It Keeps Coming Up Anyhow…

Feminists-at-Large

By Hoya Saxxa 

Let’s talk about sex for now to the people at home or in the crowd

It keeps coming up anyhow

Don’t decoy, avoid, or make void the topic

Cuz that ain’t gonna stop it

“Let’s Talk About Sex” by Salt-N-Pepa

Let’s talk about sex, baby!

Sex is one of my favorite things to talk about. I can go on and on about it, and as any one of my close friends could attest to, I often do (especially when a bottle of wine is involved).

But for many people, talking about sex is hard to do. At least, it can be difficult to talk about sex openly and honestly. So often, we’re told not to talk about sex, because it’s inappropriate, impolite or TMI. And when talking about sex is shamed and stigmatized, it can lead us to harbor unhealthy and unrealistic attitudes about…

View original post 1,000 more words

‘Study Reveals Shocking Income Inequality In the U.S.’

A very important story we all should be told

The Last Of The Millenniums

income equality

I’ve posted the orginal video before but very, very well worth the time to post again and again and again…..

Parkman does his usual great job……

‘There’s an article on Alternet called “Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality In America” which David Pakman encourages you to read right now, because it’ll make “your chin drop to the floor.”

http://www.alternet.org/economy/five-ugly-extremes-inequality-america-contrasts-will-drop-your-chin-floor

‘Did you know that a single person‘s income at the top could provide housing for every single homeless person in the United States for an entire year’?

Read that sentence again and think about it.

‘The top 10 wealthiest individuals for 2012 have more money than the entire housing budget for the U.S. government’.

Read that sentence again and think about it.

Story at : http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/27/study-reveals-shocking-income-inequality-in-the-u-s-video/

View original post

Prostitutes deserve protection too

Pierre Trudeau famously said, “Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.”

Since then, Canada has resisted, in large part, the various pushes to legislate sexual morality. We have been at the forefront of recognizing the rights of gay people to marry, we have been relatively restrained in making sexual behavior subject to legislation, and the sexual conduct of politicians and celebrities has largely been ignored by the media.

The result? Has Canada become a cesspool of sexual deviance? Are politicians, free from media oversight, hosting orgies on Parliament Hill? Is main street Canada lined with pimps and hookers living off the avails of our liberal prostitution laws?

Of course not. We have divorce rates much lower than the US- about half – and slightly lower than other developed countries such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Use of pornography, as measured by spending on porn is 33% lower in Canada then the United States, with its stricter sex laws. Interestingly the areas of the United States with the highest porn usage rates are the states that moralize and stigmatize sexuality most negatively. Our rates of violent sexual crimes, as measured by incidence of rape, is amongst the lowest in the developed world – only Japan is lower.

So Canadian, despite their relatively liberal views toward sex, are amongst the most sexually well adjusted, if you can consider relatively well adjusted to be indicated by: low divorce rates, low sexual violence rates and lowish rates of porn consumption. Not bad.

Another upside, and this is considerable, we are one of the most tolerant and accepting peoples on the planet. In practice and perception, we are among the most tolerant countries in the world, respecting different cultural, religious and sexual practices with a general live-and-let-live approach.

The Supreme Court of Canada will soon be considering a ruling that, if upheld, will further relax prostitution and sexual solicitation rules in Canada. While numerous prostitution laws are at play in this case, perhaps the most important is a prostitute’s right to hire personnel to protect her while practicing her trade. Currently, while prostitution is legal in Canada, many of the activities that enable it are not, such as living off the avails of prostitution, soliciting and operating a bawdy house. If the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Bedford v Canada, the crime of living off the avails of prostitution will be significantly narrowed to incidents where there is exploitation. So, pimping would still be illegal, but a prostitute would now be able to hire a driver of a bodyguard.

Those opposed to the relaxation of prostitution laws, including the federal government, have argued that the current laws restricting “living off the avails” of prostitution are designed to protect women and prevent predatory pimps from forcing women into prostitution.

This is thinly veiled, weakly argued, moralization.

Weakly Argued: There is near consensus that the best way to protect women who are, or may be, engaged in prostitution is to bring it out of the shadows – legitimize it and regulate it. Many countries – Germany, the Netherlands – have done this and their prostitutes are safer as a result. The issues at play in the Bedford case are no-brainers – allowing people engaged in prostitution to hire staff that can drive them to appointments and watch out for their safety makes prostitutes safer in what is still a shadowed operation.

Thinly Veiled: Those opposed to relaxed prostitution laws are opposed, on moral grounds, to sex for pay. They oppose their right to engage in it and the rights of others to do so. This is beneath us, as Canadian. We can choose to not engage in sex for pay – personally I choose not to engage – but I, and my Government, should not be able to tell others they cannot.

Canada’ Charter of Rights and Freedoms promises Peace, Order and Good Government. We have thrived when we have avoided moralizing and focussed on creating an orderly, respectful, tolerant society. We would do well to extend this model to prostitution.

Can Trudeau Beat Harper? Ask me in 2 years, when I care.

I like Justin Trudeau. I align well with his small L liberal predispositions and he has an optimism that has been lacking in Canadian politics for some time now. But I am bothered by the number of people who are seeing him as the savior from a Harper Canada and have, basically, given up on the current government and are waiting for someone else to take over.  Before we let the media drag us into two years of Trudeaumania Redux, lets look at their – I mean the media’s – real ambition here.

The media is trying to replicate the American-styled continual loop election cycle.  Why?   Because following Justin Trudeau or Hilary Clinton or Paul Ryan’s every utterance as a lead up to the 2015 Canadian election or the 2016 US nominations is salacious and easy reporting.  It is easy for politicians to pander to this – giving the media polarizing quips that make easy headlines.  It is far more difficult, for both the media and for opposition politicians, to engage constructively in the current government’s policy and legislative agenda – that is complex stuff requiring background research and analysis and at times, difficult compromise.  It is far harder, but it is essential to a well functioning democracy.

The United States is now paying a powerful price for being in constant election mode.  There was a time in the United States where, once a President was elected, Congress and the Senate gave him a degree of latitude to implement the platform he got elected on.  For a period after the election, campaigning was put aside in favor of legislating and governing.  The President was not given carte blanche and he had to negotiate with opposition members, but both sides had an interest in finding common ground.  No more.  The US government is now completely dysfunctional and unable to move policy because America politicians are constantly campaigning for the next election.  As a result, the same issues they argued over in the election campaign – be it Obamacare, gun control or mandatory sentencing – gets re-debated – not governed – throughout the four year government, and re-fought during the next campaign.

This is unacceptable.  Canada is a country of tolerance and respect.  We have been well governed when we have been able to come to the table with different perspectives, debate them, and find common ground and solutions.  A politician’s job – be they in government or opposition – is to make government work for the people.  When they abandon this responsibility in favor of positioning for power next time around, they are no longer governing.  

I don’t like Stephen Harper. I didn’t vote for him.  But he is my Prime Minister and I expect him to govern on my behalf.  I expect the media to hold him accountable for doing so.

I hope Trudeau beats Harper in 2015; until then I will work with the team I have.