----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 10:01 AM Subject: Re: More hypocrisy on display than skin
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:45:53 -0600, Dan Minette > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >What is the inherent difference between paying some guy to play > > >an hour of tennis with you a week, and some girl to **** you for an hour > > >a week. In both cases, they would probably rather be doing it with > > >someone else (if at all), and are only doing it with you for the money. > > > > Good question. Let me give an example that illustrates it. Lets consider > > two newly blended family. In both cases, there is a 15 year old daughter > > of the women in the new family. They all move into the man's house. > > > > In the first household, the 15 year old girl is required to do chores > > around the house (vacuum, clean toilets, mop the kitchen floor) for about > > two hours a week. In the second, she is required to have sex with her > > step-father 2 times a week, taking half an hour each time. In both cases, > > she'd rather be doing something else. Is there any difference? > > Yes. There is a small class of jobs related to the maintainence of > the family home society considers children to be capable of. >These do not include coal miner, police officer or sex worker. But, children are clearly capable of being sex workers. The trade in child prostitution shows that. >You further > muddy the waters by using the word "required", when in fact no child > is required and coertion in either case would be abuse (though one > would be a much more serious case). Parents who require their children to do chores are abusive? If I tell my son he cannot leave the house until his chores are done, I'm being abusive? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
