Sold-for-sex - Fox News story on human trafficing

[daydreamer41]

No one said you weren't against child prostitution, or hinted at it.

True that the feminists want to end prostitution. That's not the point. If you go along with them and link adult sex services with child prostitution you are allowing them to taint the latter with the absolutely immorality and tragedy of child slavery and helping them make their strategy work. I can't put it more simple than that.

My advice: separate your support of adult sex service and view against child sex slavery. Even a car salesman knows it's poor strategy to talk about how gross auto fatalities can be.

Maybe you want to use...don't agree with...instead of..."don't understand". The latter makes you sound like you are announcing you are incapable rather than disagreeing.

Cheers,

Merlot

BTW...same old story on this issue. Demagoguery at the expense of the real victims. Pffffsssst!!!

Sorry,

I still don't understand what you trying to say. I'm trying.

My view of adult sex services and any forced sexual trade involving adults and children (child prostitution, trafficking adults or children and child pornography) are separate.

I am saying that the feminists who want to eradicate child trafficking and prostitution do not have a separate view. They want to eradicate everything, adult at will sex trade in all forms.

Maybe you don't understand me? :noidea:

 

[daydreamer41]

I just adore gross generalizations. It's among my favorite forms of ignorance.

Does the name Annie Sprinkle ring a bell? How about Camille Paglia? I'd also say the workers at Stella consider themselves feminists.

Gee, rumps, I don't think they are the ones who want to abolish the sex business worldwide. But I assure you, there's a whole slew of feminists who do. It's just like I realize that not all Democrats are radical Socialists, but there are whole slew sitting in the White House and in Congress who are.

 

[slang55]

Well, it is not that simple. In Holland, there is still a quite big part of the industry that is black market. Guess where illegitimate activities (child prostitution, pimping, trafficking, organized crime) are to be found. The black market being there while it is illegal, it is no more complicated to be there if prostitution is legal.

But if only really immoral activities (slavery, child prostitution) were criminalized then the police could go after black market prostitution without any debate. They'd still need to catch them but there would be less obstacles in their way because of people who just want to buy and sell clean sex having to evade the vice squad.

 

[hungry101]

The story that Hungry linked to originally appeared on Fox News. Junk science is the only kind of science they recognize. The don't believe in evolution at Faux News. Climate change is a terrible hoax at Fox Noise. And the President of the United States is a Socialist Muslim Nazi America Hater at Fox Noise. The mere fact that the link to is to an article there is enough to debunk the story thoroughly.

Rumples - I watch a lot of Fox News because I am so tired of the bleeding heart left wing slant in the media. I can tell you that most of the time the Fox News talking heads shows do a good job of representing both sides of a view point. For example, when it comes to frequenting escorts and when there was a prostitution sting in Washington, Sean Hannity himself said that maybe some of these men needed some comfort and intimacy (I’ll bet he has seen a SP or two). Yes, they have their moments and this story is certainly one. It is the second time I have caught them running a ridiculous story regarding prostitution. I think part of the problem is that all of these news organizations are less interested in reporting the news and more interested in making entertainment.

By the way I watch Fox News and you may be surprised about my personal views. For example, I am sick and tired of the evangelicals on the right. I have no problem with Christians but I am for state funded abortion and legalizing just about every vice, reducing the drinking age and if gays want to get married have at it. I don’t need the government protecting me from myself.

But I digress…this thread is about underage prostitution and sex trafficking. I believe that the laws and mores of this country have forced hobbyists to hide in the shadows. Until we come out we will never get respect. The problem is many of us are married and employed by large companies. If we came out, we would be slaughtered in divorce court, disowned by our families and probably fired by our PC employers.

In Brasil much business and business entertainment is done in the termas. Also, married men belonging to the upper middle class go to the termas with their wives tacit knowledge. In United States of Sex Prison they catch you soliciting a prostitute and they will confiscate your car and your name goes in the paper and they send you to sensitivity training where they tell you that your actions support the general exploitation of woman including under aged prostitution and sex trafficking. Bull Shit I say!

 

[daydreamer41]

The story that Hungry linked to originally appeared on Fox News. Junk science is the only kind of science they recognize. The don't believe in evolution at Faux News. Climate change is a terrible hoax at Fox Noise. And the President of the United States is a Socialist Muslim Nazi America Hater at Fox Noise. The mere fact that the link to is to an article there is enough to debunk the story thoroughly.

I agree that Climate change is a hoax, and Obama is a Socialist Muslim. Fox News is a hell of a lot better than CNN, but I agree with Hungry. This thread is about human trafficking and forced child sex trade. Gee, how some get every thread off track.

 

[Lovemaker]

Rumples - I watch a lot of Fox News

This is where I stopped reading. Are you referring to this Fox news?: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhswCH5Ee87YLo1xte

Sean Hannity himself said

Once again my critical thinking got in the way and I was unable to read any further, I apologize for this. Are you quoting this Sean Hannity?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1NWYV1i_E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MjRV-UTs9o&feature=related


Please try to use credible sources when constructing your argument, otherwise everything you say becomes comical.

 

[daydreamer41]

This is where I stopped reading. Are you referring to this Fox news?: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhswCH5Ee87YLo1xte



Once again my critical thinking got in the way and I was unable to read any further, I apologize for this. Are you quoting this Sean Hannity?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1NWYV1i_E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MjRV-UTs9o&feature=related


Please try to use credible sources when constructing your argument, otherwise everything you say becomes comical.

Hey, Lovemaker, do you and Rumps share the same brain? I swear everything you and he writes sounds exactly the same, and it hasn't added to the subject of this thread.

 

[Lovemaker]

When you have nothing else to say, is this your best argument ^? What I said is was very relevant to the subject of this thread, i'm questioning the source of his argument. Critical thinking allows us to rationally determine the credibility of a given source, since you supported Bush it's obvious that you significantly lack thereof.

If I had Rumple's brain, i'd be a much better writer lol. Rumple and I have always clashed, look at our history on this forum. Nevertheless, I have utmost respect for the guy because he says what's on his mind and doesn't give a shit about its fallout.

Even now when he feels I've said something inappropriate on this forum, he will pm me directly and tell me to stop acting like an idiot lol. A lot of other members will instead act like hypocrites and resort to politics, backbiting, etc. Rumple, on the other hand, is a stand up guy. He'll come face to face with you in order to clear shit up. I respect this.

 

[daydreamer41]

When you have nothing else to say, is this your best argument ^? What I said is was very relevant to the subject of this thread, i'm questioning the source of his argument. Critical thinking allows us to rationally determine the credibility of a given source, since you supported Bush it's obvious that you significantly lack thereof.

If I had Rumple's brain, i'd be a much better writer lol. Rumple and I have always clashed, look at our history on this forum. Nevertheless, I have utmost respect for the guy because he says what's on his mind and doesn't give a shit about its fallout.

Even now when he feels I've said something inappropriate on this forum, he will pm me directly and tell me to stop acting like an idiot lol. A lot of other members will instead act like hypocrites and resort to politics, backbiting, etc. Rumple, on the other hand, is a stand up guy. He'll come face to face with you in order to clear shit up. I respect this.

I see nothing wrong with Fox News. They are much more objective than CNN, CBS or ABC. But you and Rumps have the same line about Fox News any time anyone uses it as a source. It's just amazing.

 

[Lovemaker]

But you and Rumps have the same line about Fox News any time anyone uses it as a source. It's just amazing.

Me, Rumps, Jon Stewart and the rest of the informed world.

I see nothing wrong with Fox News.

I don't expect you to. You are brilliant.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

The man who runs Fox Noise, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes#Fox_News. I need say no more.

 

[Merlot]

Hey, Lovemaker, do you and Rumps share the same brain? I swear everything you and he writes sounds exactly the same, and it hasn't added to the subject of this thread.

Hey DD,

I've read the article multiple times. Speaking of being on "The Subject", please point out where the article refers to feminists or has attacked adults who make a free choice to provide sexual service anywhere.

The subjects in the article are sexual slavery, whether it's children or anyone. Both you and Hungry have spun this into an attack against Feminists, and inferred it has an expanded purpose of eliminating any sexual service by adult choice. Despite this being from the Fox associates, it's a worthy subject for discussion. The problem it's been spun off course immediately the apparent agendas of others at unrelated subjects.

This is why critical issues go unresolved, because "people" attached so much unrelated baggage to it.

(yeah right, you don't understand)



Merlot

PS

I'm very disappointed you didn't lump me with Rumps and Lovemaker. (pouting)

 

[daydreamer41]

Hey DD,

I`ve read the article multiple times. Speaking of being on "The Subject", please point out where the article refers to feminists or has attacked adults who make a free choice to provide sexual service anywhere.

The subjects in the article are sexual slavery, whether it`s children or anyone. Both you and Hungry have spun this into an attack against Feminists, and inferred it has an expanded purpose of eliminating any sexual service by adult choice. Despite this being from the Fox associates, it`s a worthy subject for discussion. The problem it`s been spun off course immediately the apparent agendas of others at unrelated subjects.

This is why critical issues go unresolved, because "people" attached so much unrelated baggage to it.

(yeah right, you don`t understand)



Merlot

Hey Merlot,

Have you read either my or Hungry`s comments??????

I don`t think so. We have mentioned our reasons behind our statements multiple times.

This is the last time I will repeat myself:

The article quotes a young woman saying that she was a victim of sex trafficking at the age of 16. No problem, I have no reason to doubt her. However, she goes on to say that girls at 12 to 14 years old start in strip bars. This is Atlanta, not Bangkok, Thailand, she is talking about. There are 2 things wrong with that statement, and at that point she lost her credibility with me.

#1 - I have never seen a 12 to 14 year old girl in a strip bar. I doubt I ever will. It is just too unbelieveable. Even girls who start to develop at 12 cannot pass themselves off as an 18 year old. The maturity level is not there.

#2 - Sex traffickers would never want to expose 12 to 14 year old girls to the public. It would be entirely too risky for them. If just one girl opens her mouth, they risk being caught.

Her statement of including strip bars is suspect for one more reason. It gives them a reason to target strip bars. They claim that young girls are being forced to work in strip clubs then the solution is to close strip clubs.

Sweden passed a law that only makes it illegal for men to engage in prostitution, not women. The feminists were behind the law. Women are the victims. They shouldn`t be charged. But the men, they should be humiliated. Sweden is a very liberal country. Do you want to live in Sweden, Merlot?


Look at what Wikipedia says about the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution

Wikipedia says that the arguments against prostitution by the feminists include - and each has a heading in the Wikipedia article.

Coercion and poverty
Long term effects on prostitutes
Male dominance over women
A consequence and correlate of violence against women
The raced and classed nature of prostitution

In the same article in Wikipedia:

Outlawing of buying sexual services
In 1999, Sweden became the first country to make it illegal to pay for sex, but not to be a prostitute (the client commits a crime, but not the prostitute). Similar laws were passed in Norway (in 2009) [SUP][35][/SUP] and in Iceland (in 2009).[SUP][36][/SUP]
As of 2009, the government of Denmark is also discussing the possibility of banning the buying of sexual services.[SUP][37][/SUP] and as of 2009, there is lobbying taking place for such a law in Hungary.[SUP][38][/SUP]
These laws are a natural extension of the views of the feminists who oppose prostitution. These feminists reject the idea that prostitution can be reformed, and oppose any harm reduction approach. Trisha Baptie, a former Canadian prostitute, who now opposes the industry, and lobbies for the outlawing of buying sexual services, wrote: "Harm reduction ? You can’t make prostitution "safer" ; prostitution is violence in itself. It is rape, the money only appeases men’s guilt,[SUP][39][/SUP] " "One of the most “sex-positive” things you can do is make sure men cannot buy sex, because the buying of sex is violence against women and is a direct deterrent to women’s equality.[SUP][40][/SUP] "
These feminists see prostitution as a form of violence against women and vehemently condemn the common pro-legalization argument that "prostitution has always existed and will never go away", arguing that other violent acts such as murder, rape and pedophilia have also always existed and will never be eradicated either, and that is not a reason to legalize them. These feminists argue that the idea of legalizing prostitution in order to control it and "make it a little better" and reduce harm is no different than the idea of legalizing domestic violence in order to control it and "make it a little better" and reduce harm.[SUP][41][/SUP]

In the Wikipedia article, it says there are feminists who are aligned with the support of prostitution. But that does not negate that there is a strong movement among the feminist movement to banish prostitution. Read the article and do your own search Merlot.

Lastly, I did a search on Feminists views on prostitution. I came up with the following link
http://www.feministissues.com/

Here are the first 2 paragraphs:

Introduction​

​

Radical feminism opposes prostitution on the grounds that it degrades women and furthers the power politics of the male gender. Feminists seek to be supportive of sex workers while deploring the work itself as inherently wrong. While they do not admit to taking an ethical position in contemporary moral terms, radical feminists are in fact making a moral statement. Once their arguments are evaluated in an ethical light they tend to break down logically. Much of the problem stems from a lack of understanding of ethical concepts such as virtue, morality, and degradation. Other problems with their position, as exemplified in Kathleen Barry’s writings, evolve from a political theory that is oververbalized, generalized, and too often uses stereotypical notions of what a prostitute is. The radical feminist views are thoughtful but not always delineated sufficiently to support a credible theory that prostitution degrades all women.
There are many forms of feminism. Five have expressed strong views on the issue of prostitution, namely: Marxist feminism, liberal feminism, existentialist feminism, socialist feminism, and radical feminism. A chart is included on page 29 to attempt to clarify the relationships between the various categories of feminism. This is necessary because feminism is vibrant and changing, particularly in the case of radical feminism and liberal feminism, which either reinvent themselves or transform with time. An additional difficulty in forming a clear view of feminism is the fact that some feminists may ascribe to one ideology yet borrow ideas from another form of feminism. Feminists may embrace most of the tenets of a particular form of feminist theory, while rejecting a few of its precepts outright. In all cases, one thing is certain: feminism is about promoting a world in which women enjoy an equal share of the rights and power.

Here is another link in another article on the same statement:

http://www.feministissues.com/theoretical_view.html

Theoretical View of the Degrading
Nature of Prostitution
​

Radical feminism opposes prostitution ostensibly because it degrades all women. There are at least three approaches to viewing degradation. First, when radical feminists talk about degradation, they are discussing it in terms of an activity that affirms and sustains the male power dynamic, which in turn dominates and oppresses non-prostitute women as well. Second, feminists are sometimes speaking of degradation in Marxist terms where “Prostitution, like wage labor, degrades the actor.”[SUP]17[/SUP] Third, if a woman behaves in a manner that fits the stereotype of what men commonly perceive as a whore, she is degraded by that association. Certain actions and style of dress lead people to certain other expectations about what that person is saying about themselves. The idea of degradation, therefore, derives from not being fully aware of how one is perceived in the world by association with certain behaviors.

In the first instance, the idea of sexual empowerment asserts the notion that the value of equality between the sexes is the cardinal value in a hierarchy of values that guide human evolution and human behavior. But competing with this view is the likely fact that survival of the individual, and the species as a whole, is the cardinal value in a hierarchy of values that profoundly affect human behavior and determine the context of morality. As the human species has evolved, raw survival is no longer the primary issue. At this point, in order for civilization to grow and remain secure, it must theoretically acknowledge both genders as equals. Without this recognition, society will be deprived of an essential social spirit and fair play sufficient for the evolution of a better world. The survival of a culture can also be viewed in terms of a function of harmony producing the greatest social gains and economic efficiency. But oppression as an issue does not replace the fundamental importance of survival as the cardinal value that ultimately determines the evolution or extinction of humankind.
In the second instance, there is a Marxist perspective that tends to seep into feminist thinking, promoting the idea that even ordinary wage labor is degrading. In Barry’s writing it is unclear as to how much of her conceptualization is grounded in Marxism. The application of Marxism to political process never demonstrated itself as a viable approach to the governance of people, so why apply it to prostitution in this case?

Third, prostitutes and their clients also have a world view about the degrading nature of prostitution. Exploiting sexuality is not uncommon, and it is not always men who are exploitative. Men could probably cite numerous instances of exploitation by women who have used their sexual prowess to exploit them for favors, money, or promotions. In a very abstract way, it could be said, the power of human sexuality—which is the source of its perpetuation—is the power of the species, and in this light anyone caught in its power can be vulnerable to making immature and unwise judgments that result in the corruption of the conscience. Barry’s arguments focus only on sexual power operating at the social level, not at the genetic or biological level of action. If the cause of what she observes is biological or genetic, how can she hope to resolve the issue without addressing principles of biology?[SUP]18[/SUP] If Theodosius Dobzhansky is correct, culture is an “instrument of (biological) adaption.”[SUP]19[/SUP] Biological survival is a systemic process that appears to extend itself into the governing principles of societies it ultimately creates. The precise reasons why men oppress or appear to oppress, therefore, likely address higher considerations of adaptation and survival found in biology.

​

​

 

[daydreamer41]

Me, Rumps, Jon Stewart and the rest of the informed world.



I don't expect you to. You are brilliant.

The man who runs Fox Noise, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes#Fox_News. I need say no more.

You two have to be siamese twins joined at the head. I guess you share the same keyboard. You type the same lines and are obsessed with Fox News (the only News outlet that is not an arm of the Democrat Far Left Liberal Party.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Radical feminism opposes prostitution on the grounds that it degrades women...

