Nope. You can make all the false statements about me that you wish but everyone knows that you are making those assertions because I disagree with you.
Not a false statement.
I'm not. I'm basing my opinion on initial reports by law enforcement based upon what they found, not on the political decisions of a DA.
But initial suspicions are not always born out by evidence. And where do you get the idea that sheriffs are not political? A sheriff is as much an elected official as the DA.
And there is another issue - the very intrusive and legally highly questionable video surveillance inside massage rooms. The warrant was given for human trafficking, not garden variety prostitution. Hence, the sheriff has a vested interest in insisting this is human trafficking no matter what the evidence shows. The prosecutor, however, is more independent of the investigations and thus more likely to be objective here.
It's really interesting that you feel that Sweden is quite repressive.
It was partly tongue in cheek. Overall they are not, but on the issue of sex work, they most certainly are. And yet it still happens. I should have used Iceland instead maybe as they are even worse - they even banned strip clubs!
It's widely regarded as being extremely liberal and progressive.
American version of "liberal", but restricting the freedoms of sex workers and their clients is hardly "liberal" in the true sense of the word.
Just because you don't agree with a stance doesn't make it the wrong stance to take or repressive.
If it represses people (and it does), it is a repressive stance.
I find prostitution to be quite repressive and oppressive.
Why? As long as it is consensual sex work, it is repressive and oppressive to tell people what to do with their bodies. It is also oppressive to condemn certain people (me included) to sexlessness.
Legalization does not mitigate, much less eliminate forced prostitution. Apparently the 'free market' does not eliminate the ills that are commonly associated with prostitution, including the lack of freedom often associated with the practice.
You love to claim that, but have never actually shown it to be true. The numbers you cited are by groups that use the bogus "trafficking = moving for sex work, even if consensually" definition, which will obviously yield high numbers when you legalize sex work.
I'll go with Homeland security's definition: Human trafficking is modern-day slavery and involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to obtain some type of labor or commercial sex act.
But it is not the definition anti-trafficking groups use. You can't use their numbers and then pretend their numbers apply to trafficking under this definition.
Also, I would be wary of the word "coercion". It is kind of vague and has been abused by radfems before. Like when Ms. Magazine listed breaking up with a girlfriend who won't have sex with you as "coercing" her. Surely anybody, man or woman, is free to end a sexually unsatisfying relationship!
You should not make up shit because you don't like my opinion. It doesn't make you more right and it does make you look less open minded and less intelligent.
I am not making that up. For example, Marriott hotels have
"anti-trafficking" policy where they observe their (female, travelling alone) patrons for signs that they may be engaging in sex work and treat any instance of it as "trafficking". No force, fraud or coercion required. This is conflation of all sex work with trafficking, pure and simple.
I do believe that it is unwise to fuck people you don't actually know well enough to know that they are actually a willing participant. Regardless of whether money changes hands. For one thing, it opens the door to all kinds of valid criminal complaints.
You mean
invalid criminal complaints?
What's your solution? Go back to the age where premarital or casual sex are frowned upon?
I disagree with you. I am an actual liberal, in that I support freedom of individuals.
If that's too difficult: to actually be able to ascertain whether the person you intend to have sex with is willing (and legally able to give consent) to have sex with you, you should not be having sex.
And what does that mean in practice? Who should be presumed to be unwilling? All sex workers, according to you. But who else? Any woman who had anyhing to drink? Anybody you've known less than a month?
I believe the sheriff rather than someone whose job is politically driven.
The sheriff is also an elected official. And he is also closely linked to the sting, and has vested interest in yielding some convictions, especially given the nature of the highly intrusive surveillance.
By the way, what do you think of that surveillance? Are you all right with it because it targets sex work?
Not magnanimous at all. Just reality. If you force somebody into labor, sexual or otherwise, you are a vile piece of shit and you should go to prison.
But being a sex worker and hiring a sex worker should be perfectly legal in a free society.
How do you know that she owns her own massage parlor?
How do we know anything? In this case, I've known her for years and we talked. \
You must think she must be forced into it because you can't abide the idea that some woman would have paid sex of her own free will. That work is not for everybody, for sure, but those who want to do it should not have nanny-state prohibit them.
Nor do you because that's not what you care about, is it?
Wrong. I care far more about sex workers than you do about men who, for whatever reason, seek out this kind of companionship.
. Is she trafficking herself?
