Machjo

So by the same logic, a country may reciprocate to unilateral free trade by either dropping or at least reducing its own tariffs against the unilaterally free-trading country, no?

Or they just assume that when the woman is attractive and the man heterosexual, that he must have wanted it. That's what I think is really going on with this. The fact is that not all heterosexual men will agree to sex with any attractive woman, but some men and some women too seem to believe that that's in fact the case.

The reason i specified attractive female abusers and heterosexual male victims is because many do seem to give the woman a free pass in such a situation.

Maybe you're right. I hope you're right. That said, I've come across more than enough comments (ironically mostly from people who present themselves online as male) expressing how lucky a man is commenting about another case of a female teacher or babysitter abusing another child for example, though I've also read comments from people presenting themselves as women expressing a belief that it doesn't affect a boy. Perhaps ironically, the ones most outspoken against it are usually women, which I don't get seeing that one would think men would better understand the harm that it could cause. All I can speculate is that men are less aware of their emotional being and so are less able to recognize the trauma that it can inflict combined with societal expectations about boys in sexual relations with an older woman being seen as 'lucky.' But could you imagine reading online comments about how handsome a male abuser was and so how lucky the female victim should consider herself? People would go mad over such a comment because we understand that the male abuser being handsome does not diminish (or at least not by much) the fact that he would have violated a girl or woman's boundaries. Yet many people (ironically especially men apparently)somehow give attractive female abusers a free pass on her looks alone.

Our society seems to think that when an attractive woman who sexually abuses a heterosexual boy or who coerces another heterosexual man into sex, he should thank her for it even though evidence shows that these child and even adult male victims often suffer real trauma, depression, and sometimes later addictions and other mental-health problems of their own. Why is it that our culture is so accepting of attractive women sexually abusing heterosexual males on the assumption that the man or boy must necessarily appreciate it and that this violation of their boundaries causes no harm? Worse yet, while it's generally accepted that a girl or woman may experience orgasm as a natural sexual response when being sexually assaulted, we treat a male erection and especially orgasm as the ultimate proof of consent while ignoring that even a man who physically resists can still get an erection or orgasm, that a man can orgasm while asleep, and a man can orgasm even when passed out drunk. We ignore that a man can get an erection even when experiencing a traumatic experience. Our culture seems to accept female coercion as harmless, and that's when it even accepts and acknowledges that women do engage in sexual coercion themselves. What is it in our culture that makes it so acceptable for an attractive woman to sexually abuse straight men and boys?

Are you saying Barack was bribing Trudeau with prostitutes? I thought Trudeau was a feminist?

Finland and many other countries in the world have done fine outside of NATO, no?

I don't think Putin is the promiscuous type, let alone the gay type. I doubt Trump is gay either, but I have every reason to believe he's promiscuous as hell. Putin would just need to promise Trump a pretty hooker to get Trump to bend to his wishes.

There's being diplomatic and then there's being truthful.

So how's anyone supposed to believe anything Trump says when he just flip flops like a walker on the beach?

Leaders say EU-Japan pact protects workers | EuronewsTrump and Brexit might in fact be benefiting the EU. for a long time now, the EU has lazily basked in ignorant protectionism. Now faced with the double threats of Brexit and Trump, the EU has finally started to wake up to the need for global free trade.The EU has started to promote free trade not only with Japan but with China too now.Let's hope this new European openness lasts past Trump and Brexit.If Canada were smart, we might want to start to renegotiate our trade agreements with others countries and blocks too now that they're showing more openness to freer trade.

OK, I exaggerated. It would reduce the risk then, meaning that the US would have to be determined enough to attack Canada to accept killing its own people to do so.

In many respects, Singapore has adopted just such a policy. Neighbouring states may have more powerful military forces, but with so many foreign nationals working in Singapore, any attack on Singapore would be an attack on the attacking state's own people.

True. But if we can make ourselves as economically and culturally integrated as possible into the North American economy, the US military would soon become powerless against us. After all, I can't imagine many Americans appreciating the US military bombing their daughters and sons-in-law to death or US businesses appreciating the US military bombing their business partners' to the ground.

There are many complexities. Even if the referendum had been between remaining in the EU or unilateral free trade (among many other possibilities), that would still leave ambiguity about the time frame. Let's say it was a referendum between remaining in the EU or adopting unilateral free trade within the next seventy years (so as to give the British government the flexibility necessary to leave the EU in incremental stages), maybe that would be precise enough to make the referendum clear enough to move forward on a more united front.

I like your thinking. Whatever the sex of the buyer or the provider, buying sex hurts everyone involved, buyer and provider alike. I don't usually link to feminist writing, but Julie Bindel has written a good piece on the subject here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/aug/09/comment.gender

Hmmm... maybe I misunderstood you. Though i favour criminalizing the buying of sex, I am open to legalization with strict regulation especially on the advertising side of the business.

But people in a monogamous relationship pose less of a risk of spreading disease compared to the promiscuous, no? I'm not judging people who buy sex here. I'm just saying that strict regulation could help them to better manage their compulsive behaviour to protect public health.

http://world.time.com/2013/10/15/ignorance-and-a-thriving-sex-industry-fuel-aids-explosion-on-bali/ There is an economic cost: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/costs-of-new-hiv-cases-will-top-4b-report-says-1.1109961 So if there is evidence that some buyers (and sometimes even sellers) suffer sex addiction, then it would seem to make sense, if we are not to criminalize it outright, to at least strictly regulate it comparably to how Singapore regulates its casinos to keep gambling addicts out for example.

Stupid or compulsive? from that report, even Mexicans are well aware of the risk of HIV. Us studies have found customers offer more for unprotected sex too and there is evidence that even when the buyer is a woman, she will sometimes agree to unprotected sex so this cuts through all demographics with both buyers and sellers participating in a way that I would consider pathological.

Even when a buyer offers more money or a seller a discount for unprotected sex? You don't see anything compulsive in that at all?

‘We find that Mexican sex workers received a 23 percent premium for unprotected sex from clients who requested not to use a condom, and this premium jumped to 46 percent if the sex worker was considered very attractive. We also found that clients who requested condom use paid 9 percent more for protected sex, and sex workers who requested not to use a condom gave clients a 20 percent discount. These results are completely consistent with our theoretical predictions.’ http://manishashah.bol.ucla.edu/papers/shah_JPE.pdf

So you don't see anything pathological in a person paying for sex?

To my mind, buying sex reveals a compulsive sexuality disorder. So if I understand you correctly, if a woman buys sex, instead of helping her out of the industry, we should just make it easier for her to get her fix and so exacerbate the problem?

Or we could just add more members.