Humane to…?
The old “right to have access to a woman’s genitals” take.
How sensitive and humane to frame women as a resource men have a right to use.
In other news, one of the 87 Duggar kids from the “87 and counting” tv show about religious fanatics trying to break world records on how many children one woman can push out – one of those kids has been arrested.
Then surely it is also a right for a mentally disabled woman to have sex so if her care worker is fulfilling his role then he will have sex with her to ensure her rights are fulfilled.
Roj, don’t be silly. Women don’t have rights, they only have duties. Didn’t your mother ever tell you that? (Mine sure did, so I’m not totally being rhetorical here).
Roj, the judgement is about the right to engage a sex worker, not to have sex with a care worker. I think that had it been the latter there would be uproar from both the Social Services and private sector care workers and their unions.
My guess is that very few people will see the problem here. After all, isn’t being engaged for sex what prostitutes do anyway? They should be delighted that the courts are actually sending them punters.*
*For the first time ever I’ll point out in advance that yes, that was sarcasm.
AoS, I was taking it to an extreme and pointing out how it could, could, be one more way to provide cover to abusers.
iknklast, not something my mother told me, but something I did absorb growing up. But then, I grew up.
So it’s got me thinking… You can probably use critical theory to justify Red Piller/MRA/PUA/incel ideology directly without inferring it from sex work/trans/fatphobia ideology. Or am I not thinking about this right?
I think Roj’s hyperbole hits the nail perfectly. Surely it’s just the next logical step, right?
I apologise for my mis-reading, Roj, I see where you were coming from.