For the longest prison term, woman were treated as men 's attribute in high society. Women could n't decide whom to tie. And it was legally insufferable for a married man to outrage his wife. Because the woman had no right to say 'No'to him.

Only recently practice of law have been changed to gift fair sex the full right wing to say 'No'to a guy, even if he is her husband.

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

Even many so-called liberals are now advocating the Swedish mannikin of anti-prostitution police. This Swedish manikin basically treats adult women as child shaver, who have no right wing to give consent for having sex with a guy. Such a law treats char leniently, as if they are minor league who do n't get laid what they are doing. Instead, the law goes after the men. Such a law treats men as if they are sexual vulture taking advantage of incompetent women, who are unequal to of deciding for themselves.

This discussion of adult female as if they are incompetent children is actually a throwback to the old times, when cleaning lady had no legal right field. Because that 's how women were described in the yesteryear in order to deny them the right wing either to say 'Yes'or 'No'in their matrimony, in their sex, and in their life story.

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

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

But when women's liberationist advocate law of nature that deny competent adult cleaning woman the right to say 'Yes'to a guy. Then this is almost like civil right hand advocates supporting some form of return back to slavery. It 's a treachery of their fundamental theme and their cause. Which makes me ask, whether these feminists are really women's rightist, or whether they are just claiming to be women's liberationist to put down feminism from inside ?

In their defense, anti-prostitution women's liberationist would say that even competent adult womanhood in the sex-trade are often forced and coerced to do their sex-work. These women are n't free to say 'No'to guys, and their 'Yes'does n't really entail 'Yes'in their situation. Which is avowedly in the situation they describe.

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

If completely banning the moving in, where some workers are exploited, is a fairish response. Then this means that farm working class should be banned, janitorial oeuvre should be banned, and any former occupation should be banned, when doer 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 sane answer would be to have broadcast and rules for monitoring possible victimization, ending it whenever it 's found, and punishing those responsible. And this is exactly what governments do, when they want to end victimization of proletarian in various occupations.

outside of feminism, one telling feature film of this denial for adult female the rightfulness to say 'Yes'to a guy is the inconsistency in laws and citizenry 's attitudes.

Women actually have a right to have sex for money, when they make porn. Perhaps adult female ca n't make pornography in every legal power. But porn is uncommitted everywhere. And governments are generally tolerating it. So, women are basically saying 'Yes'to paying Guy and making money off having sex with guys in porn.

But as soon as you take away the tv camera, and the woman just has sex for money in individual with a guy. Then the government and many mass call this 'prostitution'and do their best 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 only difference is whether the woman 's sex with the guy is world or individual. Which is another contradiction.

You would naturally expect the great unwashed to suffer Sir Thomas More right and freedoms in common soldier than in public. But what we have now is the contrary. cleaning lady can says 'Yes'when they have sex for money to form public porn. But women are treated as incompetent nipper, when they try to induce sex for money in private.

The thing about treating grownup womanhood as unequal to minors in this situation is that it 's like a trojan horse knight that in the future can be used to reverse women 's rightfulness and go back to the old way of treating cleaning lady as kid children. Because if it 's okay to treat women as youngster in having sex, then why not move the laws and attitudes a little more in the historical instruction and deny cleaning woman the right to do something else ?

Once you compromise on your rationale and you do n't sustain any, then there is no way to love when and where to stop moving womanhood 's rights in reverse.

Describing adults as clumsy baby has been used historically to rationalise black slavery and deny women their rights as full citizens of the country.

Most of such attitude have been overcome. But there is one big exception now. Anti-prostitution laws are based on the idea that grownup woman are like underage children, and they should be treated as such in this kind of a situation.

And actually pol, who advocate such laws, often do talk about tiddler and children to justify their laws. They just forget to cite that they are playing a bait and switch kind of sales maneuver to deal their jurisprudence. They talk about minors and fry, but they make their Laws for adult women instead. So, there is some dirty and underhanded politics involved in this too.

government activity, politicians, and busybody abusing their power to call for away people 's right and freedoms has a hanker history in virtually every country. Anti-prostitution laws are a modern font good example of this. And historically, such Torah and posture did n't go away on their own. Only widespread resistance and subversion of such 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 upshot of the Civil War that killed millions. And cleaning woman did n't get their right hand as a answer of men 's benefaction either. Their fight for their rights has been long and hard, even longsighted than that of the slaves. And this fighting is n't yet fully finished. Because anti-prostitution laws are still treating adult cleaning lady as children.

I think ethical people and people of conscience should reject and misdirect such laws and attitudes whenever they can. Because this is absolutism, and totalitarianism does n't go away on its own. We will have tyranny as long as the great unwashed accept it and choose to be with it .