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:
TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I. CRIMES
CHAPTER 117. TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND
RELATED CRIMES @ 2421.
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....
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6 - SEXUAL OFFENSES
§ 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.
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
SEC 2
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.
On 14 November, 2014, Laci Green, a popular Feminist and YouTuber, uploaded a video entitled Does Sexism Hurt Men?
The debates in the video's Comments Section have been raging on ever since, with nearly 8,000 entries already.
According to Miss Green, it should be okay for men to be short, to
cry, to be vulnerable and unmanly. Which would be fine and dandy,
except that women, by and large (including Feminists), have a VERY
strong preference for men who are tall, and really want a man to be aggressive, domineering, and assertive, as this video from our counterparts in the Islamic world explains:
Would you believe that the European woman in our times yearns for a husband who would be like a guardian to her...90% of women do not want to marry a weak man, who sits down and cries the moment there is a problem. They say: 'no, such a man looks like a woman. We want a manly man'...
The video goes on to describe the attributes of the manly men that women want--exactly the opposite of the traits that Miss Green declares acceptable for men.
Here is a rather cute Comedy Central skit:
about the "clingy, fragile guys who think they're dating you." The
"sad-eyed weasels" and "doughy-eyed munchkins." The skit seems to have
hit some raw nerves, as the video's comment section goes on just about
forever.
Some of the Feminist comments:
Look at all the fuckin offended m'ladys in this comment section lmaooooo
Well, yeah, because that's a thing that happens literally every single
day to nearly every woman and really shouldn't be encouraged in any way,
shape, or form. This, however, is discouraging the creepy dudebro
behavior in it's humor. That's why it's funny.
The point isn't that the guy is ugly. The point is that he's creepy and
guys who think you owe them something for being nice to you are creepy. Like
you. You're probably creepy because if you weren't, you wouldn't be so
asshurt over a sketch from a show that airs on comedy central.
There are enough tears in this comment section to fill a whole fedora!
I say good on the women for being able to extract resources from the men without having to give anything of theirs in return.
The consequences of feminism:
you being butthurt over being decent to a girl that owes you absolutely
nothing. Why don't you cry over your my little pony collection about
being "friendzoned" by girls who should feel no guilt about not being
into your weak fedora wearing ass. Just because you held the door open
for me, doesn't mean I'm the love of your life or have to repay you by
bearing your children.
You don't get it, do you? Women are not machines where you insert
niceness coins and sex plops out. They have an own agenda, just like
you. You making gifts out of your own deliberate choice does not oblige them to anything! There is never any obligation to sex or relationships.
The consequences of being a creepy misogynist- you don't realize you have zero self awareness.
The fact is that violence against women is so normalized that it's
unfair to be angry at women for being overcautious about rejecting
people. Obviously, they shouldn't have to, but after being ignored so
often when having given an explicit message of noninterest, and
frequently harassed further for the same, it's understandable that some
women would begin to prefer to say nothing, rather than explicitly
reject someone, until hopefully their pursuer forgets about them. Also,
many women don't even make a conscious decision to do this but have been
socialized by gender norms that encourage women to prioritize others'
happiness before their own, so they don't want to reject people.
if a guy is gonna be a creepy clinger then no I will have no respect for
you. its guys who play up the "I'm just shy and weak" card that claim I
have no respect for them when they want to ask me out or sleep with me
all because he was nice to me. news flash a lot of guys are nice to
girls. and just because we may be pissed at our boyfriend doesn't mean
we are gonna start liking the shy weak boy in fact the incessant
"compliments" and "only I understand you" make us lose respect factor
then an elephant with its legs tied together can reach the bottom of a
puddle. It's behavior like this that turns men into stalkers and rapists
and we have the same respect for them as these guys which is to say
none.
you neck beard just because you're 'nice' doesn't mean any girl is obligated to date your crusty ass
If you're offended it's because you see yourself in this video.
Learn that you aren't entitled to sex because you're a "nice guy",
you're not nice.
the point is that women don't owe you anything just for being nice.
