Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

Jimmy Higgins said:

thebeave said:

Jimmy Higgins said:

thebeave said:

ZiprHead said:

Click to expand...

He said "take care of it", not "dealt with". Anyway, its kind of a stretch to assume that CK meant "lynching" to be synonymous with "take care of it". "Take care of it" can just be a man stepping up and telling Lia (an intact male) to "get the fuck out of the women's locker room, NOW". She's putting words in his mouth by claiming he was talking about lynching. Also, CK was also referring to just this one event involving Riley Gaines and a transgender individual (Lia Thomas), and not "calling for violence against us" (i.e. all transgenders) or "openly calling for the lynching of transgender individuals".

That tweet is a giant clusterfuck.

Click to expand...

Yes, but also no. Take care of it like in the 50s and 60s, which didn't mean to exclude from locker rooms. It meant forced conversion therapy. Old school medically backed torture of sorts.

As a note the Twitter post is from 2023.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about what gays and transgender people were subjected to in the 1950s and 1960s in what was considered ethical medical treatment, that today we consider quite barberic. I said so in the post you quoted.

If Kirk meant simply to deny them access, he chose his words poorly.

Click to expand...

Not only would have chosen his words poorly, he would have said something completely different.

Btw, He wasn't merely talking about locker rooms and sports, he made a sidebar about men becoming non-men these days and how he wished it were like back in the olden days. If he were ONLY talking about sports in the sidebar, he'd then be talking about the 80s or 90s or some other time period after the 60s. Transgenders in sports only became an issue in the early 2000s.

In other quotes, Kirk has called transgender people mentally ill. So, yes, this is what he was talking about. He's saying if we just consider them mentally ill, throw them in institutions--whatever was done in the 50s and 60s--then it solves the sports problem.

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

He's only going after non-citizens so far. That has to be normalized before he goes after Americans.

Click to expand...

If by ‘Americans’ you mean white, sure. But if you mean Black & Latinos who ‘look’ like undocumented immigrants, it’s already normalized. Citizens are being picked up by ICE on suspicion alone, and the right shrugs it off with, ‘Well, once they prove citizenship, they’re let go. That sounds normalized already IMO.

• Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez Wrongfully detained by ICE in Florida for nearly 48 hours despite his citizenship claim. PBS
• Leonardo Garcia Venegas Born in Florida (U.S. citizen), he was detained during a workplace raid in Alabama. His REAL ID was dismissed as “fake” by officials, even after he claimed citizenship. The Guardian
• Peter Sean Brown (ongoing case from past detention) A federal court recently ruled in his favor over a 2018 incident where he was misidentified and held by ICE. American Civil Liberties Union+2Florida Phoenix+2

But of course you wouldn't imagine this is already happening because it's not happening to white people. And honestly, it makes sense you wouldn’t notice, because white people aren’t ICE’s targets.

The claim that America no longer has systemic racism is the biggest lie some Americans keep telling themselves.

Click to expand...

Please note that I said "goes after".

What you are showing is that they don't care too much whether they got the right person or not, that that they are targeting Americans. That will come, just not yet.

Click to expand...

You used the word ‘normalized’, my point is that for some American citizens (especially those most affected right now), it is normalized. I get that you don't see that in your own comment, because I don’t understand you either.

Playball40 said:

Yikes. I almost agree with Derec. Can't believe I'm writing that. I believe that IF the woman is in her right mind (not being trafficked due to an addiction or debt) AND she chooses to sell her services on HER terms, then I see no moral issue. It should be legal. That is a lot of qualifiers, but that is my thoughts.

Click to expand...

Addiction doesn't cause trafficking, although people will use the approach of getting someone hooked to make it hard for them to walk away.

And note that "trafficking" is vastly overreported, the vast majority is simply prostitution. At the lower end of the market it can be useful to the prostitute to move around frequently, businesses which facilitate that are not engaging in trafficking. (Moving around will likely scuttle any ongoing police investigation and being new is a selling point.)

Jimmy Higgins said:

I'm talking about what gays and transgender people were subjected to in the 1950s and 1960s in what was considered ethical medical treatment, that today we consider quite barberic. I said so in the post you quoted.

If Kirk meant simply to deny them access, he chose his words poorly.

Click to expand...

And note how so often it's a matter of saying things in a way that people can pretend it's not evil when everyone is supposed to understand the real message.

The number of people in this thread who don't get what "dealing with them like we did in the 50s" means is a shining testimony to the ugly reality of social privilege. You pampered little shitbags honestly have no comprehension of what it would be like to be truly discriminated against as a class. Like, it's not just that you have never been targeted, apparently you cannot even imagine what it would be like. Your coddled, pampered asses have no equivalent experience on which such empathy could even be cultivated. Jesus, how nice it must be! To just go outside and not once have to think "is someone going to rape or murder me today?" Except it isn't nice, because you've never known anything else, so you just take it for granted. I get it. When all you eat is caviar, it's just another fish. Spoiled little shits. I was seven years old the first time an adult sexually harassed and then beat the shit of me for being queer, and I didn't even know that about myself at the time. Seven. Fuck. Little seven year old woke "terrorist", I guess. Playing the wrong game on the playground. Assaulting the Church and State with a dollie. What a threat.

But you guys are also incredibly stupid if you think the Nazis won't eventually come for you too, when they are done with us. You may be oblivious about specific things, but even you have read too much, know too much, and care too much. They may come for you last, but you aren't safe from them. No contrarian ever is. Participating on an "Infidel" website is a disappearance order all by itself, when a theocratic regime is truly in the ascendancy. Naive, doomed fools. It would be tragic, if you weren't taking so many good people down with you. But as it stands, when your number comes up the only people who would have cared about your plight will have preceded you.

Toni said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Spanish Inquisition: Taking from those who had more wealth than political power to protect themselves. It wasn't anything like genocide.

Crusades: Note what I said about armed. The Crusades were part of the longstanding Christianity/Islam conflict.

Indians: Again, note armed. Yes, they were defending their territory but it was a reaction to armed conflict, not genocide of an uninvolved group. In the ballpark with what's happening in Africa but nowhere near as brutal.

Click to expand...

I dunno. Making lampshades out of human skin is pretty hard core. The intent behind the Indian wars was to exterminate the indigenous. Sounds pretty genocidal to me.

Click to expand...

No. Horrible, yes. Genocide, no.

And the attempts to exterminate were a reaction to a long-standing conflict. Very wrong, but not simply trying to exterminate a population for not being on your side.

Toni said:

Of course greed was/the primary motive, just as it was the primary motivation behind the Crusades. Both the Indian wars and the Crusades had religious backing and motivation but mostly religion was used as the justification.

Re: Spanish Inquisition, from Wikipedia:

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Inquisition was originally intended primarily to identify heretics among those who converted from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. The regulation of the faith of newly converted Catholics intensified following royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1502ordering Jews and Muslims to either convert to Catholicism, leave Castile or face death.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#cite_note-AD2-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a>Hundreds of thousands of forced conversions, torture and executions, the persecution of conversos and moriscos, and the mass expulsions of Jews and Muslims from Spain all followed.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#cite_note-Prien20122-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a> The inquisition expanded to other domains under the Spanish Crown, including Southern Italy and the Americas, while also targeting those accused of alumbradismo,Protestantism, witchcraft, blasphemy, bigamy, sodomy, Freemasonry, etc.

Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like genocide with, again, the primary motivation being greed, all wrapped up in false piety.

Click to expand...

It was presented as religious, but when you look at the victims it was robbery. Same as with Rwanda--most of the dead in that "genocide" make little sense as victims of genocide but look far more like an opportunity to settle old issues or to bring about inheritance earlier.

Toni said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

He's only going after non-citizens so far. That has to be normalized before he goes after Americans.

Click to expand...

