tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post8235361982123689852..comments2024-03-28T05:23:01.707-05:00Comments on A MOMENT OF CEREBUS: Chester Brown: "Dave Sim Again"A Moment Of Cerebushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02718525538144698138noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-70659957246577217672017-03-24T13:28:09.751-05:002017-03-24T13:28:09.751-05:00Dave, Chris W., and AFN might benefit from learnin...Dave, Chris W., and AFN might benefit from learning that believing something very strongly is not the same as that thing being true.<br /><br /> -- Damian<br />Damian T. Lloyd, Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15423589734839129158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-22998495715399614162017-03-23T00:15:13.631-05:002017-03-23T00:15:13.631-05:00(Continued from previous comment.)
"I think ...(Continued from previous comment.)<br /><br /><i>"I think the rest of us are discussing the REALITY of disease, violence and death and you and Chester and the Supreme Court just want to make hookers a subject fit for judicial discussion -- which I don't think they are -- as a means of corrupting society to your own level. I can understand you wanting to do that given the nature of your thinking."</i><br /><br />As I understand it, the fact-finding for this case was based on a great deal of evidence, including police reports, published research, and interviews with sex workers about their real-life experiences. How is that not discussing the REALITY of the dangers sex workers face? What alternative source of information would you suggest?<br /><br />And of course prostitution is a fit subject for judicial discussion. In a free society that uses a judicial system, any matter pertaining to the law is potentially a fit subject for judicial discussion. To say otherwise would be to say that the legislature should be able to pass laws without fear of judicial examination. And if that were the case, what prevents the legislature from simply ignoring the Canadian constitution when they pass laws?<br /><br />Finally, I doubt you understand my thinking at all. <br /><br />I have no desire to rub your nose in anything, Dave. Nor do I want to make you participate in prostitution in any way at all (nor do I participate in prostitution in any way at all).<br /><br />I do think that living in a free society requires a certain amount of live-and-let-live - so if Lucy wants to sell sex for money, you don't have to approve, but neither should you be able to legally forbid Lucy from hiring a bouncer so she can be safer. Similarly, if you want to stand in the public square and read aloud from the Bible, Lucy doesn't have to approve of that, but she shouldn't be able to legally stop you.<br /><br />If that's what you mean by being "socially culpable" for Lucy's actions, then okay. But I don't think just leaving Lucy alone and letting her hire the bouncer makes you "socially culpable."<br /><br /><i>"I think you're making yourselves ridiculous suggesting that she should.</i><br /><br />I never made any such suggestion; you literally just made that up, Dave.Barry Deutschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08796981762797604817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-27546873489766613632017-03-23T00:14:16.677-05:002017-03-23T00:14:16.677-05:00Dave, earlier you claimed that the Canadian Suprem...Dave, earlier you claimed that the Canadian Supreme Court had ruled that "WE MUST KEEP OUR HOOKERS 100% SAFE FROM PHYSICAL HARM!!" There was no such ruling made. Do you concede that your earlier claim was untrue?<br /><br />Dave: "I don't think the Supreme Court established HOW the legislative provisions "aggravate the risk of disease, violence and death"."<br /><br />Well, yes and no. The Supreme Court can't legally gather evidence and draw factual conclusions; that's not their role. That's the job of the application judge. But, contrary to what you seem to believe, a lot of evidence was gathered in this case - "The evidentiary record consists of over 25,000 pages of evidence in 88 volumes" - and the Supreme Court was legally required to defer to the application judge's findings on all factual questions when making their ruling.<br /><br />(Or, at least, that's my understanding; I'm not a lawyer, as you know.)<br /><br />But yes, the Supreme Court did explain at length - both in their own words, and by quoting the application judge - how it is that the three provisions in question aggravated risk for prostitutes.<br /><br />For example:<br /><br /><i>"With respect to s. 210 , the evidence suggests that working in-call is the safest way to sell sex; yet, prostitutes who attempt to increase their level of safety by working in-call face criminal sanction. With respect to s. 212(1) (j), prostitution, including legal out-call work, may be made less dangerous if a prostitute is allowed to hire an assistant or a bodyguard; yet, such business relationships are illegal due to the living on the avails of prostitution provision. Finally, s. 213(1)(c) prohibits street prostitutes, who are largely the most vulnerable prostitutes and face an alarming amount of violence, from screening clients at an early, and crucial stage of a potential transaction, thereby putting them at an increased risk of violence.