These two always had unbelievably good chemistry, and I wish the show had gone on long enough, and in a slightly different direction, so that the writers and actors could have explored the relationship more.
Welcome to life and politics in the Big City. Not everyone is cut out for the lifestyle characters like Josh and Amy are expected to lead. Which is why I live 25 miles north of that city, work only 45 hours and not 70 hours a week, and I get to spend my evenings and weekends as I chose.
She's just a really great female character. Powerful, confident, smart, sensitive and playful. I love the touch about the art at the end. Knockout scene. If Josh had not have ended up with Donna then Amy would have been perfect for him.
I think she's pretty realistic as a character since a lot of advocates are single-minded and focused like her. However, something about MLP's portrayal always really annoyed me. I know a lot of people say Josh should've wound up with her instead of Donna--I always preferred Joey Lucas, to be honest.
She is a toxic person, using things said in private confidence and holding it over his head. If that's the way you treat someone you love, I'm ecstatic she was cut out of Lyman's life
Not a Amy/Josh fan. I've known from the beginning that Josh and Donna should be together. Just glad the writers finally took it there. Will worth the agonizing will they/won't they wait!!
It is. Amy was saying it’s easier to go after those cases of forced prostitution if you criminalize all prostitution. In reality places with legal prostitution have lower rates of forced and underaged prostitution and less violence against sex workers.
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
So many strong, beautiful, intelligent and funny women on this show... and not a one of them had to sacrifice their femininity to do it. I really like Mary-Louise Parker, but I absolutely love Amy Gardner. It was tough not to root for her over Donna...
I’m going to take an unpopular stance and say that Amy was a basically bad person. On two different occasions she took information Josh let slip during situations of domestic intimacy and used them to screw him over. When he tried to call her on it she played the “ You can’t deal with an empowered woman” line. It had nothing to do with male or female, it had to do with being able to let your guard down at the end of the day with the person you love. If he had done that to her she would have left him the first time it happened and the audience never would have forgiven him
The most important thing that Josh said is who the hell are you going to vote for if not us? Basically, you have no choice to accept whatever we can do "for women." But the problem in this segment is not what is said. It is what is not said. It is what Aaron Sorkin would never allow said on this show. If Josh was truthful he would say of the 100,000 women trafficked into the United States for sex work were "illegal aliens" who would have done anything to get into the United States, Amy loses her shit. If Josh then follows up and says that they can't prosecute more than 250 because the "Johns" that are buying these girls are ALSO "illegal aliens" and to prosecute is to deport them, ALL OF THEM since they are all here illegally and that is a non-starter for liberal democrats and Amy REALLY loses her shit.
@@paulcolburn3855 There's so much WTF in your comment, just can't help but wonder where you're getting your "information" - or who these pro-slavery "liberal democrats" are you're talking to.
I dont think thats an unpopular opinion. She was supposed to attractive, well meaning, but impossible. The show spent a good amount of time digging on her.
Not unpopular at all. She was the epitome of awful because she believed she was smarter than everyone and, worse, never listened to anyone. Uncompromising people cannot survive in the political world.
The simple answer is "Because they can coach the prostitutes to answer that they are NOT being forced, which can make it difficult to further investigate and prove they are." It's not that those acts AREN'T forced prostitution, but that by giving the traffickers a potential defense, you make it harder to catch them. Further, the initial prostitution may not be "forced" or illegal, but it might become coercive once the prostitutes are trafficked. For instance, it's possible that say, a 15 year old Thai girl could voluntarily enter prostitution. She's passed the age of consent, so it's technically her choice. However, then her pimp/handler transports her somewhere where she doesn't speak the language. The handler misrepresents the truth/presents the worst case scenario ("Prostitution here is illegal, so if we're caught, you'll go to jail as well." ) to stop them attempting to escape or contact help, and thus it BECOMES forced...but they won't SAY that, because they've been warned their families will be hurt, etc etc.
if they are actually working as babysitters it's not prostitution at all. It's indentured servitude. And probably human trafficking since i believe that is the debt she is referring to. The fact that they are employed at a whorehouse doesn't make it prostitution. Now the real story might be that they have to whore to pay off a trafficking debt. Then it would be forced. I think big picture the point should be that these are crimes not being prosecuted.
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
This was inspired by the Clinton White House. How do you do a "West Wing" with a president who acts more like a mafia Don? How do you have recurring characters when the people in the real jobs are fired faster than at any other time?
@@grogery1570 Bill Clinton had 4 chiefs of staff. So how is this based on the Clinton’s when he had so much change over?? Most presidents have lots of staff coming and going.
@nadian24 I'm a man, and when I was a toddler I had a play kitchen. But that doesn't alter the fact that more girls play with pretend kitchen appliances than boys. And coming at the tail end of a conversation about child sex abuse and murder, I think having a problem with an innocuous gender-based comment sort of misses Amy's point about what's important and what's not.
came here to hear her explain why "kidnapped and forced to have sex with people" wasn't counted as forced prostitution - she makes the comment "I've got lawyers......" but doesn't finish. So I remain confused.
"Forced" muddies the water. It becomes the issue and a main line of defense. If the parents in Thailand "knew" about it, was it forced? If the women started out being forced, but are now resigned to their fate (or dealing with some version of Stockholm Syndrome) and are "OK" with it, can it be considered as forced? If there are video tapes and the women "appear" on video to be "enjoying" it, is it forced? And on and on. Lawyers being lawyers, the possibilities are endless. Rats can contort themselves through ridiculously small holes.
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
Oh no, she answered his question alright. Because "100,000 in the last two years were brought here and forced to work as prostitutes." It's not forced prostitution because you can't argue logic against someone that's impervious to logic. And also, apparently because coercion, kidnapping, and unlawful imprisonment aren't a thing in their lawyers' world.
She couldn't answer that question. Answering that question is not her concern. She is against all prostitution whether it is forced or consensual. So the question really isn't relevant to Amy.
She didn't answer it directly and that frustrated me too, but she touched on it tangentially in fits and starts without actually completing any of her sentences: there are legal loopholes that allow even what is clearly forced prostitution to be characterized as non-forced, and a treaty that enshrines those loopholes makes it more difficult to do anything about it in the real world. To Amy, improving that situation is worthwhile even if it makes life more difficult for people who are in the sex work industry voluntarily. I'm personally not sure whether that makes sense compared to trying to close those loopholes at the source, but I don't think she's completely in the wrong either.
She didn’t answer the question directly, but later in the episode she says something to the fact that she knows no woman who grows up wanting to be a prostitute. The problem is the rise in OF and such has shown this to not be inherently true and thus the flaw in Amy’s character. She felt her belief was right and she was doing the right thing no matter who she ran over. The “My way or No way” mentality of her process. This reared it’s head again with the Marriage Incentives clause that ultimately got her fired.
Take the Tai Girls they discussed. They were sold by their parents to be 'babysitters', and then were forced to engage in sex. They were most likely not paid. They were sex slaves, but legally they would jsut be kidnapped or abused girls. Not 'forced prostitutes'. What amy is saying is that" I have a building full of lawyers who could say that's not forced prostitution". Sex slavers with lawyers could weasel themselves out of trouble. "prostitution" is more general, thus more powerful.
@@jamesdc9595 Literally yes. That puts the crime in a different ballpark that they may be able to maneuver more easily in in a corrupt justice system (like the United States)
About establishing forced prostitution: it's actually pretty simple. Any prostitution of person younger than 18 is illegal and should be considered rape, internationally. Woman can start out willing and then change her mind, but if she is kept from leaving and forced to continue working - that's forced prostitution. If woman started unwilling and then gave up - then it's forced prostitution that's established with couple of easy questions. "Did you know?" "Did you agree?" "Were you in any way threatened?". Such treaty would also make employers to be extra careful about hiring (to avoid hiring an underage person) and most likely have signed legal contracts with employees, providing extra transparency and protection.
Fun fact: legalizing prostitution results in LESS forced prostitution, LESS underaged prostitution, and LESS violence against sex workers. Not to mention the issue of bodily autonomy.
Yeah but prostitution caters to men and she is hyper feminist so she can never admit that. Its her goal to abolish completely and she doesnt care how many women she has to run over to get there.
That is factually untrue. In countries where prostitution has been legalized human trafficking has seen a huge rise. Exactly because of what Amy speaks about. It gives human traffickers and pimps a big window to claim the women are there willingly, since most of them are coerced into saying they are, by fear, violence or lack of option. Which means no one is prosecuted and the problem just keeps on getting worse.
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
Amy challenged Josh in a way Donna never did. I thought Donna was a more realistic romantic choice, though, b/c she fed his ego WAY more than Amy ever did, and, let's face it, men like having their egos stroked.
I don't understand how this happened. This show is usually so smartly written, so rational, and then a thoughtless and repressed standpoint like this is presented as rational. How is crimes not being prosecuted grounds to declare people criminals for something that shouldn't be a crime? Kidnapping, deprivation of liberty, rape, assault, sexual assault, human trafficking and more are crimes. Declaring people who follow a totally ok profession as criminals to catch people who are already criminals under current law is either thoughtless and/or repressed.
Sorry I also don’t get how what what Amy described was not ‘forced’. If she had a bunch of lawyers saying it wasn’t then she needed new lawyers. In my experience when a piece of legislation does not define a word then Courts look in a dictionary for its plain English meaning. It is possible when this was filmed those conditions were not seen as being forced by some Courts, but they certainly would today. What a good lawyer does is argue to a judge that those conditions do mean forced, and get the courts to change the definition to encompass those conditions.
The other thing that got me with this conversation is that these girls who end up being forced into prostitution come from very poor families, who barely have enough to eat. Amy’s comment about them being at home playing with a toy oven (which I am assuming is what Amy was referring to) shows just how little Amy (and the writers) understand about what being a girl in many developing countries is. Even in comparatively well off families, it is the boys who get the toys while their sisters help out with the chores. In poor families even the children have to go out to earn money so the family can eat. The struggle is to balance these children’s need to work and to ensure they get some schooling. A lot of children will go to school in the morning, and work in the afternoon, and while this is not enough school, they are better off than those children whose families cannot afford to send their children to school at all. Most worrying is that often families will prioritise sending their son to school over their daughters.
@@Subangelis I am aware that she was referring to their age. The point I was making is the reality for many girls in developing countries is that girls are not often at home ‘playing’ . They are at home working, while it is their brothers who get to play. In the poorest families the boys are expected to work as well. I was also pointing out that often, if there is any money to educate a child, a boy will given the education not the girl. My comment was more to do with gender roles and expectations in certain developing countries. This is not true in all countries but often it is true.
She was never a big picture kond of person. In fact, she can be considered to be a perfect template for "my goals by any means". She never puts in effort to understand because understanding is for people are for people who compromise. She is only ever heard out because she has alot of voter support behind her. Her ideas are almost always pretty childish. Even here she rattles off examples of forced prostitution completely blind to how silly she sounds. The treaty already prhibits all of her examples......
It's worth remembering that people don't HAVE to vote for 'the other guy' when another option is to simply stay home. That's why politicians have all of these rallies, not because they're afraid that the people who show up will vote for someone else, but as a reminder that they're work isn't done until the lever is flipped.
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but it's one no one has been able to rationally break me of yet. I still don't understand why prostitution isn't legal. People who don't want it or don't want to deal with it don't have to any more than they have to go to church or get a massage or get acupuncture. Obviously, I would never want anyone forced into these jobs or forced to stay in them if they wanted out, AND would want them to have the kind of workplace safety measures you would expect (benefits, health coverage, customer screening, ext). Which are all things protected under workplace laws currently in effect. Is prostitution demeaning? An the whole, yes, I think so, but I also know some people (women included in that by the by) who think differently. But so is working a minimum wage job, getting screamed at by customers because your $1 sandwich isn't big enough for them while your manager sits in the office doing nothing while the lunch rush kicks your undermanned ass day after day after day. The examples are equitable, but you see what I mean, and I would expect legal Prostitution to also pay a livable wage at least. Sex is part of what Humanity is. It's why illegal, horrifying, criminal, EVIL prostitution exists. Because people want it. It's in our nature, to varying degrees. Denying it in open, regulated, Held-To-Standards practice would help take the power away from these traffickers. It wouldn't STOP it, I'm not naïve, and it could be that Legal Prostitution, as a practice in this country, could fail outright as a business altogether just on economic principles, but I don't think it would. I think it could work and be fairly profitable for many in the right places. By the way. I would like to say, on a personal note. This is coming from someone who has been so abused and disenfranchised by his sexual experiences that the idea of having it is...lets use the word disheartening. So it's not like I'm saying this for personal motives. I just genuinely don't understand why people have such a kneejerk reaction to the idea of people paying for a legal, safe, consensual sexual experience.
It's not consensual. It's a fundamental power imbalance that men can buy access to women's bodies. Equating sex with working a minimum wage job shows your lack of understanding. Also you answered your own question by admitting that prostitution is demeaning.
you know what's more toothless than a toothless treaty? no treaty at all. that's why i never liked fanatics like amy - progress most often occurs in small steps, seldom in great revolutions. a collection of small steps sum up into great progress. she wanted wholesale change all at once or nothing at all, and those like her almost always got the nothing at all, in effect holding up the progress that would eventually lead to their goals and further perpetuating the old, barbaric ways they sought to change.
While I also dislike fanatics who believe that everything is all or nothing, I can’t say that a toothless treaty is better than none at all. If that toothless treaty destroys the inertia to meaningfully combat the problem it could do more harm than good. Small steps are well and good as long as people are able to recognize that the first small steps (or even the first few small steps) are almost never enough.
@@mtk52983 The problem doesn't actually come down to if the treaty has teeth or not, it actually comes down to how classification and ratification happen. Amy was an fanatic, she believed in her "moral" right, now i put moral in quotes because she is coming at it from a partisan viewpoint not because I think she doesn't have a point she has a point if terribly articulated. That brings me to your comment on small steps, you know how the first war started, thousands of years ago a primitive human found a rock better at bashing in heads, move on a couple hundred years and we learn that bashing rocks together can get you a sharp rock and now you can cut someone with a lot less strength then basing their skull in. We move on a few more hundred years and a leap in technology, putting the sharpened stone at the end of a long stick, now we can stab from a longer distance and not let ourselves be hurt, fast forward thousands of years and man has created the most destructive device known, something so powerful it uses the primordial forces that make our very universe function to wipe from the map an area far larger then any other bomb or explosive made in that time. You know how the Civil Rights movement started? People stood up, instead of sitting down, they said "I want to be treated equal," simple and fair a message any person can get behind. They started with the schools, then it went to the federal buildings, soon enough there aren't any "whites only water fountains". Soon enough a black man or woman could marry a white man or women, rewind 250 years it was practically unheard of. You know how we the United States of America, went to the Moon? One man said "Before this decade is out," we beat that goal by 163 days, that's a huge margin and you know what it took a lot of small steps to do that, took hundreds of thousands for each innovation, computing, sowing, food storage, all small steps to a larger whole. What do all these things have in common? Small steps tiny steps made a little at a time to a greater whole, the Atom bomb is useless with out a neutron flying at stupid speeds into the radioactive material, the Civil Rights act nothing without a call to action, and the moon landing, nothing with one man saying "we can do it," those are simple words, that everyone needs to hear these days "we can do it,". I don't know what political affiliation you have but I want you to know that we can change and we can make it through this tumultuous sea of time and space, and make headway through this storm of hate and bigotry on all sides. Maybe I needed to hear that more sorry for taking up your time, Have a wonderful day and week friend.
Strong women that could hurt me. Glad I wasn't drinking anything or I would have clean up the screen. He must be easily frightened. All of her examples sound pretty forced to me. Her problem is with prosecution, nothing else.
She keeps talking about "we" will hold up your nominations, and "we" represent the entire margin of victory. Who is "we?" Only a third of women identify as feminists, and not all of them would support most of what Amy lobbies for. Although most humans in this country would probably support what she's lobbying for in THIS scene.
Joshua Tobler I think she means that she represents a community of activists and more proactive voters who could sway political discourse to a certain extent.
1. your stat is bs 2. shes referring to women interest groups. 3. what people support and how they vote arent the same thing and anyone with a brain (like fictional amy) knows that.
The West Wing went quite deep into policy, but maybe a little deep. I've watched this a million times without ever quite understanding the issues at stake
She didn't answer his question: How are any of the examples she provided NOT "forced prostitution"? It was a nice speech she made, don't get me wrong... but her entire point was lost when she couldn't provide an example of something that isn't covered by the treaty.
Akitas in the House The point, I believe, was that it was difficult to persecute the vast majority of the cases where the women involved were not harmed and was sold by themselves or their parents into prostitution. She was only listing the consequences of their inability to prevent the vast majority of prostitution.
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
She threw Josh's phone into a pot of soup or stew or whatever, and cut the cord of his landline to get an advantage. A man doing that to a woman would be eviscerated as controlling, abusive and so on and so on. Plus she's smug and patronising. As you might guess, I don't like Amy.
It'd a deep topic. There is existing power imbalance and one tries to fight that with their own power. But do too much of that and it becomes power imbalance the other way. Don't do it though and the group in power can continue to oppress. Tricky stuff.
@@MaxMckayful but blaming all failures as systematic oppression just gives people an excuse to quit trying. And I can't name a civil rights movement that has ever ended. Even when said group has become oppressors aka blm
How about sex work is work Amy? Forced prostitution is a problem and the reason why there are so many people who are forced into it is because prostitution is illegal in the first place. Come on Amy, get with the times, pushing a radical conservative agenda and calling yourself a feminist? Give more power to the women and legalize prostitution. The reason why it's so enticing is because it's illegal in the first place.
Uggh! A root canal without anesthesia was better than Mandy. From her endlessly pissy demeanor to her ass-ugly little boy haircut, every moment she was on the screen was pure psychological torture. Dropping her from the series was the best decision they ever made. And this is coming from someone who adores Moira Kelly.
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #2 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RMhUgxxD49Q/mqdefault.jpg)
she literally could not be any cuter
Donna brought out something in Josh that Amy couldn't reach. That said, they had some awesome conversations, this being one of them.
Aaron Sorkin is poetry in real life. I love to watch actors perform it
I love this scene! I totally love Josh/Donna but I also loved Amy!
These two always had unbelievably good chemistry, and I wish the show had gone on long enough, and in a slightly different direction, so that the writers and actors could have explored the relationship more.
"I ring your bell when it's important." Man, I loved Amy. Great character.
I love Amy as his adversary; they make each other work harder, which is fun to watch (but definitely not the best dynamic for romance!)
Welcome to life and politics in the Big City. Not everyone is cut out for the lifestyle characters like Josh and Amy are expected to lead. Which is why I live 25 miles north of that city, work only 45 hours and not 70 hours a week, and I get to spend my evenings and weekends as I chose.
Dear gif I love Amy, she understands the issues and knows how to get shit done
Yeah, I was torn for a long time between the two women. Josh has great chemistry with both of them.
(But I'm glad he ended up with Donna in the end!)
I love how she think she can manipulate Santos until Ms Santos proove her wrong!
When MLP smiles the whole world stops. At least mine does.
Mines to
you cut off the best part of this scene…where she throws a water balloon at him as he’s walking out of the building
not the same scene
She's just a really great female character. Powerful, confident, smart, sensitive and playful. I love the touch about the art at the end. Knockout scene. If Josh had not have ended up with Donna then Amy would have been perfect for him.
I think she's pretty realistic as a character since a lot of advocates are single-minded and focused like her. However, something about MLP's portrayal always really annoyed me. I know a lot of people say Josh should've wound up with her instead of Donna--I always preferred Joey Lucas, to be honest.
@@pianoman9421
Joey Lucas can do better than Josh.
She is a toxic person, using things said in private confidence and holding it over his head. If that's the way you treat someone you love, I'm ecstatic she was cut out of Lyman's life
But then she wouldn't have wound up with a rogue retired CIA agent.
I love her outfit
Not a Amy/Josh fan. I've known from the beginning that Josh and Donna should be together. Just glad the writers finally took it there. Will worth the agonizing will they/won't they wait!!
I guess I'm also confused. With the Thai kids thing; how is that not forced prostitution?
It's actually kidnapping and rape to lock up anyone and force them to have sex. Nothing to do with prostitution
It is. Amy was saying it’s easier to go after those cases of forced prostitution if you criminalize all prostitution. In reality places with legal prostitution have lower rates of forced and underaged prostitution and less violence against sex workers.
Ordinary Sessel What does that have to do with whether or not we should legalize prostitution for adults?
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
It's as well-intentioned of a policy as Prohibition was.
So many strong, beautiful, intelligent and funny women on this show... and not a one of them had to sacrifice their femininity to do it. I really like Mary-Louise Parker, but I absolutely love Amy Gardner. It was tough not to root for her over Donna...
Don't get me wrong I love Donna too she awesome as well.
Mary-Louise Parker exudes it.
Too cool.
Mary Louise Parker 😍😍
I’m going to take an unpopular stance and say that Amy was a basically bad person.
On two different occasions she took information Josh let slip during situations of domestic intimacy and used them to screw him over. When he tried to call her on it she played the “ You can’t deal with an empowered woman” line. It had nothing to do with male or female, it had to do with being able to let your guard down at the end of the day with the person you love.
If he had done that to her she would have left him the first time it happened and the audience never would have forgiven him
The most important thing that Josh said is who the hell are you going to vote for if not us? Basically, you have no choice to accept whatever we can do "for women." But the problem in this segment is not what is said. It is what is not said. It is what Aaron Sorkin would never allow said on this show. If Josh was truthful he would say of the 100,000 women trafficked into the United States for sex work were "illegal aliens" who would have done anything to get into the United States, Amy loses her shit. If Josh then follows up and says that they can't prosecute more than 250 because the "Johns" that are buying these girls are ALSO "illegal aliens" and to prosecute is to deport them, ALL OF THEM since they are all here illegally and that is a non-starter for liberal democrats and Amy REALLY loses her shit.
@@paulcolburn3855 There's so much WTF in your comment, just can't help but wonder where you're getting your "information" - or who these pro-slavery "liberal democrats" are you're talking to.
Paul Colburn yeah the problem is immigrants like Jeffrey Epstein coming over and trafficking other illegal aliens to work as prostitutes 👌
I dont think thats an unpopular opinion. She was supposed to attractive, well meaning, but impossible. The show spent a good amount of time digging on her.
Not unpopular at all. She was the epitome of awful because she believed she was smarter than everyone and, worse, never listened to anyone. Uncompromising people cannot survive in the political world.
I'm with Josh how is that not Forced Prositution
The simple answer is "Because they can coach the prostitutes to answer that they are NOT being forced, which can make it difficult to further investigate and prove they are." It's not that those acts AREN'T forced prostitution, but that by giving the traffickers a potential defense, you make it harder to catch them.
Further, the initial prostitution may not be "forced" or illegal, but it might become coercive once the prostitutes are trafficked. For instance, it's possible that say, a 15 year old Thai girl could voluntarily enter prostitution. She's passed the age of consent, so it's technically her choice. However, then her pimp/handler transports her somewhere where she doesn't speak the language. The handler misrepresents the truth/presents the worst case scenario ("Prostitution here is illegal, so if we're caught, you'll go to jail as well." ) to stop them attempting to escape or contact help, and thus it BECOMES forced...but they won't SAY that, because they've been warned their families will be hurt, etc etc.
if they are actually working as babysitters it's not prostitution at all. It's indentured servitude. And probably human trafficking since i believe that is the debt she is referring to. The fact that they are employed at a whorehouse doesn't make it prostitution. Now the real story might be that they have to whore to pay off a trafficking debt. Then it would be forced. I think big picture the point should be that these are crimes not being prosecuted.
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
Last I checked, slavery's been outlawed for, y'know, a couple years or so.
Amy and Josh deserved better than each other
Wish they could do a current redo of this show.
This was inspired by the Clinton White House. How do you do a "West Wing" with a president who acts more like a mafia Don? How do you have recurring characters when the people in the real jobs are fired faster than at any other time?
@@grogery1570 Bill Clinton had 4 chiefs of staff. So how is this based on the Clinton’s when he had so much change over?? Most presidents have lots of staff coming and going.
@nadian24
I'm a man, and when I was a toddler I had a play kitchen. But that doesn't alter the fact that more girls play with pretend kitchen appliances than boys. And coming at the tail end of a conversation about child sex abuse and murder, I think having a problem with an innocuous gender-based comment sort of misses Amy's point about what's important and what's not.
came here to hear her explain why "kidnapped and forced to have sex with people" wasn't counted as forced prostitution - she makes the comment "I've got lawyers......" but doesn't finish. So I remain confused.
"Forced" muddies the water. It becomes the issue and a main line of defense. If the parents in Thailand "knew" about it, was it forced? If the women started out being forced, but are now resigned to their fate (or dealing with some version of Stockholm Syndrome) and are "OK" with it, can it be considered as forced? If there are video tapes and the women "appear" on video to be "enjoying" it, is it forced? And on and on. Lawyers being lawyers, the possibilities are endless. Rats can contort themselves through ridiculously small holes.
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
I see she didn't exactly answer Josh's Question " How is that not forced prostitution "
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
Oh no, she answered his question alright. Because "100,000 in the last two years were brought here and forced to work as prostitutes."
It's not forced prostitution because you can't argue logic against someone that's impervious to logic.
And also, apparently because coercion, kidnapping, and unlawful imprisonment aren't a thing in their lawyers' world.
She couldn't answer that question. Answering that question is not her concern. She is against all prostitution whether it is forced or consensual. So the question really isn't relevant to Amy.
She didn't answer it directly and that frustrated me too, but she touched on it tangentially in fits and starts without actually completing any of her sentences: there are legal loopholes that allow even what is clearly forced prostitution to be characterized as non-forced, and a treaty that enshrines those loopholes makes it more difficult to do anything about it in the real world. To Amy, improving that situation is worthwhile even if it makes life more difficult for people who are in the sex work industry voluntarily. I'm personally not sure whether that makes sense compared to trying to close those loopholes at the source, but I don't think she's completely in the wrong either.
She didn’t answer the question directly, but later in the episode she says something to the fact that she knows no woman who grows up wanting to be a prostitute. The problem is the rise in OF and such has shown this to not be inherently true and thus the flaw in Amy’s character. She felt her belief was right and she was doing the right thing no matter who she ran over. The “My way or No way” mentality of her process. This reared it’s head again with the Marriage Incentives clause that ultimately got her fired.
Given your other, more eccentric titles, I think a better title would have been, "That's a permeating syllogism, to be sure."
Take the Tai Girls they discussed. They were sold by their parents to be 'babysitters', and then were forced to engage in sex. They were most likely not paid. They were sex slaves, but legally they would jsut be kidnapped or abused girls. Not 'forced prostitutes'. What amy is saying is that" I have a building full of lawyers who could say that's not forced prostitution". Sex slavers with lawyers could weasel themselves out of trouble. "prostitution" is more general, thus more powerful.
They could weasel themselves out of a forced prostitution charge by saying that they only kidnapped them? Yeah, great plan 👍 🙄
@@jamesdc9595 Literally yes. That puts the crime in a different ballpark that they may be able to maneuver more easily in in a corrupt justice system (like the United States)
About establishing forced prostitution: it's actually pretty simple. Any prostitution of person younger than 18 is illegal and should be considered rape, internationally.
Woman can start out willing and then change her mind, but if she is kept from leaving and forced to continue working - that's forced prostitution.
If woman started unwilling and then gave up - then it's forced prostitution that's established with couple of easy questions. "Did you know?" "Did you agree?" "Were you in any way threatened?". Such treaty would also make employers to be extra careful about hiring (to avoid hiring an underage person) and most likely have signed legal contracts with employees, providing extra transparency and protection.
wow ur so brilliant, its so simple. gee i wonder how no one has thought of that -_-
Fun fact: legalizing prostitution results in LESS forced prostitution, LESS underaged prostitution, and LESS violence against sex workers. Not to mention the issue of bodily autonomy.
Yeah but prostitution caters to men and she is hyper feminist so she can never admit that. Its her goal to abolish completely and she doesnt care how many women she has to run over to get there.
actually youre incorrect. decriminalizing and legalizing are not the same thing
That is factually untrue. In countries where prostitution has been legalized human trafficking has seen a huge rise. Exactly because of what Amy speaks about. It gives human traffickers and pimps a big window to claim the women are there willingly, since most of them are coerced into saying they are, by fear, violence or lack of option. Which means no one is prosecuted and the problem just keeps on getting worse.
@@Laura-wn9df Just gotta make sure you film the sex, then its legal 'porn' making, LOL.
Wait, THAT is what goes on at Bethesda? Or did I misshear that? Someone get Todd Howard on the phone...
And Palm Beach Florida
oh man, an apple iftuit computer.
If what she is describing isn't forced prostitution, it could damn sure be called _indentured_ prostitution.
It can be called kidnapping and rape which is what it is
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
"...a lot of very strong women who could hurt me."
"Only if you provoke them."
Fortunately, it's very difficult to provoke a woman. ;)
Some of us are better at it than others.
Amy challenged Josh in a way Donna never did. I thought Donna was a more realistic romantic choice, though, b/c she fed his ego WAY more than Amy ever did, and, let's face it, men like having their egos stroked.
Soooo hot
I don't understand how this happened. This show is usually so smartly written, so rational, and then a thoughtless and repressed standpoint like this is presented as rational. How is crimes not being prosecuted grounds to declare people criminals for something that shouldn't be a crime? Kidnapping, deprivation of liberty, rape, assault, sexual assault, human trafficking and more are crimes. Declaring people who follow a totally ok profession as criminals to catch people who are already criminals under current law is either thoughtless and/or repressed.
Sorry I also don’t get how what what Amy described was not ‘forced’. If she had a bunch of lawyers saying it wasn’t then she needed new lawyers. In my experience when a piece of legislation does not define a word then Courts look in a dictionary for its plain English meaning.
It is possible when this was filmed those conditions were not seen as being forced by some Courts, but they certainly would today. What a good lawyer does is argue to a judge that those conditions do mean forced, and get the courts to change the definition to encompass those conditions.
You think Josh did the deed with Amy?
Do you doubt or even question it?
They basically lived together, so yeah.
The other thing that got me with this conversation is that these girls who end up being forced into prostitution come from very poor families, who barely have enough to eat. Amy’s comment about them being at home playing with a toy oven (which I am assuming is what Amy was referring to) shows just how little Amy (and the writers) understand about what being a girl in many developing countries is.
Even in comparatively well off families, it is the boys who get the toys while their sisters help out with the chores. In poor families even the children have to go out to earn money so the family can eat. The struggle is to balance these children’s need to work and to ensure they get some schooling. A lot of children will go to school in the morning, and work in the afternoon, and while this is not enough school, they are better off than those children whose families cannot afford to send their children to school at all. Most worrying is that often families will prioritise sending their son to school over their daughters.
The easy bake oven comment was to demonstrate their age, not the families financial situation.
@@Subangelis I am aware that she was referring to their age. The point I was making is the reality for many girls in developing countries is that girls are not often at home ‘playing’ . They are at home working, while it is their brothers who get to play.
In the poorest families the boys are expected to work as well. I was also pointing out that often, if there is any money to educate a child, a boy will given the education not the girl.
My comment was more to do with gender roles and expectations in certain developing countries. This is not true in all countries but often it is true.
She was never a big picture kond of person. In fact, she can be considered to be a perfect template for "my goals by any means". She never puts in effort to understand because understanding is for people are for people who compromise.
She is only ever heard out because she has alot of voter support behind her. Her ideas are almost always pretty childish. Even here she rattles off examples of forced prostitution completely blind to how silly she sounds. The treaty already prhibits all of her examples......
It's worth remembering that people don't HAVE to vote for 'the other guy' when another option is to simply stay home. That's why politicians have all of these rallies, not because they're afraid that the people who show up will vote for someone else, but as a reminder that they're work isn't done until the lever is flipped.
I don't think that Amy actually answered Josh's question.
She didn't, but he was frightened by the art and her beauty
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
@@MaSeshield still holds under criminalization of prostitution
This might be an unpopular opinion, but it's one no one has been able to rationally break me of yet. I still don't understand why prostitution isn't legal. People who don't want it or don't want to deal with it don't have to any more than they have to go to church or get a massage or get acupuncture. Obviously, I would never want anyone forced into these jobs or forced to stay in them if they wanted out, AND would want them to have the kind of workplace safety measures you would expect (benefits, health coverage, customer screening, ext). Which are all things protected under workplace laws currently in effect.
Is prostitution demeaning? An the whole, yes, I think so, but I also know some people (women included in that by the by) who think differently. But so is working a minimum wage job, getting screamed at by customers because your $1 sandwich isn't big enough for them while your manager sits in the office doing nothing while the lunch rush kicks your undermanned ass day after day after day. The examples are equitable, but you see what I mean, and I would expect legal Prostitution to also pay a livable wage at least.
Sex is part of what Humanity is. It's why illegal, horrifying, criminal, EVIL prostitution exists. Because people want it. It's in our nature, to varying degrees. Denying it in open, regulated, Held-To-Standards practice would help take the power away from these traffickers. It wouldn't STOP it, I'm not naïve, and it could be that Legal Prostitution, as a practice in this country, could fail outright as a business altogether just on economic principles, but I don't think it would. I think it could work and be fairly profitable for many in the right places.
By the way. I would like to say, on a personal note. This is coming from someone who has been so abused and disenfranchised by his sexual experiences that the idea of having it is...lets use the word disheartening. So it's not like I'm saying this for personal motives. I just genuinely don't understand why people have such a kneejerk reaction to the idea of people paying for a legal, safe, consensual sexual experience.
It's not consensual. It's a fundamental power imbalance that men can buy access to women's bodies. Equating sex with working a minimum wage job shows your lack of understanding. Also you answered your own question by admitting that prostitution is demeaning.
Good chemistry but she always took took took took and was never willing to compromise. It bit her in the end.
MLP is hot ...
Does Josh need a safe space to get away from the scary art. 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
you know what's more toothless than a toothless treaty? no treaty at all. that's why i never liked fanatics like amy - progress most often occurs in small steps, seldom in great revolutions. a collection of small steps sum up into great progress. she wanted wholesale change all at once or nothing at all, and those like her almost always got the nothing at all, in effect holding up the progress that would eventually lead to their goals and further perpetuating the old, barbaric ways they sought to change.
While I also dislike fanatics who believe that everything is all or nothing, I can’t say that a toothless treaty is better than none at all. If that toothless treaty destroys the inertia to meaningfully combat the problem it could do more harm than good. Small steps are well and good as long as people are able to recognize that the first small steps (or even the first few small steps) are almost never enough.
@@mtk52983 The problem doesn't actually come down to if the treaty has teeth or not, it actually comes down to how classification and ratification happen. Amy was an fanatic, she believed in her "moral" right, now i put moral in quotes because she is coming at it from a partisan viewpoint not because I think she doesn't have a point she has a point if terribly articulated.
That brings me to your comment on small steps, you know how the first war started, thousands of years ago a primitive human found a rock better at bashing in heads, move on a couple hundred years and we learn that bashing rocks together can get you a sharp rock and now you can cut someone with a lot less strength then basing their skull in. We move on a few more hundred years and a leap in technology, putting the sharpened stone at the end of a long stick, now we can stab from a longer distance and not let ourselves be hurt, fast forward thousands of years and man has created the most destructive device known, something so powerful it uses the primordial forces that make our very universe function to wipe from the map an area far larger then any other bomb or explosive made in that time.
