Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Masturbation and Christianity

As Mark Twain points out in his illustrious tome Letters from the Earth:

Protestant parents still keep the Bible handy in the house, so that the children can study it, and one of the first things the little boys and girls learn is to be righteous and holy and not piss against the wall. They study those passages more than they study any others, except those which incite to masturbation. Those they hunt out and study in private. No Protestant child exists who does not masturbate. That art is the earliest accomplishment his religion confers upon him. Also the earliest her religion confers upon her.
For Roman Catholics, an especially popular passage from the Bible is Genesis 38:

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.

Roman Catholics regard this passage as proof that God strenuously opposes both masturbation, and what they call unnatural intercourse between a man and a woman, and even go so far as to assert that "the Lord took Onan's life because Onan engaged in contraceptive sex."  Which is arrant nonsense. The issue here wasn't the wasted sperm--it was that Onan was specifically supposed to impregnate his brother's wife, and Onan didn't want his brother to have any heirs. If God really did have an issue with men spilling their seed willy-nilly, then God would have said so elsewhere in the Bible, especially in the Torah, and most particularly somewhere in Leviticus.  Yet, this is really all that the Catholics can cum up with.  Leviticus 15 says

...if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.
A little bit of wanking is okay.  You just have to wash your clothes and take a bath after.

Now, many Christians will be ready to quote Matthew 5:
whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
In the days before the internet, a lot of masturbation took place without pornography.  Or, perhaps, with some stimulation from the National Geographic magazine. I know that I used to look forward to each month's issue.

Technically, though, it only counts as "adultery" if the woman is married. Still, a strict interpretation of Matthew 5 would apply if you're out girl-watching at the beach. And, a woman has to doll herself up, and cause men to lust after her in their hearts, if she is to have any chance of breeding. At least in the Western World, we have generally moved away from arranged marriages. In Saudi Arabia, where men and women are strictly separated, there is much less opportunity to look at and lust after women. Granted, the Unification Church does arranged marriages, and no lusting occurs until after the nuptials.  And, some Christian women who are quite homely do find husbands:

I'll bet that President Trump keeps his hands off of this pussy. Still, per Matthew 19:

If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Why deny a man his pornography, if you aren't going to sell everything that you have and give the money to the poor?

Another popular passage for Christians comes from is 1 Corinthians 7:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband...Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Paul was an asexual, for whom the preferred state was to remain celibate. But, "it is better to marry than to burn." The purpose of having a wife is to avoid fornication, not masturbation. The wife, then, is to serve as a cum dumpster for men who have a hard time with celibacy. And, married couples are supposed to keep up the coitus continuously, only taking a mutually-agreed-upon break for fasting and prayer. Suppose the husband wants some, but the wife is indisposed? To prevent fornication, the wife might make another orifice available, or otherwise assist her husband with administering an ejaculation.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

The Christian Concept of Jesus' Begottenness is Silly

The definitions of the word "Beget", from the Oxford Dictionary:

  1. (especially of a man) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction. ‘they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen’
  2. Cause; bring about. ‘killings beget more killings’
  3. Origin: Old English begietan ‘get, obtain by effort’ (see be-, get).
In Matthew 1, we have so-and-so begat so-and-so, which seems clearly consistent with Definition 1 (i.e., Abraham copulated with Sarah, and the result was Isaac). Similarly, Genesis 5 shows a lot of copulating and begetting going on. So much so that, in Genesis 6, the "Sons of God" wanted to joint the fun.
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose...There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
The sons of God were "coming in unto" the daughters of men, and doing some begetting (Definition 1, above). How did the "sons of God" come into being? They were most likely the result of some jiggery-pokery between Yahweh (then known as El) and his consort Asherah.

Which means that Jesus is not God's "only begotten son."  God has some immortal half-brothers, presumably living in Heaven, and no longer seeking to have good times with our hot young blossoms here on Earth.

If we look at the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
What the heck is that supposed to mean? It continues that Jesus
came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
Wouldn't this be the point at which Jesus was begotten--when the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary got together?

Now the Orthodox Presbyterians proclaim:

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
"Eternally begotten?" Once the sperm cell hits the egg, begetting ends.

Monday, July 2, 2018

Canadian Border Wall Needed Instead of Soo Locks

Republicans in Michigan want to spend a billion dollars to upgrade the Poe Lock, which allows ships to pass between Lake Superior and Lake Huron, and which is in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

This is an absolute waste. If God had intended for ships to go back and forth between Lake Superior and Lake Huron, then God would have certainly made the two lakes the same level, instead of making Lake Superior 21 feet higher than Lake Huron.

The United States really has no money for such nonsense.  If we're really going to upgrade this lock, then Canada needs to pay for. And, for a big, beautiful border wall, to keep Canadians from entering the United States.  If Canada doesn't want to pay, then we'll just fill in the lock, and Canada will have to pay just for the wall.

The wall will stretch across Lake Superior and Lake Huron, and be strong enough not only to prevent boats from crossing into the United States from Canada, but also to stop Canadians from getting into the United States by walking across the ice during the winter.

Canadians are absolutely horrible people. They are murderers. They are rapists. Absolutely none of them are good people, and possess no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The glorious President Trump said that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has "done a terrible job so far", and that he "should be ashamed to call himself the president of Canada."  I would also be ashamed to call myself President of Canada.

When Canadians come to the United States, they infest our towns and cities.  They bring crime. They bring drugs. They bring diseases.  They bring pornography.  They breed like cockroaches.  They are nothing but vermin.  Any Canadians in the United States ought to be shot on sight.

Canadians had the temerity to loot and plunder our capitol city, ravage and rape our citizens, and burn down the White House. The Canadians also captured Mackinac Island, during prime tourist season, and scalped our refined and well bred tourists, leaving them to bleed to death on the steps of the Grand Hotel.
Even the dastardly Mexicans never attempted anything as dastardly as this.  Canada also gave asylum to our fugitive slaves.  If we'd had a big, beautiful wall along our Canadian border, then these atrocities would never have happened.  Believe me.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is dishonest and very weak, and who constantly makes false statements, said

Canadians, we're polite. We're reasonable. But we also will not be pushed around.

What an upstart!  Canada: you will be pushed around, and you will enjoy it! Your Prime Minister has a very pretty face. It would be too bad if something really awful happened to it.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Jesus and Eunuchs

One of the most fascinating quotes attributed to Jesus Christ is Matthew 19:12 rendered thus in the original Koine Greek:
εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως, καὶ εἰσὶν
εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.  δυνάμενος χωρεῖν, χωρείτω. 
The direct English translation is:
There are indeed eunuchs [who] from the womb of their mother were born thus, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who made eunuchs of themselves the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens.  The [one] being able to receive [it], let him receive [it]. 
 One of Christianity's great mysteries is: who exactly were the eunuchs who had made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens?  Some English translations have gone so far as to change the meaning of "eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs" to people who have chosen not to marry, or who have elected to practice celibacy, for the "Kingdom of Heaven's sake" (also changing the plural "Heavens" to the singular "Heaven").  Roman Catholics are especially big on celibacy, and, the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition states, in a footnote to the above passage:
Jesus means that a life of continence is to be chosen only by those who are called to it for the sake of the kingdom of God.
 For Roman Catholics, it is very important for priests, nuns, etc. to abstain from sexual acts and never to marry, in spite of 1 Timothy 3:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?).
Some people may argue that, in light of the context of the conversation that preceded Jesus' declaration about eunuchs,
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
His disciples say unto him, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry."
that Jesus was using the word "eunuch" as an euphemism for "choosing not to marry", or for "living a life of celibacy", rather than cutting off one's balls, for the sake of the Kingdom of God.  If in saying "eunuchs who made eunuchs of themselves" Jesus had really meant people who chose not to marry, or who chose a "life of continence", then Jesus probably would not have used the word "eunuch", which not only has a wholly different meaning, but which also may induce castration anxiety among men who hear about it.  Moreover, the sentiment "if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is good not to marry"  seems consistent with modern MGTOW. The disciples aren't saying that "it is not good to marry" for "the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens", but rather to avoid the risks associated with marriage.

In rabbinical literature,
The Rabbis distinguished two kinds of eunuchs: (1) "seris adam," a eunuch made by man; (2) "seris ḥamma," a eunuch made by the sun; that is to say, one born incapable of reproduction, so that the sun never shone on him as on a man. According to the Shulḥan 'Aruk, "seris ḥamma" means "castrated in consequence of fever."...A seris adam is not allowed to enter into the assembly of the Lord (Yeb. 70a), as it is written (Deut. xxiii. 2 [A.V. 1]): "He who is wounded in the stones . . . shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord"; that is to say, shall not marry an Israelitish wife. Removal of or defect in either or both of the testicles disqualifies for admission to the assembly of the Lord.
A eunuch of either kind is not to be judged as a rebellious son (see Deut. xxi. 18) because he is not considered as a man (Yeb. 80b). As every Israelite is commanded to perpetuate his race, it is a sin liable to severe punishment to cause one to become a eunuch (Shab. 111a)...
The seris hamma and seris adam match the first two types of eunuchs described by Jesus.  Clearly neither celibacy, nor making oneself a eunuch "for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens", derived from Judaism. Per Deuteronomy 23:
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
By the time of Isaiah, Jewish attitudes towards eunuchs seem to have softened:
...neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Christian churches did come to welcome both castrated and uncircumcised men.  Eunuchs, the castrati, performed in Christian choirs from ancient times until the beginning of the 20th century.

In the ancient Middle East, in ancient Greece, and in the ancient Roman Empire, eunuchs were fairly common, and, in some jurisdictions, held influential government positions (for example, Pothinus, a eunuch who served as regent for Pharoah Ptolemy XII of Egypt).  In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus reports that Herod the Great had
...certain eunuchs...and on account of their beauty was very fond of them; and the care of bringing him drink was entrusted to one of them; of bringing him his supper, to another; and of putting him to bed, to the third, who also managed the principal affairs of the government;
Regarding the use of the word "eunuch" as a euphemism for a man who "chooses a life of continence" or who chooses not to marry: many eunuchs were not celibate at all, as illustrated in some of Martial's famous epigrams:
Pannychus, you wonder why your Caelia has so many eunuchs? Caelia wants to be fucked, not to give birth.
The Roman historian Suetonius tells us that the emperor Nero
tried to turn the boy Sporus into a woman by castration, wed him in the usual manner, including bridal veil and dowry, took him off to the Palace attended by a vast crowd, and proceeded to treat him as his wife.
The lack of chastity among some eunuchs suggests that Jesus was not using the word "eunuch" as an euphemism for men who chose a "life of continence" for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens.  Rather, Jesus must have been talking about actual eunuchs, who had made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens, the Galli:
priests, often temple attendants or wandering mendicants, of the ancient Asiatic deity, the Great Mother of the Gods, known as Cybele, or Agdistis, in Greek and Latin literature. The Galli were eunuchs attired in female garb, with long hair fragrant with ointment. Together with priestesses, they celebrated the Great Mother’s rites with wild music and dancing until their frenzied excitement found its culmination in self-scourging, self-laceration, or exhaustion. Self-emasculation by candidates for the priesthood sometimes accompanied this delirium of worship.
The first Galli arrived in Rome when the Senate officially adopted Cybele as a state goddess in 204 BC. ...The Galli castrated themselves during an ecstatic celebration called the Dies sanguinis, or "Day of Blood", which took place on March 24. At the same time they put on women's costume, mostly yellow in color, and a sort of turban, together with pendants and ear-rings. They also wore their hair long, and bleached, and wore heavy make-up. They wandered around with followers, begging for charity, in return for which they were prepared to tell fortunes. On the day of mourning for Attis they ran around wildly and disheveled. They performed dances to the music of pipes and tambourines, and, in an ecstasy, flogged themselves until they bled.
In the Philippines, some Christians continue the ancient tradition of self-flagellation during Holy Week.

From the Hellenistic period, some Jews acquired an enthusiasm for things Gentile, as described in 1 Maccabees:
At that time there appeared in the land of Israel a group of traitorous Jews who had no regard for the Law and who had a bad influence on many of our people. They said, "Let's come to terms with the Gentiles, for our refusal to associate with them has brought us nothing but trouble." This proposal appealed to many people, and some of them became so enthusiastic about it that they went to the king and received from him permission to follow Gentile customs. They built in Jerusalem a stadium like those in the Greek cities. They had surgery performed to hide their circumcision, abandoned the holy covenant, started associating with Gentiles, and did all sorts of other evil things.
The author of 1 Maccabees obviously disapproves, but there was increasing mixture and blending of cultures as empires expanded.  The Decapolis was a group of ten cities (including Beth-Shean in Judea), largely founded by Greeks during the Hellenistic period, and which flourished during the Roman empire.  Some of Jesus' followers came from the Decapolis.

Galilee, at the time of Jesus, was a heavily populated province with a great deal of diversity.  Jews of Judea tended to look down upon the Galileans, their language being an unpolished dialect of Syriac, with a mixture of other languages.  Predominantly Gentile cities in Galilee included Hippos-Sussita, Sepphoris and Tiberias. Archaeologists have discovered Greek and Roman temples and ancient Aphrodite figures in Hippos-Sussita.

Herod the Great, in addition to greatly expanding the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, had Pagan temples built throughout the region.  Given that the Romans had adopted Cybele as an official goddess, it is likely that some Galli worshipped in Cybele's temples in Judea or surrounding provinces. In light of their flamboyance, the Galli would have been very hard to miss.

Granted, ordinary celibacy was a feature of some ancient religions:
Celibacy was especially characteristic of priest-devotees of the Great Mother cults. The well-organized priesthood of the religion of Isis, for example, represented a serene sacerdotalism; sexual abstinence was an absolute requirement of those who celebrated her holy mysteries. In many other cults—e.g., Manichaeism, Gnosticism, and Hermeticism—an inner circle of worshipers was required to observe strict continence. The philosophical and religious ideals of celibacy in the Classical world strongly influenced subsequent practices of celibacy and monasticism in Christianity.
And, of course, among the Jews there were the Essenes, the majority of whom lived on the western shore of the Dead Sea (removed from where Jesus conducted most of his ministry, although small groups did live in Galilee and Judea), and about whom Josephus tells us
Whereas these men shun the pleasures as vice, they consider self-control and not succumbing to the passions virtue. And although there is among them a disdain for marriage, adopting the children of outsiders while they are still malleable enough for the lessons they regard them as family and instill in them their principles of character: without doing away with marriage or the succession resulting from it, they nevertheless protect themselves from the wanton ways of women, having been persuaded that none of them preserves her faithfulness to one man.
Regarding one of the orders of Essenes, Josephus writes
Though agreeing with the others about regimen and customs and legal matters, it has separated in its opinion about marriage. For they hold that those who do not marry cut off the greatest part of life, the succession, and more: if all were to think the same way, the line would very quickly die out. To be sure, testing the brides in a three-year interval, once they have been purified three times as a test of their being able to bear children, they take them in this manner; but they do not continue having intercourse with those who are pregnant, demonstrating that the need for marrying is not because of pleasure, but for children. Baths are taken by the women wrapping clothes around themselves, just as by the men in a waist-covering. Such are the customs of this order.
The Essenes seem generally to have eschewed the pleasures of coitus, but at least one order allowed for marriage for the sake of reproduction.  One hypothesis, put forward by advocates of chastity, is that Jesus meant Essenes as the "eunuchs who made eunuchs of themselves the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens."  Some have suggested that Jesus may have been an Essene himself.  However, the New Testament makes frequent reference to Jewish Pharisees and Sadducees, but makes no mention of the Essenes.

Regarding Jesus' words, we have two competing interpretations:
There are eunuchs who were born that way, eunuchs who were made eunuchs by other men, and men who cut off their balls for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens,
There are eunuchs who were born that way, eunuchs who were made eunuchs by other men, and men who choose a life of continence for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens.
Jesus indisputably begins by describing two ordinary types of eunuchs (starting with born eunuchs, and then proceeding to eunuchs who were made eunuchs by other men).  Such eunuchs might or might not have been religious.  Controversy ensues over the rhetorical climax towards which Jesus was building.  Was he talking about actual eunuchs who had emasculated themselves?  Or was he suddenly shifting gears and using the word "eunuchs" metaphorically for celibates?  It may suit the theological preferences of some Christians to interpret the words of Jesus Christ, "eunuchs who made eunuchs of themselves the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens", to mean not what he said, but rather to serve as a euphemism for celibates.  This interpretation fits the context poorly, and it is more likely that Jesus was referring to actual eunuchs--most likely the Galli of the official cult of Cybele. Eunuchs enjoyed a relatively high social status in the ancient world. There were eunuchs who served Herod the Great and other rulers. There were eunuch priests. Eunuch slaves were more expensive than ordinary slaves. Even angels were depicted as eunuchs. Simply practicing sexual abstinence would not have given one the same status as an eunuch.

There have been great men, such as Nikola Tesla and Isaac Newton, who did remain lifelong celibates.  They were very focused on their research, and did not have time to entangle themselves with women.  A quote attributed to Isaac Newton:
I consider my greatest accomplishment to be lifelong celibacy.
Even greater than inventing calculus?

Most Catholic priests probably aren't as intense as Nicola Tesla or Isaac Newton, and do take time to relax. Moreover, Tesla and Newton were scientists, and priests have a much more social role. The social role may render them vulnerable to temptations, as they interact with a wide variety of people, of whom some might tend to excite certain desires. Self-castration might help to ease some of the temptations.
He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Naughty, Naughty, Judge Roy Moore

Well, well, well. Another "Christian" politician, claiming to possess "Christian" values.

Judge Roy Moore, an acclaimed sexual predator of teen-aged girls, who considers homosexuality among consenting adults to be a grave sin that should be illegal.  I discussed the hypocrisy of such "Christians" in a prior blog post.  Mr. Moore describes homosexual behavior as a "crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one’s ability to describe it."  A Christian really should be more familiar with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, in particular the admonition:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Mr. Moore's response?

The Obama-Clinton Machine’s liberal media lapdogs just launched the most vicious and nasty round of attacks against me I’ve EVER faced! We are are in the midst of a spiritual battle with those who want to silence our message.The forces of evil will lie, cheat, steal –– even inflict physical harm –– if they believe it will silence and shut up Christian conservatives like you and me. I believe you and I have a duty to stand up and fight back against the forces of evil waging an all-out war on our conservative values! Our nation is at a crossroads right now — both spiritually and politically.Our children and grandchildren’s futures are on the line. So rest assured — I will NEVER GIVE UP the fight!

Now, now, Mr. Moore.   Christians do not "fight."  Once again, from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you..
 In Mr. Moore's defense, Alabama State Auditor Jim Ziegler stated that Mr. Moore is

as clean as a hound's tooth.  Take the Bible.  Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance.  Zacharia was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist.  Also, take Joseph and Mary.  Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter.  They became parents of Jesus.  There is nothing illegal or immoral here.  Maybe just a little bit unusual. 
Southern Baptists really don't know much about the Bible at all, do they?  The Bible does not state that "Zacharia was extremely old to marry Elizabeth."  Rather, per Luke 1

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.  And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they BOTH were now well stricken in years. ...But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John...

Very similar to the story of Abraham and Sarah.  The point being that neither Abraham nor Zachariah were out cruising for fresh young pussy.  Rather, their elderly post-menopausal wives miraculously gave them sons.  Mr. Ziegler's comparison of Mr. Moore to Joseph makes even less sense, as Christians universally believe Mary to have been a virgin, impregnated by the Holy Spirit, and that Joseph and Mary engaged in absolutely NO jiggery-pokery prior to their wedding.  Moreover, we have absolutely no idea what the age spread was between Mary and Joseph.  If a Biblical precedent is absolutely necessary, then I would refer Mr. Ziegler to the story of David and Abishag in 1 Kings:

Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat. Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat. So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
Regarding whether Mr. Moore did anything illegal, according to the Alabama Age of Consent Law:

13A-6-70: (c) A person is deemed incapable of consent if he is: (1) Less than 16 years old...

13A-6-67 : (a) A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree if: ...
(2) He, being 19 years old or older, subjects another person to sexual intercourse who is less than 16 years old, but more than 12 years old.

13A-6-62 (a) A person commits the crime of rape in the second degree if: ...
(1) Being 16 years old or older, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex less than 16 and more than 12 years old; provided, however, the actor is at least two years older than the member of the opposite sex.

13A-6-64 : (a) A person commits the crime of sodomy in the second degree if: ...
(1) He, being 16 years old or older, engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person less than 16 and more than 12 years old....

(b) As used in this section, sex act means sexual intercourse with any penetration, however slight; emission is not required.

(c) As used in this section, deviant sexual intercourse means any act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.
When Mr. Moore was a 32-year-old District Attorney, and Leigh Corfman was 14 years old,

...he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear...
While Mr. Moore was in the business of imprisoning men for far less than what he did with Miss Corfman, it does appear that Mr. Moore was within his legal rights.  There was no penetration, and there was no touching of sex organs with the mouth or anus.  Touching through the clothes kept the encounter technically legal in Alabama.  Mr. Moore is a smart man.  However, Mr. Moore did violate the Law by plying a teenaged girl with booze:

Gloria Thacker Deason says she was an 18-year-old cheerleader when Moore began taking her on dates that included bottles of Mateus Rosé wine. The legal drinking age in Alabama was 19. 
Naughty, naughty.  

Now, as to whether Mr. Moore did anything immoral, and, taking the Bible as the wellspring of all that is moral,  Mr. Moore states that he "doesn't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother."  That is a nice touch, certainly.  However, per 1 Corithians 6,
 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
The mothers, who granted Mr. Moore permission to date their daughters, are no better than ordinary procurers, and Mr. Moore is no better than a common whoremonger.  But, even God knows that some men are incapable of containing themselves, and provides the solution to Mr. Moore's lechery in 1 Corinthians 7:

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband...But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
 And, Mr. Moore did marry.  His wife, Kayla, was apparently still married to her first husband when Mr. Moore began dating her.  Per Alabama State Law:

A person commits adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is not his spouse and lives in cohabitation with that other person when he or that other person is married.
 Alabama's laws are quite liberal when it comes to adultery: you can fornicate a married woman, and it doesn't count as adultery, so long as you don't live in cohabitation with her.  But what does the Bible, which is the source of all Christian morality, say?  Matthew 5:

whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Oh, that damned Jesus with his infernal Sermon on the Mount. By marrying a divorced woman, Mr. Moore is guilty of adultery. Also, 1 Corinthians 7 again:
...unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband..
Oh, off to the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone with that miscreant. Per 1 Corinthians 6:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Saturday, February 28, 2015

Herman Cain Should Be Prosecuted Under the Mann Act

As mentioned in my immediately preceding post, the White-Slave Traffic Act (aka the Mann Act) has been putting men in prison for more than 100 years.  Since 1994, the law has read thus:

Transportation generally
Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
One fellow who should have been prosecuted under the White-Slave Traffic Act is former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.  Temeka Rachelle Lewis, who was sentenced to one year of probation for her role as a booking agent for the Emperor's Club prostitution ring, made the arrangements for Governor Spitzer (aka Client 9) to have a sexual encounter with Ashley Dupré (professionally known as "Kristen") on the day before Valentine's Day, 2008, for $4300.  From transcripts of wiretapped calls between Miss Lewis and Miss Dupré :

 ...At approximately 4:03 p.m., LEWIS received a call from "Kristen." During the call, "Kristen" said that she had heard the message, and that was fine. LEWIS and "Kristen" then discussed the time that "Kristen" would take the train from New York to Washington, D.C. LEWIS told "Kristen" that there was a 5:39 p.m. train that arrived at 9:00 p.m., and that "Kristen" would be taking the train out of Penn Station.
LEWIS confirmed that Client-9 would be paying for everything - train tickets, cab fare from the hotel and back, mini bar or room service, travel time, and hotel...
Very clearly Mr. Spitzer knew that he was transporting "Kristen" in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution.  It should have been an easy conviction. However, Michael J. Garcia, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced on 8 November, 2008, that he would not seek criminal charges Mr. Spitzer:
...ELIOT SPITZER has acknowledged to this Office that he was a client of, and made payments to, the Emperors Club VIP.  Our investigation has shown that on multiple occasions, Mr. SPITZER arranged for women to travel from one state to another state to engage in prostitution. After a thorough investigation, this Office has uncovered no evidence of misuse of public or campaign funds. In addition, we have determined that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges against Mr. SPITZER for any offense relating to the withdrawal of funds for, and his payments to, the Emperors Club VIP.

In light of the policy of the Department of Justice with respect to prostitution offenses and the longstanding practice of this Office, as well as Mr. SPITZER's acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, we have concluded that the public interest would not be further advanced by filing criminal charges in this matter.
"Insufficient evidence?"  "Longstanding practice of this Office?"  What a putz. Other Americans are routinely sentenced to death with a heck of a lot less evidence than that.  Mr. Garcia couldn't even be bothered to put Mr. Spitzer away for five years?  Possibly Mr. Spitzer's high-powered legal team succeeded in softening Mr. Garcia's heart.  Maybe Mr. Garcia thought that Mr. Spitzer was just too pretty, too popular, or too well connected to send to prison.  Or, as Mr. Spitzer had expertise in money-laundering, and quite a LOT of money at his disposal, a substantial bribe might have done the trick.  Or, perhaps Mr. Spitzer's high-powered legal team had some information that Mr. Garcia was also cavorting with prostitutes, and transporting them across state lines, and it would have been highly inconvenient for Mr. Garcia if such information had come to light.  We'll never know for sure.  All we'll ever know is that prisons were never built for the wealthy and influential.  To think that this fellow was not only proud to have made what he did a felony in New York,
I’m proud that we did sign that human-trafficking law, that was the right thing to do, it is important. It is something I believed in then, and believe in now.
but was both proud and delighted to have gotten away with it.
The decision was made based upon the standards set by the Department of Justice and made by the U.S. attorney’s office.  They looked at the office and dealt with me the way they dealt with everyone else in my situation.
Oh really?  Here is what Kristin Davis, who had procured prostitutes for Mr. Spitzer on various occasions, had to say:
I spent four months in Rikers Island from which I returned penniless, homeless, and forced to take sex offender classes for five months with pedophiles and perverts, while he returned to his wife in his 5th Ave. high rise without ever being fingerprinted, mug shot, remanded, or charged with a crime under the very law he signed.
A few years in a federal penitentiary, followed by a year of sex-offender classes with pedophiles and perverts, would have done Mr. Spitzer a world of good, and saved other women and girls from becoming his victims.  Assuming a statute of limitations of five years for Mann Act violations, Mr. Spitzer would now be safe from prosecution, assuming that he has behaved himself since then (which seems highly unlikely, given his apparent addiction).  Herman Cain, the colorful presidential candidate, still isn't out of the woods.

 Mr. Cain's candidacy was quite a hoot: the "9-9-9" Tax Plan (which came directly from the Sim City computer game, and which enchanted Republicans because of the prospects of raising taxes sharply for the poor while drastically cutting taxes for the rich);  his proposal to electrocute Mexicans;  his claim to be the half-brother of Charles and David Koch;

and, his charming recital of poetry from a children's Pokémon movie.

For a brief time, the Republicans allowed Mr. Cain to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination, so that they could advance the claim that Republicans weren't racists.

 Mr. Cain's campaign started falling apart when various White women stated that he had molested them sexually.  His campaign ended when Ginger White came forward, on Fox News, with the admission that she had served as Mr. Cain's concubine for the previous 13 years.

With that, Mr. Cain's candidacy was finished, and the Republican Party was done with him.  Mr. Cain couldn't even get any air time on Fox News.  He had to go to Wolf Blitzer on CNN to give his side of the story.

From the Fox News show:
...Miss White says she met Herman Cain in the late 90s in Louisville, Kentucky, when as president of the National Restaurant Association, he made a presentation. She was impressed. She says they shared drinks afterwards and he invited her back to his hotel room.

“’I’d like to see you again,’” White said Cain told her. “’You are beautiful to me, and I would love for us to continue this friendship.’”

She says in his hotel room, he pulled out a calendar and invited her to meet him in Palm Springs. She accepted, and she says the affair began....

...Ms. White says during the next 13 years, he would fly her to cities where he was speaking and he lavished her with gifts....
According to Georgia State Law:
2010 Georgia Code
§ 16-6-19 - Adultery

A married person commits the offense of adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.
Mr. Cain perpetrated the criminal offense of adultery--a misdemeanor in his home state of Georgia.  But, by bringing Miss White to other states for some adultery, Mr. Cain committed a felony offense under the White-Slave Traffic Act: "Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate commerce,...with intent that such individual engage in...any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years."  It doesn't matter whether the criminal offense was a misdemeanor in one's home state: once you bring a person to another state for some illegal sexual activity, it becomes a federal felony.

Moreover, Mr. Cain brought Miss White to Florida, where The Law states:
798.01 Living in open adultery.—Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.

798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.—If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
The laws seem odd, given Florida's status as a major tourist destination, and the penchant of certain tourists to indulge in lewd and lascivious behavior whilst on vacation in the state.  Still, laws must be obeyed, and transgressors punished.  Otherwise, what would be the point of having any laws at all?  Writing a bunch of laws, and only enforcing the ones that certain government officials want to enforce, is an uncivilized, uncouth, and half-assed way of proceeding.  Either enforce all laws equally, or don't have any laws at all.

Mr. Cain formally announced his candidacy on November 14, 2011.  According to Miss White, Mr. Cain dismissed her as his concubine two months prior to the announcement--which would give the federal government until September, 2016 (at the latest) to launch its prosecution. If President Obama's Department of "Justice" were neither completely corrupt nor utterly incompetent, then Mr. Cain would have been toast by now.  How else are we to protect the women and girls of America from this sexual predator and brazen philanderer?  Not to mention our a massive prison-industrial complex that continually requires more inmates.

We need to consign Mr. Cain to federal prison before that statute of limitations passes, and it is too late.  He'll make for quite a trophy, and his imprisonment will serve as a shining example to other would-be philanderers and adulterers.  Plus, Mr. Cain ought to find several years in a federal penitentiary to be a humbling experience, and no-one is in greater need of humbling right now than Herman Cain himself.

Friday, February 6, 2015

The Mann Act Versus the State of Nevada

In response to my preceding post, wherein I proposed that Feminists furnish free sex on Saturday afternoons to attenuate the sufferings of the involuntary celibate, some people suggested that Men's Rights Advocates (or other Manosphere entities) organize charity mission trips, twice a year, and rent a bus to bring involuntarily celibate men to some of the rural counties in Nevada that have legal brothels.

