Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

CaptainExplosion said:

It's been confirmed that the baby they're posing with was discharged, and the parents couldn't give permission for Trump to see the baby because they died protecting him during the El Paso shooting.
 
This is basically a murderer posing with his victims' next of kin. All four "people" seen here with the child are guilty of inspiring the shooter, especially President Parasite here.
 
I'm not at all surprised that he stooped to this. What great PR tactic is he gonna try next, go to the graves of El Paso victims to promote access to assault rifles? How about trying to justify the wall with photos of Holocaust victims?
You didn't just elect a racist, America, you elected a monster, thus saying "Fuck you!" to the basic rights and freedoms of everyday people. I'm sickened just knowing that my country has you for a neighbor.

I personally thought he and Melania would go to the graves of the people killed in El Paso and take a photo op picture of them on either side of a grave with the thumbs up like he is doing in most of the photo ops he did in Dayton.  Nothing says everything is ok, then the president with a big smile and a thumbs ups by your grave after a mass shooting.

Last edited by Machiavellian - on 11 August 2019

Around the Network
sundin13 said:

I'll say I don't disagree with you about some points.

I have a lot of caution when it comes to legalizing prostitution. There are too many warning signs in other countries who have legalized prostitution and even when legal, the industry often isn't really healthy. In my opinion, the ideal end goal is reaching a point where prostitution is both legal and healthy (and I don't believe you can have the latter without the former), but I don't know how realistic that goal is. If legalization promotes more bad outcomes than good, it is not a step I believe we should take. That said, trafficking isn't the only point of focus here. We also have to pay mind to the general well being of those within the industry, which tends to improve with legalization. Those two points should be weighed against each other to reach the most positive conclusion.

As for the rest, I would say that it is impracticable at the least. You aren't going to outlaw porn, so I'd have to ask what legislative changes would you propose in order to right these perceived wrongs?

And I'll conclude by saying this. When you come in swinging with big controversial ideas, you are going to be asked to defend them. Often we have mostly right v left debates, but if you are bringing radical leftist ideas, you are going to be challenged by this forum's leftists. That's one of the things I like about the left. We aren't shy about debating each other. I feel there are so many unsavory elements in the modern right that even moderates on the right kind of have to cover their ears and ignore it in order to justify their continued support of the right. So, I want to say, don't feel bad that it seems like everyone it attacking you. This is just healthy political discourse doing what it is supposed to do!

I agree that it's been a healthy and robust debate here so far. As much doesn't change the fact that being alone on one side of the argument poses more work than being in the majority does. It's still more exhausting. It's all good though. I'm just saying.

Anyway, speaking of ideals, an ideal world in my mind is one without money or rape and in which, therefore, phenomenon like prostitution would be impossible.

You asked what legislative changes I'd propose around pornography. Actually a straight-up ban on it would be the ideal in my mind, though at this point I'm willing to settle for really any regulation of it at all, like requiring age verification, outlawing rape porn in particular, or anything like that. We're starting from a place of more or less completely unregulated proliferation, so just about anything would be an acceptable improvement over the status quo for my taste right now.



Jaicee said:
the-pi-guy said:

Guns and murder are very different.  Murder is factually wrong regardless of your framework.  Prostitution isn't.  

Sex is a very different thing from guns.  You can't take sex away from people.  You can take guns away.  

If you'd mentioned drugs, I would say yes.  All drugs should be legalized.  

How do you feel about banning alcohol?

The problem I have here, is that it feels like you are setting up a false dichotomy.

Full legalization and the nordic model aren't the only solutions, and there plenty of middle grounds between the two.

>You know why that is? 

Sexism is another reason why that is.  People view women having sex to be an impure thing, and something to be actively discouraged.  

>After Germany introduced full legalization of prostitution in 2003, for example, they saw a 70% increase in sex trafficking within the decade. 

The official statistics show the opposite.  A decline in sex trafficking since the passage of the law.  

"The number of trafficking victims has actually decreased steadily since the mid-1990s. According to a Feminist Ire article, numbers decreased from 1200-1500 victims in the mid 1990s to 600-700 from 2008-11 to 425 in 2013.

