NFL team owner Robert Kraft was swept up in a bust of a sex-trafficking day spa

[Loren Pechtel]

Simply walk out with a customer. Think they're going to use force to stop them and risk the customer reporting it as a kidnapping?

I sure don’t think a customer is likely to do a damn thing to help a sex slave. For one thing, that would mean recognizing that the person was A) a person and B) might not be there entirely of their own free will and c) that would imply that the customer may have done something bad. Most people really prefer to think well of themselves.

I think you have an unrealistic idea of what those who partake of prostitutes are like.

Most want nothing to do with raping the unwilling. While not every customer would report a girl being forced not to leave many would--which means restraining her would be very risky indeed. Furthermore, if you make prostitution legal you make it even more risky to try to restrain someone.

You realize many police departments have ways to provide information anonymously? Even when rewards are involved it can still be anonymous--they give you a code and a bank, you can go pick up the reward from the bank by providing only the code, not any identification.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Simply walk out with a customer. Think they're going to use force to stop them and risk the customer reporting it as a kidnapping?

Are you fucking serious? Did you mean this as a joke post or do you think the customers would actually do that as opposed to getting as far away from the situation as quickly as possible?

Even if they were part of the small subset of people who both ignore the obvious fact that they’re probably raping a second slave and want to help those slaves when it’s pointed out to them, your scenario is a woman saying to them “You’ve just come alone to this out of the way place which I have just told you is being run by an international gang of criminals. How about you help me piss them off and cost them a bunch of money”. Does that sound like a viable basis of a plan to you?

I am expecting the customer would get as far away from the situation as fast as possible. They very well might then call 911, though. That's a huge risk for the brothel.

- - - Updated - - -

It's relevant to looking at whether they would do so willingly. If being "forced" here is better than their situation at home they're not going to choose to report it and get sent home--thus they are doing it voluntarily.

Um, no. That's like saying if you hand your wallet over to a robber on the street, you did so voluntarily, because it is better than being shot dead. He's still a robber. He still took that wallet against your will. And if the girl is there unwillingly, the living conditions back where she came from are not relevant.

It is relevant. If she has the option to get sent home instead but chooses to remain in the brothel because the conditions are better she's not doing it unwillingly.

 

[Toni]

I am expecting the customer would get as far away from the situation as fast as possible. They very well might then call 911, though. That's a huge risk for the brothel.

- - - Updated - - -

It's relevant to looking at whether they would do so willingly. If being "forced" here is better than their situation at home they're not going to choose to report it and get sent home--thus they are doing it voluntarily.

Um, no. That's like saying if you hand your wallet over to a robber on the street, you did so voluntarily, because it is better than being shot dead. He's still a robber. He still took that wallet against your will. And if the girl is there unwillingly, the living conditions back where she came from are not relevant.

It is relevant. If she has the option to get sent home instead but chooses to remain in the brothel because the conditions are better she's not doing it unwillingly.

Reminds me of a guy I knew whose view was that if the woman quit fighting before she was killed or passed out, it really wasn’t rape.

 

[laughing dog]

Simply walk out with a customer. Think they're going to use force to stop them and risk the customer reporting it as a kidnapping?

I sure don’t think a customer is likely to do a damn thing to help a sex slave. For one thing, that would mean recognizing that the person was A) a person and B) might not be there entirely of their own free will and c) that would imply that the customer may have done something bad. Most people really prefer to think well of themselves.

I think you have an unrealistic idea of what those who partake of prostitutes are like.

Most want nothing to do with raping the unwilling. While not every customer would report a girl being forced not to leave many would--which means restraining her would be very risky indeed.

On what basis do you make these observations? While I have no experience whatsoever with prostitution, somehow I doubt most johns do not bother asking if his servicer is willing or not or if she is being held against her will.

Furthermore, if you make prostitution legal you make it even more risky to try to restrain someone.

Irrelevant to the discussion since in this situation, prostitution is illegal.

You realize many police departments have ways to provide information anonymously? Even when rewards are involved it can still be anonymous--they give you a code and a bank, you can go pick up the reward from the bank by providing only the code, not any identification.

You are shifting the goalposts because you advocated the inane proposition that these women could simply walk out with a john. And why would a john risk having his favorite whorehouse closed down?

 

[Derec]

Surprise, surprise, no "trafficking" after all.
Prosecutor in Robert Kraft massage parlor case concedes 'no human trafficking' found in investigation despite previous claims

In the Florida massage parlor case that left Patriots owner Robert Kraft facing two misdemeanor counts of solicitation of prostitution, Palm Beach prosecutor Greg Kridos reportedly conceded Friday that "There is no human trafficking that arises out of this investigation."

The admission stands in contrast to earlier statements made by police and prosecutors about the case.

But I am sure Toni and other illiberals will continue insisting that there is, because it's become an article of faith by now for them to equate all sex work with "trafficking".


Time to dismiss all charges, and most importantly, repeal laws criminalizing consensual sex work.

 

[thebeave]

Makes you wonder who's running the show down there. Maybe this guy?



Ahhhh...Nothing to see here folks. Move along now. No international sex trafficking ring...just an old white guy getting the Wednesday Rub-n-Tug $12.99 special. Let's keep it moving. Go back to your homes.

 

[laughing dog]

But I am sure Toni and other illiberals will continue insisting that there is, because it's become an article of faith by now for them to equate all sex work with "trafficking".

The fact these women were prevented from leaving the establishment and had their passports taken from them is immaterial to what was going on there.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Surprise, surprise, no "trafficking" after all.
Prosecutor in Robert Kraft massage parlor case concedes 'no human trafficking' found in investigation despite previous claims

In the Florida massage parlor case that left Patriots owner Robert Kraft facing two misdemeanor counts of solicitation of prostitution, Palm Beach prosecutor Greg Kridos reportedly conceded Friday that "There is no human trafficking that arises out of this investigation."

The admission stands in contrast to earlier statements made by police and prosecutors about the case.

But I am sure Toni and other illiberals will continue insisting that there is, because it's become an article of faith by now for them to equate all sex work with "trafficking".


Time to dismiss all charges, and most importantly, repeal laws criminalizing consensual sex work.

Uh ... no. They said they couldn’t prove it. For all the reasons like we’re mentioned in the thread. That’s miles different from it not happening.

 

[Toni]

Surprise, surprise, no "trafficking" after all.
Prosecutor in Robert Kraft massage parlor case concedes 'no human trafficking' found in investigation despite previous claims

In the Florida massage parlor case that left Patriots owner Robert Kraft facing two misdemeanor counts of solicitation of prostitution, Palm Beach prosecutor Greg Kridos reportedly conceded Friday that "There is no human trafficking that arises out of this investigation."

The admission stands in contrast to earlier statements made by police and prosecutors about the case.

But I am sure Toni and other illiberals will continue insisting that there is, because it's become an article of faith by now for them to equate all sex work with "trafficking".


Time to dismiss all charges, and most importantly, repeal laws criminalizing consensual sex work.

There’s also no collusion, nothing to see here, Trump for life!

 

[Derec]

But I am sure Toni and other illiberals will continue insisting that there is, because it's become an article of faith by now for them to equate all sex work with "trafficking".

The fact these women were prevented from leaving the establishment and had their passports taken from them is immaterial to what was going on there.

That is not a "fact". That was the initial claim by the sheriff that the prosecutor now admits there is no evidence for.

- - - Updated - - -

There’s also no collusion, nothing to see here, Trump for life!

I did not expect anything better from you.
Incidentally, your "damn the evidence or lack thereof" attitude is rather similar to Trump ...

 

[Derec]

Uh ... no. They said they couldn’t prove it. For all the reasons like we’re mentioned in the thread. That’s miles different from it not happening.

No evidence is no evidence. You can't claim there is "human trafficking" just because you want it to be true, regardless of there not being any evidence for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Makes you wonder who's running the show down there. Maybe this guy?

Maybe. And he was so eager to arrest everybody to arrest the Helen Lovejoy/Toni types in his county ...

 

[laughing dog]

That is not a "fact". That was the initial claim by the sheriff that the prosecutor now admits there is no evidence for.

The prosecutor admitted they had no evidence for trafficking. The prosecutor did not admit there was no evidence of seized passports or that the women were prevented from leaving the premises. Seizure of passports or prevention of leaving the premises can occur without trafficking.

 

[Derec]

The prosecutor admitted they had no evidence for trafficking. The prosecutor did not admit there was no evidence of seized passports or that the women were prevented from leaving the premises.

He did not say there was any evidence for these things either. If there was any evidence for these things, he would surely have mentioned it, as that would be quite shady.

Seizure of passports or prevention of leaving the premises can occur without trafficking.

Haven't you guys been saying that these things were indicative of trafficking? What exactly are you trying to argue here, if anything at all?

 

[Derec]

Like raping people?

No, not like raping people. Everybody here is against raping people.
What you are against is any exchange of sex for money, including consensual adult sex work.

Because that's what having sex with individuals who are trafficked is: raping someone who is unwilling but is being coerced.