If by ‘Americans’ you mean white, sure. But if you mean Black & Latinos who ‘look’ like undocumented immigrants, it’s already normalized. Citizens are being picked up by ICE on suspicion alone, and the right shrugs it off with, ‘Well, once they prove citizenship, they’re let go. That sounds normalized already IMO.

• Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez Wrongfully detained by ICE in Florida for nearly 48 hours despite his citizenship claim. PBS
• Leonardo Garcia Venegas Born in Florida (U.S. citizen), he was detained during a workplace raid in Alabama. His REAL ID was dismissed as “fake” by officials, even after he claimed citizenship. The Guardian
• Peter Sean Brown (ongoing case from past detention) A federal court recently ruled in his favor over a 2018 incident where he was misidentified and held by ICE. American Civil Liberties Union+2Florida Phoenix+2

But of course you wouldn't imagine this is already happening because it's not happening to white people. And honestly, it makes sense you wouldn’t notice, because white people aren’t ICE’s targets.

The claim that America no longer has systemic racism is the biggest lie some Americans keep telling themselves.

Click to expand...

Please note that I said "goes after".

What you are showing is that they don't care too much whether they got the right person or not, that that they are targeting Americans. That will come, just not yet.

Click to expand...

No: The actual purpose of the ICE raids and indiscriminate taking of persons who don’t look sufficiently White American is:
1. To demonstrate Trump’s strong man bona fides.
2. Money. Huge amounts of money are being spent ( ie given to the ‘right’ people) and power.
3. To strike fear in every single person living in the US or contemplating coming here to visit, to work or make a life.

You may feel safe enough because your wife is Asian but you should not be so comfortable in your assumptions there. I am not.

Click to expand...

Did you not notice the part where I said "just not yet"? I don't consider either of us safe, but I don't think there is an imminent risk.

Loren Pechtel said:

Jimmy Higgins said:

I'm talking about what gays and transgender people were subjected to in the 1950s and 1960s in what was considered ethical medical treatment, that today we consider quite barberic. I said so in the post you quoted.

If Kirk meant simply to deny them access, he chose his words poorly.

Click to expand...

And note how so often it's a matter of saying things in a way that people can pretend it's not evil when everyone is supposed to understand the real message.

Click to expand...

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

He's only going after non-citizens so far. That has to be normalized before he goes after Americans.

Click to expand...

If by ‘Americans’ you mean white, sure. But if you mean Black & Latinos who ‘look’ like undocumented immigrants, it’s already normalized. Citizens are being picked up by ICE on suspicion alone, and the right shrugs it off with, ‘Well, once they prove citizenship, they’re let go. That sounds normalized already IMO.

• Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez Wrongfully detained by ICE in Florida for nearly 48 hours despite his citizenship claim. PBS
• Leonardo Garcia Venegas Born in Florida (U.S. citizen), he was detained during a workplace raid in Alabama. His REAL ID was dismissed as “fake” by officials, even after he claimed citizenship. The Guardian
• Peter Sean Brown (ongoing case from past detention) A federal court recently ruled in his favor over a 2018 incident where he was misidentified and held by ICE. American Civil Liberties Union+2Florida Phoenix+2

But of course you wouldn't imagine this is already happening because it's not happening to white people. And honestly, it makes sense you wouldn’t notice, because white people aren’t ICE’s targets.

The claim that America no longer has systemic racism is the biggest lie some Americans keep telling themselves.

Click to expand...

Please note that I said "goes after".

What you are showing is that they don't care too much whether they got the right person or not, that that they are targeting Americans. That will come, just not yet.

Click to expand...

You used the word ‘normalized’, my point is that for some American citizens (especially those most affected right now), it is normalized. I get that you don't see that in your own comment, because I don’t understand you either.

Click to expand...

They have to normalize going after non-citizens before they can go after citizens without getting too much pushback. Doesn't mean I think they won't eventually go after citizens.

Loren Pechtel said:

TSwizzle said:

Jimmy Higgins said:

The reason why some people are stuck on two genders is inertia, in some part religious based inertia.

Click to expand...

Nope, it's science and biology.

Click to expand...

Gender is a social construct. Why does society even need to pay attention to it? It's clearly relevant to romantic situations but otherwise I think it's not the government's business.

Click to expand...

I don’t think it need be relevant to romantic situations. That’s not “clearly” true.

Ask Charlie how many genders or sexes there are.
This is HIS damn thread.
R.I.P. Chas
(rest in purgatory)
Hermaphroditic humans are said to exist, though that might just be a rumor.
Does that mean there are nonetheless still only two two sexes or genders, just that one person could have both of them?
Such individual should they exist, would surely be ostracized. Fear of and revulsion to Others™ is quite universal.

Loren Pechtel said:

Toni said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Spanish Inquisition: Taking from those who had more wealth than political power to protect themselves. It wasn't anything like genocide.

Crusades: Note what I said about armed. The Crusades were part of the longstanding Christianity/Islam conflict.

Indians: Again, note armed. Yes, they were defending their territory but it was a reaction to armed conflict, not genocide of an uninvolved group. In the ballpark with what's happening in Africa but nowhere near as brutal.

Click to expand...

I dunno. Making lampshades out of human skin is pretty hard core. The intent behind the Indian wars was to exterminate the indigenous. Sounds pretty genocidal to me.

Click to expand...

No. Horrible, yes. Genocide, no.

And the attempts to exterminate were a reaction to a long-standing conflict. Very wrong, but not simply trying to exterminate a population for not being on your side.

Toni said:

Of course greed was/the primary motive, just as it was the primary motivation behind the Crusades. Both the Indian wars and the Crusades had religious backing and motivation but mostly religion was used as the justification.

Re: Spanish Inquisition, from Wikipedia:

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Inquisition was originally intended primarily to identify heretics among those who converted from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. The regulation of the faith of newly converted Catholics intensified following royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1502ordering Jews and Muslims to either convert to Catholicism, leave Castile or face death.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#cite_note-AD2-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a>Hundreds of thousands of forced conversions, torture and executions, the persecution of conversos and moriscos, and the mass expulsions of Jews and Muslims from Spain all followed.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#cite_note-Prien20122-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a> The inquisition expanded to other domains under the Spanish Crown, including Southern Italy and the Americas, while also targeting those accused of alumbradismo,Protestantism, witchcraft, blasphemy, bigamy, sodomy, Freemasonry, etc.

Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like genocide with, again, the primary motivation being greed, all wrapped up in false piety.

Click to expand...

It was presented as religious, but when you look at the victims it was robbery. Same as with Rwanda--most of the dead in that "genocide" make little sense as victims of genocide but look far more like an opportunity to settle old issues or to bring about inheritance earlier.

Click to expand...

The motivation behind all most all genocide (which included indigenous people in what is now the USA) was always money. Always. It's what is truly behind the Israel/Palestinian conflict, although it is dressed up in religion, as these things certainly most often are. Few are willing to admit their genocidal intentions. Hamas is unique in that they are, in fact, open about their desire to eliminate all Jews world wide. They are quite the exception. Hitler's extermination of Jews and other 'undesirables' was about power but also money. What happened to all of the wealth held by Jewish people?

Loren Pechtel said:

Playball40 said:

Yikes. I almost agree with Derec. Can't believe I'm writing that. I believe that IF the woman is in her right mind (not being trafficked due to an addiction or debt) AND she chooses to sell her services on HER terms, then I see no moral issue. It should be legal. That is a lot of qualifiers, but that is my thoughts.

Click to expand...

Addiction doesn't cause trafficking, although people will use the approach of getting someone hooked to make it hard for them to walk away.

And note that "trafficking" is vastly overreported, the vast majority is simply prostitution. At the lower end of the market it can be useful to the prostitute to move around frequently, businesses which facilitate that are not engaging in trafficking. (Moving around will likely scuttle any ongoing police investigation and being new is a selling point.)

Click to expand...

I didn't say it did. But it is commonly used as a way to traffic and exploit women and the second you 'add' a pimp to the mix, it is easy to assume there is exploitation and trafficking involved. And there is no such thing as 'simple prostitution'.

