For the foresightful prison term, woman were treated as men 's property in high society. Women could n't decide whom to marry. And it was legally impossible for a hubby to rape his wife. Because the woman had no right field to say 'No'to him.

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

Now, a cleaning lady 's 'No'finally means 'No'in USA and in most former countries. But whether a adult female can say 'Yes'to a guy for having sex is still an undetermined issue even in USA.

Even many alleged liberals are now advocating the Swedish model of anti-prostitution laws. This Swedish good example basically treats big women as kid children, who have no right to give consent for having sex with a guy. Such a law treats cleaning lady 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 intimate predators taking reward of incompetent fair sex, who are incapable of deciding for themselves.

This intervention of women as if they are incompetent kid is actually a throwback to the old times, when charwoman had no legal rightfield. Because that 's how cleaning lady were described in the past in order to deny them the right hand either to say 'Yes'or 'No'in their marriage, in their sex, and in their living.

Surprisingly, some feminists are now advocating the Swedish model of anti-prostitution Laws. And I say surprisingly, because such laws are using the Same ideas and assumptions that women's liberationist have been fighting against in the past.

I suppose, not all libber are alike. Some porn-stars, such as Angela White for example, call themselves feminist. And there are women's rightist who are against the kind of porn Angela White makes. So, libber do n't all match in their ideas and what to do.

But when women's liberationist advocate police force that deny competent adult fair sex the right hand to say 'Yes'to a guy. Then this is almost like civil rights counsellor supporting some form of return back to slavery. It 's a treachery of their fundamental ideas and their reason. Which makes me ask, whether these feminists are really feminists, or whether they are just claiming to be women's liberationist to destroy feminism from inside ?

In their Department of Defense, anti-prostitution women's rightist would say that even competent grownup cleaning woman in the sex-trade are often forced and coerced to do their sex-work. These women are n't disengage to say 'No'to cat, and their 'Yes'does n't really mean 'Yes'in their billet. Which is on-key in the billet they describe.

The only problem with this parameter is that coercion and forcing of any adult in anything is already against the law. And you can rule plenty of ordinary labor development among migrant farm workers, illegal immigrants, and so on. There is nothing special about such things going on in the sex-trade too.

If completely banning the business, where some proletarian are exploited, is a sensible reaction. Then this means that farm labor should be banned, janitorial piece of work should be banned, and any other occupation should be banned, when actor are found to be exploited there. When you look at it this way, then what these feminists are saying is n't reasonable or credible at all.

A fairish response would be to have programs and rule for monitoring possible exploitation, ending it whenever it 's found, and punishing those creditworthy. And this is exactly what politics do, when they want to end exploitation of workers in various occupations.

exterior of feminist movement, one telling feature of this denial for women the rightfulness to say 'Yes'to a guy is the inconsistency in police force and people 's attitudes.

fair sex actually have a right to have sex for money, when they make porn. Perhaps women ca n't name porn in every jurisdiction. But erotica is available everywhere. And regime are generally tolerating it. So, women are basically saying 'Yes'to paying guy wire and making money off having sex with guys in porn.

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

So, having sex for money is okay in one post but not okay in another. And the only deviation is whether the char 's sex with the guy is public or private. Which is another contradiction.

You would naturally look people to have more rightfulness and freedoms in private than in public. But what we have now is the reverse gear. Women can says 'Yes'when they have sex for money to make populace porn. But women are treated as incompetent minors, when they try to sustain sex for money in private.

The thing about treating adult womanhood as incapable minors in this site is that it 's like a Trojan horse cavalry that in the future can be used to revoke charwoman 's rights and go back to the old way of treating women as tyke nestling. Because if it 's approve to treat women as minors in having sex, then why not move the laws and attitudes a little more in the historical counsel and deny women the right to do something else ?

Once you compromise on your rationale and you do n't have any, then there is no way to know when and where to check moving women 's rights in reverse.

Describing grownup as incompetent children has been used historically to apologise blackness thralldom and traverse women their right field as full citizens of the country.

Most of such position have been overcome. But there is one big exception now. Anti-prostitution jurisprudence are based on the idea that fully grown women are like minor tiddler, and they should be treated as such in this kind of a situation.

And actually politicians, who advocate such police force, often do verbalise about minors and children to justify their police force. They just leave to mention that they are playing a bait and change over form of sales tactic to sell their laws. They talk about tyke and shaver, but they make their natural law for adult char instead. So, there is some dirty and underhanded political science involved in this too.

Governments, politicians, and busybodies abusing their mightiness to take away masses 's right field and freedoms has a foresighted history in virtually every country. Anti-prostitution laws are a modern example of this. And historically, such Laws and mental attitude did n't go away on their own. Only widespread electric resistance and subversion of such natural law and attitudes is what has made them go away in the past.

slavery did n't go away on its own. It ended only as a result of the Civil War that killed meg. And cleaning lady did n't get their rights as a outcome of men 's benevolence either. Their fight for their rights has been long and hard, even longer than that of the slaves. And this fight is n't yet fully finished. Because anti-prostitution legal philosophy are still treating fully grown women as children.

I think ethical people and people of moral sense should resist and countermine such laws and attitudes whenever they can. Because this is tyranny, and tyranny does n't go away on its own. We will have tyranny as long as people accept it and choose to last with it .