Also, if you think you're stuck in the "friend zone," you're actually
stuck in the "oh-god-not-this-guy-again zone" lmao
Mmmm your tears are scrumpdiddlyumptious! yumyumyumyumyum
Alan Roger Kirby describes what he calls the "80-20 Rule": the top 20% of men are boning 80% of the women, thus leaving 80% of the men high and dry. While Miss Green (and other Feminists) may claim that it is okay for men to be short, vulnerable and unmanly, such men really aren't going to get any pussy at all, are they? A standard Feminist battle cry is that No-one is Entitled to Sex! If you aren't getting any, then too bad! You can live without it.
Involuntary celibacy is not recognized by most experts in psychology, virtually no research has been published, and no statistics are available...It does not appear to be a concept taken seriously by those who do not experience it...However, conditions associated with involuntary celibacy may include severe depression, self-harm, mental illness and even suicide.
Nora Vincent, a Lesbian Feminist who disguised
herself as a man in order to examine the male point of view, arrived at the
realization that male and female sexuality are indeed different:
Men tend to see sex as a simple biologic need, whereas for women it is
"more in the head than below the waist", as she phrases it.
In the spirit of the world being fine with unmanly men, I propose, as a nice gesture, that the Feminists offer
Free Sex Saturdays, specifically for the unmanly men who cannot
otherwise get laid, perhaps with special invitations for the autistic. Lack of opportunities for sex doesn't seem to be an issue for the
Feminists at all. A standard Feminist grievance is that she can't leave
the house without being objectified sexually all day, and that she is subjected to far too much male attention. This is the opposite
of the complaint expressed by many men. If there is any truth to the "80/20 Rule", and the ladies are already
enjoying quite a lot of sex with a variety of handsome, high-status men
every other day of the week, then what would be the harm in
administering orgasms to some less fortunate, "creepy" men, for a few hours every
Saturday afternoon?
Stuart D'Alessio, Jamie Flexon and Lisa Stolzenberg found that conjugal visitation significantly reduced sexual violence in prisons. From 2003-2009 in Rhode Island, indoor prostitution was legal, which precipitated a 31% decrease in rape offenses and a 39% decrease in female gonorrhea cases. Places like Bangkok have businesses such as Blow Job Bars, where fellows happily go to relieve themselves. You couldn't do that
in most of the United States, because prostitution is illegal, and this is unlikely to change any time soon. Feminists stepping forward to volunteer their services pro bono may go a long way towards reducing crime and disease, in addition to helping men with mental health problems associated with involuntary celibacy. So long as no remuneration is involved, there would be no need or excuse for the long appendage of the Law to insert itself, and we may successfully tackle this grave public health crisis.
Some Feminists may be inclined to invoke the objection of Individual Autonomy when asked to provide some nooky for men whom they would otherwise dismiss as
"sad-eyed weasels" and "doughy-eyed munchkins", and whose tears they consider "scrumpdiddlyumptious!" Individual Autonomyis
generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one's own person, to
live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as
one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external
forces. Other people may cite the same objection to compulsory education, taxes, prison sentences, military conscription, and a host of other things. While some might protest that the scale of objections to women providing orgasms to ugly men is greater than the scale of objections to, for example, paying taxes--there are people who do object so strenuously to taxes that they would much prefer to engage in unwanted coitus with any number of monstrously unappealing persons.
