and the lord of the maner wasn't a have and the peasant wasn't a have not?
this is the same feudal bullcrap the aristocracy have used to justify the use of and disposal of young poor women forever. a much older man leveraging his wealth, influence, and power into a sexual relationship with a woman young enough that the average person his age would refer to her as a kid is messed up
and the lord of the maner wasn't a have and the peasant wasn't a have not?
this is the same feudal bullcrap the aristocracy have used to justify the use of and disposal of young poor women forever. a much older man leveraging his wealth, influence, and power into a sexual relationship with a woman young enough that the average person his age would refer to her as a kid is messed up
The woman didn't inherit the lord's wealth
Please try to read what I wrote instead of what you thought I wrote
she won't inherit his wealth either. That is just not how our inheritance laws work
She in many ways is worse of than the peasant in my analogy who had things guaranteed by right
And even if she did inherit something it’s still fucking wrong for old dudes to be getting fucked by young women for cash.
I think this point deserves clarification. Sex workers should not be criminalised and are not doing anything wrong
but I am not convinced that people can consent to sex if not consenting means they don't get paid money they need to live and or loose their job.
alienation from labor is bad enough but alienation from your ability to sexually consent is worse
a site which really helped inform my position on this issue