not only the johns that would bring in money, but tourism as well. (No! I'm not kidding.) How 'bout tee-shirts proclaiming, "I Got Laid on the Side of a Hill---in San Francisco". I think for now it is a moot issue, although not dead. It is, as you said (and so many people "perceive", but would never admit) it is the "World's Oldest Profession."

I realize the article was from a San Francisco Internet Publication, but let's take a minute or two to think about what the people of Los Angeles did last year in the election, when a City measure (I don't think it was County) was passed, requiring all sex actors to wear condoms in their films. Talk about an idiotic piece of legislation that was passed by a majority of Angelinos! My husband and I live in the NW San Fernando Valley, and we told everyone we knew that we were dead set against that measure! Our reasons? 1. The Industry has actually done a good job of "regulating itself"; and 2. The porn film industry is one of the biggest businesses in the S.F. Valley! We need that tax revenue. How could a city that keeps cutting school programs (they call them "programs" now, like art, music and P.E., for instance; when we were youngsters, they were part of the school curriculum, and were called "classes"; so much easier to cut a "program" than a "class") turn its face away from one of the industries that is "genuinely local". Not all the folks involved in the "Industry" are performers. There are the camera people, set decorators, lighting crews, "directors", caterers and even story writers.

LA is a "Company Town", and the people working behind the cameras in the film "studios" that make "adult films" out in the Valley, are often right out of film school and starting on the ground floor to gain experience. A mother of school children we knew worked the receptionist's desk at one small "studio". All these jobs and more, will move to Ventura County, or East to our Red neighbor state (and I'm not talking Arizona here!)

Why do people get so crazy when the word "sex" is uttered (even in a whisper) in a public place? And why are the churches whipped into such a tizzy when someone even thinks the word "sex"? Next, it will be removed from ordinary dictionaries, to be left behind only in the OED!

Posted by Susan Parker on May. 30, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

Thanks for this carefully thought-out article, although many would think the legalization of prostitution is a no-brainer. I lived in San Francisco (back in the early 70s, trying to prove that I didn't need my parents paying my tuition and travel expenses to school--don't ask me how that worked out.) I knew where the various "districts" were in the city, just as I knew all the various "districts" (and "go-to for" locales) in NYC. No prostitute ever bothered me, nor did any "john." Chances are, they wouldn't bother any other disinterested people, either. Okay, I'll qualify that and say perhaps a "desperate-looking man" would be a "tempting" target "consumer".

San Francisco is that "Progressive Small Town That Thinks It's a Big City", and I think it would be a the most appropriate place to try such an experiment, and watch the attendant tax revenues go up. Not just a sales tax, but tax revenue from the sales of ancillary items, such as condoms. I think it would work, and having seen "red light districts" in European cities famous for their sex trade, such as Amsterdam and Hamburg, it's not only the johns that would bring in money, but tourism as well. (No! I'm not kidding.) How 'bout tee-shirts proclaiming, "I Got Laid on the Side of a Hill---in San Francisco". I think for now it is a moot issue, although not dead. It is, as you said (and so many people "perceive", but would never admit) it is the "World's Oldest Profession."

I realize the article was from a San Francisco Internet Publication, but let's take a minute or two to think about what the people of Los Angeles did last year in the election, when a City measure (I don't think it was County) was passed, requiring all sex actors to wear condoms in their films. Talk about an idiotic piece of legislation that was passed by a majority of Angelinos! My husband and I live in the NW San Fernando Valley, and we told everyone we knew that we were dead set against that measure! Our reasons? 1. The Industry has actually done a good job of "regulating itself"; and 2. The porn film industry is one of the biggest businesses in the S.F. Valley! We need that tax revenue. How could a city that keeps cutting school programs (they call them "programs" now, like art, music and P.E., for instance; when we were youngsters, they were part of the school curriculum, and were called "classes"; so much easier to cut a "program" than a "class") turn its face away from one of the industries that is "genuinely local". Not all the folks involved in the "Industry" are performers. There are the camera people, set decorators, lighting crews, "directors", caterers and even story writers.

