Rev. Mags: Moral Question

From: revjim@strangegames.com (Reverend Jim)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2001 2:22 PM

Dear Reverend Magdalen,

After reading the "really dumb asshole men who need a whipping" posts,
I'm just curious what your stance is: you seem to give your seal of
approval to women working in prostitution (or at least your partial
approval, as in they're better off than rain-forest-destroying oil
magnates). What about their customers? Do any of them have your
approval, assuming they obey the usual "Don't be an asshole to people
in the service industry" rules?

Considering the profession of your historical/mythical counterpart,
your views ought to be especially interesting.

Your Reverend Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Rev. Mags: Moral Question
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@home.com>

Well, actually, the original Mary Magdalen was NOT in fact a prostitute.
That was a rumor started by early Church officials jealous of the preference
Jesus showed her. She was a wealthy noblewoman who had "seven demons"
inside her (possibly epilepsy, too much ergot, or a reference to some pagan
religion), which Jesus removed. In gratitude, she donated a lot of money to
his ministry and became one of his disciples. Many people believe she in
fact married Jesus and bore his children, whom the Knights Templar and the
Cathars were sworn to protect, and whose descendents became "Kings of
Jerusalem" during the Crusades.

But anyway, to get to the point: I think that men who patronize prostitutes
are doing nothing wrong as long as they treat the prostitutes with the
normal respect they would treat any professional, such as a doctor, lawyer,
or dentist. Men with too much pent-up sexual frustration cause harm to
society ranging from general grouchiness to violence, and it is good to have
an industry to help them release these tensions. The only reason to
consider prostitution immoral is if you believe that sex should be reserved
exclusively to people who are either married or at least deeply in love. No
doubt sex IS better under those conditions, but it isn't possible for
everyone to be deeply in love and/or married at any given time, and people
need sex anyway. It's just too bad that not every place can be as
enlightened as Nevada, so that the women can be safe and comfortable while
performing this necessary social duty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Rev. Mags: Moral Question
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

Here's some serious, possibly interesting spinoff questions:

(admittedly, there is no right answer here, just opinion.)

Assuming you don't support a completely Laissez Faire
private enterprise for prostitution, how much government
involvement is appropriate? Local or Federal? Taxes?
Health? Zoning? Licensing?

The last question is one of the more interesting.
What qualifies a person to "reasonably" perform as
a prostitute, understanding and obeying the law,
maintaining a reasonable level of hygiene, collecting
and accounting for taxes, and *not* being severely
damaged physically or psychologically in the process?

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

From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

mykal d'archangel wroted:
>
> nu-monet wroted fisted:
>
> >Assuming you don't support a completely Laissez Faire
> >private enterprise for prostitution, how much government
> >involvement is appropriate? Local or Federal? Taxes?
> >Health? Zoning? Licensing?
>
> Whatever it takes for legalization! I will
> wholeheartedly put my tax dollars forth.
>

Well, Camille Paglia suggested that prostitution should be
legalized because of the vast number of mostly women who
engage in it *without* ever being arrested, becoming drug
addicts, suffering long-term emotional damage, etc. (The
bad press comes from the losers who get caught, become
drug addicts, are mentally ill to begin with, etc., leading
people to believe that this happens to *all* prostitutes.)

My last question, about licensing, was basically, "What
are the minimum standards the state should require of a
person to be a prostitute?" Obviously, not everyone is
cut out to be a sex worker. Should their requirements be
less stringent than taxi drivers? (Hmmm...Take you to
the airport? Blowjob? Lovely mental image, that.
Especially if he is really hairy and is smoking a cigar.)

Wanting it to be legal is not enough. You have to create
parameters for the occupation and its rules. Hell, in
Florida, in one city, the nude dancers have to do a stage
theater performance to be legal. Scottsdale, AZ, requires
dancers to wear "pasties" and has a "pasty tax". I can't
believe that prostitution would be one iota easier to
zone or regulate. And, last but not least, hasn't the
government already proven that it can fuck anything up?,
so a system totally government run could be awful.

--
&
"nu-monet is right. No one is safe."
&
Porno Myth #18. If you come across a guy and his
girlfriend having sex in the bushes, the boyfriend
won't bash seven shades of shit out of you if you
shove your cock in his girlfriend's mouth.
&
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Rev. Mags: Moral Question
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@home.com>
>
Just because the government USUALLY does such things does not mean it HAS to
do them. There are still a lot of small towns where the dancers can do
whatever the hell they want. The minimum requirement for becoming a
prostitute SHOULD be weekly STD testing. That's all.

