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

[Loren Pechtel]

You believe that all sex workers are "victims" anyway.

That is utter fucking nonsense. Her response was in response to the specific situation where the "masseuses" were not free to consent. Or do you wish us to assume you knew that, and are tacitly condoning rape?

The problem is we have no indication they were not free to consent. Saying the women were trafficked means nothing because the left uses that to mean sex workers that have relocated--with no indication of whether it was voluntary or not.

 

[steve_bank]

You have to be careful. If you read the Reason article I posted, there isn't necessarily any real trafficking going on at this parlor. It certainly hasn't been demonstrated. And if you read the New Republic article I posted, prohibitionists like to define trafficking very broadly, with basically any immigrant sex worker counting as "trafficking victim" in their eyes.


Not surprising. A lot of Asians live on the West Coast generally.

If he wanted a real massage he could have gone to a real spa with licensed massage therapists, or paid one to go to him. Nobody goes to those places looking for a 'massage'.

It depends. I've had good massages with happy endings, but in some places "massage" is just a fig leaf for sure.

Why don't all these wealthy guys go the traditional route. Find a willing young woman who will exchange lifestyle support for an exclusive sexual and companion relationship. The old term is sugar daddy.

It should be personal choice. And sugar daddy/baby relationship is prostitution really. What's the difference.

You can go online to sites with live sex with young girls or sex acts for pay in foreign countries. I have not watched any oporn in a long term, once I realized the underlying abuse.

What abuse? And what do you mean by "young girls"? 18 or 19? What's abusive about young adults making some money?

There are legal upscale brothels in Nevada know to be frequented by known people.

Sex work should be legal in every state.

Sounds like sad apologetics for trafficking that law enforcement is well aware of. Listen to law enforcement on camera when busts are made. National law enforcement officers talk about it on motional news.

It is a problem. Se\In Settle there have been several efforts to shit down the places and there have been related deaths. There are volunteer groups that reach out to the women offering to help them get out.

I support legalization of sex for pay.

There are two things at play I Asian sex traffickibg.

First there is the Americam sterotype of Asian women as compliant and sexualy submissive.

Second there is the image of verily associates with young teen looking grgls and guys in advertising, porn, TV, and movies. In porn the term is 'barely legal' girls.

The recent video surfaced of Kelly the mucosa and a young girl referring to her as 14 year old pussy. If Trump had not gone into politics he'd still be having willing mistresses on the side, the tradition wealthy male affectation.

The Patriots owner probably watched some porn, got Horney, and looked for an outlet that is commonly known. If he had looked around he could have found a discrete upscale masseuse and this would have never happened.



There have been systematic efforts in Seattle to close down the massage parlors.

 

[laughing dog]

You believe that all sex workers are "victims" anyway.

That is utter fucking nonsense. Her response was in response to the specific situation where the "masseuses" were not free to consent. Or do you wish us to assume you knew that, and are tacitly condoning rape?

The problem is we have no indication they were not free to consent.

Yes, we do. They had no days off, no transportation, and stayed at the site 24/7.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The problem is we have no indication they were not free to consent.

Yes, we do. They had no days off, no transportation, and stayed at the site 24/7.

Ya, I don't see a way to view the details of this place as anything other than a human trafficking site.

 

[RavenSky]

^^^ That

You believe that all sex workers are "victims" anyway.

You believe, wrongly, that you know jack shit about what I think

- - - Updated - - -

It's not. She and Toni and probably you too think of all sex workers as "victims".


That has not been shown. In fact, according to reason, the only charges filed against anybody in this case are garden variety prostitution charges, rather than any charges involving forcing anybody to perform sexual acts against their will.

Or do you wish us to assume you knew that, and are tacitly condoning rape?

I know what she was replying to. I called bullshit on her response because she is a prohibitionist anyway.
Nobody here condones rape. But getting a hand job from a masseuse is not "rape" just because the masseuse is Chinese.

Well, clearly you condone rape. (You deny there is anything such thing as a rape)

If you get to falsely tell me what I think, then I can do the same to you.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

First of all, the legalization of sex work doesn't stop trafficking. At best it decreases it by about 10 percent, according to numerous articles that I've read. But, that's not the topic here. The topic is about sex trafficking of Asian women in what are often referred to as "massage parlors.

Yes. And we need to shut those down. They exist here in Toronto as well. How do it it? Cooperation from customers and competitors who are not abusing, and proper regulation and inspection by officers is a good step. But *gasp* no, it isn't all of them, and you shouldn't be assumed guilty just because you work in or operate a chinese massage parlour. To do so would both violate presumption of innocence, and be racist.

ere was plenty of evidence that the "massage parlor" was a cover up for a massive sex trafficking operation. I'm not opposed to well regulated legalization of sex work, but what happened in Florida was a totally different thing and it's very hard for me to believe that the men who used and abused these women didn't have a good idea of what was going on there. In fact, they would have to be clueless idiots not to have known or at least suspected what was going on, which in that case, they should have reported their suspicions to the police.

Which again raises Derec's question. Why have the police done nothing to rescue them? Have charges been brought against those who brought them over and forced them to do this work? The end customer is hardly the only one doing wrong here, and may, as Derec suggested, not even be aware that anything is amiss. And if a customer in such a place does become aware, the laws against him being there makes him less likely to ally with the police and tell them what he saw, so they can shut the place down and save the victims.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you get to falsely tell me what I think, then I can do the same to you.

We can all play that game. Its a stupid game that gets us nowhere. ANd it didn't start here with Derec, but with Toni. Now, we add you, and soon it will be the new fashionable thing to do

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

wHy is it that in these threads about Prostitution, we always see highly emotional cries to shut down prostitution altogether in an attempt to shut down human trafficking, but we pretty much never hear about actual efforts to shut down human trafficking. We almost never hear anything about pimps, pushers, recruiters, and corrupt police that work with them. Its always focus on the john.

 

[Derec]

[Yes, we do.

No, we don't.

They had no days off,

You do understand that this was a reference to the Patriots slogan, do you?

If the Arthur Blank was busted instead, we'd be hearing puns about rising up.
Either that or uniting and conquering, although that one doesn't work nearly as well.

no transportation, and stayed at the site 24/7.

What evidence do you have of them staying at the site 24/7?

 

[Derec]

To do so would both violate presumption of innocence, and be racist.

True. I knew a Chinese woman who owned a parlor. She was a sweetheart, but was working there by herself. So there is no question of her exploiting anybody nor being exploited (except by herself). Alas, she retired from the biz and sold the place.

Which again raises Derec's question. Why have the police done nothing to rescue them? Have charges been brought against those who brought them over and forced them to do this work? The end customer is hardly the only one doing wrong here, and may, as Derec suggested, not even be aware that anything is amiss. And if a customer in such a place does become aware, the laws against him being there makes him less likely to ally with the police and tell them what he saw, so they can shut the place down and save the victims.

Exactly. However, let me reiterate that we have no proof that real human trafficking was going on there. According to the Reason article, there have been no trafficking charges filed despite the lengthy surveillance. And the reports that Kraft himself was serviced by a manager does not make it likely in my book either. Would a slaver do the same kind of work her slaves do? Unlikely!

 

[Derec]

Ya, I don't see a way to view the details of this place as anything other than a human trafficking site.

IF these claims are true, yes. But even if the claims are true, how was Kraft or any other customers supposed to know they are true? Because you claimed that Kraft was guilty of rape when a) you do not know that this was a trafficking operation to begin with and b) there is no way Kraft would have known it was even if it was.

- - - Updated - - -

You believe, wrongly, that you know jack shit about what I think

Well, if I am wrong on this I am glad you disagree with Toni on that matter.

Btw:

It's not. She and Toni and probably you too think of all sex workers as "victims".

Emphasis added.