LA is a "Company Town", and the people working behind the cameras in the film "studios" that make "adult films" out in the Valley, are often right out of film school and starting on the ground floor to gain experience. A mother of school children we knew worked the receptionist's desk at one small "studio". All these jobs and more, will move to Ventura County, or East to our Red neighbor state (and I'm not talking Arizona here!)

Why do people get so crazy when the word "sex" is uttered (even in a whisper) in a public place? And why are the churches whipped into such a tizzy when someone even thinks the word "sex"? Next, it will be removed from ordinary dictionaries, to be left behind only in the OED!

Posted by Susan Parker on May. 30, 2013 @ 12:36 pm

Thanks for this carefully thought-out article, although many would think the legalization of prostitution is a no-brainer. I lived in San Francisco (back in the early 70s, trying to prove that I didn't need my parents paying my tuition and travel expenses to school--don't ask me how that worked out.) I knew where the various "districts" were in the city, just as I knew all the various "districts" (and "go-to for" locales) in NYC. No prostitute ever bothered me, nor did any "john." Chances are, they wouldn't bother any other disinterested people, either. Okay, I'll qualify that and say perhaps a "desperate-looking man" would be a "tempting" target "consumer".

San Francisco is that "Progressive Small Town That Thinks It's a Big City", and I think it would be a the most appropriate place to try such an experiment, and watch the attendant tax revenues go up. Not just a sales tax, but tax revenue from the sales of ancillary items, such as condoms. I think it would work, and having seen "red light districts" in European cities famous for their sex trade, such as Amsterdam and Hamburg, it's not only the johns that would bring in money, but tourism as well. (No! I'm not kidding.) How 'bout tee-shirts proclaiming, "I Got Laid on the Side of a Hill---in San Francisco". I think for now it is a moot issue, although not dead. It is, as you said (and so many people "perceive", but would never admit) it is the "World's Oldest Profession."

I realize the article was from a San Francisco Internet Publication, but let's take a minute or two to think about what the people of Los Angeles did last year in the election, when a City measure (I don't think it was County) was passed, requiring all sex actors to wear condoms in their films. Talk about an idiotic piece of legislation that was passed by a majority of Angelinos! My husband and I live in the NW San Fernando Valley, and we told everyone we knew that we were dead set against that measure! Our reasons? 1. The Industry has actually done a good job of "regulating itself"; and 2. The porn film industry is one of the biggest businesses in the S.F. Valley! We need that tax revenue. How could a city that keeps cutting school programs (they call them "programs" now, like art, music and P.E., for instance; when we were youngsters, they were part of the school curriculum, and were called "classes"; so much easier to cut a "program" than a "class") turn its face away from one of the industries that is "genuinely local". Not all the folks involved in the "Industry" are performers. There are the camera people, set decorators, lighting crews, "directors", caterers and even story writers.

LA is a "Company Town", and the people working behind the cameras in the film "studios" that make "adult films" out in the Valley, are often right out of film school and starting on the ground floor to gain experience. A mother of school children we knew worked the receptionist's desk at one small "studio". All these jobs and more, will move to Ventura County, or East to our Red neighbor state (and I'm not talking Arizona here!)

Why do people get so crazy when the word "sex" is uttered (even in a whisper) in a public place? And why are the churches whipped into such a tizzy when someone even thinks the word "sex"? Next, it will be removed from ordinary dictionaries, to be left behind only in the OED!

Posted by Susan Parker on May. 30, 2013 @ 12:37 pm

Thanks for this carefully thought-out article, although many would think the legalization of prostitution is a no-brainer. I lived in San Francisco (back in the early 70s, trying to prove that I didn't need my parents paying my tuition and travel expenses to school--don't ask me how that worked out.) I knew where the various "districts" were in the city, just as I knew all the various "districts" (and "go-to for" locales) in NYC. No prostitute ever bothered me, nor did any "john." Chances are, they wouldn't bother any other disinterested people, either. Okay, I'll qualify that and say perhaps a "desperate-looking man" would be a "tempting" target "consumer".

