You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #25: Here's from one response: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
25. Here's from one response:
"Umm, as much as I hate to ruin a good moral panic… By calling it “a move” and “is considered proof,” your phrasing implies that this is an explicit policy decision.

But in the article you link to from the Womensrights blog, it merely says “And they’ve been accused of using carrying three or more condoms as proof of intent to sell sex.” And if you follow that to the RH Reality Check blog, it only says that arrests based on carrying multiple condoms is “not uncommon,” and that “anecdotal evidence suggests” you can be arrested for having three or more.

I skimmed the entire Move Along Report PDF and also searched on the term “condom.” There is NOTHING about any formal policy that treats the carrying of protection as legal evidence of prostitution. As far as I can see, there are only reports of cops making arrests, on their own, on that basis.

That’s still an abusive, anti-woman, and socially harmful practice. I’m not arguing against that for a second. But I’m already seeing people on sites like Reddit and Digg talking as if Washington DC passed a *law* saying women can be arrested for having three or more condoms, that it’s part of this Prostitution-Free Zone program, and that ordinary women are somehow in grave danger of being arrested there purely on the basis of carrying a bunch of condoms in their purse.

I think there’s a kernel of truth to this story, obviously, but I’m watching it get further and further out of hand the further removed it gets from original sources. Straight up, is there any evidence that the “three condoms” thing exists on paper anywhere, or is it just something people are picking up from reading too fast?

C’mon, guys, I just got finished crowing at a bunch of conservatives who were spreading inane rumors about our president. I really want to believe that we’re the Good Guys and that we actually do our homework before we snap to conclusions. I *totally* support the cause of public reproductive health and better treatment of women, but now I’m worried we’re gonna start an urban legend that it’s “illegal for women to carry more than three condoms in Washington DC.” In fact, that legend seems to have already started. And that upsets me."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC