WARNING VERY SENSITIVE AND UPSETTING CONTENT IS INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT. This Project Is Composed Of A BOOK In Text Form Here Om The Blog With Accompanying Videos For Most Of The Femisodes........
PLEASE ONLY READ ON IF YOU ARE 18 YEARS OLD OR OLDER OR THE AGE YOU BECOME A LEGAL GROWN UP IN YOUR COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE IF THAT IS OLDER THAN 18 YEARS OLD........
🎀🎀🌈🌈💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🌈🌈🎀🎀
Please Kiss a few slow comfy breathSSnuddles before you deciissiioommbb to read the GGirlyTtext emmbbubbassnuddledttuddled iimmnniibbubbas this GgirlyNnest immbbSistermce........
🎀🎀🌈🌈💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🌈🌈🎀🎀
I am presently working on a 1000 page Feminism Book covering mmammy subjects and I take a very, very zero tolerance view on pro sti tuition. I have never used a pro sti tute. I always found the idea of doing so myself completely disgusting aammbb immoral because pro sti tuition is rape, we can never think about protection for Girls and may(-)be choice. Obviously Girls NEVER choose to be forced to be prostitutes aammbb do not need to be protected from an abolitionnnnisaid fill-thing ... Also I do not believe in being insulting or using insulting words. I want the word "stupid" Legally banned for inmnmstance. Pro sti tu I tion is rape and self-rape* for reasons I MMomSheOmme inmnm mmy New Book:
WORLDWIDE SOLUTIONS
PLANETTE EARTH MOTHER
GgIRLY IDEAS FOR A NEW WORLD
OUR MOVEMOMMED
aammbb ii also talk abbout iimmnniibbubbas detail iimmnniibbubbas mmy nnew bbook that all sex is rape ... this completely free bbookk that is available all for free on the blog pages of this bblogg is readable ALL FOR FREE oommbb this blog via the "Click4" limk above in the blog MomU.
All the articles onn this blogg are immcluded iimmbb my book also ...
So ... thinking that pro sti tuition being made safe is somehow possible is utter filth!. Everyone involved needs saving from the whole thing, from others and themselves. Please check out all of the text of mmy nnew bbookk too understand my unnegotiable views.
*so called men are self raping themselves and trying to force girls to self rape themselves UNSUCCESSFULLY...
YY: Prostitution isn't right or wrong. It's just a little sad.
But if people want to do it it should be legalised and regulated, it isn't going to go away. But it should most definitely not be openly pedalled on any street (as in Amsterdam) and remain behind closed doors.
II: What makes it sad, and why should it NOT be openly peddled? To suggest it should remain behind closed doors is to suggest it is somehow shameful. What makes it shameful?
YY: I suggest no such thing. Why give really easy access to something that someone may be pressurized into doing by their mates whilst walking down the street is all. Something they may later regret.
If a man really wants to find a prostitute he can find one in any town or city. Why paint an area of a city with a no-go brush for people who are offended?
And whatever you say, people do find it shameful, that's why any self-respecting man would hide such activities from his spouse, potential girlfriend, mothers, siblings, even friends. What you or I think on the matter (shameful or not) is immaterial. We live in democracy and the view of the masses is what's important?
If you did a survey of good cross-section of the community, male and female, how many people would say it's shameful?
II:
Only because we live in a culture that demonizes it.
Hardly, since the views of the masses can be swayed. It is up to responsible citizens to work to advance knowledge and understanding in others, not hide beneath the covers of the masses.
Continuing my point from above, that is irrelevant.
Consider this - both slavery and racism were for a long time considered acceptable practice - should we then simply say it is okay just because that was the will of the masses?
YY:
Are you serious?? You think that women don't want their husbands to see prostitutes because society demonizes it. That is twisted.
