Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Calling users of prostitutes "Johns" is OK?
I happen to be one John who doesn't give a damn. I have never been with a prostitute and never will. But in this age of sensitivities everywhere, I predict trouble for that usage. Somebody else named John will probably make a lot of money out of it. There is an example of the usage here.
I wonder how such a stupid usage came about? I think I might start calling them "Husseins". That should put the cat among the pigeons!
If any of my readers are named John, it might be fun to send fiery letters to the newspaper demanding an apology and a cessation of the practice. The replies could be amusing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
What's wrong with referring to a sex worker's oppressive, predatory, privileged exploiter and objectifier by the slang term for toilet?
What's the problem here?
Geez.
:-)
You don't supposed it comes from the name of the generic unknown "John Doe"
I think I might start calling them "Husseins".
Seems completely appropriate to me. After all, it's the radical Muslims who, in the name of their pagan god, use prostitutes in greater and greater frequency.
Your wish is my command, at least for this one.
And if the male is to be called, John, I want the female to be called Hillary.
Fair is Fair.
Mobius (AKA John)
Soon, in the Twilight Zone, (a.k.a. San Francisco) thanks to legalization, they will no longer be called Johns, but simply consumers.
"What's wrong with referring to a sex worker's oppressive, predatory, privileged exploiter and objectifier by the slang term for toilet?"
Because you'll hurt the feelings of all the guys named LOU!
Funny how the bleeding-heart nitwits always see the john as the "oppressor and the predator, but not a word about the pimp. In fact, the true predators are the hookers themselves!
"In fact, the true predators are the hookers themselves!"
Right on, anon!
Would you believe almost 100% of those "ladies of the night" take your hard earned money and FAKE their orgasm!
Post a Comment