Sunday, February 15, 2009

Finding good reasons for bad things

Somebody always has something somebody else wants.

It might be poontang, or it might be a vote. So what's wrong with reasonable people making a reasonable exchange . . . one want for another?

Right? Right?

HERE, WE HAVE a perfectly reasonable argument in favor of legal prostitution, courtesy of Jessica Woods, as published last April in The Jambar, the student newspaper at Youngstown State University:
According to the, prostitution is the oldest job in the world, dating back to biblical ages where it was seen as an accepted, non-taboo, at least until the New Testament and Christ. Ironic, though, that even in Israel, the "holiest" land in the world, prostitution is legal.

The basic, instinctive need for sex is a primitive desire in all humans. Why shouldn't it be a commodity for sale? Doesn't even the "healthiest" of marriages use sex as a bargaining chip? In comedies like CBS's "Yes, Dear" the wife is always encouraging her husband to do things for her with the promise of sex to come. People find this funny or even identify with him, yet prostitution remains a taboo in our society.

We are a country where a teenager can kill her unborn baby via abortion, in some states without her parents' consent, but a woman can't sell her sexuality for a living. The argument here is "her body, her choice," or at least that's the feminist mantra grew up hearing in regard to abortion. Killing a baby will always be wrong, but earning a living off your body's ability to give pleasure shouldn't be.

In light of the resignation of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer in March, the concept of the "high-class call girl" has been brought to our attention again, just as the Heidi Fleiss scandal of the '90s did.

A young — usually college-age — beautiful, intelligent woman entertains wealthy doctors, lawyers, real estate moguls and celebrities for up to $10,000 a night, cash. The sex is consensual, condoms are used and discretion is enforced, both for the client and the sex worker. The client is satisfied because he knows the woman he is enjoying is routinely tested for STDs and is a willing participant who will not disclose his business, as a mistress likely would. The agency is satisfied because it has amassed a great deal of money and powerful clients. And most importantly, the call girl is satisfied because she has used her mind and body to earn a fantastic sum of money that keeps her in Mercedes and Versace. She has her freedom, power and choice to leave the industry at any time. One could argue that she has more advantages than a common housewife.
ONE ALSO could argue about what part of 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' doesn't the author understand when she contends the taboo against prostitution only goes back to that notorious party-pooper, Jesus Christ. But that's not important now.

What's important is that, when you get right down to it, all the arguments for prostituting one's body -- or, say, one's elective office -- are cut from the same cloth.

Free people. Fair exchange. Mutual benefits.

For instance, Nebraska state senators have all kinds of arguments -- many quite "reasonable" -- in favor of their do-it-yourself pimping, some of which appear in the Omaha World-Herald:

Traditional lobbying groups such as bankers, accountants and farm groups are typical hosts, but the Winnebago Tribe, the City of Omaha and Gov. Dave Heineman also have their free luncheon affairs.

The number of such social events has been steadily rising over the past few years. Often two or three events are going on at the same time.

Observers and participants say the events have increased because of term limits, the desire of organizations to connect with 36 new senators elected in the past two elections and more groups trying to meet with lawmakers over a meal, particularly breakfast and lunch.

"I tried to go to four breakfasts (in one morning) once, and I almost vomited doing it," said former State Sen. Jim Cudaback of Riverdale. "After the 100th one, it really isn't a perk."


Nebraska senators and lobbyists defend the meals, saying they are a convenient and sociable way of acquainting legislators with issues and each other. Meetings that involve constituents coming to Lincoln are almost a must-attend, several lawmakers said.

"If a library director is going to drive 140 miles from Kearney to Lincoln, the (least) I can do is come and have lunch with them," said Sen. Galen Hadley of Kearney.

Hadley and some other first-year senators said they try to attend as many events as possible, though they've all heard of senators who gained up to 20 pounds a session because of the meals.

Rogert and several other senators said they saw nothing ethically wrong with taking a free lunch.

"If you work for a company and you're out in the field, you're buying a lunch every single day," Rogert said. "Lunches are the place to do business worldwide."
HEY, IF A HOT BABE is going to drive at least a couple of hours to get a piece of this, the least I can do is be agreeable and accommodating. Right, Honey?




I mean, it's the polite thing. Honey?


Where are you going with that suitcase?

No comments: