You are awesome. I think the whole thing about sex workers being mentally scarred and such is beyond rediculous! How can a person become scarred from engaging in consentual and pleasurable acts that they get paid pretty good money for, or more than pretty good lol. I work at a minimum wage slave job and nobody has any pity (fake or otherwise) for me. I work at this crap job because I have no other choices...I wish I could fuck for money! Lol! I mean wtf people, its just sex!
in the argument against legalized prostitution, what's the difference between exchanging sex for money and any other exchange of work performed for money? This is not a rhetorical question. Is there something that makes it different?
@johntheother as possible that somebody, whether they love sex or not, could still prefer it to slaving for other jobs where they might make less or work hours they dont like etc...
There are many reasons people may have sex, all could be related to needing money, and having few other options, but the idea that its for sure the worst thing a person could do for money, the most degrading thing, that different from another job.
The only reason why Booboo is right about the definition of "trafficking" is because she and other antis want to use the differential between "severe sex trafficking" and "sex trafficking" to conflate the non-coercive kind of sex work with the more violent form of trafficking. It's like antiporn feminists using their cracked definition of "gonzo" to slam even girl/girl sex and Playboy pictorals.
As for Booboo being right: Well, stopped clocks are right twice a day.
@AnthonyJKenn From what I saw on the blogtv she was very unclear as to what trafficking was hence the constant asking for a definition. I argued a bit about it with her in the comment section of her video here. watch?v=DfZCL4HhmTc
This is what prompted me to put the U.S.D.S video up. You are correct in your assessment. As I say as well, radical feminists make no distinction between "forced" prostitution and prostitution, no matter the circumstance they are victims.
But I'm mostly confused by your position here. Certainly the video was not meant to cover the entire dynamics of trafficking and sex work but you seem to be challenging something fundamental about it. You use the word conflation here but what you're describing sound like you believe there's a false dichotomy or something like that. As far as I'm aware radical feminist make no distinction between prostitution and trafficking so clearly they would not agree with the law as it is because...
...it does not go far enough as with the Swedish model. We must always remember their position; "In Sweden, prostitution is regarded as an aspect of male
I must say I'm a bit confused by this. Let me just say I put that up as a reaction to some of what I saw on that blogtv with booboo with people trying to define trafficking. I thought it would be good to have that uploaded as a starting point and to show what the U.S. is doing, it had nothing to do with the Onision thing which I covered here; watch?v=AW1XyLpQfPE
@DiwataMan - it was a good starting point! I was just makin a joke about the onision thing. it's definitely good that you uploaded it - i'm irritated with the dept of state being weaselly in their presentation of this stuff
It sounds like the term "trafficking" has been debased to the point where it is useless. It should be disallowed in any honest discussion of sex work. If the figures we hear on "traffic victims" have been inflated by adding voluntary workers, that fact needs to be exposed. I'm pretty shocked by all this.
@Ramiiam - there are real numbers of victims of the 'severe form' of sex trafficking - like real people who were found and who are actual bona fide victims but those numbers don't get heard as much - I have a clip with some of those numbers, i'll find it and upload it to give you an idea of those numbers...
@Ramiiam - though you are right about using the term when it comes to specific discussion of sex work, the common misconception people have when they hear 'trafficked', that it must've been forced etc. - it makes any real discussion of these issues very difficult.
@FeministWhore I know that "severe" trafficking happens. But to get a handle on the problem requires understanding its magnitude. It does a disservice to distort the numbers by mixing in cases that don't involve force, fraud or coercion. Learning this inclines me to disbelieve what I thought I knew about the problem of trafficking. I've heard the numbers. Now I wonder how many of those so-called traffic victims are women who drive to a nearby town to work at Hooters.
@FeministWhore okay I get what you mean, that the term trafficked in the USA means the movment by a sexworker from one place to another (without force etc). Yes that does confuse and conflate. B/c prostitution is legal in my country, trafficking that way is legal, too (but ofcourse severe trafficking isnt). We dont have this distinction here, b/c prostitution and movement is legal.
@FeministWhore See now that's where I think we may be seeing this differently. I agree with the definition of trafficking containing the element of "force, fraud or coercion". Are you saying this should not be the case?
@DiwataMan She's saying it is not necessarily the case in US law. "Severe" trafficking involves those elements. But there is another category of offense called "trafficking" that need not. The problem then is that when we hear estimates of the number of "traffic victims," they likely include both. Of course, the people peddling these numbers want us to imagine sex slaves when we hear of "trafficking," when in fact only a percentage of the total fit that description.
I'm saying that the definition where 'force fraud coercion' is included should be the only definition, but it's not. That it's not the only definition is why I complain.
@FeministWhore But your comment to Ramiam confuses me, "the common misconception people have when they hear 'trafficked', that it must've been forced" When I think of trafficking that's precisely what I think of and that's how it's defined in the video. I understand there are other laws and aspects to go into but the way it's presented in the video is precisely the definition you and I agree on. What am I missing here?
@DiwataMan Watch from 1:40 to 2:50 again and read everything in the picture.
What do you get from that? Here's what I get: The law defines severe trafficking as "a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud or coercion..." and the law defines sex trafficking as "The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for a commercial sex act." Can you connect the dots or does it have to be spelled out for you?
@DiwataMan "I agree with the definition of trafficking containing the element of "force, fraud or coercion". Are you saying this should not be the case?"
@Ramiiam I am too, I never knew about that definition until just now. There should only be one definition for trafficking and that is the forced, coerced etc people, none of that other shit. If I move from one place to another for a job I could experience the same kinds of problems as someone who does it for sex work. It is called life.
To include that as trafficking is a slap in the face to all the people who really are trafficked.
I've pretty much had it with trying to talk to these anti fuckers. I've tried so many people and failed with each one. I've lost my patience with them.
@thethegreenmachine I spent a while last night arguing that sex workers rights advocates are not advocating for their 'right to be a sex worker.' Woke up today to a single comment, "You think sex work is right but it's not."
Whether they meant "a right" or not doesn't change anything. I just about punched my own monitor.
This is why so many people just troll them. There's no point in doing anything else with them.
@TheLaughingOut The problem with ignoring them is that they are trying to make laws on our behalf. An organized cadre of ideologues with a clear agenda and some power can do a lot of harm, Sweden coming to mind.
@Ramiiam Yes, well the anti-sex-work people on YouTube who advocate (whatever it is, who can say for certain?) don't really have any influence in my opinion. I wont ignore them, rather I will mock them and point out their errors to other people, but trying to reason with them is like punching steam.
You are awesome. I think the whole thing about sex workers being mentally scarred and such is beyond rediculous! How can a person become scarred from engaging in consentual and pleasurable acts that they get paid pretty good money for, or more than pretty good lol. I work at a minimum wage slave job and nobody has any pity (fake or otherwise) for me. I work at this crap job because I have no other choices...I wish I could fuck for money! Lol! I mean wtf people, its just sex!
AelaTheHuntress 1 month ago
You cried? I don't believe it!
Seriously, thanks for explaining this once again. I think it's helpful for people who are new to this.
xxxild 1 month ago
in the argument against legalized prostitution, what's the difference between exchanging sex for money and any other exchange of work performed for money? This is not a rhetorical question. Is there something that makes it different?
johntheother 1 month ago
@johntheother Yeah, I try making the argument in depth that there isnt any real difference, but sex is somehow a special case.
If you use your body to build a fence for somebody, to deliver something, etc... its just normal work, you arent considered to sell your body.
But if its sex, despite that you dont lose anything, you are not contracting your body for pay, your selling it
Its just not possible that a person could even enjoy sex and want to get paid for it.
Its not seen ...
waltermh111 1 month ago
@johntheother as possible that somebody, whether they love sex or not, could still prefer it to slaving for other jobs where they might make less or work hours they dont like etc...
There are many reasons people may have sex, all could be related to needing money, and having few other options, but the idea that its for sure the worst thing a person could do for money, the most degrading thing, that different from another job.
Its beyond sensical how opposition thinks.
waltermh111 1 month ago
This cum dumpster approves this message.
Divinity33372 1 month ago
Take 2:
The only reason why Booboo is right about the definition of "trafficking" is because she and other antis want to use the differential between "severe sex trafficking" and "sex trafficking" to conflate the non-coercive kind of sex work with the more violent form of trafficking. It's like antiporn feminists using their cracked definition of "gonzo" to slam even girl/girl sex and Playboy pictorals.
As for Booboo being right: Well, stopped clocks are right twice a day.
AnthonyJKenn 1 month ago
@AnthonyJKenn From what I saw on the blogtv she was very unclear as to what trafficking was hence the constant asking for a definition. I argued a bit about it with her in the comment section of her video here. watch?v=DfZCL4HhmTc
This is what prompted me to put the U.S.D.S video up. You are correct in your assessment. As I say as well, radical feminists make no distinction between "forced" prostitution and prostitution, no matter the circumstance they are victims.
DiwataMan 1 month ago
Wait. When and where did booboo say something right?
zarkoff45 1 month ago
You are not heartless. *warm fuzzies*
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
EXACTLY! That training video did not line up linguistically with the law.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
Excellent video.
Also, I'm compelled to add: "do not attempt to adjust your picture. We are in control of the transmission."
Eminemno1fan 1 month ago
@Eminemno1fan LOL XD
you get two brownie points from me.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice Thank you :)
Eminemno1fan 1 month ago
But I'm mostly confused by your position here. Certainly the video was not meant to cover the entire dynamics of trafficking and sex work but you seem to be challenging something fundamental about it. You use the word conflation here but what you're describing sound like you believe there's a false dichotomy or something like that. As far as I'm aware radical feminist make no distinction between prostitution and trafficking so clearly they would not agree with the law as it is because...
DiwataMan 1 month ago
...it does not go far enough as with the Swedish model. We must always remember their position; "In Sweden, prostitution is regarded as an aspect of male
violence against women"
DiwataMan 1 month ago
@DiwataMan - ok I know exactly what you're saying/asking, i'm making a vid to explain this a bit more...
FeministWhore 1 month ago
@DiwataMan - well at least i think i know what your saying/asking, :D
FeministWhore 1 month ago
I must say I'm a bit confused by this. Let me just say I put that up as a reaction to some of what I saw on that blogtv with booboo with people trying to define trafficking. I thought it would be good to have that uploaded as a starting point and to show what the U.S. is doing, it had nothing to do with the Onision thing which I covered here; watch?v=AW1XyLpQfPE
DiwataMan 1 month ago
@DiwataMan - it was a good starting point! I was just makin a joke about the onision thing. it's definitely good that you uploaded it - i'm irritated with the dept of state being weaselly in their presentation of this stuff
FeministWhore 1 month ago
It sounds like the term "trafficking" has been debased to the point where it is useless. It should be disallowed in any honest discussion of sex work. If the figures we hear on "traffic victims" have been inflated by adding voluntary workers, that fact needs to be exposed. I'm pretty shocked by all this.
Ramiiam 1 month ago
@Ramiiam - there are real numbers of victims of the 'severe form' of sex trafficking - like real people who were found and who are actual bona fide victims but those numbers don't get heard as much - I have a clip with some of those numbers, i'll find it and upload it to give you an idea of those numbers...
FeministWhore 1 month ago
@Ramiiam - though you are right about using the term when it comes to specific discussion of sex work, the common misconception people have when they hear 'trafficked', that it must've been forced etc. - it makes any real discussion of these issues very difficult.
FeministWhore 1 month ago
@FeministWhore I know that "severe" trafficking happens. But to get a handle on the problem requires understanding its magnitude. It does a disservice to distort the numbers by mixing in cases that don't involve force, fraud or coercion. Learning this inclines me to disbelieve what I thought I knew about the problem of trafficking. I've heard the numbers. Now I wonder how many of those so-called traffic victims are women who drive to a nearby town to work at Hooters.
Ramiiam 1 month ago
@FeministWhore okay I get what you mean, that the term trafficked in the USA means the movment by a sexworker from one place to another (without force etc). Yes that does confuse and conflate. B/c prostitution is legal in my country, trafficking that way is legal, too (but ofcourse severe trafficking isnt). We dont have this distinction here, b/c prostitution and movement is legal.
Tuckercrew 1 month ago
@FeministWhore See now that's where I think we may be seeing this differently. I agree with the definition of trafficking containing the element of "force, fraud or coercion". Are you saying this should not be the case?
DiwataMan 1 month ago
@DiwataMan She's saying it is not necessarily the case in US law. "Severe" trafficking involves those elements. But there is another category of offense called "trafficking" that need not. The problem then is that when we hear estimates of the number of "traffic victims," they likely include both. Of course, the people peddling these numbers want us to imagine sex slaves when we hear of "trafficking," when in fact only a percentage of the total fit that description.
Ramiiam 1 month ago
I'm saying that the definition where 'force fraud coercion' is included should be the only definition, but it's not. That it's not the only definition is why I complain.
FeministWhore 1 month ago
@FeministWhore Good think you clarified that. Wouldn't want to confuse people =/
ffs
Divinity33372 1 month ago
@FeministWhore But your comment to Ramiam confuses me, "the common misconception people have when they hear 'trafficked', that it must've been forced" When I think of trafficking that's precisely what I think of and that's how it's defined in the video. I understand there are other laws and aspects to go into but the way it's presented in the video is precisely the definition you and I agree on. What am I missing here?
DiwataMan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DiwataMan Watch from 1:40 to 2:50 again and read everything in the picture.
What do you get from that? Here's what I get: The law defines severe trafficking as "a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud or coercion..." and the law defines sex trafficking as "The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for a commercial sex act." Can you connect the dots or does it have to be spelled out for you?
kitsunegames 1 month ago
@DiwataMan "I agree with the definition of trafficking containing the element of "force, fraud or coercion". Are you saying this should not be the case?"
Is this an honest question? Really?
Divinity33372 1 month ago
@Ramiiam I am too, I never knew about that definition until just now. There should only be one definition for trafficking and that is the forced, coerced etc people, none of that other shit. If I move from one place to another for a job I could experience the same kinds of problems as someone who does it for sex work. It is called life.
To include that as trafficking is a slap in the face to all the people who really are trafficked.
AelaTheHuntress 1 month ago 2
I've pretty much had it with trying to talk to these anti fuckers. I've tried so many people and failed with each one. I've lost my patience with them.
TheLaughingOut 1 month ago
@TheLaughingOut - yup. I was gonna say a lot more, but instead I'll just say yup.
FeministWhore 1 month ago
@TheLaughingOut I lose patience pretty fast, too. I just drop them as soon as I realize they're wasting my time.
thethegreenmachine 1 month ago
@thethegreenmachine I spent a while last night arguing that sex workers rights advocates are not advocating for their 'right to be a sex worker.' Woke up today to a single comment, "You think sex work is right but it's not."
Whether they meant "a right" or not doesn't change anything. I just about punched my own monitor.
This is why so many people just troll them. There's no point in doing anything else with them.
TheLaughingOut 1 month ago
@TheLaughingOut Lol -- yup.
thethegreenmachine 1 month ago
@TheLaughingOut The problem with ignoring them is that they are trying to make laws on our behalf. An organized cadre of ideologues with a clear agenda and some power can do a lot of harm, Sweden coming to mind.
Ramiiam 1 month ago
@Ramiiam Yes, well the anti-sex-work people on YouTube who advocate (whatever it is, who can say for certain?) don't really have any influence in my opinion. I wont ignore them, rather I will mock them and point out their errors to other people, but trying to reason with them is like punching steam.
TheLaughingOut 1 month ago