Nevada Welcomes Male Prostitutes; Brothel Owners Not Happy
Prostitution has long been legal and regulated in the state of
Nevada, but a technicality in the law—a health code requirement for
“cervical” exams to check for STD’s—had prevented males from serving as
prostitutes. The state’s board of health has now lifted that barrier
(by allowing urethral exams as well), and Bobbi Davis, owner of a
brothel called the Shady Lady Ranch, plans “to add male prostitutes to
her stable of sex workers” (in the words of the Las Vegas Sun).
The principal opposition to this step came from an odd source—the
lobbyist for the Nevada Brothel Owners Association, George Flint, whom
the Sun describes as a “former Assemblies of God minister.” Flint went on record despite the fact that, as the Sun reported, “the [brothel] industry has previously tried to avoid any controversy.”
Flint apparently worries that homosexual male hookers will give the
industry a bad name. “We’ve worked hard for years to make the
traditional brothel business in this state socially acceptable [and]
something we can be proud of that most Nevadans accept.” That struck me
as one of the most bizarre quotes of the year—but apparently there are
at least a few hundred people in Las Vegas who agree, since the Sun’s
online poll showed 475 readers (84% of those voting) affirmed that
“brothels are socially acceptable,” while only 85 (15%) disagreed.
Flint’s specific concern is the risk of transmitting HIV between
prostitutes and clients—something that he claims the “traditional”
brothels have been effective at preventing. “Now we’re getting into an
[area] that doesn’t enjoy the same track record.”
This does not mean that there has never been homosexual prostitution
in Nevada. The female prostitutes have long been free to accept either
male or female clients, according to the report, and male prostitutes
will have the same right.
This raises serious questions about gender equity, however. If a
Christian psychologist or a fertility doctor is not free to turn away a
homosexual client for fear of “discrimination” charges, how can a
homosexual male prostitute be allowed to turn away a female client?
Isn’t that discrimination, too? On the other hand, if you require them
to take all clients, then maybe that would effectively mean that only
bisexuals can work as prostitutes in Nevada. Wouldn’t that be
discrimination, too?
Such are thickets in which the sexual revolution and political
correctness entrap us. In the meantime, if you want to know how to get
to Las Vegas—just climb in a handbasket and travel toward the heat as
far as you can go.
Las Vegas Sun: New era: Health authorities open brothels to male prostitutes [with poll]
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Should be interesting as to how successful the male prostitution "parlors" are compared to the traditional. I'll just bet there are a lot of men out there already salivating.
So, FRC is worried about gay prostitution spreading HIV ? (doubt it) Male prostitutes will have health screening and bonding requirements just like female prostitutes.
And what the anonymous, and I assume, male author of this OP for FRC isn't addressing (very OBVIOUSLY)is the fact that the male prostitutes aren't going to be added to the brothel(s) for gay men. They're going to be added to the brothels for SINGLE PROFESSIONAL WOMEN.
That's right boys! WOMEN will finally have the same opportunity for anonymous sex with no strings attached.
As more and more women become educated and sucessful in their careers, they're realizing that a lot of men just aren't worth their time and effort. Women with disposable income now have options!!!
We don't have to settle for lazy, sloppy misogynists that want to be waited on hand and foot. We don't have to agonize about body image and male acceptance. We don't have to pretend that we're overjoyed by the attentions of bitter, angry, overweight, middle-aged men (which describes most of our male professional and social "peers") that have enough emotional baggage to fill an airplane hanger (or worse, the "youngish" ones looking for an easy mark/meal-ticket, and older women "got to be desparate, heh heh").
We aren't fooled by the whole "get back in the kitchen, and on your back, and obey and gratify your man" movement within all the patriarchal fundamentalist "religious" sects (full quiver anyone?).
That's right gentlemen! If I have the cash, I'll now be able to buy sex that's guaranteed disease-free and ALL ABOUT ME!!! And I'll also know that my servicer is a bondable, licensed professional; extremely unlikely to pull out a butcher knife once the door is closed and locked. He won't know where I live and I don't even have to give him my number.
Considering what's out there in the "singles" scene for the over 40 woman, I just hope there's a brothel in Carson City (cause I don't like Vegas, Reno, or Laughland).
OP states: "This raises serious questions about gender equity, however. If a Christian psychologist or a fertility doctor is not free to turn away a homosexual client for fear of “ discrimination ” charges, how can a homosexual male prostitute be allowed to turn away a female client? Isn’t that discrimination, too? On the other hand, if you require them to take all clients, then maybe that would effectively mean that only bisexuals can work as prostitutes in Nevada. Wouldn’t that be discrimination, too?"
To my knowledge, sex workers have never been required by law to have sex with any and every prospective client, regardless of their personal likes or dislikes. They have always been free to turn away any prospective "john" who did not appeal to them (what their "pimp" or "manager" might expect from them or force them to do is another matter -- I'm talking only about what the government can force them to do). No one, regardless of profession, can be forced by law to have sex with someone with whom they do not choose to have sex. The OP's statement regarding "discrimination" is ridiculous.