 

[Derec]

Sounds like sad apologetics for trafficking that law enforcement is well aware of. Listen to law enforcement on camera when busts are made. National law enforcement officers talk about it on motional news.

I do not care what they say on camera, when they wildly conflate sex work with sex trafficking. I care what actual evidence they have. And here, despite violating the privacy of more than 100 citizens by videotaping them in massage rooms, they do not seem to have any actual evidence of trafficking.

It is a problem. Se\In Settle there have been several efforts to shit down the places and there have been related deaths.

Deaths due to what? And were random Asian massage parlors shut down just for offering sexual services or was only suspected sex trafficking targeted?

There are volunteer groups that reach out to the women offering to help them get out.

Do these "volunteer groups" generally support prohbitionism? I would think most of them do. As such, they think these wayward women must be rescued even if they are not victims at all.

I support legalization of sex for pay.

Me too. Even for women from Asia.

There are two things at play I Asian sex traffickibg.
First there is the Americam sterotype of Asian women as compliant and sexualy submissive.
Second there is the image of verily associates with young teen looking grgls and guys in advertising, porn, TV, and movies. In porn the term is 'barely legal' girls.

And neither of these things should be a problem as long as the women are of age and willing participants.
You seem to argue here that young sex workers and Asian sex workers are a problem per se. I do not see why.

The recent video surfaced of Kelly the mucosa and a young girl referring to her as 14 year old pussy. If Trump had not gone into politics he'd still be having willing mistresses on the side, the tradition wealthy male affectation.

There is a big difference between R Kelly or Epstein and somebody like Kraft. Nobody busted at that Asian spa was underage. Why are you conflating issues here?

The Patriots owner probably watched some porn, got Horney, and looked for an outlet that is commonly known. If he had looked around he could have found a discrete upscale masseuse and this would have never happened.

Perhaps not, although upscale sex work marketplace has also been targeted by vice.

There have been systematic efforts in Seattle to close down the massage parlors.

That smacks me of racism or general hostility toward sex work. I think only human trafficking should be targeted. Massage parlors should not be shut down just for offering extras.

 

[Derec]

What I believe is that the men didn't even think about the women they used and abused at all.

First of all, you are putting the cart before the horse by assuming that these women are "used and abused". Second, you again accuse men of being bad just for hiring hookers. That's your typical MO in all these sex work threads.

 

[Derec]

Yes you have.

No I have not.

That is utterly false. For all you know, the police are gathering more evidence to make that charge or that they have forwarded that evidence to state or federal authorities or that it is too difficult to convict someone on that charge.

This reads like Biblical apologetics by fundys. If there is even slightest possibility traditional view is true, it must be assumed. That's exactly what you are doing trying to keep the assumption that this was a sex trafficking operation alive.

Probably from the reports that they had no access to transportation, and ate and slept there with no days off. Why do some people in this thread assume they are not?

First of all, "no days off" was a reference to a Patriots slogan. Look it up. They sell t-shirts and totes with those words on.
And eating and sleeping on premises is not necessarily indicative of anything.
Now, if they were prevented from leaving, you'd have some sort of evidence. But I have not seen anything indicating that.

Your denial of these sex slaves is an obvious example of defending rape.

Wrong. I merely said that getting a hand job at a rub and tug is not "rape".

 

[Derec]

First of all, the legalization of sex work doesn't stop trafficking. At best it decreases it by about 10 percent, according to numerous articles that I've read.

Would that not be a more than good enough reason for legalization? Put it differently, criminalizing sex work increases trafficking by ~10%.
And you have more individual liberty because you are not persecuting consenting adults. So what's the big argument for prohibition?

But, that's not the topic here. The topic is about sex trafficking of Asian women in what are often referred to as "massage parlors.