Aside from the fact that a lot of involuntarily celibate men might like more than two refreshments per year (which is all that a lot of married guys get), this solution would only be guaranteed to work for men who reside in Nevada.  A road trip that brought men from outside Nevada into Nevada's delightful brothels would risk running afoul of the nefarious White Slave Traffic Act (a.k.a. Mann Act), and thus contribute to the overcrowding problems in federal prisons, where the previously celibate would find themselves at high risk for rape and sexual abuse.  

During the first decade of the twentieth century, attitudes towards legal prostitution began to harden, as news-media outlets (in order to sell newspapers to prurient readers) made somewhat sensationalized reports on the "White Slave Traffic."  In The Response to Prostitution in the Progressive Era, Mark Connelly wrote:
Books and pamphlets appeared announcing a startling claim: a pervasive and deprave conspiracy was at large in the land, brutally trapping and seducing American girls into lives of enforced prostitution, or "White Slavery."  These White Slave narratives, or White Slave tracts, began to circulate around 1909...The plots were strikingly uniform.  Typically, a chaste and lovely native American country girl would forsake her country home and family for the promise of the city.  On the way, or shortly thereafter, she would fall victim to one of the swarm of panderers lying in wait for just such an innocent and unprotected sojourner.  Using one of his vast variety of tricks--a promise of marriage, an offer of assistance in securing lodging, or if these were to no avail, the chloroformed cloth, the hypodermic needle, or the drugged drink--the insidious white slaver would brutally seduce the girl and install her in a brothel, where she became an enslaved prostitute.  Within five years she would end up in the potter's field, unless she had the good fortune to be rescued by a member of one of the dedicated groups fighting White slavery.  
One example of such literature is Ernest A. Bell's Fighting the Traffic in Young Girls or War on the White Slave Trade (available on line).  It is quite a lengthy book, but here is a brief sample from page 71:
One thing should be very clear to the girl who comes up to the city, and that is that the ice cream parlor is likely to be a spider's web for her entanglement.  This is perhaps especially true of those ice cream saloons and fruit stores owned by foreigners.  Scores of cases are on record where young girls have taken their first steps towards "white slavery" in places of this character.  And it is hardly too much to say that a week does not pass in Chicago without the publication in some daily paper of the details of a police court case in which the ice cream parlor of this type is the scene of a regrettable tragedy.  The only safe rule is to keep away from places of this kind, whether in a big city like Chicago or in a large country town.  I believe that there are good grounds for suspicion that the ice cream parlor, kept by the foreigner in a large country town, is often a recruiting station, and a feeder for the "white slave" traffic.  It is certain that this is the case in the big city, and many evidences point to the conclusion that there is a kind of free-masonry among these foreign proprietors of refreshment parlors which would make it entirely natural and convenient for the proprietor of a city establishment of this kind, who is entangled in the "white slave" trade, to establish relations with a man in the same business and of the same nationality in the country town...
And, politicians (trolling for votes) soon got into the business of creating laws to make prostitution illegal.  Writes Emma Goldman in 1910:

OUR REFORMERS have suddenly made a great discovery – the white slave traffic. The papers are full of these “unheard-of conditions,” and lawmakers are already planning a new set of laws to check the horror... 

...To assume that the recent investigation of the white slave traffic (and, by the way, a very superficial investigation) has discovered anything new, is, to say the least, very foolish. Prostitution has been, and is, a widespread evil, yet mankind goes on its business, perfectly indifferent to the sufferings and distress of the victims of prostitution. As indifferent, indeed, as mankind has remained to our industrial system, or to economic prostitution...

...What is really the cause of the trade in women? Not merely white women, but yellow and black women as well. Exploitation, of course; the merciless Moloch of capitalism that fattens on underpaid labor, thus driving thousands of women and girls into prostitution. With Mrs. Warren these girls feel, “Why waste your life working for a few shillings a week in a scullery, eighteen hours a day?” Naturally our reformers say nothing about this cause. They know it well enough, but it doesn’t pay to say anything about it. It is much more profitable to play the Pharisee, to pretend an outraged morality, than to go to the bottom of things...

...Nowhere is woman treated according to the merit of her work, but rather as a sex. It is therefore almost inevitable that she should pay for her right to exist, to keep a position in whatever line, with sex favors. Thus it is merely a question of degree whether she sells herself to one man, in or out of marriage, or to many men. Whether our reformers admit it or not, the economic and social inferiority of woman is responsible for prostitution.

Just at present our good people are shocked by the disclosures that in New York City alone one out of every ten women works in a factory, that the average wage received by women is six dollars per week for forty-eight to sixty hours of work, and that the majority of female wage workers face many months of idleness which leaves the average wage about $280 a year. In view of these economic horrors, is it to be wondered at that prostitution and the white slave trade have become such dominant factors?...

...Of course, marriage is the goal of every girl, but as thousands of girls cannot marry, our stupid social customs condemn them either to a life of celibacy or prostitution. Human nature asserts itself regardless of all laws, nor is there any plausible reason why nature should adapt itself to a perverted conception of morality...

...Girls, mere children, work in crowded, over-heated rooms ten to twelve hours daily at a machine, which tends to keep them in a constant over-excited sex state. Many of these girls have no home or comforts of any kind; therefore the street or some place of cheap amusement is the only means of forgetting their daily routine. This naturally brings them into close proximity with the other sex. It is hard to say which of the two factors brings the girl’s over-sexed condition to a climax, but it is certainly the most natural thing that a climax should result. That is the first step toward prostitution. Nor is the girl to be held responsible for it. On the contrary, it is altogether the fault of society...

...Willful shutting of eyes and ignoring of the evil as a social factor of modern life, can but aggravate matters. We must rise above our foolish notions of “better than thou,” and learn to recognize in the prostitute a product of social conditions...As to a thorough eradication of prostitution, nothing can accomplish that save a complete transvaluation of all accepted values especially the moral ones – coupled with the abolition of industrial slavery
The federal government wanted to get into the act of fighting White Slavery and prostitution, too, but couldn't directly, because laws regulating prostitution per se were under the jurisdiction of the individual states.  But, the federal government does have a role in regulating inter-state commerce.  So, the Great White Fathers in Washington passed into law the White-Slave Traffic Act (a.k.a. the Mann Act) on June 25, 1910.
The Act's original wording is as follows:
Chapter 395-An Act to further regulate interstate and foreign commerce by prohibiting the transportation therein for immoral purposes of women and girls, and for other purposes.

[Public, No. 277]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House o Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assemble That the term "interstate commerce," as used in this Act, shall include transportation from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, and the term "foreign commerce," as used in this Act, shall include transportation from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any foreign country and from any foreign country to any State or Territory or the District of Columbia

That any person who shall knowingly transport or cause to be transported, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for, or in transporting, in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or in the District of Columbia, any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, with the intent and purpose to induce, entice, or compel such woman or girl to become a prostitute or to give herself up to debauchery, or to engage in any other immoral practice; or who shall knowingly procure or obtain, or cause to be procured or obtained, or aid or assist in procuring or obtaining, any ticket or tickets, or any form of transportation or evidence of the right thereto, to be used by any woman or girl in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or the District of Columbia, in going to any place for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent or purpose on the part of such person to induce, entice, or compel her to give herself up to the practice of prostitution, or to give herself up to debauchery, or any other immoral practice, whereby any such woman or girl shall be transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or the District of Columbia, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court

SEC. 3
That any person who shall knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce, or cause to be persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced, or aid or assist in persuading, inducing, enticing,or coercing any woman or girl to go from one place to another in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or the District of Columbia, for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent and purpose on the part of such person that such woman or girl shall engage in the practice of prostitution or debauchery, or any other immoral practice, whether with or without her consent, and who shall thereby knowingly cause or aid or assist in causing such woman or girl to go and to be carried or transported as a passenger upon the line or route of any common carrier or carriers in interstate or foreign commerce, or any Territory or the District of Columbia, shall be deemed guilty of a felony and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

SEC. 4
That any person who shall knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any woman or girl under the age of eighteen years from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, with the purpose and intent to induce or coerce her, or that she shall be induced or coerced to engage in prostitution or debauchery, or any other immoral practice, and shall in furtherance of such purpose knowingly induce or cause her to go and to be carried or transported as a passenger in interstate commerce upon the line or route of any common carrier or carriers, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

SEC. 5
That any violation of any of the above sections two, three, and four shall be prosecuted in any court having jurisdiction of crimes within the district in which said violation was committed, or from, through, or into which any such woman or girl may have been carried or transported as a passenger in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or the District of Columbia, contrary to the provisions of any of said sections.

