On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:45:53 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >What is the inherent difference between paying some guy to play > >an hour of tennis with you a week, and some girl to **** you for an hour > >a week. In both cases, they would probably rather be doing it with > >someone else (if at all), and are only doing it with you for the money. > > Good question. Let me give an example that illustrates it. Lets consider > two newly blended family. In both cases, there is a 15 year old daughter > of the women in the new family. They all move into the man's house. > > In the first household, the 15 year old girl is required to do chores > around the house (vacuum, clean toilets, mop the kitchen floor) for about > two hours a week. In the second, she is required to have sex with her > step-father 2 times a week, taking half an hour each time. In both cases, > she'd rather be doing something else. Is there any difference? Yes. There is a small class of jobs related to the maintainence of the family home society considers children to be capable of. These do not include coal miner, police officer or sex worker. You further muddy the waters by using the word "required", when in fact no child is required and coertion in either case would be abuse (though one would be a much more serious case). If, on the other hand, it was a sixteen year old girl who could choose between either task if she wanted to get an allowance then no, there would be no difference. That would be an analoguous example to that Andrew sets out rather than the tortuous one you construct. Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
