One of the things I would like to see here in the Kern River Valley and in downtown Bakersfield is a “gentleman’s club,” you know, a brothel. But not just a whorehouse, an upscale nicely appointed palace of vice right out of a Hollywood production. Ideally these places would also provide marijuana legally. Such establishments properly regulated and taxed would be a real boon to local economies.

For that very small minority that might object to such a thing, consider the fact Walt Kelly made so clear in Pogo when discussing the presidential elections a “Vice Party” was suggested and Churchy asks Owl, “Deep down, wouldn’t you be for vice too … given the chance?” My dear brothers and sisters, no matter how you slice it a Vice Party is exactly what both Republicans and Democrats represent. Were these honest vice parties I would find no fault in that. But one of the problems I have with this is politicians of every stripe allow of every kind of vice among themselves including prostitution and illegal drugs, often at taxpayer expense, but hypocritically deny these vices to We the People! And quite frankly this makes me mad as hell! Why should the very vices politicians treat as their personal domain coming with elected office be made illegal and denied ordinary American citizens?

While historians and behavioral scientists have not made it much of an issue, sexual frustration may account for many of the wars of men as well as many of the more noble achievements. After all, for many men and women a cold shower just does not suffice; and much of our history as a species may well be understood in the light of sexual frustration on the part of both men and women.

Now I am all for traditional marriage and families as the foundation of all civilized societies. I am a staunch supporter of the sanctity of marriage, the sacredness of the marriage bed. But I am at least equally opposed to the kind of hypocrisy that denies sex is a normal function of the human species and makes it a crime for relieving one’s sexual frustration by simple mechanism of economics. There is all this foofaraw over abortion, so many women claiming they have the right to determine what to do with their own bodies while at the same time denying the “working girl” the same right. And what of the men in Congress and elsewhere that legislate and pass laws self-righteously denying women this right to their own bodies? Hypocrites!

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should have included prostitution. After all, this was thriving at the time of the Founding Fathers, it was quite acceptable in most of the civilized societies at the time and throughout history, and it is doubtful the early years of our government could have been successful without a plentiful supply of bordellos. If our early legislators did not see these establishments as threatening to home and hearth, what happened to change their minds? All the other biological functions of the body are carefully attended, enormous amounts being spent on bathrooms for example, why the normal function of sex is suppressed is the stuff of history and books by the thousands.

Of course, in societies where women are made dependent on men, where “poor Jenny, bright as a penny” in the song decides “getting herself a husband is the thing to do” the historical disparaging of prostitution is in full force, and in a world dominated by men it is in their interest to continue subjugating women, refusing the “working girl” equal status with the honorable occupations, which may have something to do with women never achieving the status of equal value to men. Boys will be boys and men will be men, but girls and women dare not be girls and women in the same way. Solomon spouted off about the lack of virtuous women, but apparently didn’t think this standard of virtue should apply to men, an infamous double standard that has held sway throughout the history of humankind.

But in all honesty, why should there be a different standard of “virtue” applied to women than applies to men? Where is the logic in men are expected to be and accepted as “experienced” while women are supposed to be chaste? The purity of womanhood exalted while the man is often held in contempt should he cleave to this same standard.

No one is a stronger adherent to the ideal of romance, to the art that flourishes around the sexual purity of the chaste girl and woman. After all, without this where would most of the great poets and writers find inspiration? Much of my book Birds With Broken Wings has to do with this kind of inspiration of romance. But this does not blind me to the pragmatic facts of the case that the working girl should not be an object of shame and derision because she believes she should have the human right to decide the issue for herself just as any man, that there should be no disparaging of the “fallen woman” while the man escapes any such designation.

However, the historical male dominance that makes whores of women while men have escaped any such pejorative appellation, at the same time denying the same right to women hiring themselves a man to satisfy their normal sexual desire, does make for the steamy novels, plays and films that take full advantage of this dichotomy in most cultures. And the refusal of men to accept women on the same basis they excuse themselves makes for an industry where women pander to the lust of men, making fools of men in the process. But men seem to excuse their foolishness in this regard while penalizing women and holding them in contempt. Consider the man playing the fool exclaiming “I never had to pay for it!” as though that was a proclamation of his “manhood.”

During the Civil Rights marches I watched some Negro men carrying placards declaring “I Am A Man!” But there were no Negro women marching with placards declaring “I Am A Woman!” Well of course not, those men were trying to call attention to the fact they should not be treated as lesser human beings on the basis of the accident of birth giving them the color of their skin. But it did occur to me that such placards just might be appropriate to all women within the same context having to do with equal value on the basis of gender.

Because sex is such a powerful thing, much of religion and politics can only be understood within this context. George Will: “Barney Frank, the 14-term Massachusetts congressman who chairs the Financial Services Committee, says it might be useful to ‘make it a misdemeanor to use metaphors in the discussion of public policy,’ such as ‘a rising tide lifts all boats.’ “

Frank shows his real intelligence in making such a statement. Now if a discussion of all the really important issues of life could be addressed in plain language, if politicians and pundits were forced to say what they mean in plain English without metaphor how much better off America would be. Suppose Caesar Bush were made to say in plain language what he means by “stay the course” for example. Well, in his case he would probably be, in fact, at a loss for words. He apparently doesn’t have much of a vocabulary. But you get my meaning.

How about discussing the issue of sex and prostitution in plain language without any metaphors? I’m willing to bet this article will prompt many to resort to metaphors rather than using plain language addressing the issue. Granted metaphors are safer than plain speech; but some issues are too important to be left to metaphorical language. And no matter what your opinion, sex is definitely too important a subject to be left to pornography and metaphors.

“Booze has its place, but its place is in hell!” Dear old Billy Sunday sure was instrumental in bringing about Prohibition, along with the side product, the unintended consequence of organized crime in America. At that, Prohibition did not make saints of sinners, and the booze continued to flow. And who is so naïve as to believe the wealthy and well-connected became teetotalers because of a silly law? It is silly, when not downright dangerous, to legislate human nature attempting to frustrate the normal desires of human beings. And too often “follow the money” is the only way to interpret such legislation.

Well, the suffragettes marched until women got the vote. Women marched for abortion until they won that battle. But where are the women marching for the rights of women to be prostitutes? Taken within the context of religion and politics, it is admittedly a tad touchy of a subject and I don’t expect many to be jumping on the bandwagon. Nevertheless, wherever men gather they talk about women, and wherever women gather they talk about men; and the topic is sex. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could talk about the subject of prostitution in a civilized manner devoid of all the religion and politics? “Deep down, wouldn’t you be for vice too … given the chance?”