"Zoning" is about the stupidest-ass thing the Conspiracy ever came up with.
All right-thinking people should have left this country as soon as they
sprung that one on us. If you can't sleep in your shop, dance nude near a
church, or open a bakery out of your kitchen without some committee's
approval, then the terrorists have already won, and George Washington turned
down a third term as president in vain.

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

From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

Rev. Magdalen wrote:
>
> ...The minimum requirement for becoming a
> prostitute SHOULD be weekly STD testing.
> That's all.

So unlike Amsterdam, this would permit pimps, drug
abuse by prostitutes, mentally ill or mentally
deficient prostitutes, and inherently dangerous and
or coercive forms of prostitution? And all tax free?

And, on the other side of the coin, what about the
prostitute "support" organizations, such as unions
and government social agencies, that help prostitutes?
(In Sweden, in an interesting case, the government
hires some prostitutes to act as "scouts" for social
workers, figuring that people who visit prostitutes
are more inclined to need government social services.)

>
> "Zoning" is about the stupidest-ass thing the
> Conspiracy ever came up with.

Well, I would have to say that there is good zoning
and bad zoning. Good zoning (nimby) is when people
want to build a creamatorium, a rendering plant,
and a grenade factory on three sides of the family
homes where I and my neighbors have lived for many
years, but they can't, because that land isn't
zoned for it. It wouldn't be safe or intelligent
city design. Industrial parks make sense, even to
the businesses in them.

Bad zoning is when the city council gets payoffs to
"gentrify" our neighborhood through eminent domain,
then bulldoze our houses to build another domed
stadium, paid for with taxpayer money.

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

Subject: Re: Rev. Mags: Moral Question
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@home.com>

"nu-monet" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote in message
news:3C068309.7FB4@succeeds.com...
>
> So unlike Amsterdam, this would permit pimps, drug
> abuse by prostitutes, mentally ill or mentally
> deficient prostitutes, and inherently dangerous and
> or coercive forms of prostitution? And all tax free?

Prostitutes would be under the same tax structure as other people -- if they
were self-employed they'd pay that tax, if they had a pimp or madam, that
person would have to withold taxes. Abuse and assault are crimes, no matter
what profession they occur in, and if prostitution was legal, the
prostitutes would actually be able to call the cops on their abusers just as
your dentist will if you punch him in the face. It would probably take a
while for this to shake-down into people's minds, but after the first few
times the police rush in and cart off abusive johns, people should get the
message. As for drug abuse, well, we're talking about my vision of a
completely moral and ethical world here, so in that world, all drug use
would be completely legal, under the "pursuit of happiness" clause, so
prostitutes might be abusing drugs, but hopefully they'd be getting
ten-packs of clean needles from Eckards and there wouldn't be a public
health issue. I don't think it's immoral if people want to live their lives
in a drug-filled haze, neglecting other so-called "responsibilities",
because each of us has an ultimate responsibility to grow as an entity, and
many people seem to need at least one lifetime of drug-induced numbness to
complete their reincarnational learning program.
>
> And, on the other side of the coin, what about the
> prostitute "support" organizations, such as unions
> and government social agencies, that help prostitutes?
> (In Sweden, in an interesting case, the government
> hires some prostitutes to act as "scouts" for social
> workers, figuring that people who visit prostitutes
> are more inclined to need government social services.)
>

I think if you're going to have capitalism, you've got to have healthy and
robust unions as well. It's only fair! The rich corporate pigdogs are sure
as hell sticking together, the workers must do the same if they're going to
get anything. But then, in my ideal world, there would be a mix --
capitalism for luxuries, socialism for necessities, so that no one would
starve or die of exposure. Capitalism is a great game, but games are only
fun if DEATH BY STARVATION isn't one of the possible outcomes.

> >
> > "Zoning" is about the stupidest-ass thing the
> > Conspiracy ever came up with.
>
> Well, I would have to say that there is good zoning
> and bad zoning. Good zoning (nimby) is when people
> want to build a creamatorium, a rendering plant,
> and a grenade factory on three sides of the family
> homes where I and my neighbors have lived for many
> years, but they can't, because that land isn't
> zoned for it. It wouldn't be safe or intelligent
> city design. Industrial parks make sense, even to
> the businesses in them.

