charley Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 Canadas' supreme court resolved that sex-clubs, where consenting adults would unite and fornicate behind closed doors, were no threat to society : READ ABOUT IT HERE That is of significance to our pursuit of a non-christian life-style because it takes some of the force out of prudish censorship, a powerful weapon used by our opponents. In my opinion, people are herded to a large degree by directing their sexual energy into ways that, in our case in the U.S., pressure us to find our only respectable outlet in marriage. Despite all the liberal talk, that's the only place where anything is really "acceptable". Any other liberal outlets are the kind of thing that one would keep secret from employers or clientele. So, for those reasons, the choice in real-life is made by many to marry and "settle down". To aid in ones taming are the institutions of domestic bliss, among them being the church. The others are financial institutions that put people in debt for household mortgages and whatwver else they can. The huge amounts of work for many years that it takes to pay off this debt, and the mental and emotional effort it takes to make oneself believe that this stifling path is necessary and right and "gods will", are what dominate the psyche of the average adult American. This is the major nexus of forces that moves the average Joe or Jolene to recite conservative rhetoric to all who can hear, to perhaps reassure themselves that they did the "right" thing. Such rhetoric is necessary when the choice was made not by addressing ones true desires, but instead trying to make them into something they were told is acceptable by the herd they live in. The main point of this entire post is that this ruling is a necessary and important step in creating a secular social climate that can truly free minds and hearts. So, this legalization is a sanctioning of a viable alternative that can free someones personal lifestyle, and as a consequence free there mental and emotional life from the need to force themselves to believe the christian nonsense. The day when an alternative sexual lifestyle or belief system is publically acceptable enough to be told to anyone is a long way away, though. I don't think that day will ever come. I don't think that most people want that much power. I'm just glad that a small and elite strata of society, even if it's in Canada, can, without the oppression of those who fear god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 Good post and great link. Thanks, Charley. I'd like to call attention to something that keeps popping up in defense of these "sex clubs". The defenders keep emphasizing that "no money has changed hands", ergo NO CRIME has been committed. And just WHY is it a "crime" if money DOES change hands? Why is everyone STILL hung up on "prostitution"? In the immortal words of George Carlin: "SELLING is legal; FUCKING is legal. Why isn't SELLING FUCKING legal?!?" For my money, so long as NO ONE is being FORCED, USED or SOLD AGAINST THEIR WILL to be a prostitute, then there is NO CRIME! WE THE PEOPLE need to wake up and tell the oppressive society at large and the government to have a nice hot, steamy, frothy cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP! It is PAST time that we challenged the Victorian and Puritanical principles that have warped the minds of society. People need to get over themselves. The same prudes who preach "morality" and "decency" in public, are the same ass rammers who fuck goats and masturbate to ATM pornos in private. And I, for one, am sick to death of the hypocrisy. Let Hedonism reign! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 Hi Charley! IMO, there may be a problem here beyond just overcoming Christian influence. I agree that government should not legislate morality! However, should the government ensure a right to the coustomer that the establishment must provide pertinent information, to its participants, of its risks? Should it provide unbiased information to educate society of the consequences of certain behaviors, as what cigarette companies are required to do? Should this include statistics in areas of those engaging in certain activities? This still leaves the individual with the ultimate choice, legally. I'm curious, as to how the sexual exclusiveness usually associated with one person encourages marriages to work things out. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this on the stability of family units, ensured paternal security, and the impact of sexually transmitted diseases. Does the government have an obligation to hold the establishment liable to reveal possible negative outcomes, should the government do this themselves, or is it just left to the individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I agree that government should not legislate morality! However, should the government ensure a right to the coustomer that the establishment must provide pertinent information, to its participants, of its risks? Good idea--we could put warning labels on prostitutes! I can think of a few great locations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I agree that government should not legislate morality! Um, Amanda? ALL laws are in effect the "legislation of morality". Not commenting on the law, but any man who would give his wife over to another man is no man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charley Posted December 27, 2005 Author Share Posted December 27, 2005 I see all of you commenting variously on this new legalization in Canada to be raising questions that can all be placed under the category of how the "____ will hit the fan". On informing consumers, Amanda, some of that may be appropriate. But on the other hand, that can quickly get ridiculous, too. Allthough, all of that ridiculous need to "inform" may be necessary. It's just a little disheartening for me to admit that at the moment. After seeing this ruling as a great example of people using their heads, it's unpleasant to admit that the average person is going to use the freedoms granted with such clear-thinking in a stupid way unless treated like a four-year-old. I guess the same reality that compels MacDonalds to put "caution. contents are hot" on the cup of hot coffee you just ordered, will be needed to tell us how to safely sin. One big step forward, two baby-steps back. Oh well, that's why I like my work in adult entertainment and sales, anyway. That's because stupidity is an unlimited natural resource that can be "farmed" in about every way imaginable. And yes, Mr. Grinch, I agree that the prudes are in many cases ass-rammers who fuck goats and masturbate to ATM videos in private and that they certainly should be force-fed an extra-large-size hot steamy frothy cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP that does NOT have written on it "caution, contents are hot". Yes, indeed.... In commenting on all legislation of morality, I see the issue is to re-define morality that is a public concern. The morality that discoureges people from stealing, killing, and other direct assaults on person and property can be of common value to us all. But, sexual activity between consenting adults should be taken out of any moral/legal calculus, in my opinion. Let people oppress themselves and each other as they wish within small enclaves like the mormons and amish, and let the rest of us to find our own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 Sounds like Canada is catching up to Nevada. Many counties in Nevada have had legal prostitution for years and years. I live within walking distance of five legal brothels. I don't frequent them. (odd now that I think about it - since atheists are supposed to be so in love with sin) Maybe it's the fact that I'm getting older and more mature. I wonder how many christians who were here in my place would be obsessed with the temptation. I'm at the point where I could really care less. Another premise in the bible shot to shit by real life experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charley Posted December 28, 2005 Author Share Posted December 28, 2005 I live within walking distance of five legal brothels. I don't frequent them. (odd now that I think about it - since atheists are supposed to be so in love with sin) Excellent point, mythra. And I undrstand that being under-whelmed is typical of the average Las Vegan citizen. I live in the mid-west where people lose all common sense on these issues we discussed. That repression does help all adult entertainment businesses in a way, though. That's because people are so repressed that it doesn't take much to fascinate them. A little skin puts the whammy on the poor helpless bastards. Well, when they can't be respected as equals, make them customers. That's what I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 Good idea--we could put warning labels on prostitutes! I can think of a few great locations... Hi Kryten! You know, I don't endorse prostitution... but do you think we'll ever stop it? I'm curious if it would be better to put some kind of requirements on their business, like they do in Arizona where there are legal establishments. How is it that these people aren't afraid of the terminal disease associated with this promiscuous behavior? Then they go and give it to their nonsuspecting significant other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 I agree that government should not legislate morality! Um, Amanda? ALL laws are in effect the "legislation of morality". Not commenting on the law, but any man who would give his wife over to another man is no man. Hi Nightflight! I think government should legislate laws that preserve our rights, not determine our morality. Rights are the recognition of respect we give each person. Each person has the right to not have their things stolen, to have peace in their community after 11:00, to not be defrauded, to not have physical violence, to not have their property defaced, etc. Victimless acts that do not take advantage of others, in a compromised position, should not be legislated, IMO. I agree that any man who gives his wife is no man... but his right is he doesn't have to think like me. I guess if both spouses are in agreement without coercion... do you or I determine that they shouldn't engage in those activities? Because that has been the problem with gay legislation. Why should anyone determine what two other fully consenting adults do behind their closed doors, when there is no victim of anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts