Hawt Sommer wrote:... those kids were actually nabbed by the FBI, your government.
I'm not American.
We have legalized pot, so while we are at it... Perhaps we should legalize child pornography
Newp. I think 'age of consent' laws are perfectly valid. Though some of the recent court cases that have attempted to charge the creators of cartoons that depict fictional characters
look underage are ludicrous hysteria.
Yup. No valid reason why transactions of consensual sex for money should be illegal.
but lets not forget to picket your local Walmart because a kid made that six dollar dress that's hanging on the rack- that's just wrong!
You wouldn't find me at such a picket line. I'd rather the kid eat than starve, and I'm not constrained to seeing the world only through the narrow paradigm of my personal experience.
I tend to think that the Adult pimps might not offering those kids a second chance, but you may be right.
The underage prostitutes, in fact, are more likely to have been working alone, turning tricks for cash to buy food. Or Nikes. Whatever. The vast, vast majority of the incredibly small proportion of sex worker who are underage (~2%) are street walkers, because the adults who work in brothels are by and large not monsters, and will not permit anyone underage to work with them. Similarly, the vast, vast majority of men will not touch a whore they suspect of being underage. The single biggest source of information in efforts to find and stop underage sex workers, is sex workers and their clients. Stifled because of criminalisation and police/fed brutality.
If there was a direct link between an underage sex worker and a pimp in this sting, it would have been a main point in the press release, and therefore the main thrust of the story. No hack worth their pay check would write a trash article on human trafficking and leave out such valuable fodder.
Expect more details, less widely published, soon.
This may be an honest up and up rehabilitation program for kids that were in abusive homes.
I didn't mention rehabilitation. I said that turning tricks on the street may be better than the alternative that they left in the first place. The fact that they *are* turning tricks on the street suggests this to be true.
This has nothing to do with moral superiority, this has everything to do with good old common sense... which is you don't exploit children. AND.... If the kid has an abusive home... Don't put the fucking kid back in an abusive home... Derp?
OH, GOD, WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!!
You mean like these folks who 'opened their eyes and saved innocent people' - by planning an operation for two years to coincide with Superbowl? When every shred of methodologically sound data suggests that these desperate, innocent, coerced, trafficked children - the vast majority of them at the very minimum - would have been available for rescuing at any moment when the spotlight wasn't on Superbowl, and when the media hadn't spent the previous few weeks building up yet another
"TRAFFICKING AT SPORTING EVENTS!" mythology, it's difficult to swallow the 'heroic saviours' narrative that the rescue industry spouts.
Incidentally, trafficking and pimping are not the same thing. Even if the media likes to pretend they are. I suspect that the 'pimps' mentioned here are mostly women, mostly managers of escort agencies or brothels. As for trafficking - that definition has become so broad now as to be worthless. If you buy a woman a bus ticket and she uses it to go meet someone for a sex-for-money transaction, you have trafficked her.
Regardless, my point was and is that you hypocritically accuse people of sucking up media drivel without critical analysis while doing the very same thing yourself. Still stands.