TruthMovement an internet research-guide for students and scholars. Best viewed in Chrome Browser

Blog Search

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Sexual Attraction Among Humans by Diana Fernandez

 Humans are animals that do not think they are; we are part of nature, not apart from it. Humans are far more intelligent than most other animals but truth is we really don't know, so why make the assumption? We reproduce, eat, sleep, work, and we do our things; However being intelligent does not have anything to do with not being an animal. The definition of an, "animal" is an multicellular and eukaryotic organic organism that feeds on organic material. Just because humans have a more advanced thought process from other mammals does not mean we don't have our basic primal instincts. Some humans are capable of overcoming those instincts; However many do not. Humans furtively try to control those instincts to no avail so they posit laws and create legislation against that which they themselves cannot control; they volitional prey upon other humans angst and antipathy to get what they want to accede to even higher position.

a piece by Diana Fernandez
Sexual Attraction Among Humans


Being a heterosexual female, in the twenty first century, I pride myself on the fact that I take people at more than face value, that I appreciate human beings for their character rather than for their looks. I scoff at women who proclaim that they will not date a guy unless he has substantial material assets, a broad back, and good breeding. Yet why do I find myself making conversation with physically attractive males while blowing the off more unattractive ones? Why does my head whip around when I see a man in a Porsche? Why do my male friends all have the same prerequisites for the perfect female despite race and ethnicity: perky breasts, slim waist, and full lips? Despite most people's lofty notions of equality, and beauty being in the eye of the beholder, we are all susceptible to certain physical, and material traits that make some humans more desirable than others. Perhaps we cannot punish ourselves for our weakness when we see beautiful and successful people, part of the answer lies in the biology and evolution of humans. Males and females have different standards for a desirable mate, and we share many of these characteristics with other animals in the animal kingdom, yet these instincts are inherent for a reason: reproduction.

"As unromantic and pragmatic as it may seem, nature's programming of our brains to select out and respond to stimuli as sexually compelling or repelling simply makes good reproductive sense"(1) . Recent studies have indicated that certain physical characteristics stimulate a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, which is followed by sensations such as elevated heart rate, perspiration, and a general feeling of sexual arousal. So what visual queues instigate these feelings of sexual arousal in men? How does it differ from what women find attractive? "A preference for youth, however, is merely the most obviously of men's preferences linked to a woman's reproductive capacity"(2). The younger the female the better the capacity for reproduction, hence attributes that males find attractive and contingent on signs of youthfulness. "Our ancestors had access to two types of observable evidence of a woman's health and youth: features of physical appearance, such as full lips, clear skin, smooth skin, clear eyes, lustrous hair, and good muscle tone, and features of behavior, such as a bouncy, youthful gait, and animated facial expressions"(2) . Cross-cultural studies have found that men, despite coming from different countries find similar traits attractive in females. Men's preferences are biologically and evolutionarily hardwired to find signs of youth and health attractive in women in order to determine which females are best suited to carry on their gene, and legacy. Healthier and more youthful women are more likely to reproduce, and be able to take care of the children after birth, hence ensuring a perpetuation of the male's gene.

Scientist's have also been establishing that scent plays an important role in deeming females attractive. At certain points during their menstrual cycle women produce more or less estrogen accordingly. During certain times thought the menstrual cycle their sent can be more or less appealing to males. "A research team reports in the Aug. 30 NEURON that the brains of men and women respond differently to two putative pheromones, compounds related to the hormones testosterone and estrogen. When smelled, an estrogen like compound triggers blood flow to the hypothalamus in men's brains but not women's, reports Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm"(3) .

Men are not the only ones subject to biological predispositions in deeming attraction. "Women are judicious, prudent, and discerning about the men they consent to mate with because they have so many valuable reproductive resources to offer"(2) . Men produce sperm by the thousands, yet women produce about 400 eggs in their lifetime, and the trials of pregnancy and child rearing are long and arduous, hence their preferences and what they find sexually attractive in a male are based more on security and longevity of relationships. Athletic prowess is an important attribute to most women that hearkens back to the beginning of man. An athletic and well-muscled male is more likely to be a good hunter hence provide for a family. Large and athletic male can also provide physical protection from other males.

I was speaking to one of my male friends the other day when he mentioned that when he was in a bar speaking to an attractive girl, he always lied about his profession, telling them he was either a lawyer, doctor, or investment banker. What do all of these professions have in common? Money. Women are attracted to a successful male because this is indicative of his ability to provide for a family. This is a desirable trait that is shared by females thought the animal kingdom. "When biologist Reuven Yosef arbitrarily removed portions of some males' (Gray shrike, a bird that lives in the desert of Israel) caches and added edible objects to others, females shifted to the males with the larger bounties"(2). Yet a man has had more than just the resources to attract a female, he also has to be willing to share them. Women tend to be attracted to more generous men because this is indicative of how they will treat them in the future, a man cannot withhold his resources from a female and their offspring.

Sexual attraction does have biological and evolutionary traits. Yet humans do have the ability to transgress the standardization of what is attractive. The topics that I touched upon can vary from person to person, yet are all inherently a part of the human species. We are not fully beyond the basic drives of our biological and evolutionary makeup, yet not all of our desires for a sexual mate are purely physical and material, there is always the mysterious capacity to fall in love and maintain a lasting relationship with one other person.

1. The evolutionary Theory of Sexual Attraction, a site posted by the university of Missouri, Kansas city.

2. Buss. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.
3. Brain Scans Reveal Human Pheromones, a news source found by encyclopedia brittanica when entered the search key word, "sexual attraction"

Continuing conversation
(to contribute your own observations/thoughts, post a comment below)08/11/2005, from a Reader on the Web

awesome paper with a lot of great information! thank you, its a wonderful resource, i'm doing a speech on body chemistry and its a great help!

Additional comments made prior to 2007
kind of funny with the whole evolutionay thing. while everyone has seemingly been programmed through evolution to desire the most wonderful traits, so few of us are born with them all relative to those born unattractive. are the unattractive expected to remain chaste? how about sexual socialism to create a neutral appearance for everyone ... Jeff, 7 March 2006
Hi, informative and logical paper I am in my hunt for convincing a friend of mine about the natural requirement of procreation. Can you help me in the same, getting a good lot of resources to support the same. 

They are of the opinion that WHY PROCREATE? THEY HAVE NOT FOUND A SATISFACTORY REASON. 

Any support is appreciated Diana ... Teji, 6 April 2006

I find this stuff fascinating. If attraction is somewhat based on an instinctual desire to reproduce, I'm a little curios about why it seems homosexuals are not affected by this "inherent biological trait", It seems odd. Is/are there any known reasons or explanations for this? ... Lachlan, 22 September 2007 

I dont agree with your views. I think human beings are above animals and tend to fall in love with one other person than just the physical characteristics and ability to provide ... Tobby, 29 September 2007 

some of the people i know agree with the fact that men should behave as if they "don't give a damn" or "don't care" when they are with women.... because this would make them probably more misterious or independent (the men) ...and you know what? ...this really works!!! ....why is this? there are women who find this behaviour attractive ....if not all of them ...please explain this to me ..it really does happen in real life ... Mirel, 29 December 2007

Persona Non Grata by Tom Flanagan: review

Persona Non Grata by Tom Flanagan: review
A compelling case about the insidious impact of social media on public debate, academic freedom and freedom of speech .



Tom Flanagan's Persona Non Grata, McClelland & Stewart, 256 pages,

By: Robert Collison Published on Tue Apr 29 2014

Is there a more hot button issue than child pornography? Maybe, but I can’t think of one. The issue of the sexual exploitation of children in any guise is so red-hot, it’s radioactive, so one would have thought a guy as smart and savvy as Tom Flanagan, onetime politics professor at the University of Calgary and chief of staff to Stephen Harper, would have chosen his words more advisedly when he opined about the subject on February 27, 2013. That day will live in infamy among Canada’s social conservatives. And it’s certainly a date that transformed Flanagan’s life because within hours he went from being, in his own words, “a respected academic and political commentator to a persona non grata.”

The public mobbing and humiliation of Tom Flanagan is the subject of his new book, Persona Non Grata, The Death of Free Speech in the Internet Age, and it’s a cautionary tale about the perils of being a big mouth in an era when communication is instantaneous.

So what was all the fuss about? Well, here’s the back-story of in a nutshell, and it reads like Tom Flanagan’s Passion Play. On that fateful February day, he addressed an academic conclave in Lethbridge about the Indian Act. Over the course of his political and media career, Flanagan has — again, in his own words — made numerous enemies, including aboriginal activists in the Idle No More movement and that day they were lying in wait. Payback time.

