I want to know why people who think that sex work is bad think that sex work, the act of exchanging sex for something of concrete value, is so much worse than casual hookups, people having sex to procreate, drunk sex, breakup sex, sex you have because you want to feel closer, and all the other weird reasons people have sex–sex to just get losing your virginity over with!–so much worse than all these reasons and ways of having sex.

Talking to other sex workers and people in harm reduction, we keep encountering the idea that sex work is more “high risk” than any other kind of sex except gay sex.

This is demonstrably untrue, however. When sex workers are given the tools to have safer sex, we have exponentially lower rates of sti infection that the surrounding population of civilians of pretty much any age.

Sex workers need protections from civilians, not the other way around.

I understand that a lot of people think sex should ONLY be had in the context of a loving and committed monogamous romantic relationship, but relationships end. At a certain point (say, 2017) divorce rates and breakup rates and hookup culture all combine to make the censure of sex work seem truly hypocritical and ludicrous. So many people are having so many kinds of meaningless sex for stupid reasons, but it’s adult women, trying to leverage the one thing society agrees that we have of value, that need to be protected from themselves.

But take it to the logical legislative conclusions.

Can we really be sure that drunk co-eds can be trusted to make good decisions about who to have sex with? what if in two weeks they find out the person they were sleeping with was LYING to them and sleeping with other people? what if he was doing it without condoms? That’s pretty fucking rude and unethical, shouldn’t we protect young women from this all too common scenario? CAN we? what does that look like?

What about a couple having sex to get pregnant when neither of them is really feeling it but they both want a baby?

Under Oregon law, a stay at home housewife having sex with her husband who pays her bills and mortgage, is trafficked.

And it’s frankly shameful that people criminalise adults under the guise of concern trolling about sexually exploited children when they aren’t lobbying even close to as hard to a total reboot of the child welfare system–Texas’s CPS system recently made international headlines after human rights abuses so bad they make Minnesota’s or Oregon’s look fine. (I’m being bitterly hilarious, the abuses of different cps systems are never fine).
People are willing to support misogynist and racist abuses overseas and at home (TPP, H&M, Goodwill) and they’re willing to close their eyes to child abuse in the the very system made to protect them, but they love to jerk off to the idea of exploited people and being the magical white saviours of fragile exploited women and children. it’s this ONE SPECIFIC CONTEXT they love to circle jerk about.

They don’t give a damn about other kinds of slavery, they don’t publicise instances of it, they don’t organise against it, they don’t support sex workers trying to organise to aid vulnerable people. they genuinely JUST care about this one aspect of sexuality, regardless of how interconnected all misogynist and racist abuses are and the realities of survival under global capitalism.

I think it’s amazing. Just amazing. In one hundred years, nothing has changed except to become worse for poor people around the world, but the middle class is still more concerned about legislating adult women’s sexuality than real change that would protect vulnerable people.

vox.com
Oklahoma lawmaker: pregnant women’s bodies aren't their own, because they are "hosts"
It’s the logic behind a bill that would require men to approve their partners’ abortions.
By Emily Crockett

“But pro-lifers respect women! We’re pro woman, pro child!” 

Originally posted by annefrankisgod

anonymous asked:

Colombia approved a new law about "dangerous breeds", now everyone who have this kind of dogs have to have a special a registration and paid for permit to keep the dog, because of this many dogs end up being abandoned and being sacrificed! My best friend has a pit bull and she is the most adorable dog on earth! how can we prove that this breed are not really dangerous!

Well, my anonymous friend, firstly I can’t figure out whether you’re talking about Colombia the country, the county or a city, so I can’t look up your legislation.

Secondly, registering dogs isn’t in and of itself a bad thing. You might be disappointed that I’m not going to tell you what you wanted to hear.

How bad this new law is, and whether or not it’s fair, depends on the details, which I can’t find.

Where I am we have a general registration for ALL dogs. It’s a cheap annual fee if they’re desexed and if the dog gets loose and is picked up, it gets returned to the owners first time free of charge. That law is there to ensure the dog population doesn’t get out of control in suburbia, and that dogs that repeatedly escape and get onto the road can be identified and addressed.

Certain ‘restricted’ breeds have additional laws. They are supposed to only be kept if desexed if living in certain suburbs. They can only be owned by someone over the age of 18. They can only be walked in public by someone who is over 18. There is a minimum height for your fences. This legislation targets certain breeds, including the pit bull. While I don’t think it’s fair to target a particular handful of breeds, I do think these precautions are reasonable for any dog breed over 20kg.

If any dog attacks a human, or kills an animal, or comes close, it gets reclassified as a ‘dangerous dog’. These dogs must have an enclosure, not just a fence, and ‘Beware of Dog’ signs at the entrance to the property. They’re not to be walked in public, and are to be muzzled if outside of their enclosure. These dogs attract a higher registration fee, and if they escape they are likely to be seized and put down.