Ever more surprising: the German per-capita rate of trafficking between 2010 and 2012 was lower than that in Sweden. This, along with recent criticism of how Norway—a country that also criminalizes clients and third parties, fails to investigate trafficking allegations or provide asylum or relief for victims, draws into question widespread claims that “End Demand” laws are an effective tool against trafficking."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trafficking-and-the-state_b_8038252

A lot of authors will point out that prostitution isn't actually as legal as you are claiming.  Most of the German states have regulations that severely limit prostitution.  So federally, it's legal, but in the German states, they aren't as legal.  

Anal sex=rape culture.  

Yikes.  

I'm guessing you have a high opinion of homosexual men, by your argument they are also reinforcing rape culture.  

So because the author says it must be so, as well as some flimsy data.  

Orgasming is complicated, because different people have different wants and they feel things differently.

Way to simplify a complex issue.  

https://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150589059/carrying-dreams-why-women-become-surrogates

A lot of the issue is

-that you're conflating the entire subject with some very problematic aspects.  

It's problematic to conflate the entire subject of porn with human trafficking.  It's problematic to conflate porn with rape.  Are there problems with how a portion of porn is produced?  Absolutely, but conflating that portion with all of it is problematic.  It's like saying cars should be banned because some of them are used to move drugs around.  

There are a lot of patriarchal issues with how a lot of porn is produced, absolutely.  That doesn't mean that porn is inherently patriarchal.  

-that you're mixing up complicated correlation with causation

Like the claim that women are having less sex or fewer orgasms.  That could be the product of a lot of different things.  Like higher work expectations.  Women are no longer expected to be stay at home moms, and a lot of women are pursuing actual careers.  That could lead to less sex.  A lot of these issues are vastly complicated.  

Some of these issues could be related to genetics, diet, culture, or something else.  All of which are monstrously complicated things.  

There is some research showing a few things, but you really want research to be done several times.  And you really want the research to be done correctly, and done in a way to try showing the difference between correlation and causation.  Without trying to guess at what the causation is.  

Correlation is easy.  You can find apparent correlations with a lot of things.  I saw a correlation between organic food produce and autism rate over the past few decades.  That doesn't mean there's any causation between the two things.  It might be a random correlation, both of them might be indirectly related.  

That's the problem I have with a lot of your studies.  A lot of them show that there might be a correlation, but proving that there's actually a causation is much, much harder.

There's an awful lot above to respond to and I don't know how to break up posts so that I can respond to parts thereof individually, but I'll do my best to separate sub-topics. I'm not going to spend much time on my response though, as I can tell that you're probably not going to change your mind about anything no matter what I say. You seem very determined to maintain your position.

Supposedly I support "taking sex away from people" and "banning alcohol."

This is hyperbolic nonsense. Over-dramatic much?

Supposedly I'm setting up a false dichotomy

No, I'm approximating policy approaches so that the difference in effects can be seen.

Trafficking and rape

Sorry, but sex trafficking is definitely on the rise specifically in countries that have more or less fully legalized prostitution, including in Germany specifically.

Also, 70 to 90% of women and children in commercial sex were sexually abused before they entered the field, which goes to show you that this is a business that cannot do, cannot exist, without sexual violence.

Supposedly I'm homophobic because I pointed out that 70% of women who've practiced anal sex report pain as a result

You obviously know very little about the different ways in which the male and female bodies work, so let me give you a quick anatomy lesson: 1) men have penises that achieve orgasm, and 2) men also have prostates, which are conducive to butt orgasms. Women have neither of these things. Therefore, men's bodies are designed to enjoy anal sex on both the delivering and receiving ends, while for women, unsurprisingly, pain is instead by far the most common experience associated with the practice.


Dismissal of the female orgasm as unimportant

I can personally guarantee you that women very broadly want to experience orgasm during sex. We're not a different species. Women almost always do, in fact, achieve orgasm during sex with other women. The rate for women is much lower in heterosexual experiences though. The trouble, in other words, seems to be that both men and the culture just simply don't much care about authentic female pleasure, or at least not as much as about male pleasure.

Surrogacy

Surrogacy is an uncomplicated issue morally, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry, but while a few women may feel that surrogacy benefits them in some way, the  fact is that it is clearly harmful to far more women. No one is entitled to a child, let alone to one with their own personal DNA.

Well on the topic of anal sex; women can and do achieve orgasm from consensual anal sex. The caveat is that the person doing the penetration needs to know how to perform it properly (sadly most straight cis men don't) and the receiver needs to be knowledgeable enough about their own body to know if it's right for them. Some people just can't do anal due to personal or medical reasons. Men and Women both weren't "designed" to have anal sex, we've just come to figure out that it is another way of having a fulfilling orgasm for both sexes. Anal sex does hurt but it hurts for anybody, especially if it's your first time, it's just the way the anus works but proper knowledge and execution minimizes discomfort/pain and it's perfectly safe to perform. It seems you have some misconceptions of anal sex, it's just one of numerous ways different individuals derive pleasure.

Being an inter-sectional feminist I do agree with most, if not all, of your views but your conclusion to outright ban and outlaw these practices and criminalize these individuals is where you lose me and it's one of the reasons I don't subscribe to your brand of feminism. There are A LOT of wrongs with these practices/industries, some of which you have so eloquently explained, but the fact of the matter is that if we made these things illegal, it will only hurt the women involved. Really, the only way forward that I can see is to legalize and regulate it so we can give the care these women deserve so they have a better standard of living.

I would like to know what you think is the best way to achieve the outlawing of these industries and practices and what should be done with the displaced women that were involved? I'm genuinely curious.



 

coolbeans said:
Jumpin said:
Trump’s billionaire pimp, baby rapist Jeffry Epstein, was found dead in his prison cell. So much for Trump giving him a pardon.

Good riddance!

It's like people don't read past a newspaper clipping these days.  We've got former pres. Bill Clinton on a more substantial case than Trump in one key reason alone: Epstein's private jet logs. 

I thought both were on those jet logs.  Anyway, right on que, President Trump REtweeted that conspiracy theory from some comedian that the Clinton could have something to do with it.  You have to Love Trump.  The person who talks about fake news all the time sure isn't shy throwing it around. Anyway, I am sure Epstein was silenced or did it himself because once he rolled, their probably would be a lot of rich people finding themselves having to answer a lot of questions.



sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

Anyway there's really not much I can add from here. I don't think registration is good because I don't like the feds keeping track of people's purchases and there are other ways to solve crimes. You don't care if they track what you buy and don't think the methods we have now are sufficient enough. There's really no middle ground here and I doubt were gonna change each others mind.

Yeah, I think you summed up the argument pretty well: "I don't like it" vs "This would help solve crimes".

I was wondering when you all would come to this very obvious conclusion that jason whole argument was that one paragraph.  The fear of the government being able to trace him having a dangerous weapon is way more important than anything else.  You could have shone evidence, statistics, you name it and he would never have changed his opinion.  Fear is a powerful emotion.  Maybe if the FED had this information, they could run profile analysis against him and the guns he has.  Next thing you know some federal officer will be asking his neighbor and high school teachers about his personality.  Just thinking about all the things the FED can do if they have a national registry of sold firearms.



Around the Network
Jaicee said:

I agree that it's been a healthy and robust debate here so far. As much doesn't change the fact that being alone on one side of the argument poses more work than being in the majority does. It's still more exhausting. It's all good though. I'm just saying.

Anyway, speaking of ideals, an ideal world in my mind is one without money or rape and in which, therefore, phenomenon like prostitution would be impossible.

You asked what legislative changes I'd propose around pornography. Actually a straight-up ban on it would be the ideal in my mind, though at this point I'm willing to settle for really any regulation of it at all, like requiring age verification, outlawing rape porn in particular, or anything like that. We're starting from a place of more or less completely unregulated proliferation, so just about anything would be an acceptable improvement over the status quo for my taste right now.

While your ideal would be nice, I'd say its a little less realistic than mine xD Getting rid of money probably isn't going to happen any time soon haha.

As for your legislative changes, I don't think a straight-up ban is ever going to happen (and I don't really think it should as it would likely just push people to illegal channels and possibly trod on certain bits of free speech. Does this mean movies aren't allowed to show nudity? How exactly do we tread these lines?). Otherwise, I would certainly entertain ideas about outlawing rape porn and expanding laws against revenge porn, as well as some further regulation into the industry and production (though I'm not really sure what exists now or what further can/should be done. Admittedly, this isn't something I think about on a daily basis).



Machiavellian said:
coolbeans said:

It's like people don't read past a newspaper clipping these days.  We've got former pres. Bill Clinton on a more substantial case than Trump in one key reason alone: Epstein's private jet logs. 

I thought both were on those jet logs.  Anyway, right on que, President Trump REtweeted that conspiracy theory from some comedian that the Clinton could have something to do with it.  You have to Love Trump.  The person who talks about fake news all the time sure isn't shy throwing it around. Anyway, I am sure Epstein was silenced or did it himself because once he rolled, their probably would be a lot of rich people finding themselves having to answer a lot of questions.

Yes, but the context is important.

Trump: one cataloged trip where he hitched a ride from Palm Beach, FL to Newark, NJ back in 1997.

Clinton: 

-initial admitting by Clinton (or his spokesperson) was 4 separate trips on it

-this jumped to 6 after a more thorough digging (some trips he didn't even have Secret Service agents onboard)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/flight-manifests-reveal-bill-clinton-traveled-with-epstein-six-times-not-the-four-times-he-admitted

-BONUS: Epstein's ex claimed to seeing Clinton on "Lolita Island."  Though I don't think you can currently find concrete evidence to back up her accusation, that's a different case from no accusation of Trump being on the island.  

Meh, considering the context of "TrumpsBodyCount" trending and NOT regarding another president with deeper connections it's more of an easy volley than anything.  Like my response to Jumpin.  Hell, the fact MSM threw the Epstein story to Page 7 so quickly is enough of an indication that there's simply too few things to latch onto Trump.



October VGChartz Articles:

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/440852/greedfall-xone/ (Review - GreedFall 8/10)

Jaicee said:

Regarding prostitution

Okay well history also shows that it's rather impossible to completely stamp out murder in any society of scale too, so I then guess legalizing it, thereby making it as common as possible, is the most sensible course, right? Or hey, if you ban assault weapons, you'll just relegate their sale to the criminal underground and they won't become any less common, just like the NRA says...right?

We both know that murder and prostitution are two very different things, so a comparison between those two seems useless to me, your gun example however is much more useful and yes I would say simply from a practical standpoint banning all guns would be very stupid.


Around the turn of the century, a number of Western countries embarked on divergent experiments of how to reform prostitution policy. Some introduced what subsequently has become known as the "Nordic model" and criminalized the buying of sex, while others introduced full legalization of brothels, pimping, all of it. Today, the Nordic model -- which criminalizes sex-buying, pimping, and brothel ownership (but doesn't penalize prostitutes themselves, as it views prostituted women as the victims of an exploitative industry) -- continues to be embraced by more countries all the time, while full legalization, by contrast, hasn't had any new takers in over a decade. You know why that is? Because criminalizing johns works and legalizing everything makes the trafficking of women and children more common.

After Germany introduced full legalization of prostitution in 2003, for example, they saw a 70% increase in sex trafficking within the decade. Today, Germany's "brothel king", Jurgon Rudloff, is currently serving a five year prison sentence for similarly trafficking sex slaves in from abroad to service the heightened demand for prostitute services that resulted from legalization. In the Netherlands, most of the legal brothels have now been closed because they've been caught trafficking sex slaves in (which isn't legal) and the same is true of those famous communities in Nevada where prostitution has been formally legalized here in the U.S. Amsterdam's new mayor, Femke Halsema of GroenLinks (a left-leaning environmentalist party similar to the Green Party here in the U.S.), who is also the city's first female mayor, will be banning tours of the city's (in)famous red light district starting next year in a policy move supported by 80% of the city's prostitutes and is actively weighing other major changes such as banning prostitute windows. The city has been overrun by wealthy, foreign partiers, who now outnumber actual citizens on any given day of the year, as a result largely of legalizing brothels. That's how well it's going. One senses a definite policy direction here away from limitless permissiveness and toward cracking down. I could go on, but it's really the same story everywhere.

Liberals and progressives like to make the claim that full legalization of prostitution benefits the women employed in said field. When I point out that the actual result of that policy everywhere has been major increases in enslavement, not unionization (as they assure us), I find that they don't have much to say. It's as if they've just been choosing to buy into the talking points of a kazillion-dollar global industry, most often for self-interested reasons...

first of all, more countries embracing the "nordic model" in the last decade is not proof that the nordic model is the better system to handle prostitution or would you say that the recent succes of right wing parties in european elections is a sign that they have the better policies? I don't think so, so let's look at the actual data.