</i><br /><br /><i>In conclusion, these three provisions prevent prostitutes from taking precautions, some extremely rudimentary, that can decrease the risk of violence towards them. Prostitutes are faced with deciding between their liberty and their security of the person. Thus, while it is ultimately the client who inflicts violence upon a prostitute, in my view the law plays a sufficient contributory role in preventing a prostitute from taking steps that could reduce the risk of such violence."</i><br /><br />None of these evidence-based findings are surprising. I mean, OBVIOUSLY if a few sex workers can work in a building together, watch each other's backs, screen clients, and hire a bouncer, generally speaking that will make them safer than if it's illegal for them to do these things. Do you believe otherwise, and if so, why?<br /><br />(Out of space; to be continued in the next comment.)Barry Deutschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08796981762797604817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-63630501116225703332017-03-22T21:22:23.582-05:002017-03-22T21:22:23.582-05:00As a male vs. female issue, I think women should b...As a male vs. female issue, I think women should be pushed to be the ones defending the 'smaller weaker' side. The more men they have to enlist to defend them, the weaker their argument becomes.<br /><br />In general, men are chivalrous to women, often to a fault, and I completely agree that women should be defended against unchivalrous men. I also accept that women put themselves in positions which no chivalrous man should be required to defend. That said, prostitution is a further grey area. Best for men and women to stay away from, no doubt, but we don't have laws and morals to decide what's best, we have them to decide what actually exists. A couple hours ago, I finished reading a book about Johnny Carson by Carson's long-time laywer, and Carson was totally a 'grab them by the pussy' kind of womanizer. Do we judge him by the standards of the 1970s-80s, do we judge him by today's standards, or do we accept that there are right and wrong ways for a rich famous man to treat woman that women totally love being treated?<br /><br />Carson was so rich and so famous for so long, he didn't know any other way to treat women. Any woman who wasn't totally eager to give it up to Johnny Carson was prostituting herself by giving it up, and she was fine with that. So was he. If she got any benefits afterwards was up to him.<br /><br />Lower the standards, is any cheerleader on the high school team seriously going to deny the quarterback? How is that not the equivalent of prostitution? For him, it's another notch, for them, it's another step closer to turning him into Al Bundy.<br />ChrisWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-5916450929721898632017-03-22T15:57:30.425-05:002017-03-22T15:57:30.425-05:00Barry,
I think I'm just going to say the ...Barry,<br /> <br /> I think I'm just going to say the same thing in different ways but since you addressed me, I thought it proper to respond:<br /><br /> Even if the term is being used as dislike or prejudice instead of fear it still remains an attempt to shut down criticism, not to engage with people who think differently. That's why it's intellectually phony. Chester may have well considered arguments but labeling those who think otherwise as Whorephobic is a cheap tactic. <br /><br />Tony's words: "...phobia" sets up the terms of the conversation in such a way that the "phobe" is the one with something to overcome"<br /><br />really nails the intended effective of someone being called Whorephobic. No one wants to be known as a "phobe."<br /> <br /> Not only am I not afraid of prostitutes, I don't hate them either. <br /><br /> When I perused some of the writing on those links I noted others using the term as well in what I believe is an attempt to legitimize it.<br /><br /> I did not attack Chester personally, I attacked the term he used (I actually thought he invented it...!) and asked if the possibility exists he believes on some level that prostitution is not right and is over-compensating. That was a legitimate question, not a personal attack. <br /><br />I ended my initial comment with a compliment about his art and sadness (as sad as I can get about this situation involving strangers online) about him and Dave's friendship.<br /><br />I think I understood Dave's point in not discussing "hookers". It's not a very interesting topic and past a certain point, once everyone has laid out (pun intended) their arguments, where do you go? You paid money to have sex. So? Reading Paying For It (years ago) didn't make much of an argument in favor of, so much as highlight the 'mechanical' element of the act and made the whole thing seem skeevy. <br /><br /> For those interested in this debate, again, I think saying someone is "Whorephobic" is a dishonest tactic and should be avoided.