I do not deny that sometimes women are genuinely trafficked in these places. But just because it's an Asian massage parlor, does not mean the women there are forced into it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/us/massage-parlors-human-trafficking.html

So, let's see the thesis of this article. Nowhere does it even claim that the 49 year old in question was forced into anything. She got into debt, and found a job that she did not like. It does not say that she was prevented from leaving. As long as she stayed, she did so probably because she realized she could make a lot more money than in any other job she could get.
Working conditions are not that different in Asian nail salons, but tips are far less generous.

Second, about the illegal immigrants. Yes, exploiting illegal workers is bad. In sex industry just like on farms or in restaurants. That does not mean that they are necessarily forced into doing the work or that the customers are culpable any more than people eating at restaurants that employ illegals and use their illegal status to control them.
And yes, I support going after people forcing people into sex work. But do not lump all Asian massage parlors together either.

“We stopped thinking about just cages, bars and chains as the means of coercion,” said John Richmond, the State Department’s top anti-trafficking official. “They are using nonviolent forms of coercion.”

That is very convenient. It opens the playing field so wide you can declare anything to be "coercion" because you want to shut down all sex work.
Reading on, it is pretty obvious to me that the authors are opposed to sex work in general. How many women have they contacted before they found one ("Tina") that told them what they wanted to hear?

You see that a lot in anti-sex work and anti-porn screeds, but the tactic is similar to the one used by those writing against more politcally correct topics like abortion or gays.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/us/robert-kraft-trafficking-florida.html?module=inline

Men are the monsters? Really now? And the article makes some bold claims, like about passports, that I do not think have been upheld. Certainly, nobody is being charged with taking passports or restricting anybody's freedom of movement.

So, apparently there was plenty of evidence that the "massage parlor" was a cover up for a massive sex trafficking operation. I'm not opposed to well regulated legalization of sex work, but what happened in Florida was a totally different thing and it's very hard for me to believe that the men who used and abused these women didn't have a good idea of what was going on there. In fact, they would have to be clueless idiots not to have known or at least suspected what was going on, which in that case, they should have reported their suspicions to the police.

Read the Reason article I posted. The initial claims by the sheriff's office and the sex-negative feminist media like NY Times do not seem to hold water.
And even if they were true, how are the customers supposed to know anything? They see the reception area and the massage room. They do not go into the living quarters or the kitchen. Should they ask any masseuse for her passport to make sure it is not being held?

 

[Derec]

To add to this point, I'd say that the criteria should not be whether or not one "knows" that the person he's having sex with is a sex slave but whether he has a "reasonable expectation to believe" that the person he's having sex with is a sex slave.

I will give you that point. It is actually a good one. But I do not see how it applies here.
For one, I have seen no real evidence that women in this case have been "sex slaves" and definitely no evidence that Kraft and others should have reasonably expected to believe that.

When you go into one of these low end spas, you go in with the previous knowledge about how they are often fronts for human trafficking and the conditions which the workers are subjected to and the threats made to their families back home if they don't perform. That is commonly known information which anyone who has done even the most trivially basic research into the industry is aware of.

Basically you want to prejudge Asian massage parlors. To assume that they keep "sex slaves". By the way, just because an employee is in debt does not mean they are a slave. Just because they may be an (illegal) immigrant with basic English skills does not mean they are a "sex slave".
And $100 for a rub and tug is not exactly "low end" either.

When you have this information and you still decide to frequent them, you are doing so fully aware that there is a very good chance that you will be raping a sex slave that day. If you happen to get lucky and not end up raping a sex slave, that's like shooting your gun into a crowd and accidentally hitting a serial killer. Sure, it randomly worked out that you weren't the bad guy but that was in spite of your actions, not because of them.

I disagree. You want to prejudge all Asian and all non-high end places as "probably sex slaves". That is not even remotely true.

 

[Derec]

I thought you believed in using only 'good sources.'

What's wrong with New Republic? It's a magazine that's been around for more than a century.
I guess the fault you are finding with it is that the article exposes the ridiculously broad definition of "trafficking" prohibitionists employ.

I guess by good sources, you mean ones you agree with.

Ditto.

I do think that, but I also think that they would not have shut the place down if they didn't care that there was sex slavery going on or if that was out of the purview of their arrest warrants.

The warrant was for human trafficking. That enabled them to do questionable things like video people in massage rooms. In the end, all they got was evidence that there was prostitution going on there, not human trafficking.

Your over emotional responses do not reflect the truth of the situation and are not a reflection of my opinions, no matter how many names you wish to call me.

Nothing overly emotional here. And since you advocate prohibition of sex work, you are a prohibitionist. Just a fact.

I won't address the fact that you are referring to the sex workers as girls and therefore acknowledging that they are not adults

Please! This is the kind of dishonest arguing that infuriates me with you. Girl does not necessarily mean underage in the English language. I obviously meant adult women.

but I will address that rape is rape even if the rapist chooses not to acknowledge the legal status of his victim.

But a non-rape is non-rape even despite what Toni wishes for.

This is an example of you being a rape-apologist. According to you, the person who is enslaved must duly inform all those who pay money to rape her that she is indeed unwilling and/or under age or else the 'client' is to be held blameless. That's not how slavery works.

It's not an example of being a rape apologist. It's about not blaming people for things they had no knowledge of.

Forced sex is rape. It is rape whether drugs, alcohol or blackmail or threats of violence or other serious threats are used to induce cooperation.

But if somebody unknowingly has sex with somebody like that, you still think it's rape?

 

[Derec]

Similarly, the cops not giving a shit about the rape of sex slaves so that there's little personal risk involved in deciding to rape sex slaves doesn't change the fact that a customer is raping a sex slave. The condemnation of that behavior is real and legitimate regardless of what else is happening around the industry.

You are missing the point. The warrant was for human trafficking. That claim got them the authorization to do highly questionable things like video people in massage rooms. But after they busted all those people, all they got was garden variety prostitution charges. Yet you still hold on to the claim there were "sex slaves" there simply because it was an Asian massage parlor. It's like getting an armed robbery warrant against a black barber shop (they bug it and everything) and only bust people for weed (something that like sex work should be legal) but than argue here that these pot smokers really must have been armed robbers, because, hey, it's a black barber shop. And then say that they only got charges on weed because the police do not really care about armed robberies.

Somebody is not a sex slave just because it's an Asian massage parlor.

Let's say a woman owns a massage parlor. She fucks the customer for $150. Is she a sex slave just because she happens to be Chinese? That's nonsense.

 

[southernhybrid]

It's obvious that at least one person on this thread is only going to believe what he wants, regardless of the evidence. Nobody said that because a woman is Chinese that she must be a sex slave. Nobody said that all women who engage in sex work are forced to do it. But, there is plenty of evidence that sex trafficking does exist and that it's a huge problem in the US. I'm having a very difficult time trying to understand why anyone would come to any different conclusion. These women said they were promised legitimate jobs if they came to the US, but then they were forced to do sex work. Why is that so difficult to believe? Once again, women are not taken at their word, while the men who have acted like monsters are believed. Nobody said that all men are monsters, but the men that forced these women into doing sex work could certainly be labeled as monsters by the women who mistreated them.

It's obvious that there are times when people sadly cling to what they want to believe rather than considering the evidence given to them.

 

[laughing dog]

This reads like Biblical apologetics by fundys. If there is even slightest possibility traditional view is true, it must be assumed. That's exactly what you are doing trying to keep the assumption that this was a sex trafficking operation alive.

Wrong. I pointed out that your argument was based on faulty reasoning - we don't know if there are going to be more charges. The lack of an immediate charge of sex trafficking does not mean these women were not sex slaves.

First of all, "no days off" was a reference to a Patriots slogan. Look it up.

I did, and the reports I saw made no mention to a Patriots slogan.

Wrong. I merely said that getting a hand job at a rub and tug is not "rape".

You just shifted the goal post - your denial of that these women are sex slaves is an obvious example of your usual defense of rape by ignoring facts and evading the actual comments.