SEC. 6
 That for the purpose of regulating and preventing the transportation in foreign commerce of alien women and girls for purposes of prostitution and debauchery, and in pursuance of and for the purpose of carrying out the terms of the agreement or project of arrangement for the suppression of the white-slave traffic, adopted July twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and two, for submission to their respective governments by the delegates of various powers represented at the Paris conference and confirmed by a formal agreement signed at Paris an May eighteenth, nineteen hundred and four, and
adhered to by the United States on June sixth, nineteen hundred and eight, as shown by the proclamation of the President of the United States, dated June fifteenth, nineteen hundred and eight, the Commissioner-General of Immigration is hereby designated as the authority of the United States to receive and centralize information concerning the procuration of alien women and girls with a view to their debauchery, and to exercise supervision over such alien women and girls, receive their declarations, establish their identity, and ascertain from them who induced them to leave their native countries, respectively; and it shall be the duty of said Commissioner-General of Immigration to receive and keep on file in his office the statements and declarations which may be made by such alien women and girls, and those which are hereinafter required pertaining to such alien women and girls engaged in prostitution or debauchery in this country, and to furnish receipts for such statements and declarations provided for in this act to the persons, respectively, making and filing them.

Every person who shall keep, maintain, control, support, or harbor statements of alien in any house or place for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose, any alien woman or girl within three years after she shall have entered the United States from any country, party to the said arrangement for the suppression of the white-slave traffic, shall file with the Commissioner-General of Immigration a statement in writing setting forth the name of such alien woman or girl, the place at which she is kept, and all facts as to the date of her entry into the United States, the port through which she entered, her age, nationality, and parentage and concerning her procuration to come to this country within the knowledge of such person, and any person who shall fail within thirty days after such person shall commence to keep, maintain, control, support, or harbor in any house or place for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose, any alien woman or girl within three years after she shall have entered the United States from any of the countries, party to the said arrangement for the suppression of the white-slave traffic, to file such statement concerning such alien woman or girl with the Commissioner-General of Immigration, or who shall knowingly and willfully state falsely or fail to disclose in such statement any fact within his knowledge or belief with reference to the age, nationality, or parentage of any such alien woman or girl, or concerning her procuration to come to this country, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

In any prosecution brought under this section, if it appear that any such statement required is not on file in the office of the Commissioner-General of Immigration, the person whose duty it shall be to file such statement-shall be presumed to have failed to file said statement, as herein required, unless such person or persons shall prove otherwise.  No person shall be excused from furnishing the statement, as required by this section, on the ground or for the reason that the statement so required by him, or the information therein contained, might tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture under any law of the United States for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing, concerning which he may truthfully report in such statement, as required by the provisions of this section

SEC. 7
That the term "Territory," as used in this Act, shall include the district of Alaska, the insular possessions of the United States, and zone included in the Canal Zone.  The word "person," as used in this Act, shall beconstrued to import both the plural and the singular, as the case demands, and shall include corporations, companies, societies, and associations.  When construing and enforcing the provisions of this Act, the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person, etc. acting for or employed by any other person or by any corporation, company, society, or association within the scope of his employment or office, shall in every case be also deemed to be the act, omission,
or failure of such other person, or of such company, corporation, society, or association, as well as that of the person himself.

SEC. 8
That this Act shall be known and referred to as the "White-Slave Traffic Act."
We can see straight away from the heading of the White-Slave Traffic Act that Mr. James Robert Mann (the Act's author) wasn't particularly attentive in his writing: "An Act to further regulate..."  Solomon Barrett states that "it is highly improper to introduce an adverb, adverbial phrase, or other words between the to and the infinitive verb."  John Horne Tooke describes the placement of an adverb between the to and the infinitive as a "disagreeable affectation."  Splitting an infinitive--right off the bat--is indicative of sloppy writing, particularly for a formal piece of legislation, where adherence to common rules of grammar is expected, and where disagreeable affectations should be avoided.   

Transporting a girl or woman to another state for prostitution is one thing.  Transporting a girl or woman to another state for "debauchery" or "any other immoral purpose" is wide open to interpretation.  The Act itself never did much to curb the traffic in White slaves (individual states soon after outlawed prostitution within their respective jurisdictions, anyway).  But, boy did Mr. Mann's affectatious language open a whole other can of worms.

One of the White-Slave Traffic Act's first victims was the celebrated boxing champion Jack Johnson.  In October 1910, Mr. Johnson helped a lady friend, Belle Schreiber, to open her own brothel in Chicago.  He bought all of the furniture, payed the first month's rent, and wired her money for train fare from Pittsburgh to Chicago.  Everything that Mr. Johnson did was perfectly legal at the time, except for that last bit--paying for her train fare from Pittsburgh to Chicago--which violated the freshly minted White-Slave Traffic Act.  Having developed a grudge against Mr. Johnson, Miss Schreiber became the chief witness for the prosecution two years later.

In Athanasaw & Sampson v. United States, 227 U.S. 326 (1913), the Supreme Court found the White-Slave Traffic Act to be constitutional;  that the word " debauchery " as used in the statute wasn't limited to sexual intercourse; that the Act covered actions which might ultimately lead to that phase of debauchery which consists in sexual actions;  and that the Act also extended to vices and immoralities other than those applicable to sexual actions.  Moreover, the intention of the person procuring the transportation wasn't necessarily relevant--merely sending a woman to a place (in another state) where debauchery was endemic, and where she might eventually be tempted to partake, was sufficient for a conviction:
Agnes Couch was a girl of seventeen years. She lived at Suwanee, Georgia, but, being in Atlanta in September, 1911, and seeing an advertisement by one Sam Massel for chorus girls, she applied at his office and signed a contract to appear with the Imperial Musical Comedy Company at the Imperial Theater, Tampa, Florida, as a chorus girl at a salary of $20 a week for the first four weeks and $15 a week thereafter, she to room and board in the theater. The theater was operated by the defendants, and Massel acted as their booking representative at Atlanta. After she signed the contract, Massel gave her a railroad ticket which had been provided by the defendants for that purpose.  She arrived at Tampa about 6:30 A.M. and met the defendant Athanasaw at 7 o'clock.

As to what then took place, the girl testified as follows:
"He showed me to my room and took the check to get my trunk. I went to sleep and slept until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. At that hour, one of the girls woke me up to rehearse. I went down in the theater and stayed there about an hour, rehearsing, singing, and then went to lunch in the dining room. All of the girls were there and several boys. I had never had any stage experience. At lunch, they were all smoking, cursing, and using such language I couldn't eat. After lunch, I went to my room, and about 6 o'clock, Louis Athanasaw, one of the defendants, came and said to me I would like it all right; that I was good looking and would make a hit, and not to let any of the boys fool me, and not be any of the boy's girl; to be his. He wanted me to be his girl; to talk to the boys and make a hit, and get all of the money I could out of them. His room was next to mine, and he told me he was coming in my room that night and sleep with me, and he kissed and caressed me. He told me to dress for the show that night and come down into the boxes. I went into the box about 9 o'clock. About that time, Louis Athanasaw's son knocked on my door and told me to come to the boxes. In the box where I went, there were four boys; they were smoking, cursing, and drinking. I sat down and the boys asked me what was the matter; I looked scared. I told them I was ashamed of being in a place like that, and Arthur Schlemann, one of the boys, said he would take me out. The others insisted on my staying, and said I would like it when I got broke in. I tried to go out with Schlemann, but a boy named Gilbert pulled me back, saying 'Let that cheap guy alone.' Schlemann said he would send a policeman, and in about fifteen minutes Mr. Thompson and Mr. Evans came in for me."
Athanasaw denied that he made improper proposals to the girl, and it was testified that at the preliminary hearing she did not charge him with such. In all else, however, her testimony was not contradicted, and it was supported as to the character of the house and as to what took place. Three propositions are presented by defendants: (1) the gist of the offense is the intention of the person when the transportation was procured or aided to be procured; (2) the word "debauchery," as used in the statute, means sexual intercourse; (3) the act did not intend to prohibit the transportation of women for the purpose of any other vice or immorality than that applicable to sexual actions....