Note that there is zero evidence that any involuntary sex work occurred here. And even in places where there is involuntary sex work occurring, the rape is by those doing the forcing, not the unknowing customer. Just like if you hire a cleaning lady, and unbeknownst to you, she is coerced into doing that work for her employer, it is them who are guilty of forced labor, not you.

I do object to that. Don't you?

I do. Everybody here does, I think. But you are objecting to much, much more than that, which is why your response is rather disingenuous.

 

[Derec]

These particular women appear to have had no agency in their "professional" life, according to the news reports.

But not according to evidence, as prosecutor had to admit.

Whether they were voluntarily trafficked or not is not relevant to the issue of whether they were, in essence, raped (which is Toni's point).

That sentence makes no sense at all. What it shows that you prohibitionists have muddled the concept of "trafficking" so badly, not even you can remember what you are supposed to mean by it.

Yet, you, LP and Derec persist in harping about the trafficking definition as if it matters, when it does not in this discussion. Your MO of persistent in sniping at a woman poster over her failure to rise to your level of moral outrage or to address your irrelevant issues is both extremely tiresome and revealing. But smile, it is almost the weekend.

Neither does any of this.

 

[Toni]

No, not like raping people. Everybody here is against raping people.
What you are against is any exchange of sex for money, including consensual adult sex work.


Note that there is zero evidence that any involuntary sex work occurred here. And even in places where there is involuntary sex work occurring, the rape is by those doing the forcing, not the unknowing customer. Just like if you hire a cleaning lady, and unbeknownst to you, she is coerced into doing that work for her employer, it is them who are guilty of forced labor, not you.

I do object to that. Don't you?

I do. Everybody here does, I think. But you are objecting to much, much more than that, which is why your response is rather disingenuous.

I don't agree with anything you wrote.

There certainly is evidence of coercion, of at the very least unfair labor practices and probably trafficking, even if the prosecutors have decided not to pursue trafficking charges. Trafficking is notoriously difficult to prove in a court of law. That does not mean that trafficking is rare or isn't known to have occurred in the past or in the present. It is difficult to understand why more isn't being done to stop the trafficking of people.

If I hire a cleaning lady who I suspect may not be a US citizen, or might not be willing to perform the job I hired for her to do, then I have a certain amount of responsibility to perform due diligence that she is working legally and willingly. I might not be knowingly forcing her to work against her will but I am contributing to her problem if I do not perform due diligence to ensure that she is willing and legal. I am part of the coercion. One cannot simply say one didn't know. That is why employers are required to verify that workers are of legal age, have SS numbers, etc.

If I hire someone to perform sex acts and that person is unwilling, I am guilty of rape even if I did not know that person was unwilling, just as I would be guilty of statutory rape if I didn't know that the person was under legal age of consent. I have a responsibility to know that the person I am engaging in sex with is doing so willingly and is of legal age to consent and also is not under the influence of substances that interfere with their ability to make sound judgments or act in their own behalf. My intention may not be to rape but I cannot simply claim innocence if I did nothing to ensure that the other person was of legal age, willing and not under the influence.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A: oh baby you are so hot, fuck me now!
B: are you sure you are willing?
A: oh yes baby
B: Are you on drugs?
A: what?
B: How old are you. Show me ID
A: um... Never mind.
B: I want you to sign this contract that says I didn't rape you
A: Rape me? What the fuck are you talking about? Go home.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Uh ... no. They said they couldn’t prove it. For all the reasons like we’re mentioned in the thread. That’s miles different from it not happening.

No evidence is no evidence. You can't claim there is "human trafficking" just because you want it to be true, regardless of there not being any evidence for it.

No, we can claim human trafficking if we get situations like this one with a bunch of women who are victims of human trafficking. We're not courts.

 

[laughing dog]

He did not say there was any evidence for these things either. If there was any evidence for these things, he would surely have mentioned it, as that would be quite shady.

Your fantasies about what motivates a prosecutor to say does not excuse your factually incorrect claim.

Haven't you guys been saying that these things were indicative of trafficking? What exactly are you trying to argue here, if anything at all?

They are evidence of trafficking. They are also evidence that the women were not there voluntarily

 

[laughing dog]

But not according to evidence, as prosecutor had to admit.

The prosecutor did not admit that. Strike one

That sentence makes no sense at all. What it shows that you prohibitionists have muddled the concept of "trafficking" so badly, not even you can remember what you are supposed to mean by it.

Of course it makes perfect sense. There are two issue: trafficking and rape. If the women could not leave when they wanted to and were forced to engage in sex acts against their will, they were raped regardless whether they were trafficked or not. Strike Two

Neither does any of this.

If you agree your responses are irrelevant, why do you persist? Strike Three - you're out.