Sexual Repression in America
by Hunter Williams

It is amazing how few people are willing to discuss the subject of prostitution. Society maintains (or pretends) that it's unreasonable to acknowledge sexual needs beyond a certain point and it also refuses to look at how prostitution could address many of these needs. Given these tendencies, one observes an anemic responses to discussions on prostitution in the public discourse and the media is shy about the subject -- unless some politician's career can be ruined with a "sex scandal" involving "hookers."

The mainstream "thinking" goes like this: if one wants sex outside the marriage, something's wrong. You don't love your wife. Maybe your marriage is on the "outs" -- as a pretty, but brainless, reporter on CNBC stated in reference to Eliot Spitzer's "disloyalty" and use of hookers. At the very least you need to see a counselor so you can get help -- a pundit advised -- help to make you realize that you're an "aberrated, pervert" -- another pundit observed. You need to get back on the path dictated by society, but don't worry, if you have a sexual "problem," we have pharmaceutical drugs to handle your depression (depression over the lack of sexual diversity in your life) , AND the pharmaseuticles are (sometimes even) cheaper than prostitutes.

The message: if you like sexual diversity or desire women/men too much, there is something wrong with you. The government, your wife, the shrink and the church need to come in and get you straightened out. Forget a million years of biological evolution, or 200,000 years in promiscuous, foraging societies -- in this "modern" society (one replete with endless wars, pain and destruction), you are expected to conform to the politically-correct sexual standards of the day. This is the "standard model" of human sexuality, the "right" and "wrong" -- and what's "right" is drug-assisted remedies for sexual repression or divorce. What's "wrong" is non-drug therapy such as sexual diversity through prostitution. Thus, everyone claims to like sex but no one wants to avail it unless it's a last resort.

So let's take a look at this taboo subject of prostitution and explore why the rational person may consider "decriminalizing" it. The elements of the argument centering around the following arguments:

  • Government doesn't have the authority to criminalize prostitution in the first place;

  • Politics could be conducted without interference of private sexual matters;

  • Sex crimes would be reduced or eliminated;

  • Pornography, drug use and STDs would be reduced or eliminated.

  • New career opportunities in social services would emerge;

  • Sexual freedom and diversity would increase;

  • Male-female relations would improve;

  • The institution of marriage would benefit;

  • Society would be happier, healthier and more productive in general.


    Does government have the authority to criminalize prostitution in the first place? It didn't have the authority to criminalize the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol back in the 1920s until a Constitutional amendment was adopted. By similar reasoning, does the government have authority to criminalize prostitution -- arguably but another drug like alcohol?

    On the basis of common law, prostitution is a matter of private property and contracts -- human arrangements that usually harm no one, but indeed may provide great benefits to society. Thus, if government is not supposed to interfere with private property and contracts in which neither party is harmed, how can it criminalize prostitution? Does the state have the authority to dictate citizens' sexual behaviors or what they do in privacy? No it does not. prostitution "laws" are ultimately unconstitutional because they invade the citizens 4th Amendment right to privacy and attempt to regulate the most private of property of all -- ones body.


    If prostitution were decriminalized, politics could be conducted without interfering in the private lives of citizens and this could be beneficial. After all, while society was obsessed with Bill Clinton's private blow jobs, Osama bin Laden was publicly preparing to fly jets into New York skyscrapers. Private matters have little or no place in the public arena as they are usually a distraction, if not a full liability to the national good.

    Unfortunately, we live in a society that seems to enjoy being distracted. Pain and pleasure are exploited as "distractions" or "entertainment" while sex, the highest natural physical pleasure the universe offers, is made taboo by society or used as a political weapon. You're, in essence, impeachable by society if you want to give or receive pleasure on a sexual level or if you attempt to enjoy it under conditions not authorized and strictly monitored by rules mandated by:

    A. the church;
    B. the government;
    C. the insecure female network;
    D. the cowed male society.

    BUT, it's okay for public officials of the same society to start endless wars, run up trillions of dollars in debt and/or kill/maim thousands of innocent people across the planet. And if one puts a penis in the wrong place, the entire society comes to a grinding halt. WHY it comes to a grinding halt is the part of the story never told.

    The Case of Eliot Spitzer:

    As in the case of Eliot Spitzer, sex has been used as a political weapon. Prostitution, which the government has no legitimate jurisdiction over, has been used to "justify" the character assassination of Spitzer. After Spitzer went public with his deeds, the mainstream media ran hundreds of hours of "news" on the story but failed to mention the actual reason Spitzer was attacked. The reason was because, three weeks prior, Spitzer wrote an article for the Washington Post entitled: "PREDATORY LENDERS' PARTNER IN CRIME: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States from Stepping in to Help Consumers." The article ran on 14 February 2008 and by 14 March 2008, Spitzer had resigned as Governor of New York. Sex was used as a political weapon through the vehicle of "illegal" prostitution to neutralize his political activism against the bankers. For full details, watch a documentary entitled: THE ASSASSINATION OF NEW YORK GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER" at http://alt.com:80/watch?v=GMo7T9t0Gzk The documentary claims that the Bush Administration hired FBI agents to investigate Spitzer in order to find "dirt" on him so they could have him removed from office.(1)

    Even though Eliot Spitzer should NOT have seen prostitutes -- because they are illegal under current law -- the greater picture is this: prostitution has been kept illegal for more than "moral" reasons.

    Eliot Spitzer is no different than any other male. No matter how inhibited one is about admitting it, almost all men and women like sex. Unfortunately, after 3 - 7 years, many couples get board with their sexual partner -- no matter how attractive such partner -- and seek (a little) diversity. It's politically incorrect, however, to admit that boredom is a factor in a relationship. Society considers one a "cheater" or dysfunctional if they get "board" with a sexual partner, especially when they overtly or covertly look elsewhere. Many even deny the boredom factor. If a couple is married for ten years and has sex three times a week, they have had sex with each other 1,560 times. Like working on an assembly line, most people get board with the same activity. Maybe couples desire diversity from time to time -- but, since society has outlawed diversity by outlawing prostitution -- the couple gets divorced instead. Then the family is crashed and the kids have no dad and another dysfunctional family is now added to society's bill. All this because dad wasn't allowed to go out and have sex with a disease-free, government-certified sex worker. It can thus be said the institution of marriage contributes to the destruction of the family unit -- possibly as much as it provides for the family unit.


    Sex-Slave Industry:

    A number of TV cable channels have been airing a documentary that reveals a disturbing and tragic side to prostitution and the desperate women who have become victims. It appears that many prostitutes have been forced into slavery as a way to purchase entry into the U.S. Illegal prostitution makes all this possible. If prostitution were legal and "sex workers" were licensed, sub-rosa operations like those reported this would not be able to "compete" as there would be no market. Don't believe it? Well, where do you purchase your liquor? A supermarket, convenience store, state-store -- or do you go out in the forest and search for a ring of bootleggers? If alcohol were illegal, you would be seeking out bootleggers, but since it's legal you most likely go to a liquor store. The same would be true of prostitution were it decriminalized.

