The Councillor And The Prostitutes

By | March 18, 2009

Chucken Ranch, NevadaTake a look at this story over on A-Rouse about the problems surrounding the attempted 2006 sale of the Chicken Ranch in Nevada.

Because there is legal precedent in the state of Nevada with regard to proprietors of such businesses having residency I have to draw the conclusion that either someone is making moral judgements or the law is being applied inconsistently.

It wouldn’t be the first time that sort of thing has happened, it takes place all over the world whenever an adult business is involved. I’m talking about perfectly legal companies here that just happen to have an adult element.

I’d be the first to agree that any business with an adult element or theme should be appropriately situated, and be advertised and signed in a way that will not cause offence to anyone. Like all businesses they should be subject to relevant legislation to keep their staff and clients safe while allowing them to contribute to the economy of the local area and country as a whole.

Of course when sexuality and particularly prostitution is involved it’s never that simple. Everyone has a view and for some people the sex industry from softcore images to hardcore movies and prostitution are unacceptable. If those people hold positions of power and cannot exercise professional detachment any adult business they deal with is in for a rough ride.

There’s not enough information about the Nevada suit to know exactly what happened in the current case or the apparent precedent, but inconsistency is certainly present. The sort of judgemental, mindless and totally dogmatic attitudes of some people may also be a factor.

If an adult business is legal and sited in the middle of nowhere why should anyone object on the grounds of anything other than personal morals? Objections of that kind are fine a private individual, but not from an official of the county, state or country.

Laws are themselves based on our collective sense of what is morally right or wrong, but they are written down and carefully worded (for the most part) to ensure their equitable application to all of us. Making exceptions because you personally disagree with someone’s actions or way of making a living can’t be allowed to happen as it leads to anarchy.

For example I find the work of Pollyanna Pickering offensive because it’s not technically brilliant, often clichéd, too cute, and yet people still buy it. If I had my way her paintings would be burnt in case I saw one and vomited on someone in disgust. That’s not about to happen as it would be unfair to apply my personal views in that way. And anyway if she couldn’t sell he paintings she’d end up as a street artists and her crap would appear everywhere.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Nevada case turns out.