Prostitution

[Rebekka]

If people can choose to do anything, I dare say they can choose to do illegal things.

(Dang, you said it first. ) What she said.

 

[stan1980]

I think the main question should be, what are the benefits of making prostitution illegal?

I honestly don't see any benefits in outlawing prostitution, but please point them out. This is coming from someone who isn't keen on the industry for a variety of reasons which I wont go into just now, but still the industry has to be regulated.

 

[quatona]

It wasn't my only argument. More precisely it would be: every sexual relationship should be an equal relationship.

Ok, but that is not an argument but a mere creed.
An argument would be "Every sexual relationship...., because.....".
This would be a basis for a discussion. As it stands there now, I can simply agree or disagree, and that´s that.
I criticized the argument in question for pretending to be explaining your reasons rationally, whilst actually the explanation lies in this (non-argumentative and non-discussable) creed.

But those are personal objections I have against prostitution. As a christian, it would be enough to say "because my God says so". However, before I was a christian (I was agnostic until about 5 years ago), I was against prostitution as well.

That´s perfectly ok with me. I am merely trying to find out what is at the core of this objection, and to which extent it allows for a discussion between you and me.

By the way, making something illegal doesn't have to mean that prostitutes automatically become criminals; it's possible to only punish the customer, not the prostitute.

Good point.
The lack of clarity, however, seems to be not so much the difference between "illegal" and "criminal", but rather the question which of the involved person you plan to criminalize. This important point is rarely mentioned when people talk about making prostitution illegal.

 

[Eudaimonist]

nm

 

[cantata]

RebbekaH, in what sense should all sexual relationships be equal? What precisely do you mean by equality in this context?

 

[Rebekka]

Ok, but that is not an argument but a mere creed.
An argument would be "Every sexual relationship...., because.....".
This would be a basis for a discussion. As it stands there now, I can simply agree or disagree, and that´s that.
I criticized the argument in question for pretending to be explaining your reasons rationally, whilst actually the explanation lies in this (non-argumentative and non-discussable) creed.

OK. ... because in a non-equal relationship, one party has power over the other. I don't think truly consentual sex is possible in a non-equal relationship. (But another reason for me would be that the ideal sexual relationship, one of true equality, is the marital relationship where husband and wife are a team and love each other equally - and I think this is what God intends for us.)

That´s perfectly ok with me. I am merely trying to find out what is at the core of this objection, and to which extent it allows for a discussion between you and me.

Good detective work so far.

Good point.
The lack of clarity, however, seems to be not so much the difference between "illegal" and "criminal", but rather the question which of the involved person you plan to criminalize. This important point is rarely mentioned when people talk about making prostitution illegal.

Yes, there are also differences between illegal and criminal. I want prostitution to be illegal, but that doesn't mean that it automatically has to be something that puts you in prison (or worse) - speeding is illegal too, but usually you don't go to prison for it.



I believe Sweden, or other Scandinavian countries, fine (or otherwise punish) the customer of the prostitute, not the prostitute.

 

[Rebekka]

RebbekaH, in what sense should all sexual relationships be equal? What precisely do you mean by equality in this context?

Both parties being equally in charge for what happens, for example. Having equal rights. And both parties have the same rights to sexual satisfaction and respect. (There are other aspects, too, but those assume a marital relationship; not applicable for most non-believers or people who don't see the monogamous relationship as ideal. Oh, and I also assume an equal sexual relationship to be between two people; perhaps more would be possible but I can't imagine that - sorry. I'm not very imaginative perhaps, but I think in a relationship with more than 2, one will always, sooner or later, get jealous. Well, at least I would. )

In a situation of prostitution, the customer orders what he wants. The prostitute has no say, really - she sold her* rights for money.





*it's easier to imagine in a male customer/female prostitute situation, but I think it also, ultimately, applies to other situations

 

[tanzanos]

Unfortunately, making prostitution illegal only makes it more likely to spread disease, more likely to be tied to organized crime, and more likely to place sex workers in dangerous and exploitative situations. In places where prostitution is legal and regulated, there are laws mandating regular screenings for sexually-transmitted diseases, and the workers have the same avenues for protection that any other employee in a legitimate industry has. The problems associated with prostitution may not go away entirely in places where it is legal, but they are certainly significantly diminished. When prostitution is made illegal, prostitution does not go away; it merely becomes less safe for those individuals who, by choice or by circumstance, make their living in such a manner.

