Kamala the hypocrite

[Tom Sawyer]

nm

 

[Copernicus]

Well, that's like saying that prosecuting doctors for murdering babies in their mother's wombs isn't a problem where abortion is illegal because they broke the law.

I'm certain Harris would have prosecuted that case as well. You may not like her adherence to the letter of the law, but I wouldn't call her inconsistent or hypocritical about it. Throughout her legal career and even as state AG she had a very precise attitude toward laws as written, even laws that she might want to change given the opportunity to do so. Personally I appreciate this quality in an attourney general, but even if you don't, it is hardly hypocritical. Upholding a law and approving of it are not the same thing.

Thanks for pointing this out on the very first page of this thread, Poli, even though your point seems to have been ignored by just about everyone. A prosecutor's job is to enforce laws regardless of whether or not she approves of them. Another point that people seem to have missed (if my quick read of the thread responses was accurate) is that prostitution is not the same thing as having sex. A law against prostitution does not prohibit men or women from doing anything at all with their bodies. It prohibits them from selling sexual services.

Harris's tweet was made in the context of abortion, but Derec decided to stretch it into a general statement about doing anything at all with their bodies. However, he decided not to stretch his overly general interpretation so far that it reduced his point to an obvious absurdity. Ultimately, his reasoning would extend to all laws that tell women (or people) that they cannot just do whatever they please with their bodies, including robbery, arson, murder, etc. If you remove all intended context surrounding Harris's tweet (indicated by her use of the hashtag #SOTU), then all she said was that politicians should never tell women not to do anything. Harris never mentioned sex, abortion, or prostitution in her statement, so all of the discussion in this thread depends on people drawing inferences based on contexts not mentioned. It is absurd to ignore the obvious context that Harris intended but then go on to impute other specific contexts that she never intended at all.

 

[Toni]

You are not dumb, but you are very misguided on this issue.

I really don't think that I am. I've written this before but I will again. I always assumed that legalizing prostitution would reduce the very serious negative impacts of sex work on sex workers but my readings don't support that. And yes, I've read about all sorts of different models. That's why I oppose it. That's why I think it is immoral: not because I believe that sex outside the sanctity of marriage (or some such) is bad but because selling sex involves what I deem unacceptable risks to usually very young workers who are not necessarily willing. Or who didn't enter that line of work willingly but having been forced into that life for much of their adolescence simply cannot think of themselves in other ways or as good for anything else.

Anti-BP crusaders like Harris are anti-sex work in general, but know they can get more press by going "won't anybody think of the children".
In particular, the WaPo article you posted says nothing about BP helping advertisers use language about underage postings. So please do not continue to pretend it does.

I posted multiple links, Derec, which stated the words that BackPage would guide customers and certainly accepted from customers that indicate the person being prostituted was underage. Come on: if I can figure it out, I'm sure that any employee of Back Page could as well, not to mention the customers looking for young girls.

I understand that you have a personal stake in all of this

If a gay person is for legalization of gay sex/marriage do we use the fact that they have a personal stake as an argument against their position?
If a woman of reproductive age is for abortion rights, do we use the fact that she has a personal stake against her?
And note that in both these instances children are being used as a rhetorical and legal cudgel, just like you and Harris are doing against consensual, adult sex work.
The propaganda of linking gay people with pedophilia was very widespread. And of course, women who choose abortion and doctors who perform them are still often abused as "baby killers". And now the same tactic is being used to link all sex work with horrible child exploitation.

You are coming from the perspective of someone who uses those services, not someone who is providing those services. You don't have the same perspective as a prostitute. Please don't pretend that you do have.

but it's a lot less personal or important than what happens to all those underage girls who have no choice about being prostituted.

Yes, that is indeed horrible and of course I am against anybody, esp. minors, being forced into sex work. Perpetrators of such involuntary servitude should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I do not see what that has to do with sex work in general any more then pederasty has to do with gay sex in general.

Derec, the average age at which a prostitute begins to work in the sex industry is 15. The words average and 15 should horrify you. It does me.

Also, we should differentiate minors being forced into sex work and say a 16 year old posting an ad herself. I do not that think that's right, but she is not exactly a victim either.

A 16 year old is a minor. In many states, a 16 year old cannot consent to sex and in other states can only consent to sex with someone within a very narrow age difference--not adults. This is to recognize that teens have sex with each other but a teen having sex with an adult is in an inherently unequal position and is extremely likely to be exploited and used for the adult's purposes rather than allowed to grow up and develop into an adult as they should be.

