For the longest time, woman were treated as men 's property in society. womanhood could n't decide whom to wed. And it was legally insufferable for a husband to rape his married woman. Because the woman had no right to say 'No'to him.

Only recently jurisprudence have been changed to contribute adult female the fully right to say 'No'to a guy, even if he is her husband.

Now, a adult female 's 'No'finally means 'No'in USA and in most other country. But whether a womanhood can say 'Yes'to a guy for having sex is still an undecided issue even in USA.

Even many so-called liberal are now advocating the Swedish good example of anti-prostitution laws. This Swedish model basically treats adult cleaning woman as small-scale children, who have no rightfield to kick in consent for having sex with a guy. Such a law treats cleaning woman leniently, as if they are tiddler who do n't experience 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 incompetent charwoman, who are incapable of deciding for themselves.

This intervention of women as if they are incompetent tiddler is actually a reversion to the old prison term, when adult female had no legal right. Because that 's how womanhood were described in the past in order to deny them the right either to say 'Yes'or 'No'in their marriage, in their sex, and in their life history.

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

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

But when feminists advocate laws that deny competent adult fair sex the right to say 'Yes'to a guy. Then this is almost like civil right wing counsellor supporting some form of return back to slavery. It 's a treason of their primal ideas and their causa. Which makes me ask, whether these libber are really libber, or whether they are just claiming to be feminists to destroy women's liberation movement from inside ?

In their defense mechanism, anti-prostitution women's rightist 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 relinquish to say 'No'to guys, and their 'Yes'does n't really have in mind 'Yes'in their berth. Which is true in the situation they describe.

The just problem with this argument is that coercion and forcing of any adult in anything is already against the law. And you can find plenty of ordinary labor using among migrant farm workers, illegal immigrants, and so on. There is naught special about such things going on in the sex-trade too.

If completely banning the occupancy, where some workers are exploited, is a reasonable answer. Then this means that farm labor should be banned, janitorial body of work should be banned, and any early moving in should be banned, when workers are found to be exploited there. When you look at it this way, then what these feminists are saying is n't reasonable or believable at all.

A reasonable response would be to cause political program 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 exploitation of workers in assorted occupations.

Outside of feminist movement, one telling feature of this disaffirmation for fair sex the rightfulness to say 'Yes'to a guy is the mutual exclusiveness in practice of law and people 's attitudes.

Women actually have a rightfulness to possess sex for money, when they make porno. Perhaps char ca n't make porn in every jurisdiction. But erotica is available everywhere. And authorities are generally tolerating it. So, cleaning lady are basically saying 'Yes'to paying guys and making money off having sex with guy rope in porn.

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

So, having sex for money is okay in one site but not O.K. in another. And the only difference is whether the womanhood 's sex with the guy is world or private. Which is another contradiction.

You would naturally expect mass to have more rights and exemption in private than in public. But what we have now is the reverse. Women can says 'Yes'when they have sex for money to wee-wee public porn. But fair sex are treated as incompetent nestling, when they try to give birth sex for money in private.

The thing about treating adult women as incompetent minors in this situation is that it 's like a Dardan knight that in the future can be used to reverse fair sex 's rights and go back to the old way of treating women as shaver children. Because if it 's okay to treat cleaning woman as minors in having sex, then why not strike the laws and attitudes a little more in the diachronic focus and deny women the right hand to do something else ?

Once you compromise on your principles and you do n't receive any, then there is no way to know when and where to stop moving charwoman 's right hand in reverse.

Describing grownup as incompetent person small fry has been used historically to warrant black thraldom and traverse women their rights as full citizens of the country.

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

And actually politicians, who advocate such laws, often do talk about fry and children to warrant their Pentateuch. They just bury to bring up that they are playing a bait and switch variety of sales agreement tactic to sell their laws. They talk about minors and children, but they make their laws for fully grown woman instead. So, there is some dirty and sneaky government involved in this too.

governance, pol, and busybodies abusing their business leader to take away people 's rightfulness and freedom has a long history in virtually every rural area. Anti-prostitution laws are a modern lesson of this. And historically, such Torah and posture did n't go away on their own. Only widespread resistance and subversion of such laws and attitudes is what has made them go away in the past.

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

I think ethical the great unwashed and masses of conscience should resist and undermine such laws and attitude whenever they can. Because this is tyranny, and absolutism does n't go away on its own. We will ingest despotism as long as mass accept it and choose to live with it .