The only reasons I can see for making (or keeping) prostitution illegal result from one group of people wanting to impose their moral standards regarding sex between consenting adults, on the entire community. So, in answer to the OP, no, I can't think of any practical reason for prostitution to be illegal.

I totally agree.
Legal prostitutes pay taxes, adhere to health regulations, offer a much needed service to the community, lessen sex crimes, and are as human as all of us. I have the utmost respect for those women; they sell pleasure services while the bible thumping televangelists sell God. Who is the sinner here I wonder?

 

[Eudaimonist]

In a situation of prostitution, the customer orders what he wants. The prostitute has no say, really - she sold her* rights for money.

Perhaps so, but it seems to me that the prostitute very clearly gets what she wants -- the money, not sexual satisfaction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[stan1980]

Rebekka, what are the benefits of making prostitution illegal?

 

[cantata]

Both parties being equally in charge for what happens, for example.

What do you mean by "in charge"? Would you say that a sexual relationship in which one partner ties up and spanks the other (assuming both parties consent and enjoy themselves) would be intolerably unequal?

Having equal rights.

If you believe in rights, surely you believe that they apply equally to everyone regardless of their profession or their relationship?

And both parties have the same rights to sexual satisfaction and respect.

Then, if I may pare this down further, you seem to regard sexual satisfaction as a requisite of sexual relationships?

(There are other aspects, too, but those assume a marital relationship; not applicable for most non-believers or people who don't see the monogamous relationship as ideal.

Fair enough.

Oh, and I also assume an equal sexual relationship to be between two people; perhaps more would be possible but I can't imagine that - sorry. I'm not very imaginative perhaps, but I think in a relationship with more than 2, one will always, sooner or later, get jealous. Well, at least I would. )

It can work, and it can be wonderful - but you have to learn to see jealousy for what it is (or just not experience it at all, if you're lucky).

In a situation of prostitution, the customer orders what he wants. The prostitute has no say, really - she sold her* rights for money.

*it's easier to imagine in a male customer/female prostitute situation, but I think it also, ultimately, applies to other situations

I'm not sure this is true. A prostitute can specify what (s)he is willing to do. She can refuse to take payment for services she is unwilling to offer, just as can any other service worker.

I would just question whether, if the prostitute doesn't have the same feelings that you do about sex, whether (s)he should be prevented from offering sex as a service, or whether those who wish to buy it should be prevented from doing so. It seems to me that unequal (in the sense you define it) sexual relationships abound outside of the scope of what can be formally described as prostitution, and that making prostitution illegal simply punishes those who are honest about it.

 

[Rebekka]

Rebekka, what are the benefits of making prostitution illegal?

As I said earlier in the thread, most of the benefits that my country expected from making it legal, didn't happen.

So from a practical point of view, even for the prostitute's wellbeing, there may not be any difference.

So while there may not be clear practical benefits of illegal prostitution, there are IMO no practical benefits (in a real situation, not ideally speaking) of legal prostitution, either.

Changing a law is a lot of trouble. And when the results are disappointing, I wouldn't go through with changing the law so that it becomes legal (you could argue this the other way round, too: why make it illegal again in the Netherlands if it doesn't make a difference anyway? Fair enough - and I don't think we will change it back. I would still want to, but purely for moral/christian reasons - I don't want the government to regulate and approve of what I see as either adultery or fornication.)

I do think, but this is just a pragmatic reason, that it is easier for the police to act against forms of sex slavery etc. if it's illegal - because over here, legalization has created a bigger fuzzy grey area, and lots of bad guys escape, whereas the benefits for the prostitutes are non-existent (the police are not able to protect them better; exploitation still happens on a large scale; the only thing that's different is that the prostitutes pay taxes now, so they're not happy with the situation - they're poorer for it).

 

[Rebekka]

What do you mean by "in charge"? Would you say that a sexual relationship in which one partner ties up and spanks the other (assuming both parties consent and enjoy themselves) would be intolerably unequal?

If they consent and that's what they like best, and they have a code word or something so that the spanking can be stopped as soon as the spanked person wants, then I would not see it as unequal.

If you believe in rights, surely you believe that they apply equally to everyone regardless of their profession or their relationship?