    There is no doubt that prostitution, as practiced today, DOES provoke trafficking and criminal behavior -- but it's a government-enabled crime. Because sex slaves are forced into an illegal activity, they are more likely to tolerate abuse and keep quiet as they have no redress under law for grievances. If prostitution were legal, such mistreatment could be reported and abusers brought to justice or run out of the market. Unfortunately, if this were the society we lived in, TV networks would have less material to exploit as there as there would be few, if any, "sex-slave crimes."


    In a country where prostitution is illegal, pent-up sexual frustrations, coupled with drugs, often lead to rape. Thus, it could be said that the outlawing of prostitution abets rape.

    One of the countries where rape is most facilitated by illegal prostitution is the U.S. dating scene. It's no surprise that young, testosterone-charged males sometimes do "whatever it takes to get laid." Thus, drugs like alcohol, ecstasy and Rohypnol are more popular than ever in puritanical America. In countries where prostitution is illegal, "date rape" is thus business as usual. And most rape, of whatever nature, goes unreported. Were prostitution legal, the incidence of rape would decline or drop to zero.

    Sexual Addiction:

    Although sexual addiction itself is not a crime, sex-addiction can lead to crime. But what about someone who just has a strong libido? Is this person a sex addict? In current society labeling someone "a sex-addict" works in nicely with idea that "pleasure is bad," "prostitution leads to no good" and "you need more pharmaceutical drugs to handle your problem buddy." But while the watch-dog media focuses on the "sex addict," society allows "violence addicts" to run wild. Killing is thus all over TV, the movies, video games and the Internet. But since killing features PAIN, not PLEASURE, current, anti-prostitution "society" tolerates it. While endless attacks are made on people who like giving and receiving pleasure -- killing, violence, pain and ritualized state murder of "capital punishment" run rampant.


    This societal perversion is easily witnessed in the hundreds of billions of dollars allocated each year to the design, manufacture, marketing, transportation and deployment of all manner of weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain on individuals and society imaginable. Given the magnitude of this moral paroxysm, one has to suspect that this behavior is a physiognomy of the mass repressed sexual frustration of puritanical society, institutionalized as "security" and "just war". Whereas prostitution, which provides actual pleasure and relief from pain, is relegated to the "fringes" of society and shunned by the mainstream. It appears that what society has labeled as "fringe" are actually healthy, normal individuals whereas the "mainstream" who oppose prostitution are the violence-addicted psychopaths.

    Yes, we live in a sick and paranoid society, where up is down and down is up. A society that relishes the delivery of pain while suppressing the delivery of pleasure, pleasure it even labels as "sexual addiction." Then, such a society's "experts" have the gall to declare that the sex addict is addicted to sex because he's trying to cover up pain. Ironically, this may be true, as such a person may be attempting to get away from the violent, pain-addicted society that condones killing and state-sanctioned murder in all its forms.


    Sex in the Media:

    If prostitution were decriminalized, pornography (not that it's necessarily bad) in the movies and media would be reduced or eliminated. Even though the media (through "experts" like a Dr. Drew) denounces pornography as sexual "aberration" and "perversion," it does everything in its power to covertly and continuously exploit the "sex sells" angle. As a result, the hypocritical media exploits, if not fuels, almost every sexual problem society has.

    In a MATURE society, one that recognized and provided for all human needs -- including the need for recreational sex -- the marginal utility of sex as a marketing tool would decrease. People that can hire a legal, safe, sex worker any time they wish, are not as easily titillated into buying mainstream media-products they may not need. They also may not so easily respond to the use of sex as a political weapon in suppressing and promoting candidates desired by the Establishment. Given this, you can bet one of the major reasons prostitution is still illegal is because, were it legal, the media and the government could not prostitute themselves as easily or effectively.

    Sexual Frustration:

    The vast rise in the popularity of pornography -- having been made universally available by the mainstream media first through movies, then through VHS tapes, DVDs and the Internet -- is strong evidence of the serious sexual repression in America and is a strong argument against monogamy. If looking at porn makes one a "pervert," then most Americans are perverts because most Americans look at porn. Of course, if one considers sex to be a natural, human desire, only the people in A through D of above are perverts.

    So which is worse, looking at pictures and movies of people having sex, or having sex with prostitutes? Obviously people look at pictures of other people having sex because they wish they could be having sex but the government makes such sex unavailable. Thus a picture or video becomes a substitute for actual human interaction. How healthy is this for society over the long-term? A society where humans could easily connect up with other humans for pleasure, comfort and bonding, has become a society where less and less human interaction is actually taking place. It could thus be said that the rise in porn is inversely proportionate to sexual frustration in society.

    Drug Use:

    People use drugs because they want to get rid of unwanted frustrations. No area of human endeavor seems to provoke more unwanted emotions, abilities, pains and frustrations than the male-female relationship as related to sex, marriage and children. In short, this is an arena where humans need to interact as often as possible, if for no other reason than to gain experience on how to get along. Computer screens, porn and "social networks" don't supply this vital experience. Thus, a woman can no longer stand the emotion of loneliness so she smokes some grass. A young man is scared to talk to a beautiful woman he has a crush on, so he drinks some alcohol. A group of men and women don't feel very warm or friendly so they pop some Ecstasy. A wife gets a headache when her husband wants sex, so she swallows some more aspirin. In short: people often use drugs to remedy their sex-related frustrations. If prostitution were decriminalized, much drug use might be reduced because people would not have to rely on drugs in order to obtain sex. They would also gain experience interacting with fellow humans rather than relying increasingly on porn, food-substitutes and/or abstinence. How many men and women over-eat in order to mitigate their sexual frustrations? We get a hint at the answer to this question by observing how many men and women in the current society are over weight or obese.

    Sexually Transmitted Diseases:

    If prostitution were decriminalized, sexually-transmitted diseases would be reduced or eliminated. Incorporated into the medical industry, prostitutes could be monitored and certified as disease-free in order to get an maintain a license. Further, sex-workers could help keep an eye on their clients and give them help if they encountered a sexually-transmitted disease. Obviously, if people weren't covertly sleeping around with anyone and everyone, especially in inebriated states, the chances of catching STDs would be radically reduced.


    People are Sexually Different:

    If prostitution were decriminalized, new career opportunities in the social services would emerge. This is true because everybody in the world has different sexual needs, desires and kinks, yet many have no idea how to fulfill these needs, desires and/or kinks. Such needs/desires/kinks could be likened to vectors, a tool used in physics to study the direction and magnitude of forces. A "sex vector" would be a term that could describe the needs/wants/kinks one has in the area of sexual drive. Such a vector might have three main elements.

