Would you like to add your website? Click Here!

'No' means no, but does 'Yes' mean yes?

2023-01-23 00:02:56

For the longest time, women were treated as men's property in society. Women couldn't decide whom to marry. And it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. Because the woman had no right to say 'No' to him.

Only recently laws have been changed to give women 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 most other countries. But whether a 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 model of anti-prostitution laws. This Swedish model basically treats adult women as minor children, who have no right to give consent for having sex with a guy. Such a law treats women leniently, as if they are minors who don't know what they are doing. Instead, the law goes after the men. Such a law treats men as if they are sexual predators taking advantage of incompetent women, who are incapable of deciding for themselves.

This treatment of women as if they are incompetent children is actually a throwback to the old times, when women had no legal rights. Because that's how women 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 lives.

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

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

But when feminists advocate laws that deny competent adult women the right to say 'Yes' to a guy. Then this is almost like civil rights advocates supporting some form of return back to slavery. It's a betrayal of their fundamental ideas and their cause. Which makes me ask, whether these feminists are really feminists, or whether they are just claiming to be feminists to destroy feminism from inside?

In their defense, anti-prostitution feminists would say that even competent adult women in the sex-trade are often forced and coerced to do their sex-work. These women aren't free to say 'No' to guys, and their 'Yes' doesn't really mean 'Yes' in their situation. Which is true in the situation they describe.

The only 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 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 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 feminists are saying isn't reasonable or credible at all.

A reasonable response 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 governments do, when they want to end exploitation of workers in various 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 can't make porn in every jurisdiction. But porn is available everywhere. And governments are generally tolerating it. So, women are basically saying 'Yes' to paying guys and making money off having sex with guys 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 and many people 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 public or private. Which is another contradiction.

You would naturally expect people to have more rights and freedoms in private than in public. But what we have now is the reverse. 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 Trojan Horse that in the future can be used to reverse women's rights and go back to the old way of treating women as minor children. Because if it's okay to treat women 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 principles and you don't have any, then there is no way to know when and where to stop moving women's rights in reverse.

Describing adults as incompetent children has been used historically to justify black slavery and deny women their rights 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 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 minors and children to justify their laws. They just forget to mention that they are playing a bait and switch kind of sales tactic to sell their laws. They talk about minors and children, but they make their laws for adult women instead. So, there is some dirty and underhanded politics involved in this too.

Governments, politicians, and busybodies abusing their power to take away people's rights and freedoms has a long history in virtually every country. Anti-prostitution laws are a modern example of this. And historically, such laws and attitudes didn'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.

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

I think ethical people and people of conscience should resist and subvert such laws and attitudes whenever they can. Because this is tyranny, and tyranny doesn't go away on its own. We will have tyranny as long as people accept it and choose to live with it.