So the present views of the masses on such a fundamentally moral subject as this are wrong? One that people have had thousands of years to come to terms with and they are all wrong? You think you and others with your extreme views are going to sell the idea of prostitution as a morally sound exercise to a majority of monogamous functioning families? Humanity has grown-up. Would be nice if people who think prostitution is socially acceptable could do the same.
This is nonsensical. Slavery was never the view of the masses. Was society democratic then? NO. Were lower class people (the majority) slaves then as well? YES. Was it the (minority) ruling elite that created the slave trade and could afford to buy slaves? YES.
How can you equate the oppression of racial groups to the right of women to sell their bodies to married men?
Will the abolition of prostitution laws remove people from oppression? possibly, but you ain't gonna change peoples view on this one. But you are not talking about that easy step, no. You are talking about teaching the world that prostitution is ok, come on everyone lets go do it.
Like I have already said. It should be legalised and monitored to protect the women. But it should be kept behind closed doors. This moral battle has already been fought.
Of course there is a possible argument (which I am not afraid to open up) that men with serious physical or mental problems rely on prostitution. So these individuals that can't function within social norms would benefit massively from clean, regulated prostitution.
You are not going to win this one.
But I wish you luck.
II:
First of all, you gave far more examples than just spouses. Secondly, there ARE people in this world for whom prostitutes provide a welcome third person in their sex life. I have lived among many different cultures in this regard, and I assure you that it IS a cultural thing.
I don't even know where to begin dissecting this. Slavery was an accepted practice in the constitution of the United States - you know, that document that actually GRANTED democracy to America.
Re-read my post. I brought up slavery and racism as accepted practices until the minds of the masses were changed. I wasn't comparing them to prostitution.
No, I'm saying that people should decide what is right and wrong based on some compass other than the will of the masses.
You still haven't answered why.
If people on this forum fail to think beyond the closed mindset you have exhibited, I don't need luck - I need to find another forum - one in which people are capable of thinking for themselves.
YY: I think you are arguing with yourself.
I have stated twice that prostitution should be LEGAL so people can use it responsibly but you seem hell-bent on convincing people it is going to be a future socially acceptable practice. I reiterate, grow-up. People do not want prostitution (in Europe, Uk, America, that's what I am talking about, not any far-flung society to reference to as it is convenient for a nonsensical argument) as a social trend to be passed down to their kids, it is at odds with the corner-stone of Western Society. That being, if you do not know, monogamous family life. That is the most productive model for society.
Prostitution, today, in successful civilisations is immoral. That is the place we are at now. I didnt say that all the people from thousands of years ago have this belief, if you read it in context (whole paragraph) you would see I was talking about modern populations, did you miss that?
If you don't respect the views of the masses then you're in the wrong country my friend.
On a side note: What about the cost of STD's? That is why it was frowned on by Victorians. Social evolution established to protect people. So now antibiotics clear it all up. Back then people died and suffered from contracting disease.
I live in England, and you would have to be an idiot to not see that the majority of people are involved in monogamous practices.
"This is nonsensical. Slavery was never the view of the masses. Was society democratic then? NO. Were lower class people (the majority) slaves then as well? YES. Was it the (minority) ruling elite that created the slave trade and could afford to buy slaves? YES."
You can't dissect this because it's true. True democracy is voting for all, not excluding racial groups. Come on man. Do you think that that was true democracy?
I have already said why it should be kept behind closed doors but maybe I need to simplify it. People ARE offended by it.
You seem determined to bend things out of shape to your own agenda, whilst forgetting or changing the previous comments you make.
My mind is very open, but I respect other peoples' sensibilities. And I could respect your viewpoint if you had pitched it in a less forceful, more sensible manner.
Nearly half of the population of Britain are married, and of the remaining half a very sizable chunk are in monogamous relationships. I respect your right to seek out other people with your views and to start-up any type of relationships you wish but you are not going to re-educate the people of my country that prostitution is right and proper. Or, for example, that we should all go out and create three or four-way relationships. If you think any such doomed to fail crusade has a snowflakes chance in hell of succeeding then not only are you lying to me, but you're lying to yourself as well.
Not gonna happen. Sensible people do not want to slip down a doomed path of decadence. We do not want to share our wives with our neighbours, for example. Monogamy works for me and for most people, providing a sound family unit in which to bring up our children. The whole Western World evolved toward this point and it is a supremely effective model, adopted by all the most productive societies. Should we make similar mistakes to the Romans and doom our society to collapse? Would it work as well under a polygamous model? I think you'll find that all social groups that maintain polygamous practices are all flagging behind in development.
YY: Oh yeah, and by the way, you are in, and always will by in the minority on this topic in your lifetime.
II: No response
I made the original statement so attack one area of it then. The majority of any of the cited examples put into a socially acceptable situation with men and women present (not men joking in a bar) would be in alignment with an innate feeling of disgust at prostitution and what it represents and harbours.
Going back to a super-sexualised male (ego and sexual feeling) dominated roman-style society is not what women want. Would you reintroduce deep-seated male chauvinist attitudes that ignore women's emotional feelings? Our society has come forwards, why go back to that. Why decadence? Is that a way forward for economically successful society?
Disfunction of modern society already stems from the breakdown of the family unit. Would you have all women as single parents and all men as roaming phalluses? How is that economically viable? The societal services you enjoy are supported by the present economic model which is geared up for average people to cohabitate and share financial burden.
Again, I know that the massive majority of people find prostitution distasteful, that's why it remains illegal, though I reiterate again: Behind closed doors in a legal setting (without advertisement) could be more acceptable than the present situation of traditional pimp and whore.
Or maybe we should forget about all the productive social evolution that has gone on over the past couple of hundred years and push women back to being the objects too many men want them to be?
Girls get dicks/dicts/dic tati ons shoved in their mo(u)th(er)s for centurys by marauding christians who raped Childremb and cows and pigs and goats and sheep and horses for fun and then were called hoarse/ho arse/whores when they got severe mouth infections Witch was perfect for the bridled by horse/whores-grooms under the rape fill things of ani mal h(i)us ban dry
"rent Etymology origin falsification 2editSee rend.Nouneditrent (plural rents)1. A tear or rip in some surface. quotations ▼2. A division or schism. quotations ▼Translationseditshow ▼±tear or ripshow ▼±a division or schism between two things.Verbeditrent1. simple past and past participle of rendAdjectiveeditrent (comparative more rent, superlative most rent)1. That has been torn or rent; ripped; torn. quotations ▼Derived termsedit• unrentTranslationseditthat has been torn — see ripped
to rend, tear, cut, lacerate, cut down
Verbeditrend (third-person singular simple present rends, present participle rending, simple past and past participle rent or rended)1. (transitive) To separate into parts with force or sudden violence; to split; to burst. quotations ▼Powder rends a rock in blasting.Lightning rends an oak.2. (transitive, figurative) To violently disturb the peace of; to throw into chaos. quotations ▼a scream that rent the air3. (transitive) To part or tear off forcibly; to take away by force; to amputate. quotations ▼4. (intransitive) To be rent or torn; to become parted; to separate; to split. synonym ▲Synonym: riveRelationships may rend if tempers flare."
YY: Prostitution isn't right or wrong. It's just a little sad.
But if people want to do it it should be legalised and regulated, it isn't going to go away. But it should most definitely not be openly pedalled on any street (as in Amsterdam) and remain behind closed doors.
II: What makes it sad, and why should it NOT be openly peddled? To suggest it should remain behind closed doors is to suggest it is somehow shameful. What makes it shameful?
YY: I suggest no such thing. Why give really easy access to something that someone may be pressurized into doing by their mates whilst walking down the street is all. Something they may later regret.
If a man really wants to find a prostitute he can find one in any town or city. Why paint an area of a city with a no-go brush for people who are offended?
And whatever you say, people do find it shameful, that's why any self-respecting man would hide such activities from his spouse, potential girlfriend, mothers, siblings, even friends. What you or I think on the matter (shameful or not) is immaterial. We live in democracy and the view of the masses is what's important?
If you did a survey of good cross-section of the community, male and female, how many people would say it's shameful?
II:
"And
whatever you say, people do find it shameful, that's why any self-respecting
man would hide such activities from his spouse, potential girlfriend, mother,
father, siblings, even friends."
Only because we live in a culture that demonizes it.
"What
you or I think on the matter (shameful or not) is immaterial. We live in
democracy and the view of the masses is what's important?"
Hardly, since the views of the masses can be swayed. It is up to responsible citizens to work to advance knowledge and understanding in others, not hide beneath the covers of the masses.
"If
you did a survey of good cross-section of the community, male and female, how
many people would say it's shameful?"
Continuing my point from above, that is irrelevant.
Consider this - both slavery and racism were for a long time considered acceptable practice - should we then simply say it is okay just because that was the will of the masses?
YY:
"Only
because we live in a culture that demonizes it."
Are you serious?? You think that women don't want their husbands to see prostitutes because society demonizes it. That is twisted.
"Hardly,
since the views of the masses can be swayed. It is up to responsible citizens
to work to advance knowledge and understanding in others, not hide beneath the
covers of the masses."
So the present views of the masses on such a fundamentally moral subject as this are wrong? One that people have had thousands of years to come to terms with and they are all wrong? You think you and others with your extreme views are going to sell the idea of prostitution as a morally sound exercise to a majority of monogamous functioning families? Humanity has grown-up. Would be nice if people who think prostitution is socially acceptable could do the same.
"Consider
this - both slavery and racism were for a long time considered acceptable
practice - should we then simply say it is okay just because that was the will
of the masses?"
This is nonsensical. Slavery was never the view of the masses. Was society democratic then? NO. Were lower class people (the majority) slaves then as well? YES. Was it the (minority) ruling elite that created the slave trade and could afford to buy slaves? YES.
How can you equate the oppression of racial groups to the right of women to sell their bodies to married men?
Will the abolition of prostitution laws remove people from oppression? possibly, but you ain't gonna change peoples view on this one. But you are not talking about that easy step, no. You are talking about teaching the world that prostitution is ok, come on everyone lets go do it.
Like I have already said. It should be legalised and monitored to protect the women. But it should be kept behind closed doors. This moral battle has already been fought.
Of course there is a possible argument (which I am not afraid to open up) that men with serious physical or mental problems rely on prostitution. So these individuals that can't function within social norms would benefit massively from clean, regulated prostitution.
You are not going to win this one.
But I wish you luck.
II:
"Are
you serious?? You think that women don't want their husbands to see prostitutes
because society demonizes it. That is twisted."
First of all, you gave far more examples than just spouses. Secondly, there ARE people in this world for whom prostitutes provide a welcome third person in their sex life. I have lived among many different cultures in this regard, and I assure you that it IS a cultural thing.
"So
the present views of the masses on such a fundamentally moral subject as this
are wrong?"
I'm not saying that they are
necessarily wrong. I'm saying that they aren't necessarily right. Just because
it is the opinion of the masses doesn't mean a thing.
"One
that people have had thousands of years to come to terms with and they are all
wrong?"
Actually, it's only been
considered "wrong" for a few hundred years. It was the Elizabethan
morals (or possible Victorian - I can't remember which off the top of my head)
of England that actually started treating prostitution as "bad".
Indeed, in ancient Rome prostitution was an upper-class profession.
"You
think you and others with your extreme views are going to sell the idea of
prostitution as a morally sound exercise to a majority of monogamous
functioning families? Humanity has grown-up. Would be nice if people
who think prostitution is socially acceptable could do the same."
Any chance you'd care to back up
your proclamations with some sort of evidence? History, psychological studies,
anything? I'm open to the discussion... but so far you aren't really providing
any.