San Francisco is that "Progressive Small Town That Thinks It's a Big City", and I think it would be a the most appropriate place to try such an experiment, and watch the attendant tax revenues go up. Not just a sales tax, but tax revenue from the sales of ancillary items, such as condoms. I think it would work, and having seen "red light districts" in European cities famous for their sex trade, such as Amsterdam and Hamburg, it's not only the johns that would bring in money, but tourism as well. (No! I'm not kidding.) How 'bout tee-shirts proclaiming, "I Got Laid on the Side of a Hill---in San Francisco". I think for now it is a moot issue, although not dead. It is, as you said (and so many people "perceive", but would never admit) it is the "World's Oldest Profession."

I realize the article was from a San Francisco Internet Publication, but let's take a minute or two to think about what the people of Los Angeles did last year in the election, when a City measure (I don't think it was County) was passed, requiring all sex actors to wear condoms in their films. Talk about an idiotic piece of legislation that was passed by a majority of Angelinos! My husband and I live in the NW San Fernando Valley, and we told everyone we knew that we were dead set against that measure! Our reasons? 1. The Industry has actually done a good job of "regulating itself"; and 2. The porn film industry is one of the biggest businesses in the S.F. Valley! We need that tax revenue. How could a city that keeps cutting school programs (they call them "programs" now, like art, music and P.E., for instance; when we were youngsters, they were part of the school curriculum, and were called "classes"; so much easier to cut a "program" than a "class") turn its face away from one of the industries that is "genuinely local". Not all the folks involved in the "Industry" are performers. There are the camera people, set decorators, lighting crews, "directors", caterers and even story writers.

LA is a "Company Town", and the people working behind the cameras in the film "studios" that make "adult films" out in the Valley, are often right out of film school and starting on the ground floor to gain experience. A mother of school children we knew worked the receptionist's desk at one small "studio". All these jobs and more, will move to Ventura County, or East to our Red neighbor state (and I'm not talking Arizona here!)

Why do people get so crazy when the word "sex" is uttered (even in a whisper) in a public place? And why are the churches whipped into such a tizzy when someone even thinks the word "sex"? Next, it will be removed from ordinary dictionaries, to be left behind only in the OED!

Posted by Susan Parker on May. 30, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

Thanks for this carefully thought-out article, although many would think the legalization of prostitution is a no-brainer. I lived in San Francisco (back in the early 70s, trying to prove that I didn't need my parents paying my tuition and travel expenses to school--don't ask me how that worked out.) I knew where the various "districts" were in the city, just as I knew all the various "districts" (and "go-to for" locales) in NYC. No prostitute ever bothered me, nor did any "john." Chances are, they wouldn't bother any other disinterested people, either. Okay, I'll qualify that and say perhaps a "desperate-looking man" would be a "tempting" target "consumer".

San Francisco is that "Progressive Small Town That Thinks It's a Big City", and I think it would be a the most appropriate place to try such an experiment, and watch the attendant tax revenues go up. Not just a sales tax, but tax revenue from the sales of ancillary items, such as condoms. I think it would work, and having seen "red light districts" in European cities famous for their sex trade, such as Amsterdam and Hamburg, it's not only the johns that would bring in money, but tourism as well. (No! I'm not kidding.) How 'bout tee-shirts proclaiming, "I Got Laid on the Side of a Hill---in San Francisco". I think for now it is a moot issue, although not dead. It is, as you said (and so many people "perceive", but would never admit) it is the "World's Oldest Profession."