First of all it is not true that prostitution got legalised in Germany in 2003, it was already before that, what really happened was that prostitution got recognized as normal labour, befor that it was for example not possible for a prostitute to sue a customer if he didn't pay her.

Where do you get the data from that Germany apparently saw a 70% increase of sex trafficking in the decade after 2003? If you look at the official statistics of the The Federal Criminal Police Office we actually see quite the opposite.

In 2002, 811 victims of human trafficking were registered, the statistic doesn't state how many of them were victims of sex trafficing but since 800 of them were women we can assume a huge majority of them were victims of sex trafficing.

In 2012, 626 victims of human trafficking were registered, 612 of them were victims of sex trafficing.

In the latest statistic from 2017, 671 victims of human trafficking were registered, 489 of them were victims of sex trafficing. It should be noted the Germany saw in increase of human trafficking in 2017 and 2016 but I assume this has pobably something to do with the refugee crisis.

So Germany actually saw a decrease in sex trafficing in the last 15 years, If the law from 2003 contributed to this decrease is debatable since the amount of sex trafficing is decreasing since the 90s. Now since we established that Germany didn't turn into Sodom and Gomorrah in the last decade, let's check if, even though the numbers are decreasing, Germany still is Sodom and Gomorrah compared to other European states, especially to those who use the "nordic model".

@the-pi-guy posted a European statistic

Now we should be careful when comparing numbers from different countries because as the study says: "Differences between the absolute numbers, or between the ratio to the population, neither mean that more people are being trafficked, nor that authorities are more effective." but I think it is still fair to say that neither Germany nor Sweden are outliner in the European context.

So maybe "Liberals and progressives" don't have much to say because the data you use to arrive at your conclusions is flawed.


Prostitution is a major problem in my community (and I don't just mean among younger women) for two basic reasons: 1) because drugs are a major problem in my community, and 2) because, resulting in no small part from the former, sexual abuse is also not uncommon. Most of the prostituted women here had experienced both drug addiction and sexual abuse at the hands of a loved one before entering the field, and both of those things really seem to play a role. Pimps often pay women in drugs, for example, to keep them trapped in the business and rape is something that I can attest to from first-hand experience tends to tell you a lot about what you're worth to the world. Personal liberty is not an appreciable factor in the equation, in my observation. Most of them hate working as prostitutes, and indeed many investigations have born out that prostitutes tend to survive by dissociating themselves from their situation in the moment (as in pretending that they're somewhere else, doing something else), which I think tells you just how much "fun" they're actually having. Making a pattern of dissociation sometimes even leads to the wholesale loss of one's sense of identity, to where they no longer remember things like who they are, where they are, etc.

I know that the conditions for many prostitutes are very bad but just forbidding sex work is not the right way to go. Btw Pimps paying prostitutes in drugs is also illegal in Germany.


It ought to tell you something that a recent survey of American high school students found that most wouldn't have sex with someone they didn't want to for less than $2 million, while the average prostitute does so for less than $200. What does that tell you about the level of self-worth that's involved?

The goal here should be to minimize the commonality of prostitution, not to normalize what is, matter-of-factly, rape in all but semantics. That's what the Nordic model, as it has become known, does. And that's why it's the approach that's supported by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women.

This survey just shows that most people don't want to work as prostitutes but that's also true for many other profession.

why do you think consensual sex between to adults becomes rape as soon as money is transferred from one person to the other?

*Edit: Well apparently I don't know either how to edit those quotes ^^

Last edited by MrWayne - on 11 August 2019

tsogud said:
 

Well on the topic of anal sex; women can and do achieve orgasm from consensual anal sex. The caveat is that the person doing the penetration needs to know how to perform it properly (sadly most straight cis men don't) and the receiver needs to be knowledgeable enough about their own body to know if it's right for them. Some people just can't do anal due to personal or medical reasons. Men and Women both weren't "designed" to have anal sex, we've just come to figure out that it is another way of having a fulfilling orgasm for both sexes. Anal sex does hurt but it hurts for anybody, especially if it's your first time, it's just the way the anus works but proper knowledge and execution minimizes discomfort/pain and it's perfectly safe to perform. It seems you have some misconceptions of anal sex, it's just one of numerous ways different individuals derive pleasure.