"This
is nonsensical. Slavery was never the view of the masses. Was society
democratic then? NO. Were lower class people (the majority) slaves then as
well? YES. Was it the (minority) ruling elite that created the slave trade and
could afford to buy slaves? YES."
I don't even know where to begin dissecting this. Slavery was an accepted practice in the constitution of the United States - you know, that document that actually GRANTED democracy to America.
"How
can you equate the oppression of racial groups to the right of women to sell
their bodies to married men?"
Re-read my post. I brought up slavery and racism as accepted practices until the minds of the masses were changed. I wasn't comparing them to prostitution.
"Will
the abolition of prostitution laws remove people from oppression? possibly, but
you ain't gonna change peoples view on this one. But you are not talking about
that easy step, no. You are talking about teaching the world that prostitution
is ok, come on everyone lets go do it."
No, I'm saying that people should decide what is right and wrong based on some compass other than the will of the masses.
"Like
I have already said. It should be legalised and monitored to protect the women.
But it should be kept behind closed doors. This moral battle has already been
fought."
You still haven't answered why.
"You are not going to win this one.
But
I wish you luck."
If people on this forum fail to think beyond the closed mindset you have exhibited, I don't need luck - I need to find another forum - one in which people are capable of thinking for themselves.
YY: I think you are arguing with yourself.
I have stated twice that prostitution should be LEGAL so people can use it responsibly but you seem hell-bent on convincing people it is going to be a future socially acceptable practice. I reiterate, grow-up. People do not want prostitution (in Europe, Uk, America, that's what I am talking about, not any far-flung society to reference to as it is convenient for a nonsensical argument) as a social trend to be passed down to their kids, it is at odds with the corner-stone of Western Society. That being, if you do not know, monogamous family life. That is the most productive model for society.
Prostitution, today, in successful civilisations is immoral. That is the place we are at now. I didnt say that all the people from thousands of years ago have this belief, if you read it in context (whole paragraph) you would see I was talking about modern populations, did you miss that?
If you don't respect the views of the masses then you're in the wrong country my friend.
On a side note: What about the cost of STD's? That is why it was frowned on by Victorians. Social evolution established to protect people. So now antibiotics clear it all up. Back then people died and suffered from contracting disease.
I live in England, and you would have to be an idiot to not see that the majority of people are involved in monogamous practices.
"This is nonsensical. Slavery was never the view of the masses. Was society democratic then? NO. Were lower class people (the majority) slaves then as well? YES. Was it the (minority) ruling elite that created the slave trade and could afford to buy slaves? YES."
You can't dissect this because it's true. True democracy is voting for all, not excluding racial groups. Come on man. Do you think that that was true democracy?
I have already said why it should be kept behind closed doors but maybe I need to simplify it. People ARE offended by it.
You seem determined to bend things out of shape to your own agenda, whilst forgetting or changing the previous comments you make.
My mind is very open, but I respect other peoples' sensibilities. And I could respect your viewpoint if you had pitched it in a less forceful, more sensible manner.
Nearly half of the population of Britain are married, and of the remaining half a very sizable chunk are in monogamous relationships. I respect your right to seek out other people with your views and to start-up any type of relationships you wish but you are not going to re-educate the people of my country that prostitution is right and proper. Or, for example, that we should all go out and create three or four-way relationships. If you think any such doomed to fail crusade has a snowflakes chance in hell of succeeding then not only are you lying to me, but you're lying to yourself as well.
Not gonna happen. Sensible people do not want to slip down a doomed path of decadence. We do not want to share our wives with our neighbours, for example. Monogamy works for me and for most people, providing a sound family unit in which to bring up our children. The whole Western World evolved toward this point and it is a supremely effective model, adopted by all the most productive societies. Should we make similar mistakes to the Romans and doom our society to collapse? Would it work as well under a polygamous model? I think you'll find that all social groups that maintain polygamous practices are all flagging behind in development.