A 16 year old is old enough to work at McDonalds for limited hours and (maybe) drive a car, with parental permission and under special circumstances. Because working more hours is detrimental to her primary task of getting an education and preparing herself for adult life, to self-determination. Driving a car is dangerous for the driver and the general public and is heavily restricted, especially for young drivers. Because they are not cognitively or emotionally ready to drive a car without limitations, are not able to assume responsibility for driving a car, cannot sign contracts, cannot apply for credit cards or bank accounts, cannot enlist in the military or sign a lease or get married or even get vaccinated without parental approval. They lack the maturity: cognitive, social, emotional to make such decisions, some or all of which have the potential to have profound influence over the rest of their entire lives. A 16 year old may have secondary sex characteristics and may menstruate but a 16 year old is not physically mature. Certainly not mentally, intellectually, cognitively, socially or intellectually mature. They ALL deserve the chance to grow up and get a decent education and enough nurturing and guidance to make decent decisions for themselves.

Before I read any of the links provided, can you at least admit that the WaPo article you first posted does not say what you claimed it said?
Also, nobody disputes that there isn't child exploitation. The problem is that you want to muddy all sex work just because there are instances of abuse.
Should all gays be condemned because pederasts exist?

Derec, I don't understand why you equate pederasts with gay people as though that is actually part of a continuum. Pederasty is simply a part of child prostitution, albeit often without bothering to actually pay the abused boy. Boys as well as girls are turned out or are forced to work as prostitutes BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO YOUNG TO BE HIRED FOR OTHER WORK and are on the streets because they ran away (often from sexual abuse), were thrown away (again, abuse is a common theme) or were abandoned for a variety of reasons. They should not have to place their bodies and their future reproductive health on the line for someone else's sexual pleasure.

You don't want to read about what these kids go through? That's on you. Because you'd rather be able to keep your fantasies alive than deal with reality.

 

[Derec]

To review, Kamala Harris is a hypocrite for being a prosecutor who thinks a legal procedure shouldn't be impeded by Government and an illegal act is well... illegal.

No, she is a politician who says that politicians should not be telling women what to do with their bodies while being very busy telling women what to do with their bodies.

 

[Patooka]

To review, Kamala Harris is a hypocrite for being a prosecutor who thinks a legal procedure shouldn't be impeded by Government and an illegal act is well... illegal.

No, she is a politician who says that politicians should not be telling women what to do with their bodies while being very busy telling women what to do with their bodies.

If Harris abused her role as prosecutor to further an agenda in the name of ethical and ideological purity, I'm pretty sure a certain someone would have started a thread about an unhinged black female prosecutor being uppity and overreaching her authority.

 

[Derec]

That is simply unproven. She was responding to a demand for making late term abortions illegal.

She was responding to them by appealing to a general principle. A general principle she violates in other areas. Hence, it is hypocritical.

There is no evidence she holds that as a general position.

Except she did state it as a general principle. We know she doesn't really believe that, hence the hypocrisy. You can't explain away her hypocrisy by saying "well she doesn't really hold the position she expressed". That is not defense against hypocrisy, that is the hypocrisy.

And I seriously doubt any thinking politician holds that as a general principle, since few, if any, people, let alone politicians, think it should be legal to permit women or men to get drunk and drive (and that is but one example).

That has to do with road safety, not telling people what to do with their bodies. Not a good analogy.

Hence the attempt to portray her as a hypocrite requires more information about her positions - something no one in this thread has bothered to attempt.

No, it does not. Her statement in that tweet was unqualified.

Furthermore, acting to stop sex trafficking is not the same as violating the general principal of not telling women what to do with their bodies even if the attempt is ham-handed.

But she doesn't (just) want to stop "sex trafficking". She wants to stop all commercial sex. That would be like (to take up your drunk driving example) wanting to ban all alcohol sales because some people might drive drunk. I.e. trying to prevent a real problem by going against things only tangentially related to it and negatively impacting the freedoms of a lot more people.

All in all, the OP position is a poorly reasoned childish swipe at a politician for making it more inconvenient for the poster to commit illegal acts.

Would you be saying the same things if the poster was a gay man pre-Lawrence and Kamala was for keeping gay sex illegal (possibly justifying it by pointing to necessity to fight pederasty)? After all, the gay poster just wants to "commit illegal acts", right?

- - - Updated - - -

If Harris abused her role as prosecutor to further an agenda in the name of ethical and ideological purity, I'm pretty sure a certain someone would have started a thread about an unhinged black female prosecutor being uppity and overreaching her authority.

She wrote that tweet as a politician (Senator from California) and is running for president. This thread does not have much to do with her having been a prosecutor in the past.

 

[Derec]

Thanks for pointing this out on the very first page of this thread, Poli, even though your point seems to have been ignored by just about everyone.

It's ignored because it is irrelevant. For one, prosecutors do enjoy prosecutorial discretion. It would have been legitimate for her to say that her office would only prosecute actual human traffickers, not sex workers or customers.
And more importantly, KH is a US Senator now. A politician. Somebody making laws. Her tweet and my thread was about what should or should not be legal, and the principle behind it.

A prosecutor's job is to enforce laws regardless of whether or not she approves of them.

Again,
a) prosecutorial discretion
b) she is no longer a prosecutor, but a Senator.

Another point that people seem to have missed (if my quick read of the thread responses was accurate) is that prostitution is not the same thing as having sex. A law against prostitution does not prohibit men or women from doing anything at all with their bodies. It prohibits them from selling sexual services.

Sex work is a particular mode of having sex. If a politician wants to tell people that they should not have sex for certain reasons, that is very much telling people what to do with their bodies. Sexual autonomy also means to be able to choose why one has or doesn't have sex.

Harris's tweet was made in the context of abortion, but Derec decided to stretch it into a general statement about doing anything at all with their bodies.

Yes. That's the hypocrisy. She attacked efforts to ban late term abortion with appeal to a general principle she violates in other areas. That is hypocrisy.

However, he decided not to stretch his overly general interpretation so far that it reduced his point to an obvious absurdity.

I know, I am a monster for only stretching a principle to the extent it makes sense.

Ultimately, his reasoning would extend to all laws that tell women (or people) that they cannot just do whatever they please with their bodies, including robbery, arson, murder, etc.

Now that is a pretty raggedy straw man you have constructed. If two people have sex and one leaves money on the dresser, only those two people are involved. Both consented. Not so if you rob or murder somebody.
It's like playing sports. You consent to a certain level of contact and risk of injury. Should Kamala Harris prohibit people from playing football because it's rightly illegal to tackle non-consenting people in the street?

It is absurd to ignore the obvious context that Harris intended but then go on to impute other specific contexts that she never intended at all.

No, it is not. If we applied your and ld's "reasoning" here, there would be no such thing as hypocrisy, as one could always appeal to narrowly constructed "context".

 

[Elixir]

If two people have sex and one leaves money on the dresser, only those two people are involved.

And two minutes after you leave, the pimp comes in and takes the money, gives the hooker a "bump" of heroine and tells her to get back to work.
Yeah, that's a real consensual relationship. But of course, you're only favoring independent hookers, right? So how do you verify?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

does "women choosing what they do with their bodies" include:

Suicide: Illegal
Body slamming, punching, slapping, etc: assault
physically obstructing: assault
late term abortion: still illegal in most states
under age drinking: illegal
adultery: civil violation - basis for divorce

??

Or, do women only have SOME choice about what they can do with their bodies? It seems there is precedent limiting what anyone can do with their bodies.

Good point.

And that's exactly the problem with the "She can do what she wants with her body" argument. No, she really, can't. Not legally. The question is whether what she is doing ought to be banned because it is hurting somebody else.

And the non-consensual killing of a living being (ie, abortion) seems a further line than mere consensual sex for money, doesn't it? Sure, you may have justification for the abortion. I'm not arguing for or against here. Just noting that in one case its about weighing a life against a woman's free choice, and in the other its weighing others' mere sense of moral superiority and disgust against a woman's free choice.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Deric is not that wrong though. Harris tried to prosecute Backpages for their sex ads, impinging on sex workers' livelihood and perhaps their safety.

Maybe that's because backpage has been demonstrably used to sell the services of victims of sex trafficking, including victims who are underage.

So has the telephone. So has the internet. Ban them?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Illiberal---isn't that the term that conservatives except where it comes to wanting to be able to fuck prostitutes without fear of legal consequences call actual liberals?

No. Actual liberals are *gasp* actually liberal. The only reason "illiberal" has become a word is because of the faux authoritarian "liberals" that have become more prevalent in recent times. Conservatives rail against libruls generally.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The point is that Democrats allow shit to stick to them whereas GOP'ers just don't give a fuck. Dems need to stop giving a fuck about stupid things.

Agreed. But there is a certain hypocrisy factor to it. Its like when a Republican "Family Values" senator got caught having gay sex in the 90s.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have joked to friends, that the DNC should select some unknown who they could introduce in September 2020, spending all their money in 2 months instead of 2 years, and limiting the time that the Trumpovich propaganda machine has to Hillarize (read: destroy) them.

Stop joking about it. Do it. It would work. Let Trump run against himself until then. The anti-trump sentiment would be high and it wouldn't much matter who you put up against him.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I really don't think that I am. I've written this before but I will again. I always assumed that legalizing prostitution would reduce the very serious negative impacts of sex work on sex workers but my readings don't support that. And yes, I've read about all sorts of different models. That's why I oppose it. That's why I think it is immoral: not because I believe that sex outside the sanctity of marriage (or some such) is bad but because selling sex involves what I deem unacceptable risks to usually very young workers who are not necessarily willing. Or who didn't enter that line of work willingly but having been forced into that life for much of their adolescence simply cannot think of themselves in other ways or as good for anything else.

I would very much like to see you address Derec's point about forced labour in other industries, including forced child labour. It is a point that is consistently avoided here, and a poignant one. Why shouldn't we outlaw any industry that has some forced slavery or near-slavery or abuse involved in it? Is there something special about the sexual nature of this particular industry that makes it worth banning the entire industry?

 

[laughing dog]

Deric is not that wrong though. Harris tried to prosecute Backpages for their sex ads, impinging on sex workers' livelihood and perhaps their safety.

Maybe that's because backpage has been demonstrably used to sell the services of victims of sex trafficking, including victims who are underage.

So has the telephone. So has the internet. Ban them?

Backpages was a business run by people who can make choices. Vackpages refused to obey the law. Telephones and the internet are technology that makes no choices and cannot refuse to obey laws. Hence your analogy fails.

 

[laughing dog]

She was responding to them by appealing to a general principle. .....

That is unproven - repeating an unproven claim does not make it any more valid. She responded specifically to the call to ban late term abortions. There is no evidence she has adopted this a general principle. Hence, you cannot show that this statement is an example of hypocrisy. You can believe it to be hypocrisy, but there is no reason for a disinterested thinking person to accept your argument as valid, since it based on untested premise.

 

[Toni]

I really don't think that I am. I've written this before but I will again. I always assumed that legalizing prostitution would reduce the very serious negative impacts of sex work on sex workers but my readings don't support that. And yes, I've read about all sorts of different models. That's why I oppose it. That's why I think it is immoral: not because I believe that sex outside the sanctity of marriage (or some such) is bad but because selling sex involves what I deem unacceptable risks to usually very young workers who are not necessarily willing. Or who didn't enter that line of work willingly but having been forced into that life for much of their adolescence simply cannot think of themselves in other ways or as good for anything else.

I would very much like to see you address Derec's point about forced labour in other industries, including forced child labour. It is a point that is consistently avoided here, and a poignant one. Why shouldn't we outlaw any industry that has some forced slavery or near-slavery or abuse involved in it? Is there something special about the sexual nature of this particular industry that makes it worth banning the entire industry?

I'm pretty sure that anybody willing to use their brains would know with absolute certainty that I oppose all forced labor. Despite what my kids might have said about 20 years ago, in reference to their household chores.

Which, in fact, is one of the reasons that I oppose prostitution and believe that Harris was absolutely right to go after Back Pages.

I guess that you, like Derec, are uninterested in actually reading links I posted about girls who were trafficked.

Why do you (and Derec) think that the sex industry is a special case/exception?

 

[Derec]

I really don't think that I am.

Oh, you definitely are.

I've written this before but I will again.

Yes, we have discussed this several times, and yet you do not learn.

I always assumed that legalizing prostitution would reduce the very serious negative impacts of sex work on sex workers but my readings don't support that.

That's because you tend to read prohibitionist propaganda that defines "trafficking" as much broader than forcing somebody into prostitution. For example, one of the sources you posted a while counted all women who move to a different country and start working as a sex worker (including those who do it by choice) as trafficking victims. That obviously egregiously exaggerates sex trafficking. Imagine if same criteria were used for food service industry! You'd have to conclude most workers were trafficked.

Second, legalizing sex work gives law enforcement better opportunity to fight sex trafficking because they are no longer busy setting up stings to catch consenting adults. But it is still up to local law enforcement and prosecutors to use those savings to increase enforcement of real sex trafficking. But don't use local government neglect of this as an argument why people should be prosecuted just for engaging in sex work.

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, what if legalization does not reduce sex trafficking? Not ruining lives of people not involved in sex trafficking under the guise of fighting it is a good in itself. Increasing freedoms of people is a good in itself. That's what being a liberal is all about, supporting freedoms of others even if you yourself do not engage in that lifestyle and even if you disagree with it.

And yes, I've read about all sorts of different models. That's why I oppose it.

No, you oppose because you are moralizing sex work as distinct of any other human endeavor.

That's why I think it is immoral: not because I believe that sex outside the sanctity of marriage (or some such) is bad but because selling sex involves what I deem unacceptable risks to usually very young workers who are not necessarily willing. Or who didn't enter that line of work willingly but having been forced into that life for much of their adolescence simply cannot think of themselves in other ways or as good for anything else.

You may not think sex outside of marriage is immoral, but I think you have strong feeling that sex in exchange for money is immoral. That's why you oppose it so strongly, completely out of proportion to reality. You accept that in other industries abuse will happen, and that it is unavoidable to a certain extent. You may seek better regulation or better enforcement, but you do not wish to criminalize any other industry except sex industry. I think that is because you are very emotionally invested in that issue.

I posted multiple links, Derec, which stated the words that BackPage would guide customers and certainly accepted from customers that indicate the person being prostituted was underage. Come on: if I can figure it out, I'm sure that any employee of Back Page could as well, not to mention the customers looking for young girls.

I said that I would look at those links once you have addressed the problems I have identified with your interpretation of the WaPo article - it doesn't say what you claimed itsaid . You don't get to engage in a Gish Gallop of links.

You are coming from the perspective of someone who uses those services, not someone who is providing those services. You don't have the same perspective as a prostitute. Please don't pretend that you do have.

Neither do you for that matter. Most sex workers oppose your prohibitionist attitude.
But I did not claim I had the sex worker perspective. I was saying that my perspective is not illegitimate just because I occasionally engage sex workers.

Derec, the average age at which a prostitute begins to work in the sex industry is 15. The words average and 15 should horrify you. It does me.

This sentence of yours was in response to my analogy with keeping gay sex illegal. By the way, same "think of the children" nonsense has been used to propagandize against gay sex as well.
To comment on what you wrote about the average:
- [citation needed], preferably not from a prohibitionist propaganda piece
- If average is really 15, we should take measures to prevent that.
- Even if the average is 15, how does that justify persecuting adult sex workers and their clients?

A 16 year old is a minor. In many states, a 16 year old cannot consent to sex and in other states can only consent to sex with someone within a very narrow age difference--not adults. This is to recognize that teens have sex with each other but a teen having sex with an adult is in an inherently unequal position and is extremely likely to be exploited and used for the adult's purposes rather than allowed to grow up and develop into an adult as they should be.

That has zero to do with my point. Which was that there is a difference between a minor being forced by somebody to engage in sex work and a minor deciding to engage in sex work herself. I do not think a 16 year old should be allowed to be a sex worker, but at the same time only the first one is a sex trafficking victim. So not even age can prove that a person is victim of sex trafficking.

A 16 year old may have secondary sex characteristics and may menstruate but a 16 year old is not physically mature. Certainly not mentally, intellectually, cognitively, socially or intellectually mature. They ALL deserve the chance to grow up and get a decent education and enough nurturing and guidance to make decent decisions for themselves.

Most 16 year olds are physically mature, but you are right on mentally. Again, I do not think a 16 year old should be allowed to engage in sex work. I am just saying that if a 16 year old makes a profile selling sex services by herself, who exactly is trafficking her?

Derec, I don't understand why you equate pederasts with gay people as though that is actually part of a continuum.

I am not. I am saying that many people have conflated pederasty and homosexuality in order to argue against homosexuality just like you conflate child sex trafficking with adult sex work.

Pederasty is simply a part of child prostitution, albeit often without bothering to actually pay the abused boy.

As you acknowledged in the second part of your sentence, the term is not about prostitution. It is child abuse of boys by men. It has little to do with homosexuality in general, but it has been connected with homosexuality for propaganda purposes. Just like you do with child trafficking and adult sex work.