I realize the article was from a San Francisco Internet Publication, but let's take a minute or two to think about what the people of Los Angeles did last year in the election, when a City measure (I don't think it was County) was passed, requiring all sex actors to wear condoms in their films. Talk about an idiotic piece of legislation that was passed by a majority of Angelinos! My husband and I live in the NW San Fernando Valley, and we told everyone we knew that we were dead set against that measure! Our reasons? 1. The Industry has actually done a good job of "regulating itself"; and 2. The porn film industry is one of the biggest businesses in the S.F. Valley! We need that tax revenue. How could a city that keeps cutting school programs (they call them "programs" now, like art, music and P.E., for instance; when we were youngsters, they were part of the school curriculum, and were called "classes"; so much easier to cut a "program" than a "class") turn its face away from one of the industries that is "genuinely local". Not all the folks involved in the "Industry" are performers. There are the camera people, set decorators, lighting crews, "directors", caterers and even story writers.

LA is a "Company Town", and the people working behind the cameras in the film "studios" that make "adult films" out in the Valley, are often right out of film school and starting on the ground floor to gain experience. A mother of school children we knew worked the receptionist's desk at one small "studio". All these jobs and more, will move to Ventura County, or East to our Red neighbor state (and I'm not talking Arizona here!)

Why do people get so crazy when the word "sex" is uttered (even in a whisper) in a public place? And why are the churches whipped into such a tizzy when someone even thinks the word "sex"? Next, it will be removed from ordinary dictionaries, to be left behind only in the OED!

Posted by Susan Parker on May. 30, 2013 @ 12:41 pm

Thanks for this carefully thought-out article, although many would think the legalization of prostitution is a no-brainer. I lived in San Francisco (back in the early 70s, trying to prove that I didn't need my parents paying my tuition and travel expenses to school--don't ask me how that worked out.) I knew where the various "districts" were in the city, just as I knew all the various "districts" (and "go-to for" locales) in NYC. No prostitute ever bothered me, nor did any "john." Chances are, they wouldn't bother any other disinterested people, either. Okay, I'll qualify that and say perhaps a "desperate-looking man" would be a "tempting" target "consumer".

San Francisco is that "Progressive Small Town That Thinks It's a Big City", and I think it would be a the most appropriate place to try such an experiment, and watch the attendant tax revenues go up. Not just a sales tax, but tax revenue from the sales of ancillary items, such as condoms. I think it would work, and having seen "red light districts" in European cities famous for their sex trade, such as Amsterdam and Hamburg, it's not only the johns that would bring in money, but tourism as well. (No! I'm not kidding.) How 'bout tee-shirts proclaiming, "I Got Laid on the Side of a Hill---in San Francisco". I think for now it is a moot issue, although not dead. It is, as you said (and so many people "perceive", but would never admit) it is the "World's Oldest Profession."

I realize the article was from a San Francisco Internet Publication, but let's take a minute or two to think about what the people of Los Angeles did last year in the election, when a City measure (I don't think it was County) was passed, requiring all sex actors to wear condoms in their films. Talk about an idiotic piece of legislation that was passed by a majority of Angelinos! My husband and I live in the NW San Fernando Valley, and we told everyone we knew that we were dead set against that measure! Our reasons? 1. The Industry has actually done a good job of "regulating itself"; and 2. The porn film industry is one of the biggest businesses in the S.F. Valley! We need that tax revenue. How could a city that keeps cutting school programs (they call them "programs" now, like art, music and P.E., for instance; when we were youngsters, they were part of the school curriculum, and were called "classes"; so much easier to cut a "program" than a "class") turn its face away from one of the industries that is "genuinely local". Not all the folks involved in the "Industry" are performers. There are the camera people, set decorators, lighting crews, "directors", caterers and even story writers.

LA is a "Company Town", and the people working behind the cameras in the film "studios" that make "adult films" out in the Valley, are often right out of film school and starting on the ground floor to gain experience. A mother of school children we knew worked the receptionist's desk at one small "studio". All these jobs and more, will move to Ventura County, or East to our Red neighbor state (and I'm not talking Arizona here!)

Why do people get so crazy when the word "sex" is uttered (even in a whisper) in a public place? And why are the churches whipped into such a tizzy when someone even thinks the word "sex"? Next, it will be removed from ordinary dictionaries, to be left behind only in the OED!