<br /><br /> I don't think the government should be chasing after prostitutes and clients, throwing them in jail and so on but nor do I think it is something to be proud of. If this is how some adults choose to live, then I hope both sides of the transaction are as safe as can be. <br /><br />But the idea that it's be something to be proud of, and it's not because of fear, dislike or hatred.<br /><br />And I still doubt anyone would be happy to know their family member is a whore.<br /><br /> It may seem strange, but perhaps the feeling of shame attached to it is a good thing. Maybe it's one's conscience saying mistakes have been made in life and work on fixing those, instead of paying (or charging) for sex. <br /><br />A Fake Name<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-66059062830577224512017-03-22T13:06:48.571-05:002017-03-22T13:06:48.571-05:00Barry
I don't think the Supreme Court esta...Barry <br /><br />I don't think the Supreme Court established HOW the legislative provisions "aggravate the risk of disease, violence and death". As is usually the case with feminist jurisprudence, there's just the flat assertion masquerading as a proof.<br /><br />[I've toyed with idea of doing a CANADIAN LIBERAL SUPER-HERO who fights crime by making everything legal. I think this is just another example of that.] <br /><br />I think the rest of us are discussing the REALITY of disease, violence and death and you and Chester and the Supreme Court just want to make hookers a subject fit for judicial discussion -- which I don't think they are -- as a means of corrupting society to your own level. I can understand you wanting to do that given the nature of your thinking. But I don't think YOU understand why WE (who don't agree with you) don't WANT you to do that and why WE -- if we're going to be forced into acquiescing into capitulating to your (to us) immoral standards (which is happening everywhere in the G7 at a faster and faster rate), WE want to do it in such a way that sequesters you and your (to US) peculiar obsession. Allowing YOU to do what you want without making US societally culpable for it or rubbing our noses in it as if what you are rubbing our noses in is GOOD for us. Because WE don't think it is. <br /><br />You can only push the normalization of immorality so far before you're going to get push-back. <br /><br />Here's a hypothetical question: if prostitution is "just another job". Let's say I need a ditch dug and I go to the local food bank or soup kitchen and say "Say, anybody here want to make $200 digging a ditch?" I get a volunteer or I don't. Is it the same thing if I go to the food bank or soup kitchen and say, "Say, you're cute. How about you give me access to your vagina for an hour and I'll give you $200?" <br /><br />Or just going up to someone on the subway and making the same offer. "I'll give you $400 to have sex with me. You should be flattered, usually I only pay $200." <br /><br />SHOULD she be flattered? <br /><br />I think you're making yourselves ridiculous suggesting that she should. <br /> <br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502294606395720342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-5064851018279296442017-03-22T00:56:44.965-05:002017-03-22T00:56:44.965-05:001. The suffix "-phobe" is commonly used ...1. The suffix "-phobe" is commonly used in English to indicate "dislike or prejudice" - and that's been a common usage for decades. So, for example, oxforddictionaries.com defines "transphobia" as "Dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people," and use the same construction for "homophobia." Merriam-webster includes the fear aspect, but only as one of three possibilities, not as a necessary aspect: they say a homophobe is "a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly," for example. American Heritage defines "homophobia" as "fear, hatred, or mistrust of lesbians and gay men."<br /><br />So when Chester Brown refers to "whorephobia," its likely he means something like "dislike or prejudice of people who engage in prostitution." He is not claiming that people are "afraid of whores," as A Fake Name and Tony Dunlop claimed. Nor is it a "lay psychiatric diagnosis" or a claim that someone is "clinically insane," as Dave says.<br /><br />2. The claim that by using "whorephobia" Chester is attempting to shut down discussion seems ridiculous on its face; Chester's tone throughout his comment was reasonable, respectful, and open to disagreement. The same can't be said about Fake's, Tony's, and Dave's responses, which mostly consisted of accusing Cheaster of having malicious intentions - of attempting to "silence dissent," of pulling a "rhetorical stunt," of being "malicious" and "intellectually phony in my opinion." <br /><br />Chester simply did not attack any of the three of you personally, nor did he say any of the things you attributed to him. In contrast, the three of you accused Chester of a lot of nasty stuff. <br /><br />3. Similarly, it's obvious that Chester is eager for discussion, so the claim that he's trying to shut down discussion is false. In contrast, however, Dave is saying things like "Can we now STOP talking about hookers, like, forever?" which is pretty clearly an attempt to shut down this discussion (unless Dave was joking).