Toni said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Toni said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Spanish Inquisition: Taking from those who had more wealth than political power to protect themselves. It wasn't anything like genocide.

Crusades: Note what I said about armed. The Crusades were part of the longstanding Christianity/Islam conflict.

Indians: Again, note armed. Yes, they were defending their territory but it was a reaction to armed conflict, not genocide of an uninvolved group. In the ballpark with what's happening in Africa but nowhere near as brutal.

Click to expand...

I dunno. Making lampshades out of human skin is pretty hard core. The intent behind the Indian wars was to exterminate the indigenous. Sounds pretty genocidal to me.

Click to expand...

No. Horrible, yes. Genocide, no.

And the attempts to exterminate were a reaction to a long-standing conflict. Very wrong, but not simply trying to exterminate a population for not being on your side.

Toni said:

Of course greed was/the primary motive, just as it was the primary motivation behind the Crusades. Both the Indian wars and the Crusades had religious backing and motivation but mostly religion was used as the justification.

Re: Spanish Inquisition, from Wikipedia:

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Inquisition was originally intended primarily to identify heretics among those who converted from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. The regulation of the faith of newly converted Catholics intensified following royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1502ordering Jews and Muslims to either convert to Catholicism, leave Castile or face death.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#cite_note-AD2-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a>Hundreds of thousands of forced conversions, torture and executions, the persecution of conversos and moriscos, and the mass expulsions of Jews and Muslims from Spain all followed.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#cite_note-Prien20122-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a> The inquisition expanded to other domains under the Spanish Crown, including Southern Italy and the Americas, while also targeting those accused of alumbradismo,Protestantism, witchcraft, blasphemy, bigamy, sodomy, Freemasonry, etc.

Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like genocide with, again, the primary motivation being greed, all wrapped up in false piety.

Click to expand...

It was presented as religious, but when you look at the victims it was robbery. Same as with Rwanda--most of the dead in that "genocide" make little sense as victims of genocide but look far more like an opportunity to settle old issues or to bring about inheritance earlier.

Click to expand...

The motivation behind all most all genocide (which included indigenous people in what is now the USA) was always money. Always. It's what is truly behind the Israel/Palestinian conflict, although it is dressed up in religion, as these things certainly most often are. Few are willing to admit their genocidal intentions. Hamas is unique in that they are, in fact, open about their desire to eliminate all Jews world wide. They are quite the exception. Hitler's extermination of Jews and other 'undesirables' was about power but also money. What happened to all of the wealth held by Jewish people?

Click to expand...

That's unfair. Sometimes it's about land.

crazyfingers said:

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you for the most part. But I think the very aggressive trans activism ruined the goodwill they had as a part of the general LGBT movement and its successes.
Demanding that biological males compete in women's sports being the most obvious instance where they overshot and lost most people.

There is also the issue of non-binary being a marker for far left political activism rather than a genuine gender identity in many cases. Example: violent opposition to the police and fire training center in Atlanta. I think this kind of non-binary is kind of like political lesbianism of the 70s.

Loren Pechtel said:

"trafficking" is vastly overreported,

Click to expand...

Source please.
And how do you/they know how much trafficking is NEVER reported, if it was never reported?
I suspect the opposite is true and trafficking is VASTLY underreported, but I look forward to learning novel ways to know things like that.
I believe that some - maybe even most reported trafficking might be fuzzily defined as prostitution or not depending on venue and other things, but you are making a straightforward assertion that you KNOW how much trafficking goes unreported.
What makes you say that?

Jimmy Higgins said:

thebeave said:

Jimmy Higgins said:

thebeave said:

ZiprHead said:

Click to expand...

He said "take care of it", not "dealt with". Anyway, its kind of a stretch to assume that CK meant "lynching" to be synonymous with "take care of it". "Take care of it" can just be a man stepping up and telling Lia (an intact male) to "get the fuck out of the women's locker room, NOW". She's putting words in his mouth by claiming he was talking about lynching. Also, CK was also referring to just this one event involving Riley Gaines and a transgender individual (Lia Thomas), and not "calling for violence against us" (i.e. all transgenders) or "openly calling for the lynching of transgender individuals".