...There is no allegation that the defendants brought her here with the purpose or with the intent to debauch her, but to induce her or entice her, or influence her to enter upon a course of debauchery. The term 'debauchery' is not a legal or technical term. To debauch is to corrupt in morals or principles; to lead astray morally into dishonest and vicious practices; to corrupt; to lead into unchastity; to debauch. Debauchery, then, is an excessive indulgence of the body; licentiousness, drunkenness, corruption of innocence, taking up vicious habits. The term 'debauchery,' as used in this statute, has an idea of sexual immorality -- that is, it has the idea of a life which will lead eventually, or tends to lead, to sexual immorality; not necessarily drunkenness or immorality, but here it leads to the question in this case as to whether or not the influences in which this girl was surrounded by the employment which they called her to did not tend to induce her to give herself up to a condition of debauchery which eventually, necessarily, and naturally would lead to a course of immorality sexually...

...Now it is contended that they must have had a deliberate intent to debauch her when she came here; that either one or the other intended to debauch her or to get somebody else to debauch her. Now, that term 'debauch' is used in a great many instances in the law, and the usual connection is to have carnal intercourse with; but there is no such language in this statute, nor is it the language of the indictment. The charge of the indictment in substance is that they induced or influenced her to enter into a life or condition of debauchery -- 'to induce or compel her to give herself up to debauchery.'"

The language of the statute is directed against the transportation "of any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent and purpose to induce, entice, or compel such woman or girl to become a prostitute or to give herself up to debauchery, or to engage in any other immoral practice."

The instructions of the court were justified by the statute. It is true that the court did not give to the word debauchery or to the purpose of the statute the limited definition and extent contended for by defendants, nor did the court make the guilt of the defendants to depend upon having the intent themselves to debauch the girl or to intend that someone else should do so. In the view of the court, the statute had a more comprehensive prohibition, and was designed to reach acts which might ultimately lead to that phase of debauchery which consisted in "sexual actions."...

...The court put it to the jury to consider whether the employment to which the defendants called the girl and the influences with which they surrounded her tended "to induce her to give herself up to a condition of debauchery which eventually and naturally would head to a course of immorality sexually." That question, the court said, the jury should determine, and further:

"You have heard the testimony in the case in regard to the circumstances in which she was placed. You have viewed the scene where she was employed. You have examined by the testimony and your observation what was the character and what was the condition or influence in which the girl was placed by the defendants.  Was or was not it a condition that would necessarily and naturally lead to a life of debauchery of a carnal nature relating to sexual intercourse between man and woman?"

The plan and place justified the instructions. The plan might have succeeded if the coarse precipitancy of one of the defendants and the ribaldry of the habitues of the place had not shocked the modesty of the girl. And granting the testimony to be true, of which the jury was the judge, the employment to which she was enticed was an efficient school of debauchery of the special immorality which defendants contend the statute was designed to cover...
Note that nothing illegal ever happened in Florida.  Miss Couch was kissed and caressed, but she was not raped, did not work as a prostitute, and her virtue remained in tact.  If Miss Couch had not been transported from Georgia to Florida, then there would never have been a case to prosecute.  In Florida, her modesty was shocked by the ribaldry of the habitues, and the influences that surrounded her might have induced her to give herself up to a condition of debauchery, leading possibly to sexual intercourse with a man.  And, that was enough for a prosecution under the White-Slave Traffic Act.  Oh, the federal prosecutors must have been jumping for joy at the prospect of imprisoning thousands of Americans, as were the Feminists, at this blow to the Patriarchy.  On the other hand, bringing girls to out-of-state universities must have been risky.

In Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917), the Supreme Court determined that the White-Slave Traffic Act applied not strictly to purposes of prostitution, but to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons, including extramarital affairs.  Briefly, Farley Carminetti, a married man, was convicted under the White-Slave Traffic Act for having aided in transporting a young woman from Sacramento, California to Reno, Nevada, for "immoral purposes."  The Supreme Court decision was as follows:
The White Slave Traffic Act of June 25, 1910, c. 395, 36 Stat. 825, applies to any case in which a woman is transported in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution or concubinage; pecuniary gain, either as a motive for the transportation or as an attendant of its object, is not an element in the offenses defined.

As so read, the act is constitutional.

When the language of a statute is plain and does not lead to absurd or impracticable results, there is no occasion or excuse for judicial construction; the language must then be accepted by the courts as the sole evidence of the ultimate legislative intent, and the courts have no function but to apply and enforce the statute accordingly.

Statutory words are presumed, unless the contrary appears, to be used in their ordinary sense, with the meaning commonly attributed to them.

When an act provides that it shall be known and referred to by a designated name, the name cannot be made the means of overriding the plain meaning of its other provisions...

...In the Caminetti case, the petitioner was indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California upon the 6th day of May, 1913, for alleged violations of the act. The indictment was in four counts, the first of which charged him with transporting and causing to be transported, and aiding and assisting in obtaining transportation for a certain woman from Sacramento, California, to Reno, Nevada, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of debauchery, and for an immoral purpose, to-wit, that the aforesaid woman should be and become his mistress and concubine. A verdict of not guilty was returned as to the other three counts of this indictment. As to the first count, defendant was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen months and to pay a fine of $1,500. Upon writ of error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that judgment was affirmed. 220 F. 545...

...It is contended that the act of Congress is intended to reach only "commercialized vice," or the traffic in women for gain, and that the conduct for which the several petitioners were indicted and convicted, however reprehensible in morals, is not within the purview of the statute when properly construed in the light of its history and the purposes intended to be accomplished by its enactment. In none of the cases was it charged or proved that the transportation was for gain or for the purpose of furnishing women for prostitution for hire, and it is insisted that, such being the case, the acts charged and proved, upon which conviction was had, do not come within the statute.

It is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain, and if the law is within the constitutional authority of the lawmaking body which passed it, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms...

...Where the language is plain and admits of no more than one meaning, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion...There is no ambiguity in the terms of this act. It is specifically made an offense to knowingly transport or cause to be transported, etc., in interstate commerce, any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for "any other immoral purpose," or with the intent and purpose to induce any such woman or girl to become a prostitute or to give herself up to debauchery, or to engage in any other immoral practice.

Statutory words are uniformly presumed, unless the contrary appears, to be used in their ordinary and usual sense, and with the meaning commonly attributed to them. To cause a woman or girl to be transported for the purposes of debauchery, and for an immoral purpose, to-wit, becoming a concubine or mistress, for which Caminetti and Diggs were convicted...would seem by the very statement of the facts to embrace transportation for purposes denounced by the act, and therefore fairly within its meaning.
 While such immoral purpose would be more culpable in morals and attributed to baser motives if accompanied with the expectation of pecuniary gain, such considerations do not prevent the lesser offense against morals of furnishing transportation in order that a woman may be debauched, or become a mistress or a concubine, from being the execution of purposes within the meaning of this law. To say the contrary would shock the common understanding of what constitutes an immoral purpose when those terms are applied, as here, to sexual relations...

