A year ago, the report says, investigators interviewed 231 people in Haiti who said they’d had transactional sexual relationships with U.N. peacekeepers. “For rural women, hunger, lack of shelter, baby care items, medication and household items were frequently cited as the triggering need,'" the report says. Urban and suburban women received "church shoes, cell phones, laptops and perfume, as well as money.” The UN Peacekeepers say that "Staff with long mission experience states there was ageneral view that people should have romantic rights’ and raised the issue of sexuality as a human right,” the report says.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/10/un-forces-trade-aid-for-sex.html

Sex for goods is a fascinating topic. A hundred years ago the average person might reply to this topic as “duh!” I figure feminists would embrace this because it empowers women to be entrepreneurs such as prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars, thus liberating women from the patriarchy all while doing it by THEIR OWN CHOICE. “My body, my choice.” So why does the system want to take “choice” away from women at the applause of feminists?

So why does the system want to take “choice” away from women at the applause of feminists?

Women hate and fear prostitutes, because the professionals steal food off the tables of the amateurs.

Trading vagina for supplies and other goods is as old as life itself and quite beneficial for both parties.

Not really. It is beneficial for women, since goods are usually more difficult to get. In order to acquire goods men have to do actual work, craft or perform some kind of labor that require some degree of skill. However, in order to have sex, all a woman have to do is open her legs. Not only that, but since is the male performing all the usefull and needed tasks, STD’s have a tendency to be more detrimental to the man then the woman. After all, if a man get sick, it might diminish his ability to get resources and survive. A woman, even if she get some disease, as long as she doesn’t show the symptoms can keep spreading her legs and keep getting resources. Hell, she might even enjoy the act as much as the male partner. So no, it is not beneficial for both parties at all. I say, if you have to, trade as few resources as you can for it.

Why people keep thinking that sex is labor for women? And why they think that it is EQUIVALENT to what MEN have to do to gather resources?

Not really. It is beneficial for women, since goods are usually more difficult to get. In order to acquire goods men have to do actual work, craft or perform some kind of labor that require some degree of skill.

Well said.  The point I was going for was that resources-for-sex is a mutual agreement where each party assumes the benefits as well as the risks.  Life is risk management.

What always p~~~es me off about articles like this is that the bias is always against the moral judgment of the man and not the woman.  In the article, the evil UN peacekeepers traded cell phones for sex.  Why didn’t the article say that the women had sex with strangers for cell phones?  The moral implication is that men are evil and that women (who are morally pure) can’t be trusted to make choices for themselves.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/10/un-forces-trade-aid-for-sex.html Sex for goods is a fascinating topic. A hundred years ago the average person might reply to this topic as “duh!” I figure feminists would embrace this because it empowers women to be entrepreneurs such as prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars, thus liberating women from the patriarchy all while doing it by THEIR OWN CHOICE. “My body, my choice.” So why does the system want to take “choice” away from women at the applause of feminists?

It’s a conflict in Feminist ideology. Feminists aren’t going after the women who are offering their bodies up in exchange for goods, they are going after the men who are taking them up on it. If these women were living in a First World country and doing this by choice you wouldn’t hear a word but as they are in a 3rd world country Feminists would see the men as exploiting them even though these women need the goods more than some 18 year old in the first world who just doesn’t like the idea of working a regular job to pay her way through college.

It’s a conflict in Feminist ideology.

Conflict indeed.  According to feminist ideology, “Every woman shall have the right to make her own decisions…depending on where she lives, that is.”

Morlock wrote:

It’s a conflict in Feminist ideology.

Conflict indeed. According to feminist ideology, “Every woman shall have the right to make her own decisions…depending on where she lives, that is.”

Exactly and if the Feminists have to stop poor Haitian women from prostituting themselves so they can take some big bad men down then that is what they will do. Besides anything Left Wing will have a rule change every second day, they just make it up as they go along.

Why didn’t the article say that the women had sex with strangers for cell phones? The moral implication is that men are evil and that women (who are morally pure) can’t be trusted to make choices for themselves.

Because this is an article by Al Jazeera. Lets say if I want to hear something negative about Jews, the USA, Europe or just white people/men in general I would go there but I wouldn’t trust them to stick to the facts. There is being left and then there is being so left you can’t even see the center with a telescope.

I do however have an old 486 with win98 …… 😃

Prostitution is a social phenomenon, it pre-exist civilization and even mankind, similar social interactions exist in the animal world as well.