Feminists and others that are opposed to prostitution puposefully confuse issues like:
- voluntary vs. forced prostitution,
- adult vs adolescent vs child prostitution.
Here is an analysis of such a confusing article that allows for an adolescent to be a “trafficked child” even when there is no trafficker.
But the human traffickers who ensnared her had a different vision for Lena, shipping her to America and exploiting her in the sex industry for profit. They met her at the airport with news that her study abroad placement had been changed. She was given new bus tickets and sent off to Detroit, Michigan. Once there they took her passport and her freedom.
After almost a year of enslavement, Lena risked her life to make a daring escape.Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/25/carr.human.trafficking/index.html
Now lots of questions arise. How can a girl be kept imprisioned for a year, while in constant contact with customers? Are there any details that were omitted? did Lena really come with an I-5 Student visa? How come her schoold did not miss her? Or was she smuggled into the US, consensually?
Now, in the US, prostitution is illegal. This might be a good reason for girls to claim being a trafficing victim when caught. But, let us suppose the story is true. I believe such stories exist, but they are probably very rare.
The “Human Trafficking Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School […] works to identify solutions to combat human trafficking“. I am here to help to identify such solutions:
How can such tragedies be avoided? Well, this is similar to the drug industry: legalizing lighter drugs would solve a lot of the crime connected to drug trading. Equally, the problems of true human trafficing can be solved by methods that Mrs. Carr probably would not endorse:
- legalizing prostitution and
- legalizing prostitution by foreigners by emitting work visa to sex workers
would make most human trafficers jobless. Easy availability of 18 year old legal prostitutes would probably reduce the desire for 16 year old illegal jail bait.
Now Mrs. Carr somehow changes topic. Lena was seemingly not underage, but she mixes these things up with child prostitution. Children are under 12 or under 14 years old, but prostitution of adolescents does not sound as catchy as child prostitution, so conveniently, Mrs. Carr introduces some more confusion.
Children who are selling sex in the United States are then, by definition, victims of human trafficking. Despite this, child victims of sex trafficking are frequently viewed as criminals rather than as victims.
Here it is. A 17 year old runaway, a 17 year old drug addict who prostitutes herself, is called a victim of human trafficing. It is nice that Bridgette Carr honestly admits to using purposeful misleading language. There is no trafficer, the girl is on her own, but there is a victim of human trafficing.This skillfully manipulative perversion of language would make Josef Goebbels proud.
Victims should not be described as entering into prostitution; they are being exploited and should be described as victims of human trafficking.
This unusual language use is meant to foster the purposes of feminist and religious zealots by confusing the general populace who does not profoundly analyze what is being said.
To foster their agenda of reducing male and young female sexual choices, they create utterl confusion about very diverse issues such as
- 5 year old children who get raped by use of violence and force (an obvious crime by all standards, independent of age of victim, but aggravated further by age of victim which is physiologically and psychologically not ready, and by bodily harm inflicted)an
- consensual exchange of sex for money between an adult sex worker (prostitute) and a client, which is legal in many countries.
- This confuses all of course all intermediate steps such as:
- consensual sex of teenagers between 14 and 17 (falsely and manipulatively called “children”)
- non-violent fondling of minors
- voluntary prostitution by teenagers almost 18 years old
- rape of adults
- rape of males: interestingly none of these people are concerned about prison rape. This is a deadly danger due to violence and HIV, and an issue so dangerous that even Mike Tyson had reason to be concerned about being raped in jail. Raping Mike Tyson would have been the ultimate trophy for a macho jail gang boss.
The data on human trafficking is sparse, but what is known is terrifying. It’s already the second largest criminal industry in the world — behind only the trade in illegal drugs — and it’s growing fast. The global commercial sex trade exploits one million children annually. At least 100,000 and perhaps as many as 300,000 children in America are victims of sex trafficking each year.
Is there any proof? 300 000 children in America victims of sex trafficing? Even with such definition that lone youngsters prowling the street looking for customers?
There are about 300 Million people in the US, a quarter of which are under 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
So maybe 60 Million are under 17. 300 000 of these, half a percent, one of 200 of children, one of 800 inhabitants are victims of sex trafficing? Where are they? In a city of 8 000, we would expect 10 such underage prostitutes, in a city of 8 million, Mrs. Carr would expect to find 10 000 such victims. And how many customers would each such victim have? A prostitute can easily have 100 customers, and they are overwhelmingly male. So one in 8 inhabitants, or one in 4 male US citizens would be customers of these underage kids? Ok, there might be repeat customers, so maybe only one in 30 US citizens is a regular customer of underage prostitutes?
Human-Stupidity is in favor of honestly and squarely facing and discussing issues and solving problems. In favor of research, science, honesty. Against confusing issues to foster hidden agendas and dogmas. Disagreements about issues and policies should be discussed honestly and openly, not hidden behind manipulative language.
In this content the daring theory of the antifeminist.com rings true
In a sense then, my thesis that feminism is an aggressive response to technology that widens the sexual choices for men, is indeed a scientific theory.
Obviously, as learned readers of this blog will know by now, as well as anybody with an ounce of common sense, Valenti and her fellow feminists want to ban sex dolls because such things, increasingly realistic, threaten to give men sexual independence from women.
Now I learn that feminists in Canada are already drawing up legislation that would limit the sale and ownership of sexbots – realistic androids created for the sexual gratification of men.
When sex toys were mainly vibrators that gave women sexual independence from men, feminists avidly endorsed sex toys. This relates to the initial topic: feminist and religious zealots use manipulative language to foster their personal agenda.