Nightline goes to the Mustang Ranch
Book Guy
I write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/p…
Interesting little story. Not a negative treatment, though (of course) sanitized. Couple of cuties. They're claiming that with tough economic times come lower prices and more women involved in "the service industry" but I personally haven't seen what the Mustang Ranch claims. Yet.
Interesting little story. Not a negative treatment, though (of course) sanitized. Couple of cuties. They're claiming that with tough economic times come lower prices and more women involved in "the service industry" but I personally haven't seen what the Mustang Ranch claims. Yet.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
11 comments
In fact, generally, I find the typical right wing of American politics to have more issues with supposed "moral" infractions, than does the typical left wing. I generally support the Republican platform on the way they want to arrange taxes, smaller government and less regulation, and privatization of many industries. But I don't vote for them because they keep telling me where to worship and whom to fuck. If they'd get the "social conservatism" out of their bedclothes, I'd be happy being a conservative.
But how did this video have ANYTHING to do with the "typical liberal" of American politics? It didn't. You brought that up, not because there was evidence of it. Rather, you brought it up because (A) you think of Nightline as a typically liberal show, and (B) this show had disapproval in it. By poorly considered, roughly associative thought, you decided the COINCIDENCE of a typically liberal show, with disapproval, must mean that liberalism led to the disapproval. It didn't. This type of disapproval (a behavior being disapproved of because it's not socially conservative, and therefore is not "moral") is generally the hallmark of the American RIGHT, not left.
You jumped to conclusions and failed to connect evidence to them. Sorry, that's knee-jerk, and makes the (otherwise generally laudable) Republican platform all the more weak.
Get over yourself and watch and address what the CONTENT IS, not your ASSUMPTION of what the content would be.
Actually your first three paragraphs made a lot of sense to me as far as logical analysis is concerned. But you and I and Dudester all know that logic is not a big consideration in what we write on this board.
Notice any similarity between "anything outside of marriage, in anything other than the missionary position and get any pleasure out of it" and "enjoy any sexual activity outside of a committed relationship." Yep, the anti-sex liberals are okay with other sexual positions (but not missionary because the man on top is a form of patriachial oppression). That's the only difference between these anti-sex morons, not their political parties. The political parties are what separate you two guys, and what prevent the moderate masses from overcoming the special interests throughout the West.
There are no palatable extremes unless you're an extremist.
But I couched it in terms that attempted to be more inclusive, since I (like him) often disagree with the left wing. I tried to indicate why I would like parts of the right wing, though I then returned to my initial point, that the right wing generally is more negative about supposed moral offenses than the left wing is.
So, in the long run, I'd agree with a few of you, that both sides have their holier-than-thou moments, and those are the moments when I disagree with both of them. But I'm still wrankled by the connection, between any Nightline disapproval of prostitution, on the one hand, and its weakness as a typical liberal mouthpiece, on the other. The two don't go hand-in-glove at all. It's the right wing that badmouths places like the Mustang Ranch.
Maybe I just got started on a silly rant. But my personal situation and context, in which ANYTHING wrong-headed is derided as "dumb liberal," and in which people with a good deal of power over me, including bosses and employers and city councilmen, tell me whom to fuck and where and when to worship. Were I not under seige by the American right for my many supposed moral offenses, I might not mind so much someone idiotically offhandedly associating an anti-prostitution position with something "typically liberal."
But because of my context, I have to say: that's an idiotic association to make. Generally, it's the right who tell ya whom to fuck. Not the left. And "liberal" isn't a bad word. Not any worse than "conservative" or "feminist" or "environmentalist." They're all terms that we wrongly use, today, to indicate not just, "Has certain political views," but rather, "Has certain political views and is dogmatic about it." Ideologues and others with dogmatic thinking are the problem. And it's a mark of dogmatic ideology to use the term "liberal" to mean "stupid liberal ideologue" (or, in this case, to mean the even stupider, "typically liberal ideologue because he disapproves of prostitution just like all the other liberals and not like the conservatives").
I'm just on an anti-religion kick lately, and have always been on an anti-Fundamentalist-Christian kick. That's where my aggro lies.
The Nightline show wasn't very negative about prostitution in that typical manner that I'm sure we're all familiar with. It had a few slanted comments, but mostly it was about the changing economics. More girls applying to work at the ranch.