'No'means No, But Does 'Yes'mean Yes ?


Erotica
For the longest time, women were treated as men 's property in companionship. adult female could n't settle whom to tie. And it was legally impossible for a husband to spoil his wife. Because the adult female had no right to say 'No'to him.

Only recently laws have been changed to give women the fully right to say 'No'to a guy, even if he is her husband.

Now, a woman 's 'No'finally means 'No'in USA and in almost other countries. But whether a woman can say 'Yes'to a guy for having sex is still an undecided issue even in USA.

Even many supposed progressive are now advocating the Swedish model of anti-prostitution police force. This Swedish model basically treats big women as minor nipper, who have no rightfield to pass consent for having sex with a guy. Such a law treats women leniently, as if they are minors who do n't know what they are doing. Instead, the law goes after the men. Such a law treats men as if they are sexual piranha taking reward of incompetent women, who are incapable of deciding for themselves.

This discussion of cleaning woman as if they are clumsy children is actually a reversion to the old times, when women had no sound rightfulness. Because that 's how woman were described in the past in purchase order to deny them the right either to say 'Yes'or 'No'in their marriage, in their sex, and in their living.

Surprisingly, some feminists are now advocating the Swedish fashion model of anti-prostitution laws. And I say surprisingly, because such laws are using the same ideas and assumptions that feminists have been fighting against in the past times.

I suppose, not all women's liberationist are alike. Some porn-stars, such as Angela Elwyn Brooks White for example, scream themselves women's liberationist. And there are feminist who are against the kind of porn Angela White makes. So, feminist do n't all agree in their theme and what to do.

But when feminists advocate Torah that deny competent grownup woman the right hand to say 'Yes'to a guy. Then this is almost like civil right wing advocates supporting some class of return back to bondage. It 's a treachery of their fundamental thought and their case. Which makes me ask, whether these feminist are really feminist, or whether they are just claiming to be feminists to put down women's liberation movement from inside ?

In their defense reaction, anti-prostitution libber would say that even competent adult women in the sex-trade are often forced and coerced to do their sex-work. These women are n't devoid to say 'No'to guy cable, and their 'Yes'does n't really entail 'Yes'in their situation. Which is dependable in the spot they describe.

The only problem with this argument is that coercion and forcing of any adult in anything is already against the law. And you can find pile of ordinary labor victimisation among migrant farm worker, illegal immigrants, and so on. There is null special about such matter going on in the sex-trade too.

If completely banning the business, where some proletarian are exploited, is a reasonable reception. Then this means that farm labor should be banned, janitorial workplace should be banned, and any other job should be banned, when doer are found to be exploited there. When you look at it this way, then what these women's rightist are saying is n't reasonable or credible at all.

A reasonable response would be to let syllabus and rules for monitoring possible victimization, ending it whenever it 's found, and punishing those responsible. And this is exactly what administration do, when they want to end exploitation of workers in assorted occupations.

exterior of feminism, one telling characteristic of this denial for fair sex the right to say 'Yes'to a guy is the mutual exclusiveness in laws and citizenry 's attitudes.

womanhood actually have a right wing to let sex for money, when they make porn. Perhaps cleaning lady ca n't make pornography in every legal power. But porn is useable everywhere. And government are generally tolerating it. So, char are basically saying 'Yes'to paying guy cable and making money off having sex with guy cable in porn.

But as soon as you take away the camera, and the woman just has sex for money in secret with a guy. Then the government and many people call this 'prostitution'and do their salutary to deny women the right to say 'Yes'to a guy.

So, having sex for money is okay in one situation but not okay in another. And the alone difference of opinion is whether the woman 's sex with the guy is populace or private. Which is another contradiction.

You would naturally require masses to have got more rightfulness and freedom in common soldier than in public. But what we have now is the reverse. Women can says 'Yes'when they have sex for money to make public porno. But womanhood are treated as unequal to nestling, when they try to possess sex for money in private.

The thing about treating adult cleaning woman as fumbling tike in this situation is that it 's like a Trojan sawbuck that in the future can be used to reverse adult female 's rights and go back to the old way of treating cleaning woman as nonaged shaver. Because if it 's okay to treat women as minors in having sex, then why not move the law of nature and attitudes a little more in the historical focal point and abnegate women the right to do something else ?

Once you compromise on your principles and you do n't suffer any, then there is no way to hump when and where to stop moving fair sex 's rightfulness in reverse.

Describing adult as incompetent children has been used historically to justify Negro thrall and deny womanhood their rights as fully citizens of the country.

Most of such attitudes have been overcome. But there is one big exclusion now. Anti-prostitution Laws are based on the idea that grownup cleaning woman are like minor children, and they should be treated as such in this variety of a situation.

And actually politico, who advocate such Torah, often do sing about fry and small fry to free their laws. They just forget to mention that they are playing a bait and switch kind of sales tactics to sell their laws. They talk about shaver and children, but they make their Torah for grownup charwoman instead. So, there is some dirty and sneaky politics involved in this too.

Governments, political leader, and nosey-parker abusing their force to take away people 's right hand and freedom has a long chronicle in virtually every country. Anti-prostitution Pentateuch are a New example of this. And historically, such laws and posture did n't go away on their own. Only widespread electric resistance and subversive activity of such laws and posture is what has made them go away in the past.

Slavery did n't go away on its own. It ended only as a solution of the Civil War that killed millions. And char did n't get their rights as a resolution of men 's benevolence either. Their scrap for their rights has been long and hard, even foresighted than that of the slaves. And this engagement is n't yet fully finished. Because anti-prostitution laws are still treating grown women as children.

I think honourable masses and people of conscience should resist and corrupt such law and posture whenever they can. Because this is authoritarianism, and tyranny does n't go away on its own. We will suffer tyranny as long as citizenry accept it and choose to experience with it .
Sign-in {% trans 'to add this to Watch Later list' %}
{% trans 'Sign-in' %} to perform this action