Being an inter-sectional feminist I do agree with most, if not all, of your views but your conclusion to outright ban and outlaw these practices and criminalize these individuals is where you lose me and it's one of the reasons I don't subscribe to your brand of feminism. There are A LOT of wrongs with these practices/industries, some of which you have so eloquently explained, but the fact of the matter is that if we made these things illegal, it will only hurt the women involved. Really, the only way forward that I can see is to legalize and regulate it so we can give the care these women deserve so they have a better standard of living.

I would like to know what you think is the best way to achieve the outlawing of these industries and practices and what should be done with the displaced women that were involved? I'm genuinely curious.

The main effect of legalizing the prostitution of women is and will always be to simply make it more common, not better. While we shouldn't penalize women for working in prostitution, purchasing sex from someone is not principally different from raping them. It really isn't. That's making someone have sex with you who almost certainly wouldn't otherwise, and mind you strictly on their terms at that. That simply cannot be allowed in my book.

As to what should be done with those who are displaced, robust exit support services that would offer temporary accommodation, help in applying for crisis loans or disability benefits, counseling, advocacy, and advice are required to help women successfully transition out of the sex industry and into other fields of work.

(Concerning anal sex, what I have spoken to is the rule of how it is experienced. I won't get any popularity points for pointing this out, but the simple truth of the matter is that the nature of authentic female sexual pleasure tends toward the unfashionably vanilla. And no, I'm not for outlawing anal sex or what have you. I pointed out a connection it's growing commonality and the proliferation of online pornography as part of my larger argument against pornography as an institution and proposed that online pornography should be blocked.)



Jaicee said:
tsogud said:

Well on the topic of anal sex; women can and do achieve orgasm from consensual anal sex. The caveat is that the person doing the penetration needs to know how to perform it properly (sadly most straight cis men don't) and the receiver needs to be knowledgeable enough about their own body to know if it's right for them. Some people just can't do anal due to personal or medical reasons. Men and Women both weren't "designed" to have anal sex, we've just come to figure out that it is another way of having a fulfilling orgasm for both sexes. Anal sex does hurt but it hurts for anybody, especially if it's your first time, it's just the way the anus works but proper knowledge and execution minimizes discomfort/pain and it's perfectly safe to perform. It seems you have some misconceptions of anal sex, it's just one of numerous ways different individuals derive pleasure.

Being an inter-sectional feminist I do agree with most, if not all, of your views but your conclusion to outright ban and outlaw these practices and criminalize these individuals is where you lose me and it's one of the reasons I don't subscribe to your brand of feminism. There are A LOT of wrongs with these practices/industries, some of which you have so eloquently explained, but the fact of the matter is that if we made these things illegal, it will only hurt the women involved. Really, the only way forward that I can see is to legalize and regulate it so we can give the care these women deserve so they have a better standard of living.

I would like to know what you think is the best way to achieve the outlawing of these industries and practices and what should be done with the displaced women that were involved? I'm genuinely curious.

The main effect of legalizing the prostitution of women is and will always be to simply make it more common, not better. While we shouldn't penalize women for working in prostitution, purchasing sex from someone is not principally different from raping them. It really isn't. That's making someone have sex with you who almost certainly wouldn't otherwise, and mind you strictly on their terms at that. That simply cannot be allowed in my book.

As to what should be done with those who are displaced, robust exit support services that would offer temporary accommodation, help in applying for crisis loans or disability benefits, counseling, advocacy, and advice are required to help women successfully transition out of the sex industry and into other fields of work.

(Concerning anal sex, what I have spoken to is the rule of how it is experienced. I won't get any popularity points for pointing this out, but the simple truth of the matter is that the nature of authentic female sexual pleasure tends toward the unfashionably vanilla. And no, I'm not for outlawing anal sex or what have you. I pointed out a connection it's growing commonality and the proliferation of online pornography as part of my larger argument against pornography as an institution and proposed that online pornography should be blocked.)

Whoa!  Alarm bells are going off, mainly due to the "principally different" part.  Sure, she isn't looking to sleep with you without said money but...how often ISN'T money the equation for voluntary transactions?  Whether she turns down doing that sort of work or not, she'd still have agency (unless a trafficking victim which is something else entirely).  That's worlds apart from the repulsive violation of another's body in regards to rape.



October VGChartz Articles:

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/440852/greedfall-xone/ (Review - GreedFall 8/10)