With the Alito confirmation vote close at hand, we’ve been subjected to the great abortion debate once again. This whole “a woman’s right to choose” thing has gotten on my nerves for years, but only recently have I started to think about why men can’t demand similar “rights.” I’m not talking about the sub-debate about whether a woman having an abortion should or should not be required to notifiy her husband. That’s another debate for another time. What I wish to talk about here is a man’s right to choose what he does with his body and where he puts parts of it.
I propose enacting federal legislation that would deny states the right to create laws prohibiting prostitution. Currently, only Nevada allows prostitution, and then only in counties with fewer than 400,000 residents. Prostitution is illegal everywhere else in the United States. Surely, given the precedent of Roe v. Wade, such legislation would be upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
If women can successfully demand that their “right to choose” be upheld why can’t men do the same? Aborting a fetus is certainly a much more significant act of “choice” than having casual sex with a hooker. Why should abortion be a “right” while sex for pay isn’t?
It is a losing fight for prostitution’s hypocritical foes. Prostitution has been around since Biblical times (and probably before) and it is not going away. As one former mayor of New Orleans once said, “You can make prostitution illegal in Louisiana, but you can’t make it unpopular.”
Go ahead, argue that licensed whorehouses would corrupt our society, endanger our daughters, and spread disease. It is actually more likely that availability of women engaging in the world’s oldest profession would improve matters for everyone.
Husbands who aren’t getting any sex at home would have a right to choose. And the choice would be young and talented. Those husbands would be less likely to indulge in extramarital dalliances that could conceivably destroy their marriages. Paying a hooker doesn’t involve a marriage shattering emotional commitment. Instead, it fills a need that can be purchased—a business deal. Thus, it should strengthen the barren marriage. (Should a whorehouse be required to report such contractual arrangements to wives?) Every man would like “something strange” every once in a while, and this would be a harmless way to get it.
Wouldn’t legalizing prostitution be tantamount to institutionalizing marital infidelity and sexual promiscuity? No, because those things are already there for free and charging for them certainly won’t encourage more abuses. For us single men, sex is never really free, anyway. Furthermore, you never really know whether you’re getting a lively and talented partner until you’ve already made the investment. On the other hand, a lady of the evening would not be in business long if she couldn’t give you a good ride. It’s just fundamental economics.
As well, if prostitution were legal, perverts would have a readily available outlet for their sexual energy, which would make them less likely to force themselves on unwilling women.
The old feminist arguments for abortion can be applied as an analogous masculist argument in favor of legalized prostitution. Illegal abortionists using rusty coat hangers in back alleys translate to illegal streetwalkers whose genitalia are the equivalent of rusty coat hangers. State licensure would require health department certification and would mandate use of condoms. Thus, diseases would be less likely to be spread than with the present illegal operations and with so-called free sex.
Street warfare among pimps would disappear much as the moonshine wars of the 1920s disappeared when Prohibition was repealed. The “white slavery” trade would evaporate. Open competition would also improve the overall quality of the merchandise and would keep prices from artificially escalating. Better girls in better settings would command better prices. The only problem I see here is that those fine urban chariots known as “pimpmobiles” would disappear from the streets.
Legalized prostitution could be subjected to a luxury tax. You want to reduce the federal deficit, you say? Just institute a 10% Federal Excise Tax on personal services that entail orgasms. Our legislators could buy the geriatric vote by promising to apply part of the increased collections toward a personal income tax credit for purchases of erectile dysfunction drugs by men of Medicare age.
Prostitution is a victimless crime. Who gets hurt? No one. The feminists would argue that women are being degraded and exploited by their participation in the profession, but feminists would say the same thing about secretaries. They’re just jealous—a good, high priced call girl earns more money in a night than most radical feminists make in a month. They cruise first class to the Greek Isles on their vacations while the feminists are flying coach to the N.O.W. convention in St. Louis. Who cares what self-righteous feminists say, anyway? It’s time that we turned the tables and started getting some of what we men want for a change. In fact, the women who would work in legal whorehouses would do so by their own choice and they would be well compensated for their work. There would be lots of high paying employment opportunities for women. Next time you hear a feminist friend throwing that crap around about a woman’s right to choose, turn the tables by hitting her between the eyes with a man’s right to choose.
We men can have both life and choice. So, let’s get over this time wasting abortion crap and devote our energy to legalizing cathouses in each and every state in the union.
A man’s right to choose. I love it.
(The Nittany Turkey, a long established male Chauvinist pig, awaits your flames and reprisals to this lighthearted spoof.)