Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WorldCitizen] Re: prostitution/marriage

Expand Messages
  • Louis ...
    If you read my previous comment completely through you ll notice that I didn t say anything about a Conspiracy of Women Against Men, or whatever. That s was
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 24, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      If you read my previous comment completely through you'll notice that I didn't say anything about a Conspiracy of Women Against Men, or whatever. That's was GlobalMan who said that.
      I do agree with his legal/lawful points amongst other stuff.
      But what I do know about governments making prostitution illegal (notice that no government can ever make it unlawful, only illegal) is that several things will happen:
      Crime will drastically rise.
      Domestic violence will sharply rise.
      Violent crimes will sharply rise.
      Rape crimes will sharply rise.
      Divorce rates will sharply rise.
      Child violence will sharply rise.

      And why will this happen?
      Simple: The man will NOT have a sexual outlet. If his wife refuses to give him sex and he can't get it elsewhere, he may resort to smacking her on the head and "taking her vagina".
      Or he may walk down the street and decide to rape some passerby female.
      Or he may be sitting in his living room, all sexually repressed and angry, and his kid says something or does something and the guy lashes out and smacks the kid through a wall.
      Need I say more?
      And all this because some fools wish to control other peoples lawful Rights to Contract as they see fit.
      And peoples Right to Contract as they see fit is PARAMOUNT.
      This is why I agree with GlobalMan's posts. Because it seems that he's probably the only one on this forum who understands this most basic right.
      The governments ONLY job is to protect people's Life, Liberty, and Property.
      That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.
      The governments job isn't to feed people, nor to be peoples morality controller, nor to get people jobs, nor to educate people whether via public schools or whatever.
      In India, if a married man marries another woman while still married to the first one and gets caught he'll get charged with RAPE whether or not any of the women file charges against him. He'll do PRISON even though both women have no problem with each other and cry for him and for him not to be sent to prison.
      Now isn't that nice of the government?
      The government sends that man to prison, taking away a father to who knows how many children and the family bread winner.
      So right there the wife and mother of the children may have to resort to PROSTITUTION just to bring some food to the house and to pay for bills.
      The following are some legal excerpts:

      There is other law under the ordinance under which a man can be subject of a rape, in that ordinance A man and a woman are said to commit "zina" if they willfully have sexual intercourse without being validly married to each other.

      Zina is liable to hadd [punishment] if--
      (a) it is committed by a man who is an adult and is not insane, with a woman to whom he is not, and does not suspect himself to be married; or

      A person is said to commit zina-bil-jabr if he or she has sexual intercourse with a woman or man, as the case may be, to whom he or she is not validly married, in any of the following circumstances, namely:--

      (d) with the consent of the victim, when the offender knows that the offender is not validly married to the victim and that the consent is given because the victim believes that the offender is another person to whom the victim is or believes herself or himself to be validly married.

      The preceding were just some legal excerpts. And notice that at no point were "the vaginas taken by force or threat of force". Nor were children involved nor mentally handicapped people.
      The sex happened between consenting adults.

      Isn't the government a wonderful benefactor?
      Let's all give a big heart-felt cheer for the governments. HIP HIP HOORAAAAAYYYY ! ! !  




      --- On Thu, 2/24/11, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:

      From: ro-esp <ro-esp@...>
      Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: prostitution/marriage
      To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, February 24, 2011, 10:08 PM

       

      louis.ny2001@... sendis:

      > Hello everyone.
      > I've been on this site for almost a year now and as I read posts I
      > see that one of the only people here that makes sense is the guy who
      > calls himself Globalman.

      Sense? As far as I can read he thinks there's a worldwide conspiracy
      of women to make the lifes of men difficult. I'm not saying I never
      suffered from fairy-tales,
      prejudices and unjustified generalisations, but the violence goes both
      ways, and we need to get out of this "cold war"-thinking altogether.
      Unfortunately Peter doesn't bother to reply to my attempts to dialogue
      with him, does he?

      > He even speaks on the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful".
      > Most people read that and wonder "what's the difference"?
      > And those are the true slaves.

      Being underinformed or misinformed, be it by media, school or others,
      doesn't make you a slave *by your own choice* Louis.

      > In the year of 1020 a decree was passed in Eastern Europe banning
      > the Ashkenazi Jewish males from having more than one wife.

      They didn't ban Ashkenazi women from having more than one husband ;-) ?

      > This was done because the Ashkenasi Jews had always been surrounded
      > by Christian neighbors who frown on poligamy.

      I don't frown on polygamy, provided all parties/partners involved
      agree, and it's both ways: polygyny AND polyandry. Under certain
      circumstances, caused by wars or epidemics, those are practical ways
      to deal with a male/female unbalance.
      As I've heard, the islamic permission of polygyny arose from the very
      situation where wars had left many women and children widowed and
      orphaned.