??? I don't know how to interpret this. In a business relationship, for example a boss and an employee, the boss can order his empoyee, but not the other way round. So they don't have equal rights.

Then, if I may pare this down further, you seem to regard sexual satisfaction as a requisite of sexual relationships?

At least the attempt to; both parties have an equal right to sexual satisfaction.

Fair enough.



It can work, and it can be wonderful - but you have to learn to see jealousy for what it is (or just not experience it at all, if you're lucky).

Yes, as I said, I can't imagine this - but all people are different, and I know some people are less jealous than I.

I'm not sure this is true. A prostitute can specify what (s)he is willing to do. She can refuse to take payment for services she is unwilling to offer, just as can any other service worker.

I would hope so, and ideally this would be the case - but the prostitute's boss (not the customer) often has a say in this, too. A lot of prostitutes aren't freely choosing their profession, nor what they do. And if they need the money, they can't refuse.
Also, I don't know what happens in case a prostitute has agreed to a certain thing, yet changes her mind halfway (after the customer has paid for it). In a normal, not paid for consensual sexual relationship, the person can just say no. Can a prostitute? (I really don't know.)

I would just question whether, if the prostitute doesn't have the same feelings that you do about sex, whether (s)he should be prevented from offering sex as a service, or whether those who wish to buy it should be prevented from doing so. It seems to me that unequal (in the sense you define it) sexual relationships abound outside of the scope of what can be formally described as prostitution, and that making prostitution illegal simply punishes those who are honest about it.

That's a valid question. I think that even a person who disagrees with me on sexual relationships can/will be damaged by prostitution, on a spiritual/moral level. I see no good in prostitution, I can't see it as a relative issue (what's good for me may not be good for you). That's why I want to protect people from it.

I know that prostitution will not cease to exist once you make it illegal. But I don't think sending the message to society that there's nothing wrong with it, which is what happens when you make it legal, is good either.



A few years ago, some politician here had the plan to force women who had been prostitutes in the past but had left that profession, and who were unemployed and on welfare, to force them to accept a job as a prostitute again or else they'd lose their welfare. And how that initially reached the press was that the government could force the unemployed (in general - not just ex-prostitutes) to take a job in prostitution if there weren't any jobs in their own field available.

Not a good idea. And it remained just a plan, it never became reality.

 

[stan1980]

As I said earlier in the thread, most of the benefits that my country expected from making it legal, didn't happen.

So from a practical point of view, even for the prostitute's wellbeing, there may not be any difference.

So while there may not be clear practical benefits of illegal prostitution, there are IMO no practical benefits (in a real situation, not ideally speaking) of legal prostitution, either.

Changing a law is a lot of trouble. And when the results are disappointing, I wouldn't go through with changing the law so that it becomes legal (you could argue this the other way round, too: why make it illegal again in the Netherlands if it doesn't make a difference anyway? Fair enough - and I don't think we will change it back. I would still want to, but purely for moral/christian reasons - I don't want the government to regulate and approve of what I see as either adultery or fornication.)

I do think, but this is just a pragmatic reason, that it is easier for the police to act against forms of sex slavery etc. if it's illegal - because over here, legalization has created a bigger fuzzy grey area, and lots of bad guys escape, whereas the benefits for the prostitutes are non-existent (the police are not able to protect them better; exploitation still happens on a large scale; the only thing that's different is that the prostitutes pay taxes now, so they're not happy with the situation - they're poorer for it).

I could be naive, but I've been to Amsterdam on a few occasions and walked through the red light district, and it does seem very organised, so surely the women are safer under your system where it is all out in the open rather than what it is like in our country wherea lot of girls have to jump into strangers cars or go round to strangers houses where anything could happen to them.

 

[Rebekka]

I could be naive, but I've been to Amsterdam on a few occasions and walked through the red light district, and it does seem very organised, so surely the women are safer under your system where it is all out in the open rather than what it is like in our country wherea lot of girls have to jump into strangers cars or go round to strangers houses where anything could happen to them.

Maybe, but as long as I can remember it's been like that - even before it became legal. It hasn't been legal for that long - and nothing much changed, really.

And there's a lot of abuse, slavery and illegal prostitution going on still. It may look well on the outside (although it makes me sad whenever I walk there) but it isn't on the inside.

As I said, I don't think it makes much of a difference either way. So much for principles, eh?

 

[cantata]

If they consent and that's what they like best, and they have a code word or something so that the spanking can be stopped as soon as the spanked person wants, then I would not see it as unequal.

This is interesting. What if a prostitute enjoys being a prostitute?

??? I don't know how to interpret this. In a business relationship, for example a boss and an employee, the boss can order his empoyee, but not the other way round. So they don't have equal rights.

Aha, I see - we're talking about legal and contractual rights? Well, I don't see how the rights of client and prostitute are different from those of any other couple. Each has the right to say no. Each has the right to the protection of their person by the law. The only difference is that the prostitute has the right to be paid for his or her services. What rights have been changed?

At least the attempt to; both parties have an equal right to sexual satisfaction.

But I assume that prostitutes do not ply their trade because they desire sexual satisfaction. The relationship between prostitute and client is entirely different from the relationship between any other sexual partners. I don't think a right should be forced on someone if they don't want it!

Yes, as I said, I can't imagine this - but all people are different, and I know some people are less jealous than I.

It is hard work, and it isn't for everyone, but I don't think it should be condemned

I would hope so, and ideally this would be the case - but the prostitute's boss (not the customer) often has a say in this, too. A lot of prostitutes aren't freely choosing their profession, nor what they do. And if they need the money, they can't refuse.

True, and sad. But we are drifting across the boundary between prostitution and abuse. Forcing someone into prostitution (to pay off debts, for example) should remain illegal.

Lots of people do jobs they hate because they need the money. I would love to see prostitutes have the opportunity to break away from prostitution if that is what they want, but I think legalising it would only help with that.

Also, I don't know what happens in case a prostitute has agreed to a certain thing, yet changes her mind halfway (after the customer has paid for it). In a normal, not paid for consensual sexual relationship, the person can just say no. Can a prostitute? (I really don't know.)

I should imagine that rape is rape whether the sex has been paid for or not (although I would imagine it would be only fair to return the money to the customer if a prostitute refused to provide a service (s)he had formerly agreed to).

That's a valid question. I think that even a person who disagrees with me on sexual relationships can/will be damaged by prostitution, on a spiritual/moral level. I see no good in prostitution, I can't see it as a relative issue (what's good for me may not be good for you). That's why I want to protect people from it.

But clearly it is a relative issue in terms of well-being. Some people enjoy being prostitutes. And some people are miserable flipping burgers, but we don't make that illegal. It seems to me firstly that making it illegal will not protect anyone from ending up being a prostitute, and secondly that some people enjoy selling sexual services, and some people enjoy paying for them, and that they shouldn't be prevented from doing so.

I know that prostitution will not cease to exist once you make it illegal. But I don't think sending the message to society that there's nothing wrong with it, which is what happens when you make it legal, is good either.

Lying to your spouse is legal, but I hardly think anyone could argue convincingly that it is condoned by the government.

A few years ago, some politician here had the plan to force women who had been prostitutes in the past but had left that profession, and who were unemployed and on welfare, to force them to accept a job as a prostitute again or else they'd lose their welfare. And how that initially reached the press was that the government could force the unemployed (in general - not just ex-prostitutes) to take a job in prostitution if there weren't any jobs in their own field available.

Not a good idea. And it remained just a plan, it never became reality.

Well, that's because it's a vile idea. No one should be forced into prostitution.

 

[stan1980]

Maybe, but as long as I can remember it's been like that - even before it became legal. It hasn't been legal for that long - and nothing much changed, really.

And there's a lot of abuse, slavery and illegal prostitution going on still. It may look well on the outside (although it makes me sad whenever I walk there) but it isn't on the inside.

As I said, I don't think it makes much of a difference either way. So much for principles, eh?

I always found it kind of surreal walking around there, as there is nothing like that in our country. No doubt you are right there is a lot of abuse behind the scenes, but at least it looks like a clean, safe environment, where i'd imagine assaults, rapes etc are far more unlikely than over here.

 

[Rebekka]

This is interesting. What if a prostitute enjoys being a prostitute?

Possible. From what I've heard about the prostitutes in Amsterdam (supposedly legal - although a lot of them are not), most don't enjoy it.