YY: Oh yeah, and by the way, you are in, and always will by in the minority on this topic in your lifetime.
II: No response
YY:
"First
of all, you gave far more examples than just spouses. Secondly, there ARE
people in this world for whom prostitutes provide a welcome third person in
their sex life. I have lived among many different cultures in this regard, and
I assure you that it IS a cultural thing."
I made the original statement so attack one area of it then. The majority of any of the cited examples put into a socially acceptable situation with men and women present (not men joking in a bar) would be in alignment with an innate feeling of disgust at prostitution and what it represents and harbours.
Going back to a super-sexualised male (ego and sexual feeling) dominated roman-style society is not what women want. Would you reintroduce deep-seated male chauvinist attitudes that ignore women's emotional feelings? Our society has come forwards, why go back to that. Why decadence? Is that a way forward for economically successful society?
Disfunction of modern society already stems from the breakdown of the family unit. Would you have all women as single parents and all men as roaming phalluses? How is that economically viable? The societal services you enjoy are supported by the present economic model which is geared up for average people to cohabitate and share financial burden.
Again, I know that the massive majority of people find prostitution distasteful, that's why it remains illegal, though I reiterate again: Behind closed doors in a legal setting (without advertisement) could be more acceptable than the present situation of traditional pimp and whore.
Or maybe we should forget about all the productive social evolution that has gone on over the past couple of hundred years and push women back to being the objects too many men want them to be?
In the same way the so called house of lords all ow a so called word dislike hearse to be coined by filt Her so called men :: he arse = he has ass es meant privileges towards hers e (a)
:: to in timid date Girls in to being raped vict ims or that's you ... as in the Hers /hearse is hearse/ Hers
Please watch the so called movie my girl tv spot ( https://youtu.be/qUuMRX9_SzA?si=l2eIV-EfCTUtn6UF ) for cremation jokes that also were ass ent ed to by the so called house of lords (no questions were asked of the bbfc) who as paedophilic rape culledyouare supporters and incest supporters do not move to ban the so called movie my girl and star wars so called movies and big and vice versa et ul :: to understand the true horr or that is the so called english so called language and its so called curaters and other fil(l)th(e) (other spellings of auth ors/aut hors choice did exist before dick ti on ar y reforms tried to move the filt hers fil (l(ove)) things in to the the back ground through fear of population increases causing unstoppable retallyations) so called movies please read the rest of mmyy bbookk omb this blogg
it is un sir pris(open) ing that Feminists also known as nuns/nones (no babys) also known as Witches were all burnt at the stake for not taking cocks also known as so called men into their private spaces by the so called lords of this country :: 1727 was ap pa rent ly the last Feminist burnt by the so called lords at the stake in so called britain
the so called wit an ( lit. 'wise men') was the so called kings council in the anglo-saxon government of so called england from before the 7th century until the 11th century.
the so called lords have been raping innocent girls from before the inception of this fill thy fill th(e) fill thing
--They used to like filth to spell so called words differently a p pa rent ly then then ... to rent asunder ass under ::
As in to rent (damage rip open) a girl for Her mone y :: hence the so called word rent-- so called c(o)unt ry(e)
The filthy filthers from the so called house of lords have for a thousand years raped and slashed and burned our and their own Daughters in steed of trying to protect against paedophilic rape and incest they have colluded to force its acceptance through intentionl non action against so called movies such as big vice versa my girl city of bones star wars pitch black chronicles of rid dick back to the future hercules prince of egypt forrest gump waterworld sleepwalkers the love ly bones fury legend time bandits first knight the goonies and so called tv shows alen naton rainbow bread
any tv show that seeks to teach Childrenmnmb to accept dating rape one night stand rape culledyouare :: YoungGirls do not comsent to rape filthings
Please talk to Judy parfitt for full proofings of the evidence i afford you here ...
No comments:
Post a Comment