I called you unhinged in a deleted post, because I thought you said 'and make them ineligible for all employment', which would be reprehensible.
Come on though, 90% tax for exchanging money for sex? That's some oppressive bullshit. We live in a world where liars, tyrants and marxists collude to oppress and destroy us, and you want to use the state to crush people for engaging in voluntary transactions? You can make the argument that sex work isn't good for society but they're not directly hurting anyone.
Yeah, I've seen your reasoning that it's 'coerced', but that's asinine. Women as a general demographic are privileged, spoiled, have a heavy ingroup bias and enable their own, which causes all sorts of problems for society and men specifically, but they're not a monolithic organization wherein all or even most women collude to exploit and harm men.
For one thing, that kind of argument sounds far too much like the 'men/white people all benefit from systemic sexism/racism so they're all guilty' sophistry for my liking.
For another, having one branch break men down so the other can charge them for sex would require a greater understanding of cause and effect than feminists are generally capable of.
that kind of argument sounds far too much like the 'men/white people all benefit from systemic sexism/racism so they're all guilty' sophistry for my liking.
Because that argument, like everything else women create as an argument, is projection.
I called you unhinged in a deleted post, because I thought you said 'and make them ineligible for all employment', which would be reprehensible.
Come on though, 90% tax for exchanging money for sex? That's some oppressive bullshit. We live in a world where liars, tyrants and marxists collude to oppress and destroy us, and you want to use the state to crush people for engaging in voluntary transactions? You can make the argument that sex work isn't good for society but they're not directly hurting anyone.
Yeah, I've seen your reasoning that it's 'coerced', but that's asinine. Women as a general demographic are privileged, spoiled, have a heavy ingroup bias and enable their own, which causes all sorts of problems for society and men specifically, but they're not a monolithic organization wherein all or even most women collude to exploit and harm men.
For one thing, that kind of argument sounds far too much like the 'men/white people all benefit from systemic sexism/racism so they're all guilty' sophistry for my liking.
For another, having one branch break men down so the other can charge them for sex would require a greater understanding of cause and effect than feminists are generally capable of.
Because that argument, like everything else women create as an argument, is projection.