...The fact, if it be so, that the act as it is written opens the door to blackmailing operations upon a large scale is no reason why the courts should refuse to enforce it according to its terms, if within the constitutional authority of Congress. Such considerations are more appropriately addressed to the legislative branch of the government, which alone had authority to enact and may, if it sees fit, amend the law...
Merely bringing a woman to another state, for a bit of private debauchery, became a federal felony.  Federal prosecutors must have been dancing quite merrily at this decision.

In 1986, the federal government updated the wording of the White-Slave Traffic Act to be gender-neutral, as follows:
Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
You can now go ahead and bring a man or woman to another state with the intention of debauchery, as long as the debauchery does not involve prostitution, and as long the intended debauchery does not involve any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.  So much for Athanasaw & Sampson v. United States, 227 U.S. 326 (1913), and no-one need worry any longer about transporting a girl to an out-of-state university.  The federal government could now focus its energy and resources on imprisoning poor saps like Reverend Jack Schaap.

Rev. Schaap, as pastor of the First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana, was boning a 16-year-old church member, apparently as part of his "counseling" sessions.  If he had just stayed with her in Indiana, then there would have been no problem: Indiana's "age of consent" is sixteen.  But, he enjoyed some intimate "counseling" sessions with her in a forest preserve, across the border in nearby Crete, Illinois, where the "age of consent" is seventeen.  That violated the Mann Act, and earned Mr. Schaap a 12-year federal prison sentence.

To get back to Nevada: the Eight Circuit Court, in United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 712 (8th Cir. 1978), sustained the conviction of defendants who sent a woman to Nevada to work as prostitute. The court concluded that the status of prostitution under Nevada law had no bearing on the illegality (under the White-Slave Traffic Act)  of transporting women in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution.
...We must reject as unavailing Pelton's attempt to legitimize his agreement with Rich by arguing that prostitution is legal in Nevada and that Bray had a desire to travel to Nevada and to work there as a prostitute which pre-existed his participation in the plans. Section 2421 flatly prohibits transportation of women in interstate commerce "for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purposes"; its prohibition is not keyed to the legality or illegality of prostitution under the law of the state where the transportation ends. When Rich and Pelton agreed to send Bray to Nevada to work as a prostitute, they made an agreement to violate § 2421, and the status of prostitution under Nevada law has no bearing on the illegality of this agreement under the Mann Act.

Equally lacking in legal merit is Pelton's suggestion that any agreement he may have had with Rich was legal because Bray was predisposed and willing to go to Nevada to work as a prostitute. Whether or not Bray was so predisposed and willing is immaterial to the illegality of Pelton's agreement with Rich to violate § 2421, for consent is neither a defense to a violation charged under § 2421... Pelton conspired with Rich to transport Bray in interstate commerce to Nevada for purposes of prostitution in violation of § 2421. Whatever Bray's degree of willingness to travel may have been, it does not vitiate the illegality of the agreement to transport her for purposes of prostitution.

Count VII charged Pelton and Rich with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422 by persuading, inducing and enticing Kathleen Bray to go in interstate commerce to Nevada with the intent on their part that she engage in prostitution there, and with thereby knowingly causing her to be transported there as a passenger upon the line and route of a common carrier in interstate commerce. In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction on this count, Pelton does not dispute that Bray was transported to Nevada for purposes of prostitution. His attack on the sufficiency of the evidence pertains to the issue of inducement. He seems to contend that because there was evidence that Bray was willing to go to Nevada to work as a prostitute, the record will not support a finding of inducement on his part.

 We are unable to agree. Even if we assume that Bray was willing to travel to Nevada to be a prostitute, the fact remains that by setting her up at Penny's Cozy Corner, Pelton helped provide the inducement which caused her to make the trip.  It is the inducement of transportation which is prohibited under § 2422, not the actual provision of that transportation...When an offer to travel interstate for purposes of prostitution elicits a positive response from a woman to whom it is made, it constitutes a requisite inducement under the statute...The evidence here shows that Pelton made an inducement sufficient to persuade Bray to travel to Nevada. We believe that Pelton's conviction under § 2422 with regard to Bray's inducement is supported by sufficient evidence...
Licensed brothel owners in Nevada are very careful to comply quite scrupulously with all laws relevant to their business. As the Mann Act bars the transportation of prostitutes across state lines, a Nevada residency requirement for the prostitutes helps assure that they have not crossed state lines to engage in prostitution.

 Whereas the White-Slave Traffic Act, as originally written, forbade the interstate transport of women and girls for the purpose of prostitution, debauchery, or any other immoral purpose, the present version of the law forbids interstate transport of any individual, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.  Prior to 1986, you could have brought a man to another state to indulge in a bit of debauchery, engage in some prostitution, or even to work as a prostitute.  Now, you had better watch out.

The law clearly allows anyone of his own accord to travel to Nevada and there to engage in prostitution in a licensed brothel.  But, can you bring a buddy along?  Can you pay for a man to go to Nevada from another state, to savor the pleasures of a licensed prostitute?  And, can you hire a tour bus to bring involuntarily celibate men from another state for a bit of licensed refreshment?  The Law, as presently written, would seem to preclude these possibilities, and I certainly wouldn't want to risk it myself.  As mentioned above, our elected members of Congress can be rather sloppy and imprecise in their writing, and leave it to the prosecutors and judges to figure out what in blazes they meant when they wrote a particular law.  By "engage in prostitution", the Great White Fathers might have intended this to mean as a form of employment (as one engages in a business or profession).  However, as the rest of the sentence reads "or in any activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense", which clearly isn't limited to forms of employment, I think that we have to be open to the very strong probability that the courts will interpret the phrase "engage in prostitution" to mean "as either a prostitute or a customer"--particularly in light of the Athasanaw & Simpson case cited above.  I don't know whether the precise meaning of the phrase "engage in prostitution" has yet been tested in court, but I'm very certain that testing it wouldn't be worth the risk or expense.

Listen to former prosecutor Wendy Murphy's perspective in this video:

...Jail may just be the safest place these high end hookers have ever been...
...We don't sell access to the intimate self.  It creates the idea that human beings are no better than stuff.  Slavery is against the constitution, and has been for a long time...
...Prostitution is very close to slavery.  It is inconsistent with everything we know about what freedom means: to subject humans to market forces...
...People won't want to do things that are harmful to them...
...(addressing the prostitutes) I'm happy that you're happy.  That's terrific.  The fact that you are having a good time is not an excuse to ignore the harm...It isn't about you...I believe that the majority of prostituted women suffer harm that is so serious, I would compromise your freedom to protect the majority of women.  Absolutely....I would like to live in a world where people didn't hurt each other.  You should be ashamed of yourself...
Miss Murphy would "like to live in a world where people didn't hurt each other", but she would gleefully compromise these women's freedom?  Obviously, when it comes to prosecutors, we're dealing with sociopaths.  In fact,
  • The United States has only 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prison population – making the United States the world’s largest jailer.
  • Since 1970, our prison population has risen 700%.
  • One in 99 adults are living behind bars in the U.S. This marks the highest rate of imprisonment in American history.
How on Earth can Miss Murphy imagine that by depriving prostitutes of their freedom, she would end up living "in a world where people didn't hurt each other?"   She and all of the other psychopathic prosecutors and judges are obviously living in some sort of a sick fantasy world.  As previously discussed, the problem has only been exacerbated by the large number of mean, aggressive women--with audacious feelings of entitlement--who have entered the professional world and shunted men aside.  Thanks to Feminism, women have been entering the workforce in large numbers since 1970, and, at the same time, the prison population has risen 700%.  Is it really a coincidence?

So, Feminists: we are counting on you, to attenuate the sufferings of our involuntarily celibate men, with the Free Sex Saturdays program, where there will be no risk of violating any law.  I don't see any way around it.