That tweet is a giant clusterfuck.

Click to expand...

Yes, but also no. Take care of it like in the 50s and 60s, which didn't mean to exclude from locker rooms. It meant forced conversion therapy. Old school medically backed torture of sorts.

As a note the Twitter post is from 2023.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about what gays and transgender people were subjected to in the 1950s and 1960s in what was considered ethical medical treatment, that today we consider quite barberic. I said so in the post you quoted.

If Kirk meant simply to deny them access, he chose his words poorly.

Click to expand...

I don't think he meant medical treatment at all. He didn't say "doctors", he said "men". What did men in the 50s and 60s do when they encountered gay or trans people? They beat them up, or worse.

Playball40 said:

I didn't say it did. But it is commonly used as a way to traffic and exploit women

Click to expand...

How do you define "trafficking" anyway? Or "exploitation"? Loren is right that "trafficking" has been a grossly misused word by prohibitionists. They tend to see trafficking anytime a sex worker moves, esp. across country lines.
So, if a Polish woman moves to Germany to work as a waitress, or work in a hair salon, because she can make more money in Germany, no problem. EU-Freizügigkeit, as the Germans would say.
But if a Polish woman moves to Germany to work as a sex worker because she can make more money in Germany, that's defined as "trafficking" and used to advocate for adoption of the Swedish model EU-wide.

and the second you 'add' a pimp to the mix, it is easy to assume there is exploitation and trafficking involved.

Click to expand...

Again, how do you define "pimp"? Just because sex workers work in an establishment does not mean they are there against their will. And many "anti-pimping" laws apply to people employed by the sex worker too, not the other way around.

And there is no such thing as 'simple prostitution'.

Click to expand...

Why not? It should be seen as a service profession like any other.

Derec said:

crazyfingers said:

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you for the most part. But I think the very aggressive trans activism ruined the goodwill they had as a part of the general LGBT movement and its successes.
Demanding that biological males compete in women's sports being the most obvious instance where they overshot and lost most people.

There is also the issue of non-binary being a marker for far left political activism rather than a genuine gender identity in many cases.T Example: violent opposition to the police and fire training center in Atlanta. I think this kind of non-binary is kind of like political lesbianism of the 70s.

Click to expand...

Excuse me all to hell?

Derec said:

Playball40 said:

I didn't say it did. But it is commonly used as a way to traffic and exploit women

Click to expand...

How do you define "trafficking" anyway? Or "exploitation"? Loren is right that "trafficking" has been a grossly misused word by prohibitionists. They tend to see trafficking anytime a sex worker moves, esp. across country lines.
So, if a Polish woman moves to Germany to work as a waitress, or work in a hair salon, because she can make more money in Germany, no problem. EU-Freizügigkeit, as the Germans would say.
But if a Polish woman moves to Germany to work as a sex worker because she can make more money in Germany, that's defined as "trafficking" and used to advocate for adoption of the Swedish model EU-wide.

and the second you 'add' a pimp to the mix, it is easy to assume there is exploitation and trafficking involved.

Click to expand...

Again, how do you define "pimp"? Just because sex workers work in an establishment does not mean they are there against their will. And many "anti-pimping" laws apply to people employed by the sex worker too, not the other way around.

And there is no such thing as 'simple prostitution'.

Click to expand...

Why not? It should be seen as a service profession like any other.

Click to expand...

If a Polish woman moves to Germany to work as a waitress because she can earn more money in Germany than she can in Poland but instead is forced into working as a prostitute, it's trafficking. Period.

If a 15 year old run away is taken under the wing of an older person, who cares for them and provides them something like a home: roof, food, and then begins to pressure them into having sex with a friend because 'they need the money' and it turns into a regular thing, then, that's trafficking. And in the US, illegal as a 15 year old cannot legally consent to sex work.