Out of the blue, an activist named Levi Little Mustache queried Flanagan about remarks he’s made a few years earlier about child pornography. A little off-topic, but the ever controversial Flanagan couldn’t resist The Temptation and dove right in, making these comments on how best to punish consumers of kiddy porn: “I do have grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures. . . it is a real issue of personal liberty to what extent we put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person.”

Unknown to Flanagan, another activist, Arnell Tailfeathers, was videotaping his “performance,” and quickly posted it on YouTube with the tagline, “Tom Flanagan okay with child pornography. ” Tailfeathers even had the unabashed gall to “not” delete the line, “Gotcha, Tom” from the video. Overnight his professorial musing went viral, and the next morning an unsuspecting Flanagan received a call in his car from the Alberta Opposition Leader’s assistant. “I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is you’re going to have a lot more spare time. The bad new is your career is over.”

From there, things went downhill — at warp speed. The metamorphosis from professor to pariah must have been excruciating to experience. Politicians of all stripes piled on. His CBC contract, cancelled. Lecture offers, rescinded. Publishers said take a hike. But possibly the most stinging rebuke came from Harper, whose PR flack tweeted, “Tom Flanagan’s comments on child pornography are repugnant, ignorant and appalling.”

If there’s a silver lining in this sorry saga it’s this book. In Persona Non Grata, Tom Flanagan makes a very compelling case about the insidious impact of social media and new technology on public debate, academic freedom and freedom of speech. Instead of checking the context of his remarks, and enquiring about his precise feeling about child pornography, his frenemies just posted his idle musings, damn the consequences. As Flanagan notes, “Amateurism, anonymity and lack of editorial control make social media a swamp.” But it was a swamp into which he was flung.

Clearly, Flanagan abhors child pornography but he also abhors the “moral panic” that this vexing issue elicits. Flanagan rightly feels he starred in the 21st century version of the Salem Witch Hunt, and if he wasn’t burned at the stake he was certainly singed badly. Still being a Hayekian conservative he’s no advocate for censorship of new media, or any media, even if mistakes, like his mobbing, are made. In his book, Flanagan quotes another illustrious academic, historian Niall Ferguson, who also found himself “mobbed” for some ill-advised remarks: “Those who seek to demonize error, rather than forgive it, are among the most insidious enemies of academic freedom.” Amen.

Robert Collison is a Toronto-based writer and editor.

Sexual Witch Hunts, Here and There

Sexual Witch Hunts, Here and There
by LOUIS PROYECT
Made in 2012, “The Hunt” is Denmark’s entry for Best Foreign Language Film for the Academy Awards ceremony scheduled on March 2nd with all the usual red carpet, tuxedo and designer gown nonsense. Apart from “Philomena”, it puts all the other English language Best Film nominees to shame. Considering that film’s British provenance, one can state that American films continue their steep decline based on the evidence of this year’s nominees, topped off by the inclusion of Martin Scorsese’s woeful “The Wolf of Wall Street”.

Now available on Netflix streaming, “The Hunt” is the first narrative film to deal with the “repressed memories” sex abuse witch-hunts of the Reagan years that inspired some of Alexander Cockburn’s best reporting. It was not the first film, however, to tackle the topic. That distinction was earned by Andrew Jarecki, who made the documentary “Capturing the Friedmans” in 2003, a film that was marred by a certain degree of ambivalence by its director. In the years following its release, Jarecki stopped being a fence-sitter and became a passionate defender of Jesse Friedman, one of the film’s subjects whose attempts to clear his name are ongoing.

“The Hunt” is set in a rural Danish town where the main pastimes of the adult male population seem to be hunting, drinking and acting childish. In the opening scene, we see members of the local hunting club skinny-dipping polar bear style in a local pond in late autumn, including Lucas, a kindergarten teacher who has just gone through a painful divorce.

Perhaps it is a bit of a stretch to call him a teacher since his main role appears to be roughhousing with the boys, and even called upon at one point to wipe the rear end of one who has just made “number two”. No matter what he is called upon to do, Lucas appears to love his job and has even begun an affair with a co-worker named Nadja. What will make his life complete is being reunited with his son Marcus, who with his mother’s permission is moving back in with his father. That will go a long way to relieve the loneliness Marcus feels and that is only relieved by his outings with fellow huntsmen and walks with his beloved spaniel Fanny.

Mads Mikkelsen, one of Denmark’s most talented actors, plays Lucas. While he might be made to order for the role of the warm-hearted and gentle Lucas, Mikkelsen was also brilliant as Tonny, the dimwitted small-time drug dealer in Nicolas Winding Refn’s “Pusher Trilogy”.

Clara, a flaxen-haired and picture-pretty kindergarten student who is the daughter of his best friend Theo, adores Lucas. Although I confess to being no expert on the topic of a young child’s sexuality, it seemed obvious to me when Clara joins a pile of boys attached to a prone Lucas like Lilliputians. When she plants a kiss on his mouth, it is apparent that he has become an object of desire no matter how inchoate her feelings. Once her lips leave his, a visibly stunned Lucas tells her that she should never kiss him like that again, only her family members.

The day before the incident, Clara’s older brother had come barreling through their home with a friend sharing his merriment over a pornographic picture that they could not resist sharing with her. Look at the big dick standing up in the air, he tells his confused but clearly fascinated kid sister. Little did he know that sharing such information would lead to Lucas being falsely accused of sex abuse because the day following the kissing incident, Clara tells the headmistress that Lucas had shown her his penis using the same words her brother had shared with her. His reprimand had alienated her and now she was retaliating.

The headmistress takes Clara’s words at face value even after telling her a day later that she had been lying. That has no effect on the headmistress’s decision to fire Lucas and bring in the cops. In the course of the investigation, virtually the entire kindergarten class testifies that Lucas has sexually abused them as well, including in the basement of his house—a basement that in fact does not exist.

Director Thomas Vinterberg creates vivid drama out of Lucas’s attempt to clear his name against the town’s hysterical attempts to destroy him. In some ways, the film harkens back to earlier traditions of northern European drama that pit the forces of ignorance against an innocent victim such as found in Ibsen and Strindberg. ”The Hunt” was co-written by the director and Tobias Lindholm. Lindholm wrote the screenplay for “A Hijacking”, a much less lurid tale about Somali pirates than “Captain Phillips”, and the teleplays for “Borgen”, a “House of Cards” type series on Danish politics that has much sharper teeth than the original—either British or American versions.

Thomas Vinterberg co-founded the Dogme 95 school of filmmaking with Lars von Trier in 1995 but abandoned the methodology long before the making of “The Hunt”. The idea for “The Hunt” arose out of a visit to the director’s home by a psychiatrist who lived on Vinterberg’s street and who was concerned about a rising incidence of “repressed memory” cases in Denmark. Ironically, Vinterberg’s 1998 “The Celebration”, made under strict Dogme 95 guidelines, dealt with sex abuse issues as well but played as black comedy. Suffice it to say that the gut-wrenching “The Hunt” is not played for laughs.

Unlike Lucas, Arnold Friedman was a pedophile. This Long Island man who taught computers to neighborhood kids in his home never laid a finger on any of them but he was caught sending child pornography through the mail in 1987 as part of an FBI sting operation.

Determined to turn a minor offense into the crime of the century, the cops pressured the boys into testifying against not only the father but also his two sons. Only Jesse was sent to prison along with his father. Arnold Friedman committed suicide in prison in 1995 and Jesse was released in 2001 after spending 13 years behind bars.

All the children who took computer classes at the Friedman’s were pressured by cops into providing lurid testimony about violent orgies out of the Marquis De Sade, even though no physical evidence was ever provided in court.

Jarecki’s film is good at revealing the inconsistencies and judicial bias that led to the convictions of father and son but was weighted down by the director’s desire to make the Friedman family look like a poster child for dysfunctionality. Much of it consists of the voluble members of the family justifying themselves as they badmouth each other. It has a compelling character even if it undermines what would have been a more worthwhile goal, namely to document the injustice done to two men. The Friedmans come across as so weird that one might be inclined to judge them harshly, no matter the evidence. But being oddballs is not punishable by long prison terms, needless to say.

Jarecki was obviously susceptible to a postmodernist tendency in documentary filmmaking to avoid taking a clear stand. The tension between truth and fiction is the stuff of film schools today, as I sadly learned from a survey on documentary films at Columbia University. But the Friedmans deserved better than this.

Fortunately Jarecki decided to prioritize the political over the esthetic and became an advocate of Jesse Friedman’s cause, using every means at his disposal to clear his name. He tracked down 10 of the 14 original complainants in the Friedman case. From Salon.com we learn that “of those 10, four have recanted the accusations on tape, and another five would or could not affirm their earlier accusations. Only one still stood by his original accusations — accusations, he says, he only remembered through memory-recovery techniques like hypnosis. Furthermore, 11 more of the complainants’ classmates have provided affidavits or recorded statements saying the abuse, which was supposed to have happened in the open and during Arnold Friedman’s computer class, never happened in their presence. (Jarecki published snippets of the evidence assembled in the past 10 years online.)”

Despite such compelling evidence, the district attorney has refused to overturn the original verdict. To keep current with this critical struggle for human rights, bookmark Jesse Friedman’s website (http://www.freejesse.net/).

In 1990 I had a subscription to the Wall Street Journal at a time when I had more money to waste than I do today. My sole interest in the paper was Alexander Cockburn’s column that appeared every third week. Some of the WSJ reporting was first-rate but a visit to the editorial pages was enough to induce projectile vomiting.

At the time Alexander’s attention was riveted on the “repressed memories” cases that included Ray Buckley and his mother Peggy McMartin Buckley who ran the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California. They were accused of abusing children but on even a more surreal basis than the Friedmans. On February 8, 1990 Alexander had these choice words for what was happening to mother and son:


The psychological squalor is even more disturbing: The McMartin case was but one in nearly 40 episodes across the country between 1983 and 1987 in which prosecutions against teachers or supervisors in day-care centers were prompted by children’s accusations.


Many of these accusations, taken seriously by parents, social workers and the justice system were of the most fantastic nature. McMartin children said they had been marched to cemeteries to dig up bodies. One child said he had seen his teacher fly. In 1965 children in Pennsylvania said teachers had forced them to have oral sex with a goat. In 1986 children in a preschool in Sequim, Wash., said they had been made to watch animal sacrifice in a graveyard. In Chicago, the kids said they had watched a baby being boiled.

Terrible injustices were done in this extraordinary replay of the 17th-century Salem witch trials. People were tossed into prison for years, on the say-so of infants. In all 50 states children as young as two or three can testify to abuse, without corroboration from adults and without physical evidence. In many states they can make charges without having to endure cross-examination, being bounced up and down on a judge’s knee in private chambers. In some states the charges can merely be repeated as hearsay by adults.

What was the reason for this wave of self-evidently preposterous stories about a satanic network terrorizing infant schools, and other tales of ritual abuse? Society seems to have a periodic need for witch trials. At the onset of the Reagan era there weren’t really any Communists around to persecute, so the hunt went back to the traditional exorcism of Satan, whose horns and cloven feet assumed the form of the local day-care teacher.

After 11 years in the Trotskyist movement, it was such reporting that I first encountered in 1979 that convinced me that there was still a need for revolutionary politics. Now, 320 years after the Salem Witch Hunt, it is clear that with the state’s stubborn resistance to Jesse Friedman’s just claims we are still living in the dark ages when deviance of any sort is punishable within the parameters of a sliding scale from social ostracism at the bottom to long prison terms at the top.

Louis Proyect blogs at http://louisproyect.org and is the moderator of the Marxism mailing list. In his spare time, he reviews films for CounterPunch.

The Super Bowl Sex-Trafficking Myth

The Super Bowl Sex-Trafficking Myth
Here come the Super Bowl prostitutes! An annual exercise in fear-mongering over a threat that never materializes. This myth says as many as 100,000 sex workers will come into town for the big game. Now compare that to the total number of people who come to the game: 200,000 to 300,000.The media is spinning the usual BS about how these big sporting events create dollar signs in the eyes of prostitutes, pimps, and sex traffickers, all of whom allegedly flock to the host city in slavering hordes. The media repeats the big lie that a large sports venue—especially the Super Bowl—acts as a "sex-trafficking magnet." It's an effective fundraising strategy. It gets a lot of media attention. But the statistics are exaggerated.
According to all the media hype there would have been hundreds of thousands of underage child sex-slaves kidnapped and forced to have sex with Super Bowl fans each year. But it never happens. What happens is they re-play the same BS hype each year. So what happens to all of these thousands of kidnapped underage sex-slaves? Where are these kidnapped, forced into Super Bowl sex slaves? Where did they go? 

Politicians, women's groups, police, and child advocates always predict large numbers of hookers (e.g., 100,000 or more) will be shipped into the big cities for the Super Bowl. But they lie. Big, fat lies told by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, government officials, and various anti-prostitution groups: Traffick911, Not for Sale, Change-org, Future Not A Past, Polaris Project, Salvation Army, Women's Funding Network, and the Dallas Women’s Foundation. Anti-prostitution groups that tell these lies do it in order to get grant moneyfrom the government and charities to pay their high salaries, and get huge amounts of money into their organizations. 

