Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'prostitution'.
Found 4 results
The entire sex offender "registration" system has got to go. For some of these alleged "sex offenses," especially certain willful, intentional, and repeated acts against children, we need life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in order to ensure public safety. Public safety, however, is clearly not the goal with this system. It is a form of house arrest or imprisonment that allows conjugal visits from ladies off the street. The ladies have cell phone "apps" nowadays to locate nearby registered sex offenders. The tabloid-level notoriety only advertises the availability of these men for the ladies. Ladies who consort with registered sex offenders are not only a public nuisance but dangerous themselves, although they are not subject to this particular male-only "system" themselves. In this same vein, let us eliminate various "endorsements" and "restrictions" from our drivers' licenses. The motorcycle endorsement. if you learned how to ride a bicycle as a child, are able to operate a motor vehicle and follow rules of the road, and have insurance for liability and personal injury, you do not need the Harley endorsement. Your choice of motor vehicle or alleged association with others who drive the same type of vehicle must be divorced from any concept of "who you are." The commercial driver's license. The licensure for your particular occupation or employment does not belong on the I.D. that you must have for driving your personal automobile, other personal travel, personal purchases of alcohol or tobacco, seeking employment in other fields of work, or for any other purposes than driving a commercial vehicle. Your occupation is not "who you are." You do not want to advertise your occupation or field of work every time you must present your I.D. for something. The corrective lens restriction. Vision and vision tests are highly subjective, and whores have been putting out eyes since the days of Samson. Enough already. None of that garbage is legitimate, and all of it needs to come off the I.D.
'Rape-Adjacent': Imagining Legal Responses to Nonconsensual Condom Removal https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2954726 I'm curious about this exploration of such legalities. Is there a signed or verbal or "unspoken" contract where the man has agreed not to remove said condom during the aforementioned sexual activities? If so, did the woman receive remuneration from the man in consideration for imposing such liability on the man to ensure that the condom is not removed during their mutual sexual activity that would otherwise be consensual? Is there proof that the man and not the woman wilfully and intentionally removed the condom during sexual intercourse? Is the quality of manufacture of the condom itself sufficient to ensure that it stays on if it is not intentionally removed? How much duty of care is imposed upon the man rather than upon the woman to ensure that the condom remains "on" during their otherwise consensual mutual sexual activities? How much legal liability does the manufacturer of the condom assume in this case? I don't think this is generally an issue in a marriage or long-term relationship. It seems like a very short-term relationship, and the imposition of such legal constraints is an indication that this is a commercial transaction of sex for money or other consideration. At this point, I say just throw them both in the slammer, test them for STDs, interrogate them for sexual partners, inform the Department of Health, and shut down the aforementioned "establishment." "Stealthing:" http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/stealthing-the-practice-of-removing-condoms-during-sex-is-on-the-rise/433971040 As usual, when it comes to sex, people aren't telling the whole truth, and when they talk about one thing they are really talking about something else by a certain unspoken "understanding" which I find absolutely infuriating. "Stealthing:" Men are drugging women with date-rape drugs and sneaking into bed with them while they are unconscious. It has nothing to do with condoms.
It's getting really old. The straight sex-for-money racket in the corporate mainstream media. LGBTQQIAA. Lesbian --> $$$, ladies, women, girls, hot, Hot, HOT !!! Gay --> I mean, come on, dude, you haven't slept with a woman in so long, you're like, GAY !!! Bisexual --> like really, really hot ladies !!! Transgender --> Oh, are you low on testosterone? Fuck, we've got 'roids, and ladies who will solve that "problem" for you !!! Queer --> Well, you're weird. All these hot ladies, and you haven't take them up on it yet? Are they too expensive for you ??? Questioning --> Are you sure about that? Maybe you're "love-shy" and you need a professional sex therapist !!! Intersex --> Fuckin' shit, come on, dude, you just need some 'roids! The ladies love this stuff !!! Asexual --> Oh, you just haven't met the right lady yet !!! Alternative --> Asian, exotic ladies, BDSM, oh, yes, we have it all for you. Might cost you a bit extra, though !!! It's getting really old. There really are people who are LGBT, but they are far in the minority, and the straight sex-for-money folks run over them like a herd of elephants.
sugarcitizens2013 posted a topic in Government, NWO and PoliticsIn this video, I explain the color of law and the prostitution statutes. We are under admiralty color of law. The judges have colored the prostitution laws to criminalizes commercial prostitution and legalize noncommercial prostitution. Please watch this video. http://youtu.be/4XdGUgSQxqo