<br /><br />4. None of you addressed Chester's arguments in any substantive way; in contrast, Chester actually addressed arguments in his comment.<br /><br />5. Dave, Canada AG v Bedford did not, by any plausible reading, stand for the proposition that "WE MUST KEEP OUR HOOKERS 100% SAFE FROM PHYSICAL HARM!!" In fact, the court explicitly said that's <i>not </i>what they were ruling. From the decision:<br /><br /><i>" Nor is it accurate to say that the claim in this case is a veiled assertion of a positive right to vocational safety. The applicants are not asking the government to put into place measures making prostitution safe. Rather, they are asking this Court to strike down legislative provisions that aggravate the risk of disease, violence and death."</i><br /><br />6. Dave, the standard of certainty for criminal law in Canada is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "irrefutable proof." I don't see any reason rape law should be any different.<br /><br />Virtually all the arguments you three make on this thread are based on premises that are clearly untrue. If this were a formal debate, Chester would be winning by several miles.<br /><br />I've never hired a prostitute and I don't think I ever will. Legalizing prostitution would not benefit me personally at all. But if the arguments in this thread are any indication, then I can see why the "legalize" side is winning; they simply have better arguments. (Not unlike the "legalize same-sex marriage" side winning its debates.)Barry Deutschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08796981762797604817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-13242495050886735912017-03-21T20:40:55.494-05:002017-03-21T20:40:55.494-05:00Hey did you all see those guys in the ice warehous...Hey did you all see those guys in the ice warehouse using their tools to skin those fish while they were being moved on giant... chains? Weren't those guys awesome? Such great workers, doing things that women won't do. I just wish there was a more concise term for their line of work.<br />ChrisWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-57384574067349500512017-03-21T17:10:16.945-05:002017-03-21T17:10:16.945-05:00You know me, Dave, ever the contrarian. Soooo:
Th...You know me, Dave, ever the contrarian. Soooo:<br /><br />There is a popular misconception that the U.S. Regular Army Major-General "Fightin' Joe" Hooker was the source whence the term hooker was derived, because of the gaggle of prostitutes that would follow his division when it was on the march. Camp followers was a kinder term.<br /><br />But, in point of fact, the term first arose some twenty years earlier, in New York City.<br /><br />NOW we can all stop talking about hookers, like, forever, God willing.Jeff Seilerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15543690118315946039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-43880405111929644702017-03-21T13:10:09.958-05:002017-03-21T13:10:09.958-05:00The advantage that I see is, executed properly, we...The advantage that I see is, executed properly, we can move all of this stuff into its own realm. Chester and his Happy Hooker Universe can exist in its own...what's a nice word for it?...exceptional context and never again have to come to the attention of society, in general, as it did when it clawed its way up the Feminist Theocracy ladder to the Supreme Court. <br /><br />Here. This is how you keep hookers 100% safe. <br /><br />Can we now STOP talking about hookers, like, forever?<br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502294606395720342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-41271399196824856552017-03-21T13:05:12.054-05:002017-03-21T13:05:12.054-05:00Body-cams for hookers or for women generally are, ...Body-cams for hookers or for women generally are, to me, a different legal issue: which is, that it's beneath the dignity of our Courts and outside of our Courts sphere of competence to determine who is right in a "he said/she said" situation. If you have a smaller, weaker, sexually desirable being moving into isolated proximity with a Rapist (which is what we're talking about) then you need irrefutable proof of what happened between them IF you want to make it a criminal prosecution. <br /><br />Women are offended by the "smaller, weaker, sexually desirable" characterizations, but to me that a) is the central reality and b) isn't the legal issue. <br /><br />The legal issue is Canada's Supreme Court mandating 100% safety for hookers. Well, okay, we can DO that but the only way we're going to hit 100% -- safety OR judicial retribution "0" or "1" no other option -- is with body-cams: SELF-limits on freedom and privacy. Your call. Whoever you are. You want to hit on women and date women and not get charged with rape? YOU wear a body cam, too. "Here's my entire history with her. YOU tell ME. Am I a rapist or is she nutty as a fruitcake?"