    A. Target range;
    B. Intensity;
    C. Duration.

    It should be obvious that everybody has a slightly different sex vector. Common interactions in society, nor marriage, necessarily align two people with similar or appropriate sex vectors. Some people desire a target range of just one person at a time. Some want multiple partners in time and sometimes in space (a threesome or ménage à trois for instance). Some like "normal" sex while others like risqué or "alternative" sex like BDSM. Thus people vary in sexual intensity. Lastly, some like relationships that last a lifetime, whereas others only want one-night-stands. It's easy to see, if one tries to match people with varying sex vectors they will inevitably experience a sex-based "cognitive dissonance" that may very well lead to breakup, divorce, drug-abuse, physical abuse and/or crime. This should be obvious, yet society does not address, or even recognize, "sexual vectors."

    Thus, the marriage agreement continues to be a "one size fits all" contract that's impossible for many or most to honor. And "dating protocol" is narrowly defined usually to what women want and will accept. The male desires are usually irrelevant. Is it any wonder men thus constantly force themselves on women out of sexual frustration, thus generating a vicious cycle of ever stricter "dating protocols." In such an environment, is it any wonder relationships don't last more than three months and marriages not more than 5 years? In short, people are invalidated and punished for their natural sex vectors.

    Human Sex Therapists:

    Were prostitution legalized and regulated, a number of things could happen that might improve the alignment of individuals' sex vectors. Decriminalized would also vastly improve the sex therapy industry and remove stigma associated with the profession. Already sex therapists, known as "sex surrogates," are available, but this industry could do much more to benefit society and the institution of marriage were prostitution decriminalized.

    To start, bastardized words like "prostitute," "hooker," "slut," "call girl," and even "sex worker," could be retired and replaced by words like:

    Class I Sex Specialist
    Class II Sex Specialist
    Class IIalt Sex Specialist
    Class III Sex Specialist

    A Class I Sex Specialist might provide basic non-intercourse sex, such as oral sex. $25 per hour.

    A Class II Sex Specialist might provide standard missionary-style sex. $50 per hour.

    A "Classed Alt" might provide whatever the customer wanted. $100 per hour. A Class III Sex Specialist might be qualified to provide any of the above services PLUS high-level sex counseling. $150 - $1,000 per hour.

    A Class III Specialist could be a truly revolutionary profession. Such practitioners could be highly-trained men and women that, not only provided high-level consulting on relationships -- as any psychiatrist, psychologist or scientologist might do -- but with actual, hands-on sex services. Why sit around and TALK about sex when a highly-trained specialist can DEMONSTRATE sex? Things like "happiness through better sexual relations" or "new techniques to perk up a marriage" might be part of the demonstrations and counseling.

    Thus, the profession of prostitution could be elevated to a profession that helped human beings deal with, and appreciate, their sexuality more fully. Society would thus bring sex completely out of the closet and provide help to people in the directions of:

    o Better communication between partners;
    o Sex without assistance from alcohol or drugs;
    o Marriage repair;
    o Safer sex;
    o Techniques for the inept or inexperienced;
    o How to respect and treat a women;
    o How to respect and treat a man.

    Institutionalizing prostitution and integrating it with the mental and physical health industries could not only open the door for many new careers, it could revolutionize these industries as well as the institution of marriage itself.

    Prostitution is not going to go away, so why not integrate it into society. Sex is an important part of life and marriage is an important framework for those who want to have and nurture children. All of these areas should be better-defined and integrated, not only for society, but its individuals. Right now laws and social customs are skewed in the direction of an antiquated society and too many individuals are suffering. Evidence of this is in various statistics:

    o high divorce rate;
    o growth of the porn industry;
    o drug use;
    o unwanted pregnancies;
    o out-of-wedlock "families";
    o one-spouse "families";
    o rape;
    o abortion;
    o inadequate birth control;
    o sex-related stress and mental illness.

    People that have happy, healthy sexual relations in all the abundance they wish, and with the number of partners that are right for them, probably would not be interested in porn or strip clubs. Why LOOK at a woman/man when a man/woman can HAVE one any time s/he wants?

    Also, consider this: the drug industry is currently aided by a dysfunctional, sexual society and an illegal, unregulated prostitution industry. As previously discussed, men and women often/usually drink alcohol, and/or use drugs, because they are inhibited about talking to each other, especially about (subjects leading up to) sex or marriage. If people could hire trained and certified Sex Specialists, they could not only receive clean sex on-demand, but extensive and practical counseling on their sexual inhibitions, addictions and relationship problems.

    AI Sex Therapists:

    In the near or distant future, there is no reason Artificially Intelligent robots (AI) could not be programmed to counsel people on sex, align sex vectors and perform tasks. Since people are generally private about this subject, what would be better than an application one could download and run on themselves in the privacy of their own home?

    Perhaps information accumulated from Class III Specialists could eventually be programmed into AI expert systems and/or what might be called "SexBots." All this awaits the society that wishes to progress to new sexual and communication horizons.

    Lifestyle of a Prostitute:

    Of course, no one would advocate "their daughter participating in the prostitution industry" as it stands today, but legalized and regulated, it would be an entirely different matter. Those that are truly abhorred by the current prostitution industry should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating the very conditions they disdain. Since they very well know prostitution has been with Humankind for millennia, it shouldn't take too much brainpower for them to realize it will be with Humankind for the next millennia. Thus it's far wiser, and less vicious, to simply acknowledge this fact of life and institutionalize prostitution.

    And many, especially husbands and wives agree: prostitution should be legalized and institutionalized. It should even allied with the institution of marriage. That said, if prostitution were legal and reasonably regulated, wouldn't even YOU much rather have your wife occasion a prostitute than the married guy next doors or some stud she met at the shopping market who may or may not have STDs? Also, there is the issue of love. If a spouse has extramarital sex, which kind of sex is the lesser of the "evils" -- sex commingled with new-found love OR sex purely for recreational reasons? Ask any woman or man and I think you will find that they would much rather have his or her spouse "cheating" just for sex and NOT because they had fallen in love with someone else. Sex is just sex and, unless the marital love is already superficial, is no reason to divorce, especially if children are involved. But when one spouse goes out looking for just sex and then ends up falling in love, 'we have a problem Houston.' Legalized prostitution remedies this because it reduces the likelihood that marital partners will find and develop love interests outside the marriage thus dooming their children to fuller victimization of the broken-family, insane asylum our society has now become. Way to go puritanical wives, preachers, lawyers, legislators and cowed guys!

    This may also not be popular to say: but many prostitutes live quite glamorous and prosperous life-styles -- at least that's the report from the Heidi Fleisch story and several other shows describing the life style of sex workers in Saudi Arabia and high-end clubs (such as the one Spitzer allegedly occasioned). If hygiene, free-will, protection under law and free-market enterprise were elements of prostitution, one would see that this industry wouldn't be much different from the physical therapy industry that exists today. Further, a modern sex industry would have unprecedented career opportunities not only for women, but men, who enjoy giving pleasure more than inflicting pain.