      > But there is no law in Torah that says that a man cannot have more
      > than one wife.
      > So therefore forcing us into monogamy is actually a form of RAPE
      > since we're forced into this without our consent.

      No point in insulting all those, men and women, who have been actually
      raped, Louis.

      > And that's an INVALID CONTRACT.

      That's how countries, democratic or otherwise work:they make decisions
      for you. If you don't like it, not much you can do, except forming a
      pressure group or moving to somalia...

      > Now to one of Globalmans points:
      > If a female wishes to rent her vagina out for money: Who is the
      > government for say that's wrong?

      In "democratic" societies it's not the government, it's the people,
      through the parties they vote for. In countries with several parties
      (like NL), prostitution has a chance to be legalized. In countries
      with only 2 parties (like the US), chances are neither of them will
      risk proposing something that deviant from the mainstream.
      They won't risk losing the votes of those who believe that renting out
      your own pussy/ass is a horrible thing. As I asked before: would you
      do it yourself? Would you not mind if your
      wife/girlfriend/son/daughter considered a career in that line of work?

      I'm not saying it should be illegalised.It's probably a great job for
      people with a lot of libido. I am saying that noone should be forced
      into it (or into any "excuse for a job" for that matter).

      > Prostitution is a legalized institution. That's what MARRIAGE means:
      > The female gets maintained in exchange for her pussy-vagina and to
      > make some kids (the mans bloodline goes forward) and she maintains
      > the home.

      What if either party is infertile? Or doesn't want children?

      > THAT'S A CONTRACT.
      > That's actually a legalized contract of prostitution.
      > Now the problem here in America with men having more than one wife
      > is that they're STUPID ENOUGH TO LEGALLY MARRY the females. So the
      > government will obviously exercise it's power and incarcerate the
      > guy.

      Yes, he gets incarcerated for violating the terms of the contract he signed

      > And what happens?
      > The father of several children and husband of several wives can no
      > longer provide for himself nor his family.

      and someone "more decent" ;-) can get his J-O-B... Sorry, but I think
      that's part of the equation too: the "I need a job, and I don't care
      if some polygamist/foreigner/cannabis-user goes to jail so I can have
      one"-mentality. Welcome to the free market, Louis...

      groetjes, Ronaldo

      --
      http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net


    • ro-esp
      ... If you had read what I had said, or http://www.learn.to/quote -ed, you d have seen that that was exactly what I had said: He (globalman) believes.. ... Do
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        louis.ny2001@... sendis:

        > If you read my previous comment completely through you'll notice
        > that I didn't say anything about a Conspiracy of Women Against Men,
        > or whatever. That's was GlobalMan who said that.

        If you had read what I had said, or http://www.learn.to/quote -ed, you'd
        have seen that that was exactly what I had said: He (globalman) believes..

        > I do agree with his legal/lawful points amongst other stuff.
        > But what I do know about governments making prostitution illegal
        > (notice that no government can ever make it unlawful, only illegal)
        > is that several things will happen:
        > Crime will drastically rise.
        > Domestic violence will sharply rise.
        > Violent crimes will sharply rise.
        > Rape crimes will sharply rise.
        > Divorce rates will sharply rise.
        > Child violence will sharply rise.

        Do you have statistics to back this up? Are those things more frequent
        in sweden than in the netherlands?
        BTW here in the netherlands the rationale for the legalisation is that
        we fear that any prohibition would drive the prostitutes into secrecy,
        where they would have less choices as to how to do their work and
        would be more likely to be overexploited by pimps.


        > And why will this happen?
        > Simple: The man will NOT have a sexual outlet. If his wife refuses
        > to give him sex and he can't get it elsewhere, he may resort to
        > smacking her on the head and "taking her vagina".
        > Or he may walk down the street and decide to rape some passerby female.
        > Or he may be sitting in his living room, all sexually repressed and
        > angry, and his kid says something or does something and the guy
        > lashes out and smacks the kid through a wall.

        There must be at least 2000 men on this listserve. Can any of them
        testify from own experience that it works this way? I know that at the
        times I was willing to smack someone, it had to do with working too
        much or sleeping to little, and with being treated unreasonably for a
        while - not because of my lack of sex.


        What you seem to assume, is that libido is a craving, like sleep or
        hunger or addiction, so strong that you can't be blamed for satisfying
        it by violence.

        I think that rape is not so much a form of sex, but rather a form of
        violence.This assumption is supported by the fact that victims of it
        include children before the age of puberty, and men (when women happen
        to be out of reach)


        > Need I say more?
        > And all this because some fools wish to control other peoples lawful
        > Rights to Contract as they see fit.
        > And peoples Right to Contract as they see fit is PARAMOUNT.