Posted by Susan Parker on May. 30, 2013 @ 12:43 pm

Thanks for this carefully thought-out article, although many would think the legalization of prostitution is a no-brainer. I lived in San Francisco (back in the early 70s, trying to prove that I didn't need my parents paying my tuition and travel expenses to school--don't ask me how that worked out.) I knew where the various "districts" were in the city, just as I knew all the various "districts" (and "go-to for" locales) in NYC. No prostitute ever bothered me, nor did any "john." Chances are, they wouldn't bother any other disinterested people, either. Okay, I'll qualify that and say perhaps a "desperate-looking man" would be a "tempting" target "consumer".

San Francisco is that "Progressive Small Town That Thinks It's a Big City", and I think it would be a the most appropriate place to try such an experiment, and watch the attendant tax revenues go up. Not just a sales tax, but tax revenue from the sales of ancillary items, such as condoms. I think it would work, and having seen "red light districts" in European cities famous for their sex trade, such as Amsterdam and Hamburg, it's not only the johns that would bring in money, but tourism as well. (No! I'm not kidding.) How 'bout tee-shirts proclaiming, "I Got Laid on the Side of a Hill---in San Francisco". I think for now it is a moot issue, although not dead. It is, as you said (and so many people "perceive", but would never admit) it is the "World's Oldest Profession."

I realize the article was from a San Francisco Internet Publication, but let's take a minute or two to think about what the people of Los Angeles did last year in the election, when a City measure (I don't think it was County) was passed, requiring all sex actors to wear condoms in their films. Talk about an idiotic piece of legislation that was passed by a majority of Angelinos! My husband and I live in the NW San Fernando Valley, and we told everyone we knew that we were dead set against that measure! Our reasons? 1. The Industry has actually done a good job of "regulating itself"; and 2. The porn film industry is one of the biggest businesses in the S.F. Valley! We need that tax revenue. How could a city that keeps cutting school programs (they call them "programs" now, like art, music and P.E., for instance; when we were youngsters, they were part of the school curriculum, and were called "classes"; so much easier to cut a "program" than a "class") turn its face away from one of the industries that is "genuinely local". Not all the folks involved in the "Industry" are performers. There are the camera people, set decorators, lighting crews, "directors", caterers and even story writers.

LA is a "Company Town", and the people working behind the cameras in the film "studios" that make "adult films" out in the Valley, are often right out of film school and starting on the ground floor to gain experience. A mother of school children we knew worked the receptionist's desk at one small "studio". All these jobs and more, will move to Ventura County, or East to our Red neighbor state (and I'm not talking Arizona here!)

Why do people get so crazy when the word "sex" is uttered (even in a whisper) in a public place? And why are the churches whipped into such a tizzy when someone even thinks the word "sex"? Next, it will be removed from ordinary dictionaries, to be left behind only in the OED!

Posted by Susan Parker on May. 30, 2013 @ 12:44 pm

You do know there is a delay between the time you hit "save" and when it gets posted... right?

Posted by Greg on May. 30, 2013 @ 6:02 pm

I think I know her IRL.

Posted by Ed on May. 30, 2013 @ 7:01 pm

It would be interesting to see who is against prostitution in San Francisco. My guess is that women are far more likely to be against this than men, but I'm going totally off anecdotal evidence. My experience is that women feel that prostitution is forced on young girls vs. a choice they make to earn a lot of money quickly. Are there any studies/polls on this? If it were legal, Pimps couldn't really force it on them as there would be an open market and could get another job elsewhere.

Since Nevada is considered more on the conservative side vs liberal, many would think this is a conundrum, but that because they don't understand libertarians. To libertarians, prostitution, also marijuana, should be legal. As someone who lives on a block with a ton of illegal hookers, I would love to see this legalized. Pimps, who take 85% of the money, would go out of business, taxes would go up, diseases would go down, beatings would go way down, and I would't have to deal with used condoms on my doorstep!

Down with Pimps, up with Hookers!

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

Maybe the DJ?

The anti people around the law were so ridiculous.