    Human beings like diversity and nowhere is this truer than in the field of human sexuality. Just because one is deeply in love with their spouse does not mean they can or will shed all previous biologically-determined drives. Society would like to THINK that they CAN and WILL, but let's be realistic: this isn't always going to happen. It isn't even USUALLY going to happen. From Clinton to Spitzer to Weiner -- and the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of others in between -- human nature is human nature and to weaponize it for political expediency is perverted. Sex is natural. The perverts in A - D are unnatural, if not a substantial cause of society's current problems. Even Charles Manson would probably not have killed anyone if therapy via prostitution were legal.

    When you suppress sex with a law or religion, you get drug addiction and crime. When you have drug addiction and crime you have a less productive society. When you have a less productive society, it can take a hundred years to accomplish what could have taken ten. Again, because prostitution is illegal and presents a significant liability to wealthy men and men in political office, the most brilliant members of society often don't serve. The most brilliant members of society often don't marry or create the future generation either. In such a society as we have today, the only people that run for political office, or marry are, "normal" people, i.e., those with small, "controllable" sexual appetites. People that would rather conform to the irrational dictates of society than suffer the embarrassment of "getting caught" doing what nature has designed them to do for 2 million years. Why should such run for office, marry or procreate if the "social contract" means giving up sexual freedom and curtailing one of nature's highest expressions of creativity.

    And endless studies HAVE shown that the most creative individuals in society have some of the highest sexual appetites. But current society punishes this. Legalized prostitution could change this sad state of affairs. It could free up public and corporate creativity and preserve family unity while bringing sexually-transmitted diseases under control. These things would be better for society and its morale than the current policies of the insane, a-sexual perverts that now reign at the mob-demands of A through D. People need to come out of the closet on the issue of prostitution and sexual freedom. The 1960's generation started the Sexual Revolution but it seems the current generations are floundering with it.

    Complexities of Sexual Relationships:

    Hey, let's face it, SEX is one of the most messed up, aberrated things in this world. Not only that, it's extremely commingled with LOVE. Some say you can't have great sex without great love. Others say the greatest sex they ever had was with a complete stranger. Some say you must be married before having sex. Others say you should experience multiple partners before committing to marriage. Yet others believe you should not have sex with anyone other than your marriage partner once married. And finally others say you should have many marital or non-marital partners. Obviously -- in the matter of SEX -- one size does not fit all.

    So, given the diversity of sizes and opinions, cultural mores and traditions, at least one thing seems clear: no one should really have the right to judge any other human being on their sexual practices. Aren't those that do judge really sexual bigots no better than racists or anti-Semites? What should be done about the mess they create so everyone is happy, sexually-fulfilled, safe, and loved?

    Breaking Down the Sex Problem:

    No one knows what the solutions to the hard problems of sexual repression in our civilization are yet, but such solutions have to be in the direction of better implementation of all or part of the following factors:

    A. Sexual training;
    B. Internet dating services;
    C. The marriage vow;
    D. Legalize prostitution;
    E. Removing the sex drive;
    F. AI SexBots;
    G. Sexual VR.

    The above list could be further broken into two distinct areas:

    (1) Improving HUMAN sexual relations;
    (2) Creating ALTERNATIVES to human sexual relations.

    If (1) were to be wildly successful, then (2) would probably not be very necessary or popular. Many have an understandable preference for number (1), because in a way it's kind of a cop-out to resort to number (2). Doesn't resorting to number (2) mean we have failed as sexual beings? So this brings one to points A - C as the factors to address before resorting to factors D - G.

    Sexual Training:

    If public or private education better-addressed the area of sex, perhaps there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies, better matched partners and partners that could deliver better sexual fulfillment to each other. People generally train for everything in life except marriage and sexual relations. Maybe sex education should be extended and more-fully institutionalized and we would have fewer problems in this area. Perhaps universal protocols could be created so men and women could interact more effectively and without the need to get drunk or drugged up.

    Internet Dating Services:

    Internet dating services seem to be a boon for women and a nightmare for men. Since men are far more likely to sign up, the girl-boy ratio is usually grossly skewed in favor of the women. Thus, most Internet dating services are little more than shooting ranges for women -- the males being the targets.

    So here's a suggestion: Internet dating services should focus completely and exclusively on physical compatibility before attempting to match other attributes, such as personality and interests. This could be done by asking both the males and females on the dating service to screen each others photos and select members that are physically acceptable to them. Then the union of the two sets would be generated and each male and female that selected each other would be alerted and encouraged to talk. By doing this, each male and female would already know that they were physically acceptable to the other, thus, they would be less inhibited, more comfortable and more "themselves." Getting the "Does she or he like the way I look question out of the way" should open the door for couples to more quickly discover whether they are compatible in personality and interests -- paving the way to love, if that's the direction they wanted to go.

    The Marriage Vow:

    Perhaps it is the marriage vow itself that needs to be reevaluated. Perhaps this is the root of the problem that causes the lies often told between couples because the reality they desire is different or deemed morally or socially unacceptable. More on legalized prostitution and "The Marriage Vow" below.

    Legalized Prostitution:

    If prostitution were decriminalized it would remedy many of the problems society is facing today. Many people that see divorce as their only remedy for sexual diversity, sexual boredom or sexual "infidelity" would no longer need to be so drastic. More marriages would endure because they could be based on love rather than the inhibition or enforcement of sex. Inhibited sex and enforced sex are what society is all about today, especially within the institution of marriage.

    Whenever one inhibits or suppresses some human urge, they tend to get more of it. So abused is this easily-observable phenomenon, it seems as if someone, or SOME lobby, actually wants MORE disease, MORE divorce proceedings, MORE porn, MORE drugs, MORE crime, MORE unhappiness and pain -- otherwise wouldn't prostitution be legal by now?

    Just as illegal drugs drive profits up and safety down, illegal prostitution does the same thing. Not only that, it actually destroys the relationship between men and women because it seeks to vilify those who have higher sexual desires by calling such women "sluts" and such men "pigs," among a host of other colorful names. What such bigots don't seem to understand is all people are not born equal when it comes to libido.

    Removing the Sex Drive:

    If a male or female is in a marriage and they are bored with the sex but they do not want to "cheat" or divorce, perhaps because they are in love or they don't want to make it worse for the kids, what are their choices? Well one or both could take pills that literally kill their desire to cheat while leaving them "in love" and "married." Many people, especially women, might find this bit of technology very useful. Perhaps they could even slip such pill into their spouse's orange juice or shoot them in the ass while they're asleep. Hey, this would be more socially-acceptable than being a "cheating pig" wouldn't it?

