For the foresighted time, women were treated as men 's property in society. char could n't resolve whom to marry. And it was legally impossible for a husband to outrage his married woman. Because the woman had no rightfulness to say 'No'to him.

Only recently laws have been changed to hold cleaning lady the full rightfulness 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 on the fence issue even in USA.

Even many so-called liberals are now advocating the Swedish theoretical account of anti-prostitution law of nature. This Swedish modeling basically treats adult women as nestling baby, who have no right to give consent for having sex with a guy. Such a law treats women leniently, as if they are tyke 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 advantage of incapable cleaning lady, who are incompetent of deciding for themselves.

This treatment of woman as if they are incompetent children is actually a reversion to the old fourth dimension, when women had no legal rights. Because that 's how women were described in the past in order to deny them the right wing either to say 'Yes'or 'No'in their matrimony, in their sex, and in their lives.

Surprisingly, some feminist are now advocating the Swedish model of anti-prostitution police. And I say surprisingly, because such Laws are using the Saami ideas and effrontery that libber have been fighting against in the yesteryear.

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

But when feminists advocate laws that deny competent grownup women the right hand to say 'Yes'to a guy. Then this is almost like polite rights advocates supporting some form of regaining back to slavery. It 's a betrayal of their key ideas and their lawsuit. Which makes me ask, whether these feminists are really feminists, or whether they are just claiming to be women's liberationist to demolish feminist movement from inside ?

In their demurrer, 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 free to say 'No'to guys, and their 'Yes'does n't really signify 'Yes'in their office. Which is true in the situation they describe.

The alone problem with this tilt is that compulsion and forcing of any adult in anything is already against the law. And you can feel plenty of ordinary bicycle labor exploitation 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 occupation, where some workers are exploited, is a reasonable response. Then this means that farm Labour should be banned, janitorial oeuvre should be banned, and any early military control should be banned, when prole are found to be exploited there. When you look at it this way, then what these libber are saying is n't fair or credible at all.

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

Outside of feminism, one telling feature article of this defense for woman the right to say 'Yes'to a guy is the inconsistency in laws and people 's attitudes.

cleaning woman actually have a right to have sex for money, when they make porn. Perhaps women ca n't establish porn in every jurisdiction. But porn is available everywhere. And politics are generally tolerating it. So, womanhood are basically saying 'Yes'to paying guy and making money off having sex with Guy in porn.

But as soon as you take away the camera, and the woman just has sex for money in private with a guy. Then the government activity and many masses call this 'prostitution'and do their secure 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 merely difference is whether the woman 's sex with the guy is public or private. Which is another contradiction.

You would naturally look people to have more than rightfield 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 porn. But cleaning lady are treated as incompetent minors, when they try to have sex for money in private.

The matter about treating adult women as incompetent small fry in this situation is that it 's like a trojan Horse that in the future can be used to reverse adult female 's rights and go back to the old way of treating charwoman as pocket-size children. Because if it 's sanction to treat fair sex as minors in having sex, then why not move the laws and attitudes a little more in the historical direction and deny women the right to do something else ?

Once you compromise on your rule and you do n't give birth any, then there is no way to do it when and where to stop moving char 's right hand in reverse.

Describing adult as incompetent small fry has been used historically to rationalize Black person slavery and traverse women their right field as full citizens of the country.

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

And actually politico, who advocate such laws, often do talk about bush league and youngster to justify their laws. They just forget to name that they are playing a bait and swap kind of sales event tactic to sell their law. They talk about minors and children, but they make their constabulary for adult cleaning lady instead. So, there is some dirty and underhanded politics involved in this too.

Governments, pol, and nosey-parker abusing their tycoon to take away people 's rights and freedom has a long history in virtually every country. Anti-prostitution laws are a Bodoni font object lesson of this. And historically, such laws and attitudes did n't go away on their own. Only widespread opposition and subversion of such law and posture is what has made them go away in the past.

thrall did n't go away on its own. It ended only as a result of the Civil War that killed millions. And charwoman did n't get their right hand as a result of men 's benevolence either. Their fight for their rights has been long and hard, even prospicient than that of the striver. And this fight is n't yet fully finished. Because anti-prostitution police are still treating adult women as children.

I think ethical the great unwashed and hoi polloi of scruples should stand and subvert such laws and attitude whenever they can. Because this is tyranny, and one-man rule does n't go away on its own. We will receive tyranny as long as people accept it and choose to live with it .