The appeal of being a woman today is being able to believe for self. {Regrettably, some women are threatened by this right of being and make a point to prevent other women from exercising this individual freedom.|Some women are threatened by this right of being and make a point to prevent other women from exercising this individual freedom.}

Recently I received an e-mail requesting for my assistance to ban a specific XXX starlet from performing in Houston since (the emailer’s thinking not mine) this female and women like her were twisting the message, “women can work any task” and for motivating sex criminal activities by allowing themselves to be viewed as sex items. Regarding the very first argument of the emailer, isn’t really this what women have been requiring all along, to be able to work where they have a interest and ability?

I scatched my head in astonishment to the remarks expressed by this female thinking she can make life choices for other women so as to prevent them from making choices she do not authorize.

I call it hypocrisy since women have actually been stating for a very long time (a half and a century to be precise) they are capable of working in any field of employment. {However when they do and it do not suit some standard of exactly what others believe are appropriate occupations a frustrating hissing begins.|When they do and it do not fit into some standard of exactly what others believe are appropriate occupations a frustrating hissing begins.}

Personally I would not want to make my living undressing on or off cam, but that’s how I feel. I’m naying or not yeaing “adult” occupations, they are legal and women have the right to pick them without harrassment from other women if they so desire.

The statement strippers and XXX actresses are the reason pedophilia and rapes happen is pardoning the predators. {Besides, blaming these women for criminal activities that have their orgins in antiquity, a time before Gentleman’s clubs and peep shows, is extremely unreasonable.|Blaming these women for criminal activities that have their orgins in antiquity, a time before Gentleman’s clubs and peep shows, is extremely unreasonable.} We cannot permit misdirected beings who viciously break others to avert being held liable for their actions just so we can badger women holding unwanted tasks.

{The emailer mentioned that we, suggesting the neighborhood at big, must boycott this adult entertainer and others like her to conserve future generations of women from being exposed to their damaging messages. Amusing, this same female do not appear to acknowledge those same damaging messages are being promoted each hour of the day on the radio, tv, and yes within mainstream motion pictures. I didn’t hear this female promising to boycott Basic Instinct (Sharon Stone) or Monster’s Ball (Halle Berry), when they rolled into regional theater. Do you question why?|The emailer mentioned that we, suggesting the neighborhood at big, must boycott this adult entertainer and others like her to conserve future generations of women from being exposed to their damaging messages. I didn’t hear this female promising to boycott Basic Instinct (Sharon Stone) or Monster’s Ball (Halle Berry), when they rolled into regional motion picture theaters.}

{I’ll inform you why. Rather possibly this female may have it in her mind if the nudity and specific sex acts are sanctioned by MGM or Sony Pictures the end item would be appropriate, which could be another hypocrisy point. If she wanted to follow her argument why didn’t she look for to ban all television reveals, motion pictures and videos that expose young women to wanton sex acts and misleading messages? {She would not because that would be considered ridiculous by the masses.|Since that would be considered ridiculous by the masses, she would not.}|Rather possibly this female may have it in her mind if the nudity and specific sex acts are sanctioned by MGM or Sony Pictures the end item would be appropriate, which could be another hypocrisy point. If she desired to be consistent with her argument why didn’t she look for to ban all television reveals, motion pictures and videos that expose young women to wanton sex acts and misleading messages?}

{Inspite of any criticism I may have of her intents I understand deep down she indicates well but there are holes in her reasoning. If the argument for boycotting is, “this stripper (and women like her) permit themselves to be viewed as sex items”, then I ask exactly what’s the difference in between Halle being {naked and sexually provocative|sexually provocative and naked} for Sony Pictures and Ginger stripping for Pimps Gentleman’s Club on the dubious side of town? Personally, I do not see a difference in between the 2 examples. Young women today are overwhelmed with sexual messages and hardly any everyday doses of favorable images of womanhood (women who are mentally and spiritually strong).|If the argument for boycotting is, “this stripper (and women like her) permit themselves to be seen as sex items”, then I ask exactly what’s the difference in between Halle being {naked and sexually provocative|sexually provocative and naked} for Sony Pictures and Ginger stripping for Pimps Gentleman’s Club on the dubious side of town? Young women today are overwhelmed with sexual messages and hardly any everyday doses of favorable images of womanhood (women who are mentally and spiritually strong).}

Sidenote:

Do we truly have the power to keep someone from starving after another (seeing them as a sex item)? The answer is no!

My ideas to this female are, make a difference with the next generation of women by living as a example, allowing more youthful women to see her confidence exhibiting from her person. {Secondly, she needs to make a point to describe to those young women how crucial it is to appreciate their bodies but not be summed up by them, after all they have more to provide this world than just external appeal.|She needs to make a point to describe to those young women how crucial it is to appreciate their bodies but not be summed up by them, after all they have more to provide this world than just external appeal.} {Thirdly, she needs to permit other women the right to make their on roads through life, does not matter if she feels those roads are ethically unsound or not, permit women to pick on their own.|She needs to permit other women the right to make their on roads through life, does not matter if she feels those roads are ethically unsound or not, permit women to pick for themselves.}

In a nutshell, boycotting women for taking advanatage of their God-given right, to believe on their own is not the answer. Again, it does not matter if their choices appear to be poor ones, the mere fact they have the ability and right to believe on their own ought to be appreciated. Inspiring women to {acknowledge and cherish every aspect|cherish every aspect and acknowledge} of who they are, mentally, spiritually, and yes physically will leave a splendidly indisputable tradition for the next generation of women.

If the argument for boycotting is, “this stripper (and women like her) permit themselves to be seen as sex items”, then I ask exactly what’s the difference in between Halle being {naked and sexually provocative|sexually provocative and naked} for Sony Pictures and Ginger stripping for Pimps Gentleman’s Club on the dubious side of town? Young women today are overwhelmed with sexual messages and hardly any everyday doses of favorable images of womanhood (women who are mentally and spiritually strong).

My ideas to this female are, make a difference with the next generation of women by living as a example, allowing more youthful women to see her confidence exhibiting from her person. She needs to permit other women the right to make their on roads through life, does not matter if she feels those roads are ethically unsound or not, permit women to pick for themselves.

Inspiring women to {acknowledge and cherish every aspect|cherish every aspect and acknowledge} of who they are, mentally, spiritually, and yes physically will leave a splendidly indisputable tradition for the next generation of women.

to get more acquainted with these types of articles

check out

What does known loss rule mean in the legal space?

In the legal space, the “known loss rule” refers to a principle in insurance law that limits coverage for losses that were known to the insured before the insurance policy was issued or became Effective. According to the Munley Law Glossary, the known loss rule is designed to prevent insurance policies from covering pre-existing issues or conditions that were known to the insured at the time the policy was purchased.

Understanding the Known Loss Rule

The known loss rule operates under the following principles:

Pre-Existing Knowledge: If the insured was aware of a loss or potential loss before acquiring the insurance policy, that loss is generally not covered under the new policy. This rule ensures that insurance does not act as a form of retroactive coverage for issues that existed prior to the policy’s start date.

Policy Exclusions: Insurance policies typically include clauses or provisions that exclude coverage for known losses. This means that if the insured had knowledge of a specific loss or damage before the policy was in place, the insurer is not obligated to cover the costs associated with that loss.

Preventing Moral Hazard: The known loss rule helps to prevent moral hazard, where individuals might otherwise be incentivized to withhold information about pre-existing issues to obtain insurance coverage for them.

Application of the Known Loss Rule

The application of the known loss rule involves several key considerations:

Disclosure: The insured is generally required to disclose any known losses or risks when applying for insurance. Failure to disclose this information can result in a denial of claims or cancellation of the policy.

Claims Handling: When a claim is made, insurers will review the circumstances to determine if the loss was known or pre-existing. If it is found that the loss was known prior to the policy’s effective date, the claim may be denied based on the known loss rule.

legal Disputes: Disputes may arise if there is contention over whether a loss was known before the policy was issued. In such cases, courts may examine evidence and the specifics of the insurance contract to determine whether the known loss rule applies.

Examples of Known Loss Rule

Some examples where the known loss rule might apply include:

Property Insurance: If a homeowner is aware of significant water damage or structural issues before purchasing a new property insurance policy, the insurer would typically not cover repairs related to those pre-existing issues.

health Insurance: If an individual is aware of a chronic medical condition before enrolling in a new health insurance plan, the insurance policy might not cover treatment related to that condition if it is deemed a known loss.

Business Insurance: If a business is aware of ongoing legal disputes or existing damage to property before acquiring insurance coverage, the known loss rule would prevent the insurer from covering these pre-existing problems.

Role of Munley Law Glossary

The Munley Law Glossary provides definitions and explanations of legal terms related to insurance, including the known loss rule. This resource assists individuals, attorneys, and others in understanding the implications of insurance coverage and the application of various insurance principles.

The known loss rule is an important principle in insurance law that prevents coverage for losses known to the insured before a policy’s inception. It ensures that insurance is not used to address pre-existing conditions and helps prevent moral hazard. Understanding the known loss rule, as detailed in the Munley Law Glossary, is essential for managing insurance policies and navigating insurance-related legal issues.