    Instead of removing the sex-drive, perhaps one day you will be able to take an "orgasm pill" and instantly satisfy all sexual desires. Would such a pill be considered a "prostitute" and outlawed? It's giving you sex for money. Genetic engineering will inevitably touch on these areas, so the human race that lives in the U.S. better start thinking about growing up someday.

    If society can't get its act together to remedy and provide for the sexual desires of all of its members at the human level, then perhaps non-human AI SexBots are the only solution. Of course, if the male ever succeeds in building one of these, women may have to kiss sex, marriage and babies goodbye. This alone might be the strongest argument for the institutionalization of prostitution.

    The basic reason nature has made sex pleasurable is to lure humans, especially the caviler male, into the process of reproduction. Nature "knows" no creature, male OR female, would go through the insane, painful and horrifying birth process (even repeatedly) unless some sort of carrot-and-stick mechanism were HEAVILY present. But, as practiced today, both birth and sexual pleasure are a joke. Women should have the option of birth outside the womb and men should have the option of sexual diversity outside the marriage. Both men and women should have the option of separating SEX, BIRTH and LOVE completely OR integrating them in a traditional manner. Society -- and/or the church and government -- has no right enforcing or inhibiting any of this. AI SexBots would probably only be acceptable in a society that had been able to fully separate the three phases of reproduction and get the government and religion out of the picture.

    If AI SexBots are ever created, will they be considered prostitutes? Probably by some, the Luddites and Religionists to start. Will AI SexBots be in completion with women? Probably. How will macho males feel when their woman opts for the latest model Sexbot rather than them? Males better do some maturing as well.

    Sexual Virtual Reality:

    Full-emersion sexual virtual reality (SVR) may be one of the reasons for the Fermi paradox. I mean if everyone can simply plug into a computer and get all the sexual diversity s/he wants, why go outside ever, let alone explore the universe? On the other hand, maybe such SVR would cause humans to become bord with sex all together. Although we will cover this later, this gets into a fundamental question: is unlimited sex -- whether by SVR, SexBots, pill, prostitution or willing partners (married or unmarried) -- addictive? Many may feel that if prostitution were legalized, people would get addicted to sex. If full-emersion SVR were reality, would many get addicted to it as well? I would say, yes, there will always be a certain percentage of the population that WILL get addicted to this -- or anything. The real question is this: in a sexually-liberated civilization where sex flows without inhibition or judgment, will that society be happier and ultimately advance in a more productive and orderly way? The only way I can imagine answering this question is to try it or set up test states where A - G are permitted and see what happens.

    One could consider sex with robots or in VR to be homosexual because, after all, one isn't doing it in a normal way with a human partner of the opposite sex. Because we now have over 6 billion humans on the planet, one would suspect that nature intended NORMAL sex to be between a male and a female, mostly for the purpose of procreation. Since two males or two females can not procreate together, they cannot, by definition, engage in NORMAL sex. Accordingly, when they DO opt to do so, such sex can not be, again by definition, NORMAL sex. Thus homosexuality is not a "normal" sexual state of nature. The idea that nature would make sex pleasurable just so two non-reproducing entities could get together and copulate makes little strategic sense. Thus, homosexuality must be mostly a DEVELOPED sexual preference. Nevertheless, in some cases, people seem to align with the male-female spectrum in ways that do not correlate with their outward physical appearances. One may have no argument with either of these two ways of arriving at the so-called gay lifestyle, but the desperate attempt to "legitimize" this sexual preference by characterizing it as a "normal" practice does society a disservice. It is a disservice because it takes advantage of the propensity of the youth to experiment in order to remedy ignorance. This then causes confusion of role-models and creates undue pressure and competition for the heterosexual relationship so vital to maintaining a healthy general population.


    Dynamics of Sexual Power:

    In current society women allocate sex and men allocate money. This means women hold the power in sexual relations and men hold the power in financial relationships. The proof of this the fact that men usually earn more than women and there are far more men in the lists of the wealthy as reported by various magazines. The fact that society expects men to initiate dates and courting exercises is merely an illusion.

    It's an observable fact that women tend to withhold sex more often than men because sexual relationships tend to create greater potential liabilities for them than men. After all, men can't get pregnant. Thus the sex supplied by women always lags the sex men are more than willing to supply, especially for attractive women. This imbalance in the supply and demand of sex, in essence, makes sex a seller's market for women. This is why men are "forced" to be more aggressive about obtaining sex than women. Each man is in competition with all other men for the few women in society willing to have sex at any given time. This also accounts for the fact that, by far, more men rape women than women rape men. Sex is also in greater demand by men than it is for women, because woman can obtain sex any time they want, day or night. Human nature is such that people don't want what they can have, and obsess over what they can't have. This is another strong argument for legalizing prostitution, because, if sex were made as available to men as it is to women, men would no longer obsess over it and the dynamics between men and women would be far more balanced.

    Even though women do not demand sex nearly as much as men -- for the above reasons -- they DO enjoy it as much as men once they have selected and landed an acceptable mate. If men and women supplied and demanded sex on equal terms, it would be neither a "buyers" market or a "sellers" market, but a much healthier market replete with far LESS lies, fraud, gamesmanship, heartbreak and force. Sex would thus be its own quid pro quo.

    Again, because women have made the commodity of sex rare, they have artificially driven up the demand for sex by men. This also drives up the cost of sex -- whether competition for attractive women or skilled prostitutes -- a cost set by women, consciously or subconsciously. This is why women are able to allocate sex in the market and hold the trump card in almost all relationships that involve sex.

    When legalized prostitution enters the picture, it dramatically changes the dynamics of sexual power between men and women. Legalized prostitution would ultimately decrease the bargaining power women currently enjoy over men in the sexual marketplace because it would, in effect, break their monopoly over human to human sex. Of course, SexBots, SVR, homosexuality, and even porn, also serve to break this monopoly, however one might seriously question the value to society for each such competitor. In a pro-prostitution society, men would have a healthy choice: accept a woman's unreasonable or exploitive dating policy or see a licensed prostitute. To the degree women cannot withhold or offer sex as an incentive for affection or marriage, they lose power in the game of love. Innately, all women understand this thus you can be bet this a key reason prostitution is not legal.

    Keeping prostitution illegal as a means of retaining sexual power over the male is short-sighted however. It's short-sighted because legalizing prostitution would remove the sexual expediency from developing relationships hence opening the door to healthier, more spiritual bonds of love. Men would have no reason to be overly aggressive with women. Women would more often find themselves in relationships because the man truly admired them for their personality, abilities and attributes other than just their genital organs. Both men and women would be under much less pressure to "put out" or "put on" and could be more themselves, thus contributing to a healthier overall society.

