A Realistic and Boring Origin of the Freeuse Law

The recently enacted Fair Distribution of Wealth Law promises a significant shift in the economic landscape. Its core principle revolves around redistributing profits generated by successful companies. While a portion of those profits remain with the company for reinvestment and employee compensation, a larger share is pooled and then distributed equally among all employees. This ensures a guaranteed basic income for every individual, aiming to bridge the wealth gap and foster wider societal prosperity.

The law, a legislative juggernaut, stormed through the government with near-unanimous approval. From factory workers to academics, the law was hailed as a stroke of economic genius and promised a radical shift. A portion of a company's profits, once solely fueling the coffers of the ultra-rich, would now be shared equally amongst everyone in the company. This guaranteed basic income, a novel experiment, ignited public imagination. Visions of financial security danced in the eyes of families long burdened by economic precarity. Even middle-class citizens, though not directly financially impacted, embraced the law as a harbinger of social justice.

Fourteen months after its implementation, the Fair Distribution of Wealth Law appeared an unqualified success. The guaranteed basic income had demonstrably improved lives, boosting economic activity and erasing poverty. Initial fears of business stagnation had proved unfounded as companies adapted, and public approval remained high.

However, hidden within the law's complex legalese was a seemingly innocuous clause that went unnoticed during its passage. This clause granted any citizen the right to request an inspection of a taxpayer’s person. While initially overlooked, its implications became apparent with the passing months.

The original intent of this clause was likely to promote financial transparency for individuals, but its wording has raised serious concerns about privacy and personal rights.

Due to the vague nature of the clause, it has been interpreted to mean that anyone can conduct a strip search on any individual, which has raised significant concerns about privacy and personal rights. The lack of clear guidelines and restrictions on who can conduct these inspections and under what circumstances has created a situation that is open to misuse.

Public outcry was swift and fierce. Groups advocating for privacy stormed government buildings, their calls for repeal resonating with a population suddenly wary of the newfound authority.

However, a second, more subtle concern simmered beneath the surface. Proponents of the law, particularly those who had enjoyed an increase in wealth due to its redistribution, became increasingly anxious. While vehemently opposing the inspection clause, they harbored an unspoken fear - that altering the Law might lead to further changes, potentially affecting their newfound financial benefits.

Ultimately, the government was unable to reach a consensus on the issue, and the law remained unchanged.

This is when the started.

It started at colleges and universities, where students with part-time jobs became the target of "inspections" by their peers, ones who easily fit the required description of “taxpayer”. People are stopped, stripped, and fondled right out in public. The behavior quickly became rampant, sparking outrage and concern among the student body and faculty.

In response, authorities stepped in to put a stop to these incidents. Despite being immoral, it soon became clear that while the act of asking someone to strip was, in fact, a right afforded to them under the law

This led to a series of highly publicized lawsuits, but unfortunately, they were all thrown out due to the ambiguous wording of the law. At this point, the best authorities could do was to ensure that the inspections would cause the least amount of disruption possible.

The ambiguous wording of the law led to a broad interpretation of what was considered acceptable during these inspections. It stated that any taxpayer could be inspected by any means of the individual's discretion, which was interpreted to mean that not only visual inspections were allowed, but tactile and even oral methods could be used.

It became a trend to stop particularly attractive individuals on the street, forcing them to strip and perform sexual acts under the guise of an inspection.

In response, some "victims" of these stops began to fight back by conducting their own "investigations" and compelling those who had stopped them to strip and perform the same acts on them in return. This only served to escalate the situation, turning these stops into civil and detached sexual one-upmanship.

There was at least one silver lining to this situation: the wording of the law was clear that only taxpayers could be subjected to these investigations. This meant that children were spared from these stops, a minor victory in a concerning situation.

The government acted quickly to enact laws that would ensure that this status quo was maintained. These laws had a significant impact on the way that goods and services were taxed.

Under these new laws, all toys, food, clothing, and services that were commonly purchased by minors were exempted from taxation. In addition to these changes, the laws also ensured that any employment that a minor could engage in was free from income tax.

Despite these, there is still a sense of wariness among the populace when it comes to making alterations to the Fair Distribution of Wealth Law itself. Many people are concerned that any changes to the law could be exploited by self-serving politicians or those with vested interests.

In the public sphere, the landscape has shifted dramatically as impromptu sexual encounters have become a common occurrence. The streets and public parks have transformed into stages for what appears to be a form of public foreplay and intercourse, with individuals engaging in what can only be described as "sex fights."

The targets of frequent investigations, particularly comely people, began adopting a unique strategy to minimize disruptions. They started donning increasingly skimpy outfits, as the reasoning went - fewer garments to remove would equate to a smoother process. This logic quickly gained traction, and soon enough, a significant number of attractive individuals in public spaces followed suit, wearing next to nothing.

The trend of wearing minimal clothing rapidly transitioned into a powerful symbol that distinguished the alluring individuals from those who were not. This overt divide became increasingly apparent, fostering a strong association between nudity or near-nudity and attractiveness.

In an intriguing twist, those who were not traditionally targeted for investigations or considered less attractive also started to embrace this fashion style. Gradually, they too began shedding more and more garments, striving to not stand out and be labeled unattractive.

Aware of societal acceptance, lawmakers decided to alter laws surrounding the FDW Law instead of changing it. To get ahead of it, indecency laws underwent a complete overhaul. In the present rules, there are barely any limitations on public nudity or sexual acts, excluding those involving minors.

In response to the increasingly sexualized atmosphere, "sex fights" significantly decreased, and "investigations" transformed from legal obligations into public affirmations or appreciations of one's sexuality. Individuals came to view these encounters as positive experiences, finding joy and flattery when being approached for a grope or a kiss.

In this new landscape of civility, proper behavior transcends empty formalities. When someone looks busy or focused, giving them space shows consideration. Equally, being mindful of one’s body language and pace can make them more approachable to others who might want to have a sexual interaction. While the option to compel anyone to is still ever-present, those truly attuned to the social fabric are the ones who mindfully navigate its threads.

Media took their sweet time, but eventually even the biggest corporations couldn't resist the paradigm shift. Suddenly, explicit nudity was everywhere, selling you everything from boring old lightbulbs to car insurance. The absurdity of watching graphic intercourse for an ad for bathroom grout is not lost. This, however, proved to be an effective and necessary marketing strategy to be relevant in the changing times.

The adult entertainment industry struggled to compete with mainstream cinema, which also began incorporating explicit sexual scenes in their films. Mainstream films like summer blockbusters now featured gratuitous full-penetration scenes, featuring highly paid actors, debuting in large theaters. What used to be “sex tapes” or leaked videos of celebrities became intricately produced promotional material.

The line between private and public sexuality became increasingly indistinct.

The pressure to conform to societal beauty standards increases dramatically. Individuals who might not be considered sexually attractive find themselves pursuing improvements to their appearance and lifestyle to increase their appeal. Many of these people resort to adopting healthier habits and enhancing their appearance in hopes of boosting their desirability.

The cosmetics industry invests heavily in research and development to introduce groundbreaking products and procedures to cater to consumers' growing desire for perfection. Even cosmetic surgeries to correct or augment minor imperfections become a common practice. Enhancing one's beauty and desirability further solidifies the notion that attractiveness is a choice available to anyone.

The FDW Law reshaped society, leaving poverty in the past and financial crimes as mere echoes. An unanticipated consequence was a reduction in violent crime and sexual . With vulnerability embraced and openness lauded, the very idea of aggression seems to have waned, leaving a society grappling with the implications of this newfound calm.

What happens next could be seen as an over-correction or a natural, eventual evolution.

A generation has passed since the enactment of the law, legitimizing sex and nudity as an integral part of daily existence. Eager to explore new boundaries, people have taken things to a more audacious level.

Individuals began attaching their self-worth to their own physical desirability. It simply wasn’t enough anymore to make themselves available for sexual encounters. Instead, there is a pressing need to proactively seek them out.

Behaviors that were once labeled as promiscuous have now transformed into admired traits. Individuals openly offer their bodies for the gratification of others, embracing objectification as a form of appreciation. The act of being desired and used sexually has become a celebrated aspect of personal identity.

These values of sexual freedom and uninhibited eroticism are further emphasized and reinforced across various industries.

In the entertainment industry, explicit content and sexual themes have become mainstream, with TV shows, movies, and music videos frequently featuring graphic sexual scenes. Even seemingly innocuous productions find ways to incorporate explicit material. Imagine a nature documentary about graceful sea turtles, where the presenter casually masturbates using a nautical-themed dildo while narrating, or a serious news program where a co-anchor, in the midst of a breaking story, performs oral sex on their counterpart, all while maintaining their professional composure. There's no escape from the pervasive sexualization.

The fashion industry has embraced carnal gratification as its guiding principle, producing clothing that is intentionally revealing and overtly sexual. The garments are meticulously crafted to allow for uninhibited access, making sexual availability effortless and immediate. The exposure of breasts and genitals is practically mandatory, and any attempt at modesty or discretion is virtually nonexistent. Fashion has become the means to fuel the widespread objectification and fetishization of the human body.

Within the service industry, businesses have capitalized on this societal shift by incorporating sexual elements into their services. Restaurants, for instance, employ attractive servers who would spend their time under the table providing oral sex to their patrons or on top of it masturbating for the diner’s amusement.

The proliferation of highly contagious sexually transmitted diseases posed a more significant threat to societal well-being. However, through innovative research and development, the medical community has been pressured and responded with effective solutions. Vaccination programs for the most virulent strains offered robust protection, while readily available treatments ensured accessible care for others. While complete eradication remains elusive, these advancements significantly reduced the fear and disruption caused by these diseases, allowing society to take a collective breath and move forward.

To address various concerns previously handled by a multitude of policies, legislators implemented a single, overarching law. They called it The Freeuse Law.

The law establishes that consent and privacy are no longer necessary for sexual interactions, effectively legalizing public sexual activities, as long as they do not disrupt public order. There are, of course, several significant provisions within this law like the redefinition of sexual or the decriminalization of , however, its primary goal is to simply state that sex is free for anyone to enjoy with anyone.

Debates have continued throughout the years about the Fair Distribution of Wealth Law. Not so much as the law itself, which proved to be universally favorable, but the tiny, seemingly insignificant, misworded clause that changed society.

This story is a reminder that unforeseen consequences can become agents of positive change.