Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
TinaS1
Published Letters: 780 Editor's Choice: 21
They will never listen to you, no matter how truthfully and consistently you argue.
They don't care about exploitation and abuse of women.
They believe all the "Pretty Woman" and "Lady Marmalade" myths about prostitution, because they think that anyone who has principles is just an inhibited fool or a Republican; it's all about sexual licence for them. They discovered it in the sixties and they can't let go of it.
I'm a liberal, but I feel that in this sense liberalism has never grown up.
Two things liberals excuse and excuse and excuse, no matter how many people it hurts: prostitution (because all sex is all good all the time!) and Islamic fundamentalism (because we owe brown folks big time! Kill us, please! We deserve it!).
These two things really bother me. Many otherwise intelligent people just cannot seem to be logical about these two issues. They know the party line--no sex is ever wrong--and that's it.
I wonder what they would think of the prostitute counselor in Sweden who says simply "There are no happy whores. I wish they could all get out of it."
People who work with prostitutes report overwhelmingly that the girls were sexually abused as children, unless they are third world women forced into prositution by poverty. What element of choice are they really exercising? And is not every man who buys their bodies to fuck on them for an hour traumatizing them further? If there is maybe, 1 prostitute in 100 who doesn't fit this description, who isn't abused, pimped out, an addict, etc. etc.--how do the johns know? Make them fill out a questionaire beforehand? They just don't--if they go to prostitutes regularly or even once in a while, they are undoubtedly complicit in misery and abuse.
The fact that the people on this thread don't like to admit that, and would rather theorize about how great prostitution COULD be, if the women were all psychologically healthy and not hung up about sex, if the johns were all clean and considerate, if it was legal and the ladies had safe houses to work out of and blah blah blah....they can't face the reality. So they make up their world of "what if"? Well, that's just not the real world guys.
Such sloppy thinking would be totally unacceptable regarding any other topic.
But we can imagine prostitutes away--because for the people on this thread, they don't exist.
If you're a by-the-book liberal who can't think for himself, then you have to argue that every sexual act, no matter how depraved, is good, good, good.....
I mean, stick to your guns, Mizmoon, but I've been on these threads and I don't think you'll get very far. They'll argue you into the ground just on principle.
If you wrote that response, I find it extremely nasty and very unprofessional.
I know that buying another person's body is wrong. The fact that some people are driven to the extreme of selling their bodies doesn't make it suddenly right. If buying poor Indians and Pakistanis and using them for cheap labor in the Gulf under slave-like, inhumane conditions is wrong, why is buying women for prostitution all right?
ohhhh, yes...it involves sex, and liberals must defend all sex all the time. Because all sex is good.
Calling me a follower of Jerry Falwell and engaging in other cheap ad hominem attacks isn't going to change my knowledge that buying other people is wrong.
Again, very unprofessional. But I'm glad I got under your skin. You screwed up on this one, man. Why do you feel compelled to defend this guy just because he's a Democrat? Did you defend Larry Craig for trolling for dick in a public bathroom? I mean, after all, both parties would have been consenting adults, right?
Be fair, Glenn.
good answer!
I agree with the others who think Glenn's gone way, way overboard with defending one of his weaker arguments to date. It's beginning to look strange. I can understand why some people are starting to think there's something personal behind it. However, I think wounded vanity might suffice as a motivation.
What's with publishing this woman's private emails to you online in a public forum? Using her name? God, what a fucking jerk you are. The testimonials from her website are one thing, but her emails to you? Why would you do this?
Secondly, her letters reveal that she is lonely and would like to settle down "with an old fashioned millionaire"...how sad. It just confirms everything I've been saying. Maybe she satisfies her customers but she clearly FEARS intimacy with them, even something like falling asleep beside them (so much for your argument) and would like to find someone steady--although granted, she's a goldigger too.
Sordid, sordid, yucky, and sad...poor Nia.
Oh, you guys are funny.
Really, I mean it--I laughed.
Love you guys---mwwwwah.
That'll be $10. Hand jobs are $20, and so on up the scale. But I'm not demeaning myself.
Prostitutes are sexually/physically assaulted in the course of their work on average of once a month.
But, in GG world, being raped or beaten once a month does not traumatize you or cause any problems in your life.
According to the literature that GG touts, even "high class" prostitutes are never safe from violence. Not to mention, many men hire women to intentionally degrade them because that is their particular kink. The prostitutes must service these clients as well as others.
Wives get beaten up as often? Not even close.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