Well that's where vigilante justice comes in. People today want to hide
behind some kind of committee -- "Oh, the COMMITTEE doesn't want you to
build that there..." They're too pansy-assed to get a posse of neighbors
together and show up at the proposed construction site with their shotguns
and say "Nuh UH Mistah Enron, you sure AIN'T gonna build that pollution
factory HYAR!" The problem with committees is that sooner or later they
start saying "Oh, the committee thinks signs on telephone poles are ugly -
no more of them. Oh, the committee thinks hand-lettered garage sale signs
are ugly - everyone must get pre-printed ones, and they must be a certain
size, and they must be such and such a distance from the road. Oh, the
committee doesn't like to drive down the street and see people's garbage
cans still out by the road the day after pickup, from now on, they must be
back by the side of your house by five pm on trash day... etc. etc. (all of
those are real, by the way)" Vigilantes would never come up with stupid
rules like that, that's why they are better than committees.

>
> Bad zoning is when the city council gets payoffs to
> "gentrify" our neighborhood through eminent domain,
> then bulldoze our houses to build another domed
> stadium, paid for with taxpayer money.
>

That too. Vigilantes would never do something that stupid, or else other
vigilantes would come and kick their asses.

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

Subject: Re: Rev. Mags: Moral Question
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>

You know, Mags, we were having SUCH a good argument on that other thread,
and then you have to go and post this and get me all kindly inclined towards
you again. It's very frustrating.

"Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@home.com> wrote in message
news:8nwN7.132287$pb4.79875830@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>
> I don't think it's immoral if people want to live their lives
> in a drug-filled haze, neglecting other so-called "responsibilities",
> because each of us has an ultimate responsibility to grow as an entity,
and
> many people seem to need at least one lifetime of drug-induced numbness to
> complete their reincarnational learning program.

That may be the best argument I ever heard against the "we can't legalize
drugs because then a few people will become living zombies" nanny-booboo
approach.

While I think that most unions *now* are bloodsucking crime whores, I agree
that freedom of association goes both ways and a libertarian/capitalist
approach, if not utterly hypocritical, should allow unions *if workers want
to unionize.* Labor *is* capital, same as a factory. If workers want to
become owners of their own capital by collectively bargaining, and the
market will support it, good for them.

However, I don't think that the current labor laws are very good - and I
especially don't like it that there are exactly two groups of people who are
allowed by law to use violence, however controlled, to achieve their aims.
(Government and labor unions. If you don't believe me, read the laws. It
doesn't come right out and SAY it, but it's in there.) This is why I am
against unions in their current form.

> But then, in my ideal world, there would be a mix --
> capitalism for luxuries, socialism for necessities, so that no one would
> starve or die of exposure. Capitalism is a great game, but games are only
> fun if DEATH BY STARVATION isn't one of the possible outcomes.

Only question: who decides which are necessities, which are luxuries? Say,
for instance, they don't provide cable television. Even welfare families
usually have cable television. Revolt in the streets. Cities burning. Bad
all around. Nope, not sure this will work.

> > >
> > > "Zoning" is about the stupidest-ass thing the
> > > Conspiracy ever came up with.

*loud cheers*

> > Well, I would have to say that there is good zoning
> > and bad zoning. Good zoning (nimby) is when people
> > want to build a creamatorium, a rendering plant,
> > and a grenade factory on three sides of the family
> > homes where I and my neighbors have lived for many
> > years, but they can't, because that land isn't
> > zoned for it. It wouldn't be safe or intelligent
> > city design. Industrial parks make sense, even to
> > the businesses in them.
>
> Well that's where vigilante justice comes in. People today want to hide
> behind some kind of committee -- "Oh, the COMMITTEE doesn't want you to
> build that there..." They're too pansy-assed to get a posse of neighbors
> together and show up at the proposed construction site with their shotguns
> and say "Nuh UH Mistah Enron, you sure AIN'T gonna build that pollution
> factory HYAR!"

Hear, hear. It's MY land, and I can do whatever I want with it. But if what
I want hurts other people, I had best be prepared to face some serious
consequences, including the husband of the woman who dies of some weird
cancer because I released mercury hydrophosphate into her well coming and
beating me to death with a big stick. *ME.* Personally. The boss who okayed
the mercury hydrophosphate plant. Not the shareholders. Not the corporation.
SOMEBODY made a decision. That person has to pay. If that means people will
be afraid to make decisions, too fucking bad. Maybe that was a decision that
didn't need making.