<br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502294606395720342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-75510251888604074792017-03-21T12:53:22.071-05:002017-03-21T12:53:22.071-05:00With cops, I think it's a matter of the lethal...With cops, I think it's a matter of the lethal force involved. If, as a society, we give someone a loaded weapon and the authority and discretion to use it, then I think we need to have the most accurate documentation of that person's actions and words while he or she is in possession of that lethal force (i.e. on duty). And we might as well face, at a judicial level, what cops actually do on the beat. <br /><br />I also think you have to make the footage available to any defendant. If a cop arrests you, you should automatically get an e-mailed copy of the bust. We, as a society, have to work our way TO that past the Police Unions who obviously don't want their members "hung out to dry". Lethal force, to me, is the dividing line. As a society we can't just -- SENSIBLY -- give you a loaded gun and then have to take your word for it when "shots were fired". <br /><br /> <br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502294606395720342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-57921188440899750422017-03-20T23:50:16.136-05:002017-03-20T23:50:16.136-05:00I'm totally in favor of body-cams, but I think...I'm totally in favor of body-cams, but I think they introduce more problems. Just recently, I've been reading about punishment for police who turn off their body-cams. Even taking the argument for face value, the body cam is there for protection of the citizen, it should never be turned off. But on the other hand, I don't want to take away the right of cops to grant leniency, 'you've had a few too many, we've all been there, we'll make sure you get home safely.' There are valid reasons to support that right for cops to make those decisions and valid reasons to oppose giving cops the right to make those decisions.<br /><br />Giving those rights to the city government will just complicate things more, or the state government, or the federal government.<br /><br />I totally support body-cams on police officers, but many laws will have to be re-written to properly accommodate body-cams.<br /><br />ChrisWChrisWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18322950015727553689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-42499070930110183172017-03-20T19:49:03.400-05:002017-03-20T19:49:03.400-05:00Yup. Body-cams are definitely a good thing. The Mi...Yup. Body-cams are definitely a good thing. The Minneapolis police are phasing them in over a few years, but they will make a difference. Unfortunately, the police department says that they get to say who can and cannot have access to the footage. Joe Citizen has next to zero access, even if he is on the footage.<br /><br />For the record, the Canadian Lady, after a while, started walking home. Even in the dead of winter.Jeff Seilerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15543690118315946039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-82661957825072986232017-03-20T13:13:55.681-05:002017-03-20T13:13:55.681-05:00You aren't going to prevail in this discussion...You aren't going to prevail in this discussion with Chester, guys, I don't think. It seems to me that you either consider fornication and adultery wrong and don't do them (and, my theory anyway, atone for them by not doing them: another year or so to go until I've atoned, chronologically, for 1976 to 1998) or you "buy into" fornication-and-adultery-as-lifestyle. If it's a lifestyle, there's no reason you can't charge for it or pay for it. There's no effective argument against bestiality or any other sexual preference once you've crossed that Applied Philosophy Rubicon. <br /><br />The only thing that makes sense, to me, is the body-cam. Bad things happen to girls and women because there is no record of private one-on-one interaction. If Jeff's Canadian Lady had had a body-cam and her parents insisted it be turned on 24-7 when she was babysitting NOTHING would have happened on those "rides" home. It's beneath, in my opinion, the dignity of our Courts and outside of our Courts' competence to determine the reality in "he said/she said" cases. 100% safety entails 100% loss of SELECTED privacy. If parents are the only ones who have access to the body-cam footage, then it's a simple matter of the girl checking the time and saying, "I think you need to see this conversation that I had with Mr. Chalmers when it was only him and me." Odds are, if he knows she has a body-cam, that conversation won't take place. Adjudicate verifiable footage and accept that you can't successfully adjudicate anything else. <br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502294606395720342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-48904919549521459592017-03-19T15:02:12.282-05:002017-03-19T15:02:12.282-05:00I looked at one of those links and Whorephobia was...I looked at one of those links and Whorephobia was used there as well so it's not something Chester is using as performance art.