You know how the Civil Rights movement started? People stood up, instead of sitting down, they said "I want to be treated equal," simple and fair a message any person can get behind. They started with the schools, then it went to the federal buildings, soon enough there aren't any "whites only water fountains". Soon enough a black man or woman could marry a white man or women, rewind 250 years it was practically unheard of.
You know how we the United States of America, went to the Moon? One man said "Before this decade is out," we beat that goal by 163 days, that's a huge margin and you know what it took a lot of small steps to do that, took hundreds of thousands for each innovation, computing, sowing, food storage, all small steps to a larger whole.
What do all these things have in common? Small steps tiny steps made a little at a time to a greater whole, the Atom bomb is useless with out a neutron flying at stupid speeds into the radioactive material, the Civil Rights act nothing without a call to action, and the moon landing, nothing with one man saying "we can do it," those are simple words, that everyone needs to hear these days "we can do it,".
I don't know what political affiliation you have but I want you to know that we can change and we can make it through this tumultuous sea of time and space, and make headway through this storm of hate and bigotry on all sides. Maybe I needed to hear that more sorry for taking up your time, Have a wonderful day and week friend.
Strong women that could hurt me.
Glad I wasn't drinking anything or I would have clean up the screen.
He must be easily frightened.
All of her examples sound pretty forced to me.
Her problem is with prosecution, nothing else.
She should try delivering her lines without pinching her nose.
I wonder how The West Wing would've dealt with the current furore regarding women's rights?
She keeps talking about "we" will hold up your nominations, and "we" represent the entire margin of victory. Who is "we?" Only a third of women identify as feminists, and not all of them would support most of what Amy lobbies for. Although most humans in this country would probably support what she's lobbying for in THIS scene.
Joshua Tobler I think she means that she represents a community of activists and more proactive voters who could sway political discourse to a certain extent.
1. your stat is bs
2. shes referring to women interest groups.
3. what people support and how they vote arent the same thing and anyone with a brain (like fictional amy) knows that.
The West Wing went quite deep into policy, but maybe a little deep. I've watched this a million times without ever quite understanding the issues at stake
She didn't answer his question: How are any of the examples she provided NOT "forced prostitution"? It was a nice speech she made, don't get me wrong... but her entire point was lost when she couldn't provide an example of something that isn't covered by the treaty.
Akitas in the House The point, I believe, was that it was difficult to persecute the vast majority of the cases where the women involved were not harmed and was sold by themselves or their parents into prostitution. She was only listing the consequences of their inability to prevent the vast majority of prostitution.
its the same way that girls go to have sex with guys, change their minds when they dont like how its going, and then get raped. the guy has a loophole defense because she agreed to terms. They like to do this in the form of implication with flirty texts or nude photos. Whether or not he changed those terms during the act and her subsequent decision to no longer accept the terms is not provable almost ever. meaning he gets off scott free. And i say terms because a lot fo these people who buy these foreign girls as prostitutes have "documentation" showing that she was allowed, willing, and safe to be there as whatever cover job they make up, while in reality shes being abused. Think of it like a more hardcore and worse version of shitty parents cleaning upt heir act when CPS comes calling, and then being shitty parents again the moment they leave.
She threw Josh's phone into a pot of soup or stew or whatever, and cut the cord of his landline to get an advantage. A man doing that to a woman would be eviscerated as controlling, abusive and so on and so on. Plus she's smug and patronising. As you might guess, I don't like Amy.
I love this scene I love Amy being so spicy what's the point of the WLC these days when dudes who think they're women can be called women?
you could only write a comedy about the West Wing now .....
Amy is the type that ends up after 40 years at the job with a gold watch, no kids, no husband, a little money, and a dog.
Its funny that if you reverse the scene it would be toxic masculinity but when women scare men its ok lol
you dont know any of what youre talking about
It'd a deep topic. There is existing power imbalance and one tries to fight that with their own power. But do too much of that and it becomes power imbalance the other way. Don't do it though and the group in power can continue to oppress. Tricky stuff.
@@MaSeshield seems i do
@@MaxMckayful but blaming all failures as systematic oppression just gives people an excuse to quit trying. And I can't name a civil rights movement that has ever ended. Even when said group has become oppressors aka blm
How about sex work is work Amy? Forced prostitution is a problem and the reason why there are so many people who are forced into it is because prostitution is illegal in the first place. Come on Amy, get with the times, pushing a radical conservative agenda and calling yourself a feminist? Give more power to the women and legalize prostitution. The reason why it's so enticing is because it's illegal in the first place.
I couldn't stand Amy.
Gods I hated the Amy character.
I don’t like this actress. She plays the same annoying person in every role she is in.
Amy was literally the worst character on this show. Ruined so many scenes.
I agree with this. Though her best line was after Donna learned that she's not from Wisconsin but from Canada and Amy responded "do you feel funnier."
With the exception of CJ, Sorkin wrote women poorly in this show. Almost as poorly as Dickens.
Mandy was better than Amy.....and thats saying something. Too bad they couldnt make her work otherwise.
Uggh! A root canal without anesthesia was better than Mandy. From her endlessly pissy demeanor to her ass-ugly little boy haircut, every moment she was on the screen was pure psychological torture. Dropping her from the series was the best decision they ever made. And this is coming from someone who adores Moira Kelly.
What color is the sky in your world?
00Billy - NFW.... Not a chance.