Posted by matlock on May. 30, 2013 @ 5:57 pm

Better a hooker than a politician

Posted by Hafez Assad on May. 30, 2013 @ 1:57 pm

I am confused. Are you the SFBG's lead writer now?

Posted by The Commish on May. 30, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

Johnny? Why do you need the citys approval to have the moral values of a stray dog?

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2013 @ 5:14 pm

Totally agree. It is actually legal in most of Europe -basically most developed democracies eventually move toward legalization as people drop their prudish views from two centuries ago. As usual, we'll be among the last to accept it.

The notion that it's not something you'd want your daughter to do is a red herring. I hear that a lot from anti-sex conservatives and "liberal" self-appointed saviors of "exploited" women. But there are many jobs that I wouldn't want my daughter doing... cleaning other people's toilets, being a coal miner, etc. In the former, the disgusting factor far outweighs that of sex workers. In the latter, the danger factor is the problem... it's pretty much a guarantee of early death from disease, even if you don't die in an accident. And yet, someone has to do these jobs. It's all an equation of pay and working conditions. The key is to make raise the pay and working conditions of otherwise unpalatable jobs to a level where they'd be palatable. Sex work is no different. Making it legal is a necessary first step towards that goal.

Posted by Greg on May. 30, 2013 @ 6:20 pm

If the whores are really hot, them I'm for it.

Posted by Davedi on May. 30, 2013 @ 6:41 pm

BTW, "sex worker " sounds so unsexy....maybe "slut machine" would be a better term.

Posted by Davedi on May. 30, 2013 @ 6:43 pm

amuck. Like "person of color" for non-white, and "CIS-gendered" for someone who doesn't want to a different sex.

But in the end, a hooker is still a hooker.

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2013 @ 7:21 am

If prostitution is going to be banned because of it being a degrading career, than McDonalds should be banned too because it's also degrading (more degrading than many prostitution careers, in fact...)

Posted by Hafez Assad on May. 31, 2013 @ 7:01 am

"this would have been a slam dunk. It lost resoundingly"

Couldn't have said it better. It SHOULD have been a resounding slam dunk. But what went wrong? Thank you for bringing forth this topic Johnny Angel

Posted by Jerry on May. 31, 2013 @ 7:23 am

make it appear that many here agree with you then at least try and come up with a name that doesn't look a lot like "Johnny".

Come on, at least make us work for it.

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2013 @ 7:32 am

I can never get the smell of chloroform out of the back of my van.

Posted by Chromefields on May. 31, 2013 @ 11:50 am

I wish Mill Valley would legalize prostitution. I think it would be a great place for business as it an upscale, affluent "bedroom" community.

Posted by Guest Jim Goldberg on Jun. 01, 2013 @ 9:09 pm

I'd like to see prostitution legalized in Mill Valley. As an upscale, affluent "bedroom" community, Mill Valley has the right type of clientele for the world's oldest and most enjoyable profession.

Posted by Guest Jim Goldberg on Jun. 01, 2013 @ 9:12 pm

Your loss America. Stick with your, shady, quicky, home internet porn. There are reports that prostitution in Germany contributes up to 3% of the GDP. That's a little less than what the US spends on the military! We can pay the military from that! They have down to a science and there is no pimp or human trafficking scares.

This place is like disneyland for guys in Germany: http://www.fkk-oase.de/FKK-Oase?Sprache=EN

Once again, your loss US.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2013 @ 12:19 pm

Wholesale Galaxy Leggings,Cheap Galaxy Printed Leggings,Fast Shipping Worldwide.You Can Buy Various High Quality Wholesale Galaxy Leggings Products from China.
galaxy leggings sale
Wholesale galaxy leggings
galaxy leggings china

Posted by galaxy leggings sale on Dec. 17, 2013 @ 1:53 am

Related articles

  • The Big Riddle

  • Debt peons, unite!

    Author David Graeber talks about capitalism, solidarity, and the war on the imagination

  • Romney has lost. Unless ....