Thanks for posting this. This statement is quite true...for the SMALL subset of feminists who consider themselves "radical" feminists.

 

[gugu]

But if only really immoral activities (slavery, child prostitution) were criminalized then the police could go after black market prostitution without any debate. They'd still need to catch them but there would be less obstacles in their way because of people who just want to buy and sell clean sex having to evade the vice squad.

Legalization of prostitution is not much a mean to fight trafficking and child prostitution as a mean to provide sex workers willing to come out from under the blanket a safer environment. If there is a wise LE approach, like in New Zealand, it also makes sex workers more willing to talk to the police, helping them to prosecute crimes against sex workers.

The ability of LE to cope with trafficking depends mainly on their strategies and resources. IMHO, the laws on prostitution have a marginal effect.

If I may digress however, it seems quite clear that the legalisation of prostitution have increased the external demand (sex tourism) in some countries like the Netherlands and Germany. The increase in demand, starting in fact a few decades before legalisation because of tolerance for brothels, was followed by immigration of sex workers, mostly from the eastern European countries in the beginning. This is where concerns were raised about trafficking.

And this is where number crunching got crazy. The UN and the ILO started publishing reports in the end of the 1980’s stating that the problem was huge. But the data they published and still publish do not seem to be compatible with police arrest statistics.

How can we explain the huge discrepancies? There are a lot of methodological issues in the reports by the UN organisations and by the ILO, especially the latter that is using newspaper accounts as the basis for their estimations. The UN reports are based on a lot a sources, the most important being organisations supporting the women in trouble.

I do not want to push dd’s approach to far, (I totally disagree with the gross representation he and hungry make of the feminist movement) but I think it is fair to say that feminism gained a lot a power within the international organisations from the beginning of the 1980’s and that it explains in some part the bias in the methodologies used to estimate numbers on prostitution and trafficking.

 

[daydreamer41]

Thanks for posting this. This statement is quite true...for the SMALL subset of feminists who consider themselves "radical" feminists.

It doesn't matter the number. It is how powerful they are and how much of a voice they have to the individual governments around the world. Look what happened in Sweden. I am not convinced that the Radical element of feminists is a minority. Do you have broken down percentages? With what happened in Sweden, I venture to say that they are either a gloood size portion, or they are very skilled at lobbying.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

It doesn't matter the number. It is how powerful they are and how much of a voice they have to the individual governments around the world. Look what happened in Sweden. I am not convinced that the Radical element of feminists is a minority. Do you have broken down percentages? With what happened in Sweden, I venture to say that they are either a gloood size portion, or they are very skilled at lobbying.

As expected, facts don't mean shit to you. Actually, that would be a prerequisite for watching Faux News.

 

[daydreamer41]

I do not want to push dd’s approach to far, (I totally disagree with the gross representation he and hungry make of the feminist movement) but I think it is fair to say that feminism gained a lot a power within the international organisations from the beginning of the 1980’s and that it explains in some part the bias in the methodologies used to estimate numbers on prostitution and trafficking.

I don't mind if you disagree with my opinion. There are essays and blogs on the internet from feminist opposing prostitution. My intention in pointing out their agenda is that you should know about it. One day they could convince the government of Canada to outlaw prostitution or make a law like Sweden, where you are at risk but the girl giving the service would not be. If that would happen, I would venture to say most of you would quit. The agencies would shut down. Merb would shut down because of no advertising. I doubt many men would risk a sting with public humiliation of arrest and loss of their job to look for a SP not knowing if the girl is an undercover. If there are SP's, they would be very UTR.

 

[gugu]

I don't mind if you disagree with my opinion.

Anything in what I said suggests to you that I think you think you mind?

For you information, the drive against prostitution in Montreal, and as a matter of fact in most of Canada, do not not come from what the feminist movement per se. It comes from from women support groups such as the CALACS, helped in their writings by some anti prostitution intellectuals. This issue has always been subject to very harsh discussions within feminists organizations like the FFQ. The government funded CSF has made some anti prostitution propositions last year, but prostitution has never been a big interest to them. The issue at stake at the moment in Canada is the court challenge of the anti prostitution articles of the criminal code. Prostitution has never been illegal in Canada. If it ever happens, you will not have to blame the feminists. You will have to blame the ultra right wing conservatives in power who might be tempted to pass a law criminalizing clients.