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


Erotica
For the recollective metre, woman were treated as men 's property in bon ton. womanhood could n't decide whom to marry. And it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. Because the woman had no right to say 'No'to him.

Only recently laws have been changed to give women 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 nigh other rural area. But whether a woman can say 'Yes'to a guy for having sex is still an undetermined issue even in USA.

Even many supposed progressive are now advocating the Swedish mannequin of anti-prostitution legal philosophy. This Swedish mannikin basically treats adult women as minor children, who have no right to hand consent for having sex with a guy. Such a law treats women leniently, as if they are tike 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 vulture taking reward of unqualified women, who are incapable of deciding for themselves.

This intervention of womanhood as if they are bungling children is actually a throwback to the old time, when women had no legal rights. Because that 's how women were described in the past in order to deny them the right either to say 'Yes'or 'No'in their married couple, in their sex, and in their lives.

Surprisingly, some libber are now advocating the Swedish example of anti-prostitution Pentateuch. And I say surprisingly, because such laws are using the Lapp idea and assumptions that feminists have been fighting against in the past tense.

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

But when feminist advocate laws that deny competent adult women the right to say 'Yes'to a guy. Then this is almost like civil rightfulness counsellor supporting some form of rejoinder back to slavery. It 's a betrayal of their fundamental ideas and their suit. Which makes me ask, whether these feminists are really women's rightist, or whether they are just claiming to be feminists to demolish feminism from inside ?

In their defense, anti-prostitution feminists would say that even competent grownup women in the sex-trade are often forced and coerced to do their sex-work. These women are n't resign to say 'No'to cat, and their 'Yes'does n't really mean 'Yes'in their situation. Which is true in the billet they describe.

The lone problem with this argumentation is that coercion and forcing of any grownup in anything is already against the law. And you can find hatful of ordinary confinement using among migrant farm workers, illegal immigrants, and so on. There is nothing special about such thing going on in the sex-trade too.

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

A reasonable response would be to have curriculum and rules for monitoring possible using, ending it whenever it 's found, and punishing those responsible. And this is exactly what governance do, when they want to end exploitation of workers in various occupations.

Outside of women's lib, one telling feature of this denial for cleaning lady the right to say 'Yes'to a guy is the mutual exclusiveness in law of nature and the great unwashed 's attitudes.

Women actually have a right to have sex for money, when they make porn. Perhaps women ca n't arrive at smut in every jurisdiction. But porno is available everywhere. And authorities are generally tolerating it. So, char are basically saying 'Yes'to paying guys and making money off having sex with cat in porn.

But as soon as you take away the tv camera, and the woman just has sex for money in common soldier with a guy. Then the political science and many multitude call this 'prostitution'and do their best to traverse women the right to say 'Yes'to a guy.

So, having sex for money is okay in one place but not okay in another. And the only departure is whether the woman 's sex with the guy is public or common soldier. Which is another contradiction.

You would naturally require mass to give birth Thomas More rights and freedoms in common soldier than in public. But what we have now is the reverse. womanhood can says 'Yes'when they have sex for money to make public pornography. But women are treated as clumsy youngster, when they try to hold sex for money in private.

The thing about treating adult women as incompetent minors in this situation is that it 's like a Dardanian Horse that in the hereafter can be used to reverse char 's rights and go back to the old way of treating char as nonaged minor. Because if it 's OK to treat women as minors in having sex, then why not move the laws and attitudes a little more in the historical direction and deny charwoman the right hand to do something else ?

Once you compromise on your precept and you do n't have any, then there is no way to know when and where to break moving cleaning lady 's right hand in reverse.

Describing adults as fumbling children has been used historically to vindicate sinister thraldom and deny char their right hand as full-of-the-moon citizens of the country.

Most of such position have been overcome. But there is one big exception now. Anti-prostitution police force are based on the mind that adult charwoman are like nonaged shaver, and they should be treated as such in this sort of a situation.

And actually politician, who advocate such Pentateuch, often do talk about minors and small fry to justify their laws. They just forget to advert that they are playing a bait and switch kind of sales tactic to sell their natural law. They talk about minors and small fry, but they make their laws for adult char instead. So, there is some dirty and underarm politics involved in this too.

politics, politicians, and busybodies abusing their ability to take away people 's right wing and exemption has a long story in virtually every country. Anti-prostitution legal philosophy are a advanced model of this. And historically, such laws and position did n't go away on their own. Only widespread resistor and subversion of such law of nature 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 zillion. And women did n't get their rights as a effect of men 's benevolence either. Their conflict for their rights has been long and hard, even longer than that of the striver. And this fight is n't yet fully finished. Because anti-prostitution laws are still treating adult womanhood as children.

I think ethical hoi polloi and mass of conscience should withstand and undermine such Pentateuch 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 .
Sign-in {% trans 'to add this to Watch Later list' %}
{% trans 'Sign-in' %} to perform this action