The thing is, I am morally against prostitution. I live in a democracy. When there are elections, I vote for the party that has the best plans in my opinion. To be honest, right now there isn't a party that both wants to make prostitution illegal and has the best plans for all other things as well - so for pragmatic reasons I won't vote for prostitution to be illegal any time soon (as I find other subjects more important/urgent) - I would if there was a referendum or something like that though.

When I vote, I vote for what I see as right. Hopefully the prostitute who finds her profession so wonderful will do the same (if she is her legally). And customers who enjoy prostitution, likewise. Then we'll see who is in the majority and wins. When I vote, I vote for what I see as best (for me, for society, etc) - not for what others may see as best. So even if there are prostitutes who enjoy being prostitutes, that doesn't change the fact that I see it as an immoral situation (fornication at best, and adultery, slavery and abuse at worst) that I don't want. So it won't change my vote.

Aha, I see - we're talking about legal and contractual rights? Well, I don't see how the rights of client and prostitute are different from those of any other couple. Each has the right to say no. Each has the right to the protection of their person by the law. The only difference is that the prostitute has the right to be paid for his or her services. What rights have been changed?

The service is directed at the customer's satisfaction. I don't see their relationship as equal. And I don't think saying no is as easy when you're paid for sex. Again, I can't change my feelings about sex: I think it doesn't belong in business contracts.

But I assume that prostitutes do not ply their trade because they desire sexual satisfaction. The relationship between prostitute and client is entirely different from the relationship between any other sexual partners. I don't think a right should be forced on someone if they don't want it!

Hm. Have you read Harry Potter? Reminds me of the discussion (on The Leaky Cauldron, a Harry Potter fan site) about Hermione's attempts to free the house elves from slavery - apparently they didn't want to be freed.
There are women who voluntarily (or because they are brainwashed, or a combination of both) enter into a wifely-submissive marriage, where the man bosses over the wife. Apparently they don't want equal rights, either. Still it makes my skin crawl.
Even if they don't want the right, I think they should have it. (Yes, it does sound like "I know what's best for you, and you don't" - I guess that's how believing in absolute truths largely works, which means that believers and non-believers will never agree on certain things.)

True, and sad. But we are drifting across the boundary between prostitution and abuse. Forcing someone into prostitution (to pay off debts, for example) should remain illegal.

What worries me about prostitution being legal over here, is that this hasn't decreased. So I have moral objections against prostitution (and therefore would not vote for it to become legal - which for most on this thread is the situation we're talking about), and I don't see the practical benefits of legal prostitution (abuse still happens, a LOT).

Lots of people do jobs they hate because they need the money. I would love to see prostitutes have the opportunity to break away from prostitution if that is what they want, but I think legalising it would only help with that.

In theory you are right, I think.

I should imagine that rape is rape whether the sex has been paid for or not (although I would imagine it would be only fair to return the money to the customer if a prostitute refused to provide a service (s)he had formerly agreed to).

I hope that it works this way; I'm afraid that there is a lot of rape in prostitution. It's a complex situation, and reality is different from the ideal. Over here, even though prostitution is legal, most prostitutes aren't - either because they're underage or because they are illegal immigrants under slave contracts with their pimps. They are afraid to go to the police because they're illegal. Yet for some reason the police have a very hard time catching the bad guys.

But clearly it is a relative issue in terms of well-being. Some people enjoy being prostitutes. And some people are miserable flipping burgers, but we don't make that illegal. It seems to me firstly that making it illegal will not protect anyone from ending up being a prostitute, and secondly that some people enjoy selling sexual services, and some people enjoy paying for them, and that they shouldn't be prevented from doing so.

Not all that makes us happy is the moral thing to do.

Lying to your spouse is legal, but I hardly think anyone could argue convincingly that it is condoned by the government.

I think it matters what you lie about. If you lied to your spouse that you weren't married before, and s/he finds out you still have another spouse living, then that's not something without consequences.

Well, that's because it's a vile idea. No one should be forced into prostitution.

I agree. And I think that risk is smaller when it's not a legal option. (At least the government can't force you then. Other risks stay the same.)

 

[cantata]

Possible. From what I've heard about the prostitutes in Amsterdam (supposedly legal - although a lot of them are not), most don't enjoy it.

I'm sure that they don't. But the illegality of prostitution does not prevent it from occurring. If a woman needs money, and other careers aren't available to her, she may offer sexual services, whether buying or selling them is illegal or not. I simply cannot see how making it illegal will change this one iota. And it seems to me that it would be easier to ply her trade in a safe environment if there are legal ways in which she can do so. She can choose a licensed brothel over an illegal one.