    Women as Sexual Objects:

    One of the main arguments you frequently hear against prostitution is that it makes women into "sexual objects." In a way this is true. After all, when a man hires a woman just for sex, he's really not seeking her personality. He's interested in her PHYSICAL attributes and what they can do for him on a physical level. In other words, sex by prostitute is basically a PHYSICAL, object-based MECHANICAL activity. And what's wrong with this? Women think, if men see them as physical, mechanical OBJECTS, that that's bad. It's actually not, at least from a man's perspective. Since men tend to be into physics and mechanics more than women, they see a woman's body as the ultimate in mechanical perfection. This female OBJECT to them is thus NOT something they look DOWN on, as women seem to imagine, it's something they look UP to, something they admire and respect. They admire the beauty, the performance, the efficiency of the female body as a mechanical object, much the same as they admire any expensive, well-designed automobile, computer system, skyscraper or yacht. Women have it all wrong when they chastise men for seeing them as "objects." Admiration of "objects" is one of the ways men show their highest appreciation AND respect to a woman and her closest personal possession, her body.

    Those who argue that prostitution reduces women to mere "objects" are actually making an argument that makes little sense to a man. He LIKES objects. He loves objects. Where's the disrespect? And the fact that this beautiful SEXUAL object may ALSO have a beautiful, intelligent and sexy MIND, SPIRIT and PERSONALITY is icing on the cake for a man. But the PHYSICAL attribute ALWAYS comes first. As a man and a woman approach each other for the very first time, what do they see? Do they see each other's minds? Do they see each others personalities, each other's giving and humble spirits? Do they see each other's money or knowledge, accomplishments, friends or thoughts? Of course not. They see each other's physical appearances. They are, at first, OBJECTS to each other and nothing more. So the man is just as much of an "object" to the woman as the woman is an "object" to the man. This is the reality. So there is nothing wrong with being seen as an OBJECT -- until proven otherwise. Then you as an object can be admired and even loved after your other properties have had a chance to emerge. Then, AFTER the heat of OBJECTive interaction between a man and a woman has cooled down, nothing is in the way to prevent them from getting to know each other as friends, to know each others minds, spirits, personalities -- without the interference of sexual distraction. So, why do women insist that men must get to know their intangible attributes before they can know the most obvious of tangible attributes? The very sequence in which male-female relationships develop seem to be backwards. Current society demands: get to know each other first -- be "friends" -- and then have sex. Perhaps the opposite sequence would be more practical: have sex and THEN get to know each other as friends. I am willing to bet a man and a woman are more likely to be BETTER friends and better marriage partners -- if they still want to be together -- after sex. And for men and women sex is often the deal-breaker. If a man or a woman doesn't like the sex, why get married? There are 3,000,000,000 OTHER potential relationships available. But society asks a man and a woman to invest lots of valuable time with each other before they even know if they're sexually compatible. It's as if society is hoping the man will accept the woman even if she's a lousy sex partner because he's already invested so much time (and money) in the dating process. Is this really fair? It's almost like the man is supposed to be lured in by the woman's looks (but he can't touch) mentally PROCESSED by the woman (some would say indoctrinated) and then locked into the complexities of this bond called a "relationship" or "love." After he is well-secured into a socially acceptably and "morally" compromising position, only THEN can he test out the compatibility of the "relationship" on the all-important sexual level. This is all a bunch of baloney. Since sex is LESS complex than a human relationship, shouldn't a man and women be permitted to get to know each other on a physical level before they move onto more complex levels? Does society really provide for this as well as it could, or does it have things backwards?

    For the above reasons, the argument that legalized prostitution will make women into "objects" is frivolous. If men and women simply acknowledge their passions for each other on a physical level and admire and appreciate this for the simplicity it is, there is no reason the act of "being a sexual object" can't lead to "being friends" or "being a happily married couple." In a sane and open society where the sexual impulse of men and women is respected instead of vilified, relationships could bloom in all the glory nature intended.

    Platonic Relationships:

    But today, even so-called "platonic" relationships are sometimes suppressed or viewed as "cheating." This is ridiculous, but the current sexually immature society is so paranoid, in its desperation, it tolerates the curtailing of rare male-female relationships even when such relationships are not based on sex. Why rare? Because it's rare that a man and a woman can "just be friends" until AFTER they have had sex or until they establish an alternate common interest with each other. No mater how much women and men will deny this statement, it's a true statement. Nature has DESIGNED men and women to be SEXUALLY attracted to each other ... and not let up easily. You can't just SHUT this design parameter off. Of course, shutting this off is exactly what society demands, but is this realistic? The only other way the natural sexual attraction between a man and a woman can be "shut off" is if BOTH are NOT attracted to each other in the first place. Even if only one is attracted, and the other is not, the sexual tension will not be "shut off." Time and willpower can, and does, "shut off" this sexual tension, even though women and society often demand instant platonic relationships. But again, the only way such materialize is over time as the tension shuts off or if the parties are not attracted in the first place. Having sex can speed up the process. It's a quick way to get it over with and open the door to friendships and platonic relationships. If you don't like this idea, consider: were prostitution legal, it could defuse tension like this without you even being involved. This would be good for society and good for women, because a man that's not horny is much more likely to want to "just be friends."


    The Marriage Vow:

    If prostitution were decriminalized, it would help the institution of marriage. The marriage agreement we have today, the vow, is basically the same vow that was taken when people only lived only 35 or 45 years. If you get married at age 15, which is what our ancestors used to do, and you die at age 40, you were married for 25 years. Today people get married around age 25 and live until around age 79 - 85, thus they are expected to be with the same partner for as much as 60 years -- almost two and a half times as long. This may not be realistic, especially as technology enhances health, longevity, sexuality and the kids have moved out. So, marital partners stuck in this "trap" have basically three choices:

    1. Stick out the marriage for 60 years and be totally faithful;

    2. Have an extramarital affair once and a while or often;

    3. Get divorced to have endless single sex OR get married again and start 1, 2, 3 all over.

    When partners do 1, this is very commendable, however it can also be extremely unhealthy, if not cause mental illness or cancer. Also, after both partners have, in essence, gone through their respective menopause, they will often grow closer together and possibly fall even deeper in love. This is an ideal scene, the idea that two people can share a lifetime together and there is nothing wrong with it. Also, such a lifestyle and existence should be little affected by SexBots or prostitutes. I would imagine that were one member of such a loving couple to say to the other: "Honey, I'm going out to have some recreational sex with my new hooker, I'll be back by dinnertime." The other loving partner would retort: "Okay honey, have a good time and don't forget to pick up a quart of milk on the way home." The idea that sex could unset or place even a dent in such a relationship is laughable. Nevertheless, some people claim to love each other on the highest spiritual level, yet they allow the MEAT below their belts to break up the marriage. Pretty superficial, if not pathetic love -- especially when such "love" is a role-model for the kids.

