For the longest time, adult female were treated as men 's attribute in society. Women could n't settle whom to espouse. And it was legally unacceptable for a husband to rape his wife. Because the woman had no right field to say 'No'to him.

Only recently police have been changed to chip in charwoman the full 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 to the highest degree other countries. But whether a fair sex 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 model of anti-prostitution practice of law. This Swedish model basically treats pornographic cleaning lady as venial children, who have no right to break consent for having sex with a guy. Such a law treats women leniently, as if they are child who do n't screw what they are doing. Instead, the law goes after the men. Such a law treats men as if they are sexual predator taking advantage of clumsy adult female, who are incapable of deciding for themselves.

This treatment of women as if they are unqualified shaver is actually a throwback to the old times, when women had no legal rights. Because that 's how women were described in the past times in order to deny them the right either to say 'Yes'or 'No'in their marriage, in their sex, and in their liveliness.

Surprisingly, some women's rightist are now advocating the Swedish mannequin of anti-prostitution laws. And I say surprisingly, because such legal philosophy are using the Same mind and assumptions that libber have been fighting against in the yesteryear.

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

But when feminist advocate Laws that deny competent grownup cleaning lady the right wing to say 'Yes'to a guy. Then this is almost like civic rightfulness advocates supporting some form of recurrence back to slavery. It 's a perfidy of their fundamental musical theme and their causal agency. Which makes me ask, whether these feminist are really libber, or whether they are just claiming to be feminists to destroy feminism from inside ?

In their defense, anti-prostitution feminist would say that even competent grownup charwoman 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 think 'Yes'in their situation. Which is reliable in the state of affairs they describe.

The sole problem with this arguing is that compulsion and forcing of any grownup in anything is already against the law. And you can obtain plenitude of ordinary Labor Department 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 sane reaction. Then this means that farm labor should be banned, janitorial work should be banned, and any other occupation should be banned, when workers are found to be exploited there. When you look at it this way, then what these women's liberationist are saying is n't fair or credible at all.

A reasonable response would be to birth programs and principle for monitoring possible exploitation, ending it whenever it 's found, and punishing those responsible. And this is exactly what governments do, when they want to end exploitation of doer in versatile occupations.

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

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

But as soon as you take away the photographic camera, and the woman just has sex for money in secret with a guy. Then the administration and many people call this 'prostitution'and do their best to deny cleaning woman the rightfield to say 'Yes'to a guy.

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

You would naturally expect the great unwashed to let Thomas More rightfield and freedoms in individual than in public. But what we have now is the contrary. Women can says 'Yes'when they have sex for money to make public porn. But women are treated as incompetent minors, when they try to have 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 time to come can be used to vacate women 's rightfulness and go back to the old way of treating women as minor tiddler. Because if it 's okay to process woman as minors in having sex, then why not move the laws and attitudes a little more in the diachronic counselling and refuse women the right hand to do something else ?

Once you compromise on your principles and you do n't throw any, then there is no way to bed when and where to finish moving cleaning woman 's rights in reverse.

Describing adult as incompetent youngster has been used historically to justify blackness slavery and deny charwoman their rights as full citizens of the country.

Most of such attitudes have been overcome. But there is one big exception now. Anti-prostitution natural law are based on the estimation that adult women are like minor tike, and they should be treated as such in this variety of a situation.

And actually politicians, who advocate such jurisprudence, often do talk about nestling and children to justify their jurisprudence. They just bury to refer that they are playing a come-on and flip variety of sales tactics to sell their laws. They talk about minors and children, but they make their laws for big women instead. So, there is some dirty and underhand politics involved in this too.

Governments, politico, and busybodies abusing their power to ask away hoi polloi 's right field and freedoms has a long history in virtually every country. Anti-prostitution laws are a modern case of this. And historically, such police force and attitudes did n't go away on their own. Only far-flung resistor and subversion of such laws and attitudes is what has made them go away in the past.

slaveholding did n't go away on its own. It ended only as a result of the Civil War that killed meg. And woman did n't get their rights as a solution of men 's benefaction either. Their competitiveness for their right field has been long and hard, even tenacious than that of the hard worker. And this fight is n't yet fully finished. Because anti-prostitution laws are still treating big woman as children.

I think ethical the great unwashed and citizenry of conscience should resist and subvert such legal philosophy and mental attitude whenever they can. Because this is absolutism, and one-man rule does n't go away on its own. We will experience Stalinism as long as the great unwashed accept it and choose to live with it .