        Louis, when two people want to get sexually envolved with eachother,
        that's fine but
        "right to contract" has little to do with it, I think.

        > This is why I agree with GlobalMan's posts. Because it seems that
        > he's probably the only one on this forum who understands this most
        > basic right.

        I'm not a ferengi. Contracts are one of the reasons we have a lot of
        our problems.
        People are being kicked out of their house of 100.000 euro's because
        they paid 150.000 but have signed a contract with their bank that says
        they should pay 200.000.
        In the USA people are being ruined by "naked short selling" (I sell
        you something I don't even own, then buy it back for millions less).In
        some countries that's considered fraud, In the USA it's legal...

        > The governments ONLY job is to protect people's Life, Liberty, and Property.
        > That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

        You make it sound so selfevident, but it isn't:
        -life: should the government protect my life if all i'll ever be doing
        in it is suffer, and someone tries to help me end it? I don't think so.

        -liberty: could you define that word?

        -Property... do you think anyone should have the right to accumulate
        that indefinitely? Slavery is based on property. Latifundism (all the
        land being owned by just a few persons, who thus monopolise work and
        food) is based on Property as well.
        Property by corporations is what's keeping millions of people from
        basic rights such as enough food, drinkable water, basic health etc..


        > The governments job isn't to feed people,

        that's what nature and farmers do

        > nor to be peoples morality controller,

        I think I agree on that one

        > nor to get people jobs,

        if a society chooses to divide the work into jobs... a goverment has
        the right to
        stimulate a fair division/spread of those jobs

        > nor to educate people whether via public schools or whatever.

        It's teachers (among others) who educate


        Waht I do agree about is that governments should be there to protect
        people, against lots of things...
        It's also there to arrange things the people(populus) wants arranged
        that can't be done on an individual scale


        > In India, if a married man marries another woman while still married
        > to the first one

        he's breaching the terms of his CONTRACT with his first wife

        > and gets caught he'll get charged with RAPE

        that's either a perversion of the law, or a translation thing [when
        professor doctor something talks about beings too small to see that
        cause diseases,we assume it's microbes and he's all modern and
        scientific. If mister/misses shaman talks about
        invisible beings that cause diseases, we assume it's ghosts and
        spirits and (s)he is all old fashioned and superstitious]

        whether
        > or not any of the women file charges against him. He'll do PRISON
        > even though both women have no problem with each other and cry for
        > him and for him not to be sent to prison.
        > Now isn't that nice of the government?
        > The government sends that man to prison, taking away a father to who
        > knows how many children and the family bread winner.
        > So right there the wife and mother of the children may have to
        > resort to PROSTITUTION just to bring some food to the house and to
        > pay for bills.

        Some societies (and not only those with an institutionalised
        government) have provisions so that they won't have to :-)


        > The following are some legal excerpts:
        >
        > There is other law under the
        > ordinance under which a man can be subject of a rape, in that
        > ordinance A man and a woman are said to commit "zina"
        > if they willfully have sexual intercourse without being validly
        > married to each other.
        >
        >
        > Zina is liable to hadd [punishment] if--
        >
        >
        > (a) it is committed by a man who is an adult and is
        > not insane,
        > with a
        > woman to whom he is not, and does not suspect himself to be
        > married; orA person is said to commit
        > zina-bil-jabr if he or she has sexual
        > intercourse with a woman or man, as the case may be,
        > to whom he or
        > she
        > is not validly married, in any of the following circumstances,
        > namely:--
        >
        > (d) with the consent of the victim, when the offender knows that
        > the
        > offender is not validly married to the victim and that
        > the consent
        > is
        > given because the victim believes that the offender is another
        > person to
        > whom the victim is or believes herself or himself to be validly
        > married.
        >
        > The preceding were just some legal excerpts. And notice that at no
        > point were "the vaginas taken by force or threat of force". Nor were
        > children involved nor mentally handicapped people.
        > The sex happened between consenting adults.
        >
        > Isn't the government a wonderful benefactor?

        It makes me wonder whether those laws were made under religious elite
        or other cultural influence. How does the culture deal with children
        who were conceived outside of wedlock? Are unmarried mothers
        considered eligible for marriage there?

        > Let's all give a big heart-felt cheer for the governments. HIP HIP
        > HOORAAAAAYYYY ! ! !  

        As you may have noticed, I don't see much point in being for or
        against a phenomenon like that "wholesale". I'm not saying all
        governments are good or bad, I'm not saying the EU is good or bad.
        Whether a decision is detrimental isn't decided by whether it was made
        by a government or by a million ordinary people.

        I do see a point in decentralising decisions, but I'm not commenting
        on that today.

        groetjes, Ronaldo

        --
        http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.