    When partners do 2 -- have an extramarital affair once and a while or often because they have entered into an archaic marital vow -- they deteriorate the marriage if and when caught. The usual screaming adversely affects children because it enters chaos into the household. Getting divorced is even worse on children however, yet many couples see this as a "solution" to the screaming. Clearly, if either spouse were able to occasion a prostitute they would be able to obtain a little sexual diversity without destroying the marriage. This diversity, if socially accepted through the institutionalization of prostitution, would make obsolete the need to "cheat" with other married or single people. When a marital partner has extra marital sex with other married people, he or she not only jeopardizes his or her own marriage, but the other marriage that's become involved as well. Further, single people are often disappointed and/or irritated when they date a person only to find that their date is married. Prostitution would remove most, if not all, of these problems and simplify society's relationships. This would ultimately strengthen marriages and/or reduce the likelihood of divorce.

    Also, people that have had extramarital affairs often report that they re-unite with increased sexual vigor, having had the opportunity to express, and satisfy, their desire (or ego) for sexual diversity.

    Lastly, if a person doesn't feel "trapped" in a marriage, they are more likely to want to BE in that marriage. For many men there is nothing more entrapping than the thought that they are going to be having sex with the exact same woman for the next 60 years. This thought alone keeps many marriages from happening and causes many children to be born out of wedlock.

    Marriage: a Contract of Adhesion:

    In short, it's unrealistic to expect a person to keep an impossible agreement. If one was asked to join an organization for one billion years, and then realized that this is a long time, thus an impossible agreement to keep, would they be a "cheater" if they broke the agreement? In law, these types of agreements are known as contracts of adhesion. The marriage contract is a contract of adhesion.

    Ideally people vow to be "faithful" because the vow is supposed to establish a basis of trust for the union -- trust being an essential element of a healthy relationship. This is well and fine, however try and be truthful by telling a woman that you may screw other women from time to time during the marriage. She will probably not marry you because her ego won't allow it. She will then "justify" her decision by the "trust" thing and the "society expects" thing. But this misses the entire point. The point is: the words "cheating," and "trust" do not apply in contracts of adhesion because one shouldn't have to have trust in an arrangement that one is forced into through asymmetrical bargaining power.

    Actually, when one gets married, they sign no specific paper, or make no specific oral agreement that precludes them from extra marital sex. It's all an IMPLIED vow in the institution of marriage. Thus how can there be any "trust."

    To some women having sex with a prostitute doesn't bother them. They see it as different from having sex with the next door neighbor.

    In current society however, if a person wants variation in his sex life, he can get a divorce (BEFORE he has sex with someone else). Getting divorced because someone wants to have sex with another human is more damaging than the sex.

    Also a person can ask his spouse if they can change the agreement (vow). But one never made a specific agreement. It's an agreement implied by society. Society FORCES ITS idea of the agreement on the unsuspecting parties. Adhesion is an agreement entered into when the bargaining power of the parties is vastly different. On the one hand you have the MASS of society with its agenda against the INDIVIDUAL with his millions of years of biology. It is a contract of adhesion because the individual must take it or leave it, 99% of the time. Further, the biology of the individual almost assures the agreement will never be able to be fulfilled because both men and women are highly promiscuous and not monogamous by nature. Thus almost all performance delivered after the first 3 - 7 years will be under duress.

    Asking a spouse to change the agreement, before or after marriage, IS a possible thing that can be done, but usually even ASKING to enter such a "provision" into what's supposed to be a "loving, spiritual, relationship forged and blessed by the "Deity" himself will usually destroy the relationship before it even begins, or up set it if it's already in progress. It's like asking a woman to sign a pre-nup and you're NOT Donald Trump. Ever tried it? Most won't agree to a change in the vow, so it's back to divorce. And that's the problem. The woman is relying on the society's contract of adhesion to maintain her power over men. Even "God" himself is on her side. Unfortunately, when there is a divorce only the children suffer, if any. Thus, when there are children, you get overly complex family structures and lack of proper parental supervision. In a sentence: you get Columbines and VA Tech shootings.

    A society that allows prostitution will ultimately have to answer the question of whether it's permissible under the current marriage vow, or if the marriage vow negotiated by GOD and SOCIETY between a man and a woman, needs to be modified. At least if prostitution is legal, the Spitzers of the world will only be reprimanded on one count, that of being a "cheater."


    The media loves to use this word, "cheating," possibly because everyone IN the media does it so much. But let's take a closer look at this word and see what it really means. Basically if you make an agreement and then break that agreement, or try to weasel out of the agreement, you're a cheater. As applied to marriage: if you take the standard marriage vow, you are expected to forego sex with all other women/men so long as you are married, such term expected to be for the rest of your life or your spouse's life. As we have seen above, the current marriage vow made and demanded by people who may be together for over 60 years may be totally unrealistic, if not suppressive. Thus is it really cheating when one breaks an unrealistic or unfair agreement? And why is the marriage agreement unfair? It's unfair because it's basically an agreement of adhesion. Unless a man agrees, vows, to be sexually exclusive to a woman, the woman will most likely not enter into the marriage agreement and society will look upon that man as an immoral pariah. Yes, society has it's plan for young, dumb men to lock them down, get them working in the corporate slaver and saddled them with babies. But what about freedom? What if men aren't monogamous by nature, and they aren't? Is this fair to them, force them into a contract that they can't possible adhere to and then brand them "cheaters" when they do what a million years of evolution dictates they do: desire to participate in sexual diversity. What do you call people, a media or a society that does this? Certainly there is a word much worse than the word "cheater."


    The Irony of Success:

    If prostitution were decriminalized, society would be happier, healthier and more productive in general. In today's political and "moral" world, those who rise to the highest levels are expected to demonstrate a "higher standard" to society. But what does THAT mean? It means, if you become successful in society, you must force yourself to no longer like or want sex with anyone other than that person authorized by A through D above.

    Thus those in the current society that rise to the highest ranks, especially in government and business -- are the ones most bared from enjoying arguably the most pleasurable thing in the universe, sexual variety. Again, they must be held to a "higher standard." So perverted is today's society it actually uses that term when justifying the repression of natural biological functions. All married men are expected to stick with that one partner "forever" otherwise they are labeled a "cheater" or unloyal" and thus fair game for their political enemies who will use this "indiscretion" as a weapon to get them removed from power.

    Yes, the marriage vow is an impossible vow engineered by society and governments to "solve" problems that can't be solved in any other way. In days past, kings and dictators, with the help of the church, established the institution of marriage ostensibly to suppress sexually transmitted diseases and to provide a vehicle for the rearing of children. But the real reason they established the institution of marriage was so excess males could be removed from society. With fewer males running around the kingdom fornicating with the women, the royal harem could be larger and more disease-free. Thus marriage, complete with the idea that your wife was your property, was born. This is the "standard model" of post-agrarian society.