<br /><br />I still think the same about it though and have nothing else new to say on this topic.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-30297376009620870082017-03-19T00:05:52.787-05:002017-03-19T00:05:52.787-05:00The Crazy Canadian Lady, when I met her, had a pro...The Crazy Canadian Lady, when I met her, had a professional degree from a well-respected southern Canadian university and had been established in her job for several years. She was (is) smart and good at her job.<br /><br />It occurred to me, a couple of years after we broke up, when I found out that prostitution is legal in Canada, that she probably had been a sex worker. I know that she had been sexually abused as a teenaged babysitter (rides home from babies' dads, according to her). <br /><br />But, the thing I remembered most, from near the end of our relationship, was when she told me out of the blue (I used to call her the Queen of non-sequitors), "I did what I had to do to get to where I am today."<br /><br />She was very good (skilled) in bed, but crazy and damaged. Making her way in the world as best she could (can).<br /><br />My point is, IF she was a sex worker, it was not something she was proud of and, I believe, it contributed to her mental anguish.<br /><br />Just adding to the discussion.Jeff Seilerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15543690118315946039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-26277509466032883752017-03-18T21:33:09.798-05:002017-03-18T21:33:09.798-05:00Crazy,
Ha-ha. Never read that before, but great q...Crazy,<br /><br />Ha-ha. Never read that before, but great quote. <br /><br />My initial point was that if sexual gratification is all one seeks it seems easier and safer to jerk-off. It didn't occur to me that prostitutes would be used for anything other than achieving sexual gratification but it seems Chester Brown is not just buying sexual gratification, or at least not any more. I cannot see myself solving the loneliness problem with cash, but more power to him if he can.<br /> <br />Carson Grubaughhttp://hodtech.net/comics.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-29614375649132879232017-03-18T15:41:44.516-05:002017-03-18T15:41:44.516-05:00Tony & A Fake Name - Yes, I agree that that&#...Tony & A Fake Name - Yes, I agree that that's the situation with the indiscriminate use of the suffix "-phobe". That it's used to silence dissent and "end" arguments but is essentially an intellectually dishonest attempt at "short-cutting" to a lay psychiatric diagnosis. That is, "the only reason that you believe what you do is because you're clinically insane on that subject." <br /><br />Of course, it seems to me that the bottom line is that the prostitution ship has sailed. It's hard to imagine any circumstance where prostitution in the G7 countries would ever again be addressed from a traditional moral perspective and all that anyone who thinks prostitution is a Bad Idea (like me) can do is to trudge over to where the new goalposts are located and attempt to deal with the new location on its own terms ("From what I can see, the new goalposts are on the left side of the field, between Exit 7 and Exit 8. The right goal post is in Seat 25 Row EE and the left goal post is in Seat 49 Row GG"). <br /><br />In the prostitution situation, it seems to me that what that translates into (in Canada anyway, according to our Supreme Court and, I assume, in the rest of the G7 in one form or another) is: 'WE MUST KEEP OUR HOOKERS 100% SAFE FROM PHYSICAL HARM!!"<br /><br />Which is why I offered the body-cam solution: record prostitute/client interactions from beginning to end with client ID cards which identify the client on body-cams which the prostitute can either a) delete if she has no complaint with how the interaction went and b) e-mail to the appropriate authorities if she wants the John charged with anything. 100% safety with 100% justice at any violation of that safety. <br /><br />You don't HAVE to participate -- client OR prostitute -- but that would be the only way that it would come to the attention of society. If you don't participate, you're on your own in a very unsavoury field of endeavour. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502294606395720342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-49521451007062933652017-03-18T13:39:01.217-05:002017-03-18T13:39:01.217-05:00crazyyears: Tony Dunlop hit the targets I aimed fo...crazyyears: Tony Dunlop hit the targets I aimed for, in his two comments.<br /><br />"Either way, though, "phobia" sets up the terms of the conversation in such a way that the "phobe" is the one with something to overcome."<br /><br />Well said. This is exactly what he's doing. I think it's crap.<br /><br />A Fake Name<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-47222864067977499712017-03-18T13:02:23.800-05:002017-03-18T13:02:23.800-05:00Crazy et. al.,