The difference between a ‘restricted breed’ legislation and this dangerous dog legislation is that these individual dogs have proven themselves to be dangerous. It is not condemning an entire breed. These measures have not resulted in more dogs being ‘abandoned and sacrificed‘, but there are more dogs around these days that look very much like pit bulls that are being labeled as ‘staffy crosses’.

All dogs bite. That’s how they eat. You can’t guarantee that any individual dog, of any breed, will never hurt a human. You simply can’t, and it’s irresponsible to do so.

We should be encouraging people to understand dog’s body language and dog etiquette to reduce the number of dog bites. Legislation won’t fix this problem, but neither will targeting certain breeds.

You can’t prove that ‘pit bulls are not really dangerous’. You can’t prove that for any breed, especially not a large, muscular one. The task lies in convincing the general public that the breed is not any more dangerous than any other breed of dog. Hey, it’s Labradors and Golden Retrievers that are statistically most likely to bite a vet and send them to hospital.

Originally posted by humoristics

Having good ambassadors for the breed in public and social media is vital to change public perception. Stop cropping their ears if you’re in a country that still allows this to happen. Socialize them well, with humans and other dogs. Train them well. Let them be as good as they can be, because they represent their breed.

Not all of these dogs are nice, but that could be said of any breed. The task remains to show that enough of these dogs are and don’t deserve to be singled out over any other breed.

It used to be rottweilers, dobermans and german shepherds that were vilified in this way. Society’s views can change, but it takes consistent good examples to do so.

youtube

Staff Attorney Sasha Buchert delves into three types of anti-trans legislation to look out for:
1. “Bathroom Bills”
2. Pre-emption Bills
3. First Amendment Defense Acts (FADAs)

Share widely.

Current Drug Policy

Technology rapidly advances, but our drug policies remain archaic. America feeds people toxic or habit-forming prescription drugs so that corporations can profit, and they attempt to outlaw all drugs in which corporations have trouble profiting on.

It’s funny that they spent so many resources on those anti-drug campaigns, telling everyone to stay away from drugs, but they did not mention alcohol, caffeine, anti-psychotics/anti-depressants. It is not until later that we realize it was an effort to shift profits in their direction, knowing that humans will always use some sort of substance for some purpose.

But a lack of understanding about these drugs has caused many of the problems that we see in our society today.

“Trump told voters he was for making drugs cheaper for sick people. So Sanders introduced an amendment that would accomplish that. Then Republican senators blocked it. And Big Pharma wins again.

Who thinks this will become a pattern?” - CommonDreams FB Post

Take Action!

change.org
U.S. State Legislators: Stop Taxing Our Periods! Period.
Aunt Flo is one helluva house guest. She can be painful, messy, and just keeps coming back each month. And, oh yeah, expensive ! As anyone who menstruates knows, dealing with a period is a monthly necessity—and a costly one at that. Women spend upwards of $70 a year on sanitary products like tampons and pads. What’s worse, across the U.S., a whopping forty states increase the financial burden of menstruation by charging sales tax on these essential items. Not taxed : a bag of chips. Taxed : a box of tampons. WHAT?! Check out the above map to see if your state is one of the forty that taxes your purchase of tampons, pads, and menstrual cups. For anyone who has a period, these items are a necessity—not an option, not a luxury item—and should be treated as such. Eliminating the Tampon Tax is simply the FAIR and EQUAL thing to do. Change is possible! This summer, Canada made history when its Parliament voted unanimously to eliminate a national tax on menstrual products. Across the pond and down under, women in the U.K. and Australia are insisting their governments do the same. A global movement is underway! Sign this petition, share it with your friends—and let the forty state legislatures that profit from your period know that you won’t stand for it. Join Cosmopolitan in the national movement to Axe the Tampon Tax! #TamponsForAll

This is ridiculous. Think of the single moms out there trying to put food on the table and they get taxed for this??!?!! And you thought the British taxing tea was bad?!?!

@WGAEast Diversity Tax Credit aiming to “tangibly” increase number of women and people of color in writing and directing roles faces opposition: Thede urges public support

————————————-

The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore writer and performer Robin Thede is using her platform to support the Writers Guild of America, East’s proposed amendment to the Empire State Film Production Credit. The diversity tax credit is facing opposition, despite aiming to “tangibly increase the number of women and people of color in writing and directing positions” by allotting around $5 million of New York’s $420 million credit for film and TV production to projects that hire qualified women and people of color in writing and directing roles.

She is urging people to voice their support for the WGAE’s amendment — which passed the New York State Assembly but still needs to pass through the Senate — by emailing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and two key state senators by June 16.

“I know it requires more than a retweet or just pressing the ‘like’ button, but aren’t we all craving a little more sophisticated communication these days? Your small effort can literally make TV and film better and help provide opportunities to countless qualified writers and directors. And it’s free!”