The thing is, I am morally against prostitution. I live in a democracy. When there are elections, I vote for the party that has the best plans in my opinion. ... When I vote, I vote for what I see as right.

I take it you are morally opposed to adultery. Would you vote to criminalise it? Or is personal freedom more important to you?

The service is directed at the customer's satisfaction. I don't see their relationship as equal. And I don't think saying no is as easy when you're paid for sex. Again, I can't change my feelings about sex: I think it doesn't belong in business contracts.

Just as it isn't easy to say no to fixing someone's sink if you're being paid to do so.

I wonder if you could further elucidate why you feel that their relationship ought to be equal, or why sex doesn't belong in business contracts.

Hm. Have you read Harry Potter? Reminds me of the discussion (on The Leaky Cauldron, a Harry Potter fan site) about Hermione's attempts to free the house elves from slavery - apparently they didn't want to be freed.
There are women who voluntarily (or because they are brainwashed, or a combination of both) enter into a wifely-submissive marriage, where the man bosses over the wife. Apparently they don't want equal rights, either. Still it makes my skin crawl.
Even if they don't want the right, I think they should have it. (Yes, it does sound like "I know what's best for you, and you don't" - I guess that's how believing in absolute truths largely works, which means that believers and non-believers will never agree on certain things.)

It's clear that you regard sex in one way and that some people regard it in another. Forcing them to behave in a particular manner based on your personal understanding of the meaning, purpose, value, and emotional status of sex would be well-meant, I'm sure, but hopelessly unfair. I think it is a sensible idea to allow people to decide for themselves what they regard as an abuse of their person or their sexuality. And if someone does not regard prostitution as an abuse, I see no reason to prevent them from selling sexual services.

Out of interest, would you also vote to make the creation of pornography illegal?

What worries me about prostitution being legal over here, is that this hasn't decreased. So I have moral objections against prostitution (and therefore would not vote for it to become legal - which for most on this thread is the situation we're talking about), and I don't see the practical benefits of legal prostitution (abuse still happens, a LOT).

Legalisation would not decrease the incidence of prostitution, I'm sure. It is intended to improve the conditions of prostitutes. I'm sure that abuse does still happen, but the ease of reporting it must surely have improved, and I'm sure that the conditions of prostitutes, particularly with regard to their sexual health, has also improved.

I hope that it works this way; I'm afraid that there is a lot of rape in prostitution. It's a complex situation, and reality is different from the ideal.

I'm sure there is, and as I say, rape is still rape, whether it's a prostitute or the Queen.

Over here, even though prostitution is legal, most prostitutes aren't - either because they're underage or because they are illegal immigrants under slave contracts with their pimps. They are afraid to go to the police because they're illegal. Yet for some reason the police have a very hard time catching the bad guys.

Right, but that's precisely the point. The number of people breaking the law has been narrowed down to those who are actually abusing others.

Not all that makes us happy is the moral thing to do.

No indeed; but the law isn't there to legislate morality, but to protect people. Unless you can give practical reasons for making prostitution illegal, moral concerns are inadequate.

I think it matters what you lie about. If you lied to your spouse that you weren't married before, and s/he finds out you still have another spouse living, then that's not something without consequences.

Of course. But lying to your spouse about your adulterous affair is not illegal. Should it be? Would you say that the government condones lying to your spouse about your affair?

I agree. And I think that risk is smaller when it's not a legal option. (At least the government can't force you then. Other risks stay the same.)

I disagree.

 

[Eudaimonist]

At least the attempt to; both parties have an equal right to sexual satisfaction.

I don't understand your use of the word "rights". Rights are legal principles that form the basis (or at least part of the basis) for a legal system. They set boundaries for law-makers in passing laws, and they set boundaries for how people may act with respect to each other. If someone violates your rights, you may ask the government to take legal action.

When you say that people have an equal right to sexual satisfaction, I can't get the thought out of my head that people are going to sue each other for not delivering on [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. I assume this is not what you intended.

Anyway, I was just wondering what you mean by rights. Should you be able to take legal action if someone does not provide you with sexual satisfaction? If not, then what are these "rights"?


eudaimonia,

Mark