Sex trafficking is a legitimate issue outside of the convenient Super Bowl news bubble. But there's no evidence that a mass influx of sports fans increases the problem or contributes to it in some way. Ultimately, spreading misinformation can end up undercutting efforts to bring awareness to the very real problem of sex trafficking and forced prostitution. 

The "Super Bowl = Prostitutes" story is just a lazy journalistic trope. An urban legend. A cheap attempt by politicians using the Super Bowl media blitz to score points by trying to stand up to the "menace" of sex work. A host of lies spread by anti-prostitution groups so they can get easy grant money. 

All the evidence shows the statistics regarding hookers at the Super Bowl are nothing out of the ordinary. Law enforcement officials in the cities where past Super Bowls occurred never actually saw any increases in prostitution busts or the number of trafficked prostitutes, even despite increased efforts to catch johns, pimps, and traffickers. No influx in prostitutes, the arrests were not a lot higher. They were almost the same, nothing at all out of the ordinary. 






2 comments:Anonymous said...

There is a growing number of well respected researchers, journalists, scientists, professors, that have concluded in their research that the sex trafficking, sex slavery concept is based on emotion, morals, and monetary funding rather than facts, evidence and proof. They state that very few kidnapped, forced against their will, physically abused, raped sex slave prostitutes for profit have been found throughout the world. Their research concludes that women who enter into this type of work do so of their own free will. They also state that there are many anti-prostitution groups who simply do not like the idea of consensual adult prostitution and have distorted the facts in order to push their agenda and receive funding and money into their organizations in the form of donations, grants and to change the laws about prostitution. They state that these anti-prostitution groups use made up child sex trafficking statistics which they have no proof or evidence of in order to gain public acceptance for their cause. Which they then pass on to the media as press releases.

http://bebopper76.wordpress.com/February 1, 2014 at 4:32 AMAnonymous said...

Sex trafficking is illegal and the penalties are very severe. It is very difficult to force someone to be a sex slave, they would have to have 24 hour guards posted and be watched 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. Have the threat of violence if they refused, and have no one notice and complain to the authorities or police. They would need to hide from the general public yet still manage to see customers from the general public and not have the customers turn the traffickers in to the police. They would need to provide them with medical care, food, shelter, and have all their basic needs met. They would need to have the sex slaves put on a fake front that they enjoyed what they were doing, act flirtatious and do their job well.

They would have to deal with the authorities looking for the missing women and children and hide any money they may make, since it comes from illegal activity. They must do all of this while constantly trying to prevent the sex slaves from escaping and reporting them to the police. They would need to prevent the general public from reporting them into the police. This is extremely difficult to do, which makes this activity rare. 

How many men do you know you would be interested in having forced sex with a kidnapped, chained-up screaming, kicking, raped small 8 year old child prostitute? According to the media and the government ALL men would jump at the chance. -Really? All men are evil? Really?


When the police arrest customers of prostitutes and the prostitutes themselves: They try to get the adult women prostitutes to say that they were forced and victims of sex trafficking even though they weren’t.

These adult women just flat out say, ‘Nope, that’s not what’s happening.’ No one is forcing me”

Then the U.S. Attorney general, senators, the police and government officials say:

“We have to help them realize they are victims,”

They must be brainwashed by their pimps, and johns.

They say that adult women do not have the ability to make decisions for themselves about sex, therefore The government must make all their decisions about sex and who they have sex with for them.

So… the police are trying to invent victims? Where no victim exist?

The adult women say that no one is forcing them to work in prostitution and the police don’t believe them?

So the police want these adult women to lie? and the police are forcing the women to lie about being forced?

If the prostitute says she was NOT forced she goes to prison. If she says that was WAS forced she is not arrested and gets many victim benefits from the government and charity.

What would you tell the police? This will encourage prostitutes to lie about being forced. To stay out of prison and get victim benefits. 

I thought lying was wrong? And isn’t it against the law to lie? -Not for the police, attorney general and other government officials.

I would like to see a news organization do a full report on the lies, myths and exaggerated numbers being told about forced child sex trafficking slaves. The articles about the super bowl, Olympic, world cup sex slaves, forced prostitutes, has been proved wrong many times, but news organizations still report about it, as if it were fact.


http://sextraffickingtruths.blogspot.com/February 1, 2014 at 5:15 AM