Boys as well as girls are turned out or are forced to work as prostitutes BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO YOUNG TO BE HIRED FOR OTHER WORK and are on the streets because they ran away (often from sexual abuse), were thrown away (again, abuse is a common theme) or were abandoned for a variety of reasons. They should not have to place their bodies and their future reproductive health on the line for someone else's sexual pleasure.

I do not think you will find anybody here who disagrees.
At the same time, it is wrong to use existence of child abuse by gay men to condemn gay men or gay sex in general.
Just like it is wrong to use existence of child prostitution to condemn all sex work and people who engage in it.

You don't want to read about what these kids go through? That's on you. Because you'd rather be able to keep your fantasies alive than deal with reality.

Again, I will read those links as soon as we deal with the first link you posted.

Note also that I have, before it got shut down, browsed through plenty of listings on Backpage. I have not seen any advertisements for minors. I don't deny some of them existed, but they are a small percentage of the overall volume. You have harmed adult sex workers, who now have more difficult time contacting prospective clients, to ineffectually deal with a problem which, albeit real, represented a very small fraction of the Backpage sex ad volume.

Probably gonna try to reply to the rest of this thread tomorrow. And I hope you will finally deal with your misinterpretation of the WaPo article so I can read the others...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I do not think you will find anybody here who disagrees.
At the same time, it is wrong to use existence of child abuse by gay men to condemn gay men or gay sex in general.
Just like it is wrong to use existence of child prostitution to condemn all sex work and people who engage in it.

The operative phrase "just like" is false. It isn't just like. Adult men are adults who have an equal relationship and then consent to actions between themselves. Prostitution starts with an imbalance in relationship where a "consumer" wants something, may be desperate to get it and a "worker" either is also desperate to get something such as drug addicts or doesn't want it at all such as people trapped or trafficked, including children or immigrants. For example, this business with the Patriots owner. Chinese immigrants trapped. A lot of "consumers" of back page were also victims of these fake male pimps because the consumers would get taken for a ride, trapped, and money stolen, lucky to get away with their lives.

This:

A study of 200 street prostitutes documented a high prevalence of alcohol and drug abuse in their family of origin, during the drift into prostitution and as part of prostitution. Additionally, the study documented a high prevalence of substance abuse among the child molesters and rapists of the subjects. The existence of a relationship between substance abuse and prostitution in and of itself does not imply causality. It is not clear whether substance abuse is one of the factors that pushed these women into prostitution (as noted earlier, 55% of the subjects reported being addicted prior to their prostitution involvement) or whether it was prostitution that caused their drug involvement (30% became addicted following and 15% concurrently with their prostitution involvement). Most likely, both prostitution and substance abuse are the behavioral translations of these women's endless cycles of victimization and severely disturbed backgrounds, as well as an expression of the self-destructive pull, the sense of hopelessness, helplessness, negative self-concept and psychological paralysis reported by almost every subject in the study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7143150

is not equivalent to gay men.

Here's a different analogy. The Catholic Church has a lot of problem priests. Therefore, they should enact policies to stop the problems of child molesting, if it means banning something such as the celibacy doctrine, then so be it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I would very much like to see you address Derec's point about forced labour in other industries, including forced child labour. It is a point that is consistently avoided here, and a poignant one. Why shouldn't we outlaw any industry that has some forced slavery or near-slavery or abuse involved in it? Is there something special about the sexual nature of this particular industry that makes it worth banning the entire industry?

I'm pretty sure that anybody willing to use their brains would know with absolute certainty that I oppose all forced labor. Despite what my kids might have said about 20 years ago, in reference to their household chores.

The bolded is an odd reply. Nobody said otherwise. Why would you suggest anyone would think that you don't oppose forced labour? Of course you don't. You're not a monster.

Which, in fact, is one of the reasons that I oppose prostitution and believe that Harris was absolutely right to go after Back Pages.

Yes, but that's not the question. Please read it again. You don't oppose house cleaning generally or agriculture or garment industries generally, right? If you read studies that show a lot of forced labour in these industries, would you oppose these industries whole cloth and want to ban them, or would you go after the abusers?

I guess that you, like Derec, are uninterested in actually reading links I posted about girls who were trafficked.

Irrelevant to my question. And if it needs to be said (it really shouldn't), I of course strongly oppose all forced labour and abuse, both physical and psychological, in any industry, including what happens to these girls you speak of. I'm not a monster either.

Why do you (and Derec) think that the sex industry is a special case/exception?

I don't. That's my question to you. You seem to and I'm curious why.