The Feminists could regard the Free Sex Saturdays as a civic obligation, much like voting. Women have been voting throughout the United States since 1920. Why not confer to women another civic responsibility? Herodotus describes an ancient Babylonian practice:
There is one custom amongst these people which is wholly shameful: every
woman who is a native of the country must once in her life go and sit
in the temple of Aphrodite and there give herself to a strange man. Many
of the rich women, who are too proud to mix with the rest, drive to the
temple in covered carriages with a whole host of servants following
behind, and there wait; most, however, sit in the precinct of the temple
with a band of plaited string round their heads – and a great crowd
they are, what with some sitting there, others arriving, others going
away – and through them all gangways are marked off running in every
direction for the men to pass along and make their choice. Once a woman
has taken her seat she is not allowed to go home until a man has thrown a
silver coin into her lap and taken her outside to lie with her. As he
throws the coin, the man has to say, 'in the name of the goddess Mylitta
(Ishtar) – that being the Assyrian name for Aphrodite. The value of the
coin is of no consequence; once thrown it becomes sacred, and the law
forbids that it should ever be refused. The woman has no privilege of
choice – she must go with the first man who throws her the money. When
she has lain with him, her duty to the goddess is discharged and she may
go home, after which it will be impossible to seduce her by any offer,
however large. Tall, handsome women soon manage to get home again, but
the ugly ones stay a long time before they can fulfil the condition
which the law demands, some of them, indeed, as much as three or four
years. There is a custom similar to this in parts of Cyprus.
Herodotus obviously disapproves of this tradition, but we do have two examples (Babylon and Cyprus) of women providing sex as a civic function. In our enlightened, modern times, the State imagines (at least officially) that it has a
monopoly on sex, which it taxes once through the issuance of a marriage
license--thus making sex a legal entitlement on the part of the man, and a civic duty for his wife, at least during the post-nuptial celebrations.
Surveys have shown that quite a lot of women in monogamous heterosexual relationships are bitterly disappointed with their sex lives. According to the illustrious Andrea Dworkin:
...for most women, seven out of ten, intercourse does not cause orgasm. The women want, even strive for, orgasm from intercourse but are unable to achieve it...
A woman, on the other hand, is generally capable of satisfying any number of men. For example, Mark Twain wrote:
In the Sandwich Islands in 1866 a buxom royal princess died. Occupying a
place of distinguished honor at her funeral were thirty-six splendidly
built young native men. In a laudatory song which celebrated the various
merits, achievements and accomplishments of the late princess those
thirty-six stallions were called her harem, and the song said it had
been her pride and boast that she kept the whole of them busy, and that
several times it had happened that more than one of them had been able
to charge overtime.
Pornographic actress Sasha Grey is perhaps best known for her work in the gang bang genre.
Maria Ozawa's claim to fame is similar.
Legendary pornographic actor Ron Jeremy has had coitus with thousands of women, and his ten-inch penis performs amazingly on cue.
I recall one film where Mr. Jeremy serviced a dozen-or-so women over the course of maybe an hour. Very few men could even hope to hold a candle. To my knowledge, the only man who might have come close was Absalom (2 Samuel 16):
Ahithophel said unto Absalom, "Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong." So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.
I don't know how many, but Absalom's father, King David, had a lot of concubines.
Moreover, Mr. Jeremy projects a persona that is very nice, humble, and likeable. Although, sexually, he is a God among men, he doesn't get cocky about his phenomenal cock. The vast majority of women possess a very strong preference for tall men (which may explain why so many girls aspire to become cheerleaders for the boys' basketball team). At a mere 5'6'' (168 cm), and exhibiting a non-aggressive demeanor, few women would have granted Mr. Jeremy so much as a second glance (unless they somehow found out about his enchanted rod).
In addition to the social benefits of reducing crime, violence and disease, and giving unmanly men reason to smile, the Free Sex Saturdays will afford Feminists the opportunity to sample men whom they otherwise would have overlooked during the course of the week. Given that most women fail to achieve an orgasm (even with the high-status and visually-appealing men), the Feminists may stand a reasonable chance of experiencing at least one good orgasm while servicing a half-dozen-or-so unmanly men during an afternoon. If a woman considers a particular man to be too ugly, then she can do a doggy-style, and she won't even have to look at him. She may even find an odd gem, similar to Ron Jeremy, and be very glad that she did. Moreover, the Feminists may require the men to pledge not to objectify sexually nor to cat-call any woman during the week, as a condition for access to their vaginas. The Free Sex Saturdays will be a win-win all the way around, with plenty of advantages for society, for unmanly men, and for the Feminists themselves. And, it would all be perfectly legal--no-one would need to be arrested, convicted, and see his photograph in the newspaper.