> The problem with committees is that sooner or later they
> start saying "Oh, the committee thinks signs on telephone poles are ugly -
> no more of them. Oh, the committee thinks hand-lettered garage sale signs
> are ugly - everyone must get pre-printed ones, and they must be a certain
> size, and they must be such and such a distance from the road. Oh, the
> committee doesn't like to drive down the street and see people's garbage
> cans still out by the road the day after pickup, from now on, they must be
> back by the side of your house by five pm on trash day... etc. etc. (all
of
> those are real, by the way)" Vigilantes would never come up with stupid
> rules like that, that's why they are better than committees.

The problem with committees is that once they do what they were supposed to
do, they always find some other thing to do so they don't have to stop
committeeing. I can only conclude that being on a committee is the most
addictive drug known to man. Take the US Federal Government, the largest
collection of committees in the history of mankind. When was the last time
the government disbanded an agency? Of ANY size, shape or form? In IL we
have a Tollway Authority which is bigger now than it's ever been, although
its legal justification for existing is no longer true! It was formed to
build certain specific roads and then collect tolls until they were paid
for, then they were supposed to be free highways. Roads were paid for years
ago. Tolls keep going up, more money than ever to rob and waste and pillage.
Disgusting.

> > Bad zoning is when the city council gets payoffs to
> > "gentrify" our neighborhood through eminent domain,
> > then bulldoze our houses to build another domed
> > stadium, paid for with taxpayer money.
> >
>
> That too. Vigilantes would never do something that stupid, or else other
> vigilantes would come and kick their asses.

The world might be a better place if people feared getting their asses
kicked for *good* reasons (like trying to rob folk, or dumping garbage in
poor neighborhoods) as opposed to the reasons they do now. Well said.

St. Marc
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Rev. Mags: Moral Question
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

St. Marc the Perpetually Amused wrote:
>
> ...The problem with committees is that once they do
> what they were supposed to do, they always find
> some other thing to do so they don't have to stop
> committeeing...

Okay, so that means I can mark you two down as having
joined my "The Hell With Voting" campaign? Super!

And remember: "Politics is Poopadoodle!"

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

Subject: Re: Rev. Mags: Moral Question
From: "staniel" <sstan@eticomm.net>

> I think if you're going to have capitalism, you've got to have healthy and
> robust unions as well. It's only fair! The rich corporate pigdogs are
sure
> as hell sticking together, the workers must do the same if they're going
to
> get anything. But then, in my ideal world, there would be a mix --
> capitalism for luxuries, socialism for necessities, so that no one would
> starve or die of exposure. Capitalism is a great game, but games are only
> fun if DEATH BY STARVATION isn't one of the possible outcomes.

Would you consider the union situation in the US healthy and robust or
shortsighted and parasitic? My grandfather risked having his skull caved in
for decent working conditions by joining the IWW in the olden days, which is
a far cry from some braindead slug who pulls a lever over and over again
thinking it deserves $15 an hour. Nobody wants to pay it $15 an hour, so
the industries move overseas, which is bad for everyone but the industries -
union slug eventually loses its job when the last American factory closes,
consumers don't pay any less, and the workers in Taiwan or wherever work
long hours and live in "company store" conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Rev. Mags: Moral Question
From: Arbane the Terrible <arbane@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: arbane@home.com
Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2001 2:11 AM
Message-ID: <qiGN7.185725$IR4.69526119@news1.denver1.co.home.com>

St. Marc the Perpetually Amused wrote:

> Hear, hear. It's MY land, and I can do whatever I want with it. But if
> what I want hurts other people, I had best be prepared to face some
> serious consequences, including the husband of the woman who dies of some
> weird cancer because I released mercury hydrophosphate into her well
> coming and beating me to death with a big stick. *ME.* Personally. The
> boss who okayed the mercury hydrophosphate plant. Not the shareholders.
> Not the corporation. SOMEBODY made a decision. That person has to pay. If
> that means people will be afraid to make decisions, too fucking bad. Maybe
> that was a decision that didn't need making.

And there's another problem--most corporations these days are set up to
maximize profit, and minimize responsibility. And most CEOs can hire
better thugs as bodyguards than I can find as vigilantes.

> The problem with committees is that once they do what they were supposed
> to do, they always find some other thing to do so they don't have to stop
> committeeing. I can only conclude that being on a committee is the most
> addictive drug known to man.

This one's going in my quote file.

--
"Remember,the plural of 'moron' is 'focus group'."
-- James A. Wolf

Back to document index

Original file name: Rev. Mags- Moral Question - converted on Thursday, 20 December 2001, 03:26