    But today the institution of marriage serves another purpose, keeping successful men under control. The rationale is this: if a successful man can't be loyal to his wife, how can he be loyal to the taxpayers, or the stockholders? This hilarious state of affairs is probably one of the main reasons you don't see prostitution decriminalized. Sex "criminals" are needed by the state and its political system. Were society to decriminalize prostitution, how could overly-conservative Republicans, insecure wives, fundamentalist clergy or people with low sex-drives get people out of office?

    Sexually Creative People Stay Away:

    The next layer of irony is this: due to the above liabilities, no one of vast creativity or intelligence, who happens to also like sex, will ever run for political office. Why should they? They are subject to the Sex Weapon even if their million years of biological evolution, and a glass of wine, win them over for one evening of "indiscretion." Better to remain one of the anonymous masses and get to enjoy the sexual diversity of potentially three billion women on the planet without such liabilities. And all my rich friends understand this well. I have several that are married and several that are single. Some of the married ones are miserable because, even with all their millions, they are expected to have sex with only one (1) woman forever and they are terrified of getting caught if they "transgress." Some of them have probably already considered what Scott Peterson did, but were smart enough to realize that they probably would not get away with it if they couldn't even get away with a one-night stand. So they try to numb out their sexual desires with alcohol, religion and/or pharmaceuticals.

    On the other hand, my unmarried millionaire friends travel the planet looking for the most exotic women biology can create, whether prostitutes or not. As single guys, society permits them to do this. They feel they can "rape and pillage" all the women they want so long as they only occasion such women and prostitutes in countries or states where such is legal or with women that LIKE being "raped and pillaged." And such "submissives" ARE out there, just as such "Doms" are out there as well. Rich guys often have unlimited money to purchase regular medical exams and they can easily afford prostitutes that cost even thousands of dollars an hour or night. These prostitutes are 100% guaranteed to be disease-free, because they report to physicians for checkups prior to any sex. That's one reason they are so expensive (but often cheaper, in the long-run, than wives, according to ardent bachelors). Also, these prostitutes are usually far more sexually-proficient than most any wife "enjoyed" by the masses, or their married friends. Such wives demand "love" in the relationship to augment the sex they could never provide (unless highly trained at Hooker High). Thus, many marriages are just pretend love affairs or sexual conveniences until it's time to get divorced again for some more sexual diversity. Hypocrites in society that can't acknowledge that men and woman are NOT monogamous practice what's known as "serial monogamy." And, of course, society is okay with this -- even though the practice drives the divorce up to 50% and the kids are running around wild with guns.

    Of course trained, exotic prostitutes, like the ones Spitzer allegedly retained, are unavailable to the average American male. They are way too expensive. But ironically they are also unavailable to men of great wealth and social achievement as well -- unless they want to risk ending up like Spitzer or Clinton. Pretty funny: you climb to the top of the mountain and you may have anything BUT sex as a reward for your achievements. And one wonders what the Fermi Paradox is all about. Obviously the aliens haven't intervened because they wouldn't want to upset the pathetic soap opera on this world for anything.

    Love vs. Sex:

    Here's a typical statement you hear: "Sex without love is merely mating with genitals, but sex with loving intimacy is mating with the soul. As human beings, our sex drives are controlled by more than just hormonal cycling and the phases of the moon."

    Undoubtedly this statement was written by a women. The inference is that sex without love is somehow degraded. This kind of thinking is very shallow. Of course the sexual experience can be greatly enhanced through love, but remember, much of the feeling of "love" is simply chemicals in the brain. After all, humans were "DESIGNED" to "be in love" so they would copulate and rear the next generation. The only question one should answer is this: how can love, sex and kids happen so EVERYONE is happy -- not just one sex or the other? Maybe people would be happier if sex were not in the picture at all, then love could flourish completely.

    Summary of Benefits to Society:

    Society and individuals have some way to go, but new thinking and new technology could be brought to bear on the male-female relationship to improve conditions and bring a higher ethical/moral standard to human civilization.

    Institutionalizing prostitution and integrating it with the health care and physical therapy industries could bring all of us out of the dark ages and possibly revitalize the institution of marriage. Marriage is the partnership that provides security for the production and launching of children.


    If agreements, expressed or implied by marriage vows can't be kept, and this results in one out of every two marriages ending in divorce with 50% of those divorces caused by sex-related problems -- obviously it's time society, the church, men-women and the government work out a new male-female deal.

    Wouldn't it be great if people had long, happy marriages because they loved each other and were perfectly matched sexually? Wouldn't it be great if people didn't have to feel trapped in marriage or resort to divorce as a means of obtaining sexual freedom? Wouldn't it also be great if all of the creative members of society could serve in government and industry without fear that their sex lives will someday be used as political weapons, as in the case of Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton?

    In the end, I am willing to bet that decriminalization of prostitution would provide more benefits to society than liabilities. Institutionalized prostitution would also drastically reduce drug abuse, hence all crime, most of which occurs under the influence of alcohol or drugs, legal and illegal.

    The initial years of legalization of prostitution would probably be somewhat chaotic because many pent-up desires would suddenly be dramatized. But, just as the vast number of people who occasionally consume alcohol are, on the whole, responsible drinkers, those that choose to occasionally use the services of legal, safe, trained prostitutes would also be responsible. Sure, there will always be sexual bigots that can't accept the idea of TOTAL sexual freedom and diversity. Unfortunately, these people will cling to an archaic marriage agreement and champion taboos because they have not yet allowed themselves the freedom to experience all of the wonders the Universe has to offer. And sex, as we know it here on Earth, may be the only place in the cosmos such a magnificent phenomenon and experience exists. Don't let scared little beings disabuse you of this greater reality.

    Originated:12 March 2008
    Revised: 17 March 2008
    Revised: 18 March 2008
    Revised: 20 March 2008
    Revised: 21 March 2008
    Revised: 22 March 2008
    Revised: 23 March 2008
    Revised: 24 March 2008
    Revised: 01 April 2008
    Revised & Supplemented: 09 August 2013
    Revised: 13 January 2016
    Revised & Supplemented: 18 January 2016

    (1) See "Why Spitzer was Bushwhacked" by F. William Engdahl at http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/bushwacked.htm

    If you agree with at least 51% of this article, please forward it to your mailing list. The mainstream media may or may not address this subject, thus it's up to responsible citizens to disseminate important issues
    so that a healthy public discourse can be pursued.

    Don't forget to click on the below link to watch FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution
    so you will have a better understanding of what fuels many problems under study by the Jaeger Research Institute.

    Permission is hereby granted to forward, quote, excerpt or publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context and the source URL is cited. For articles written by James Jaeger, you are welcome to credit yourself as author, provided you at least get this information out. If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, go to http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/mission.htm however, before you do, please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at http://home.att.net/~cyberfilms/Journel2.html.

    Source URL: http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org

    | Home Menu | Mission | Balanced News | Movie Publications |
    | Jaeger Research Institute |