I wasn't aware of the alternate...Crazy et. al.,<br />I wasn't aware of the alternate "aversion" meaning of "phobia." I don't have an OED, but interestingly, my Webster's New Collegiate includes "…or aversion to" in the suffix "-phobe" but not in the noun "phobia," which is defined only as an "irrational fear."<br /><br />But the "aversion to" meaning is a much less powerful rhetorical tool with which to cut off one's interlocutor. After all, lots of people have an "aversion to" brussels sprouts, without being afraid of them. Having an aversion to, say, prostitution is very different from being afraid of it. Also, it sounds more plausible that one can be talked out of an aversion than of a fear. Either way, though, "phobia" sets up the terms of the conversation in such a way that the "phobe" is the one with something to overcome.Tony againnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-78882409362735300252017-03-18T12:33:55.767-05:002017-03-18T12:33:55.767-05:00Dear Lurking Anonymously,
The definition of ph...Dear Lurking Anonymously,<br /><br /> The definition of phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.<br /> I will point out that much of your comments exhibited specifically that part of the definition that follows the word "or", rather disproving your point that there is no such thing as whorephobia.<br /> <br />Dear Mr. Brown,<br /><br /> I haven't read your work but I've certainly been aware of it. I should do so. <br /> Your comments here are at the very least clearheaded and concise. I also appreciate that you bother to cite sources or indeed look outside your own experiences at all when addressing these questions. Far to few of us bother to do so.<br /><br />Dear Carson,<br /><br /> I can appreciate the expediency you suggest is inherent in masturbation but I could not help but think of one of the aphorisms offered by Lazarus Long in Robert A Heinlein's Time Enough For Love:<br /> "Masturbation is cheap, clean, convenient, and free of any possibility of wrong-doing--and you don’t have to go home in the cold. But it’s lonely."<br /><br /> crazyyearshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056228438538869055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-89312429368966804282017-03-18T12:19:47.269-05:002017-03-18T12:19:47.269-05:00"_______phobia" is a rhetorical stunt in..."_______phobia" is a rhetorical stunt intended to put one's opponents on the defensive. Nobody really believes "homophobes" are afraid of gay people (or of things like themselves, which is what "homophobia" should mean, if language still worked) or that "transphobes" are afraid of transsexuals. But it's a lot easier not to listen to your opponents' arguments if you can just paint them as cowards.<br /><br />Germophobia, on the other hand...Tony Dunlopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-81846240998895749972017-03-18T11:38:57.937-05:002017-03-18T11:38:57.937-05:00Wow. Praise from Chester Brown! Thank you. I wish ...Wow. Praise from Chester Brown! Thank you. I wish i did share your idea of life. It sounds easier to live with!<br /><br />It would not surprise me if Diogenes had paid for sex as it is the most expedient way to get the real thing. I just love the stories of him jerking off in public and wishing hunger were as easy to overcome. It appeals to my love for expediency. Anything that frees up more time for art.<br /><br />I was glad to see that Brown found a stable transaction. The idea of long-term, monogamous, prostitution makes a fair amount of sense to me. The thing that would bother me the most about paying for sex, as a germ-a-phobic person, is the fact that other johns were being seen.<br /><br />My point about the woman's pleasure was that I personally need to consider a lover's pleasure to obtain pleasure myself. I understand that the prostitutes are not worried about it, and may even be annoyed by attempts at it, which means the set-up of the transaction would leave me sexually unsatisfied. I WANT to perform oral sex, etc. If a partner did not want me to it would be a turn off. This is not an argument that anyone else should not use prostitutes. It just doesn't sound like it would be worth the money for me.<br /><br />Working with Dave Sim sure does get one involved in interesting discussions. Love it!<br />Carson Grubaughhttp://hodtech.net/comics.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-55860636441951962252017-03-18T01:51:44.471-05:002017-03-18T01:51:44.471-05:00One more thing.
Dave's right, strippers do h...One more thing. <br /><br />Dave's right, strippers do have dead eyes. <br /><br />I still remember the disappointment at the whole experience when I first went to a strip club for a co-worker's birthday. Over the years on different occasions, whenever I've set foot in one I was struck by the miserable looking men and women around me. <br /><br />There's a HUGE difference in the genuine smile from a woman who's interested in you from the plastic grin of the stripper.<br /><br />Being there feels wrong in a way that may be difficult to express, it just feels wrong.<br /><br />Consenting adults, free will blah blah blah. But their eyes man...their eyes don't lie.<br /><br />A Fake NameAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com