Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« "Medtario" | Main | I would rather be raised in a grow-op then be raised by the state »

Monday, December 07, 2009

Sex and the Single Socialist

Jeff Perren has an idea. Now just wait and give it a chance. It's very egalitarian:

You: "Fine. Tell you what. Since quality sex is as vital to human well being as money or medical care, let's establish a National Bureau of Prostitution, with a branch in every town in America."

Progressive: "What? That's ridiculous. Get serious."

You: "I am serious. There are a lot of lonely, ugly, poor guys (and gals — let's not be sexist) out there who aren't getting any. Or, what they do get is below acceptable quality. [If pressed on the standard of 'acceptable' be very vague.] We need to improve their 'access' to quality quim.

"So, I propose we establish a tax to pay for prostitutes for them. Better still, since there aren't enough good looking hookers to go around, let's require some Hollywood babes to participate. 'Voluntarily', of course, unless they want to pay a fine or go to jail.

Unimpeachable collectivist logic. The problem with arguing from logical extremes is that someone might call your bluff. You see this sort of thing is actually done in the Netherlands. The government pays hookers to "service" the mentally ill. The modern world. One step ahead of the satirists.

Posted by Richard Anderson on December 7, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

I wonder what the Department for the Status of Women would think of this.

These advocates should be flogged raw, then have alcohol poured on their wounds, then deported to some far off land where they don't habla Ingles. Sicko perverts.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-07 5:21:44 AM


Pubis,

"Since quality sex is as vital to human well being as money or medical care..."

Well, neither sex nor money is as vital to human well being as medical care. No one has ever died merely due to lack of money or sex. Lack of food or water? Yes. Lack of medical care? Yes. But not lack of sex or money. So the premise is not only wrong, it's absurd. As a result, the argument is absurd.

The "preliminary decision" made by an "advisory agency" that you cite is not some inevitable logical extension of anything. Now take your tinfoil hat and go sit sit on the naughty spot. You need a time out.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-12-07 7:10:22 AM


Keep trying FC. One of these days you might even succeed.

Posted by: Publius | 2009-12-07 7:12:15 AM


Since when do egalitarians only want to socialize healthcare or the basic necessities?

Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-07 8:13:04 AM


This scenario is totally consistent with socialized health care. When people are state chattel, the state can and should look after their "common good". It's no different than changing the oil in your car. It would be a fitting duty for CBC News Anchors. We could, in fact redefine the whole public servant thing to "public servicing". Maybe now they could be compelled to kiss us as they're giving it to us.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-12-07 10:09:35 AM


"No one has ever died merely due to lack of money or sex."

Yes, its called suicide.

Posted by: Marc | 2009-12-07 10:35:09 PM


From a woman's point of view at least, sexual acts can lack quality without more than a 15 min relationship. Social animals require contact, but also relationship. I agree that sex is important, but is not first on the list, even for men.

Posted by: Sandra Argenius | 2009-12-08 4:28:12 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.