Perhaps they want to promote the in-house facilities;- surely that would be against the spirit of free trade and is anti competitive!! Perish the thought.
Wake up people. It is the oldest profession. It happens all the times in all relationships: man has always paid and will always pay for it; may be not in direct £££ or $$$ form, but under many other ways and banners. It is a fundamental law of nature. This notion [of what these MPs trying to do] is so ridiculous, reminds me of John Major and his "Classless Society".
Wake up to changing time. This is 21st Century.
What happens between a man and a woman(two adults) in a consenting relationship is OK. You can extend it to more than 2 adults, or to same sex situations too, I wouldn't.
2007-09-10 02:17:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by R R 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's a shame that they banded together as a group of women instead of getting some male members in too (pun noted, but I found it too amusing to edit out).
I was brought up in a holiday town in the English Lake District, and as a naive young teenager I was called over by a few of the slimy gits that crawl around in their cars looking for sex. I thought they would be asking for directions (most were). It was only when I got older that I eventually realised what they were after!
These people are pests. They are as bad as the pimps that market the women who work for them.
So, although I think the law would be a good idea, I also think that having a group of women MPs band together to bring it about is a bit disturbing. Have they asked for male support? And if they have, why are the male MPs not getting behind this proposal? (let your imagination work on that one)
If the women haven't sought male backing; then I have to wonder whether they are actually "up to the job in parliament", or whether they're just a bunch of power-hungry man-hating arch-feminists.
2007-09-09 18:49:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by reardwen 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think at the end of the day everyone can say no! Surely the same thing can apply to women who try to buy sexual favours.
I'm sure it is not just men. I think it is a bit silly to follow this through and will be a waste of tax payers money. The money would be better spent on erradicating knife and gun crime.
2007-09-09 19:29:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by JULIA G 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Women are just as capable as men, although particular individuals (male and female) may be less so.
And sexism is wrong whoever is the source.
Perhaps this new law should cover women who try to buy sexual favours, too.
2007-09-09 18:37:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by dlm 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Of course women are up to the job, there are good ones and corrupt ones, same as men.
But I question going after anyone who tries to buy sexual favours, as well as going after anyone that offers to sell them. As long as the seller freely does such a thing, and is of sound mind (not forced to by a pimp and not mentally ill), what is the problem? Would be better to legalise prostitution - get organised crime out of it, make sure prostitutes get proper medical attention and exams, plus collect tax. You are not going to get rid of the world's oldest profession, although personally I disaprove of it.
2007-09-09 22:04:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by gortamor 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sexual favours? I could imagine Auntie Margaret doing that one in 1959...purring up to Douglas-Home like a Persian on heat.
2007-09-09 18:41:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by nativexile 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course women are up to the job in Parliament.........they can make a silk purse out of a sow`s ear just as well as any man.
2007-09-09 19:33:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by Twiggy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
They should,an have been too short compared to men to be judged already for mistakes,success.
2007-09-09 18:32:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by amleth 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
So, men are guilty again?
What about the women that get it for free?
Tax evading bitches I suppose?....
2007-09-09 20:27:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
they wont stand a chance ......that would mean publicity
for lots of pillars of our society and a good laugh for the public.
2007-09-09 19:03:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jezabel 6
·
0⤊
0⤋