Senate Let's Talk: Feminism

Same opinion here, I mean in a perfect world there would likely be no prostitution anyway but unlikely to happen, so far better to have it happen in a legal frame work and conducted by woman who actually choose to do it, not have it hidden in the shadows and often together with trafficking and forced prostitution.

 

Contract? Got one here, hold on, ah, here it is:


That side of it I can't see flying yet, maybe if society changes, but now? Probably stay as a verbal contract and cash payment with no trace of.

 

On a visit to Austria I did indeed visit a high class brothel out of curiosity, did not decide to actually use the service offered by the ladies working there, but the whole thing is very business. You get terms of service and house rules, negotiate exactly what kind of things you want and what she is willing to do and what not (in very much detail), also she has the right to refuse any customer. Not sure how much it is really enforced or if there is pressure in the background aside from the monetary ones, but I don't think there really is a problem in that form.

I personally felt that the woman there all seemed to be fine with the job and really did it because they made the choice to and because the money was good. Most spoke several languages, were very educated (I had a very enlightening conversation with a beautiful Italian woman about British History of all things) and the atmosphere is very casual.

Mind you, the prices were very high as well, so we are not talking seedy street corner stuff here, but several hundred Euros an hour for any of the services and a flat 100 just to actually be allowed in, though you get to eat and drink as much as you want.

And yes they take cash, credit and ATM cards (no Cheque, it’s an Austrian thing to not take those anywhere) and you can actually have a bill if you want, though doubt most will want one.

 

I can see the Daily Mail headlines right now G.

 

Aren’t they too busy still dreaming Hitler or Oswald Mosley came back from the dead to “save” the UK?

 

Oh no, no, you greatly underestimate their moral panic manufacturing capability at your peril.

 

UK system makes no sense anyway, it is legal to prostitute yourself and its legal to pay for it, but you can’t have a brothel or advertise your service? What could they complain about if we get high class establishments with voluntary workers and government oversight?

 

Come on man, it's Daily Mail, it doesn't have to make logical sense - they'd find something and before you know it, it'll be:



Besides, the last politician to try to take on the Mail was Cameron and we know what happened to the pig-poker.....

 

Just so we're clear, Republicans are now being up-front about women being sub-human:

http://theslot.jezebel.com/oklahoma-lawmaker-pregnant-women-are-hosts-whose-bodie-1792303950

 

"The Host" sounds like the name of a horror movie about possession or a science-fiction movie about a virus.

 

Close but no cigar.

 

That's the problem I tend to have with people who are pro-life and argue about the rights of the child. The rights of the mother don't (and shouldn't) simply disappear during pregnancy.

 

But the rights of the child should? While it's disrespectful and demeaning to refer to a pregnant mother as merely a "host", it is equally disrespectful (not to mention scientifically innaccurate) to refer to the unborn child as merely "part of her body" and nothing more.

From a scientific perspective, neither is true. It's a child and she's it's mother. It has its own body, and is not merely just part of hers like a kidney. At a certain point, it becomes possible for it to be born - without killing her because it's a separate body in her womb, not a vital organ - and live just fine. Yet in the US it's still legal to terminate its life at that point, and not just because the mother's life is in danger. For any damn reason at all. It is completely illogical and unscientific to persist with the lie that it's simply "part of her body" at that stage. This is as ridiculous a statement as saying that an expectant mother is merely a "host", as though it were a destructive and foreign parasite. Yet we are not allowed to admit that both are equally incorrect, because we have been told we have to pick a "side".

But whoops, there I go being a woman with my own opinion on abortion and expressing it. Better shut up before dp literally tells me that my opinion doesn't have a place in public discourse about abortion (a thing that he has literally done before, without seeming to understand the irony whatsoever).

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-families-and-society/?utm_term=.aaf8d359c3f3


Utah Republican argues against equal pay for women: It’s ‘bad for families’ and society

"Green said in his letter, published Wednesday by the Park Record and the Wasatch Wave, that men make more than women because they’re “the primary breadwinners” of their families, and paying women equally would somehow ruin the makeup of a traditional family where “the Mother” remains at home raising children.

“If businesses are forced to pay women the same as male earnings, that means they will have to reduce the pay for the men they employ, simple economics,” Green wrote. “If that happens, then men will have an even more difficult time earning enough to support their families, which will mean more Mothers will be forced to leave the home (where they may prefer to be) to join the workforce to make up the difference.”

But women have nothing to march for, right?

 

Not to mention, he completely leaves out:

1) Single women who haven't gotten married yet, or have remained single;
2) Divorced women
3) Widowed women
4) Same sex couples (which I assume he would consider blasphemy anyway)

According to him, EVERYONE lives in a nuclear family where the wife stays home and cooks and cleans and the man goes out to work.

Also, I know plenty of women who are the breadwinners in their family and also of men who are stay at home dads or the primary caregivers because his wife's job makes more or he has better paternity leave. He's probably one of those "That situation will screw up the children!" believers though.

 

Like the Kylo fans who think that Leia is to blame for Kylo going Dark because "As the mother, she had a duty to be the nurturing caregiver to Kylo and she failed in that by having a job when she had a child". (Sorry to be "off-topic" in the JCC, but it boggles my mind people still think this in this day and age).

 

Great points. This goes to show that it's up to individuals and couples to decide the nature of their respective relationships.