4 ms·

> you pay the travel costs associated with a woman traveling with you... You've somehow missed both the "in exchange for sex" and "with a minor" part? This one

> you pay the travel costs associated with a woman traveling with you... You've somehow missed both the "in exchange for sex" and "with a minor" part? This one doesn't seem difficult or ambiguous at all. This is clearly trafficking.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
I missed neither of those things. The particularly stupid argument first: > "with a minor" Sex trafficking is criminalized regardless of whether the woman is a legal minor. Conduct that is "sex trafficking of a minor" when you do it to a minor must be "sex trafficking" of a non-minor when you do it to a non-minor, right? The less stupid argument: > "in exchange for sex" There is no line to be drawn between paying for someone to travel with you, and sleeping with them (900% legal, and still legal when the someone is a minor), versus paying for someone to travel with you, so that you can sleep with them (illegal, but even more illegal when the someone is a minor). There is nothing even slightly unusual about traveling with someone with whom you have a sexual relationship, or about paying their travel costs. And the one in the middle: > This is clearly trafficking. Perhaps, if you're prepared to admit that "trafficking" means nothing more or less than "prostitution". That is not the common use, however; "trafficking" would notionally involve Gaetz receiving money from other third parties so that those third parties could sleep with the girl.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > There is no line to be drawn between paying for someone to travel with you, and sleeping with them (900% legal, and still legal when the someone is a minor), versus paying for someone to travel with you, so that you can sleep with them You can argue for that in front of a judge or jury, but you need to remember: they are not legally obligated to believe your bullshit. Sure, maybe Gaetz just happens to like hanging out with 17-year-old girls, who he brings to states that showed up in a list of "states with lower age of consent", and his favorite form of hanging out just so happens to be spending a few hours at a hotel where they have sex. But just because he makes that argument doesn’t mean that the jury has to believe him. They don’t leave their critical thinking skills at the door.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  > "trafficking" would notionally involve Gaetz receiving money from other third parties so that those third parties could sleep with the girl. Where do you get this idea? Sex trafficking is any time you move someone and exploit them for sex... No third party needs to be involved. (According to both dictionary and wikipedia definitions.)

thaumasiotes 6y ago

I missed neither of those things. The particularly stupid argument first: > "with a minor" Sex trafficking is criminalized regardless of whether the woman is a legal minor. Conduct that is "sex trafficking of a minor" when you do it to a minor must be "sex trafficking" of a non-minor when you do it to a non-minor, right? The less stupid argument: > "in exchange for sex" There is no line to be drawn between paying for someone to travel with you, and sleeping with them (900% legal, and still legal when the someone is a minor), versus paying for someone to travel with you, so that you can sleep with them (illegal, but even more illegal when the someone is a minor). There is nothing even slightly unusual about traveling with someone with whom you have a sexual relationship, or about paying their travel costs. And the one in the middle: > This is clearly trafficking. Perhaps, if you're prepared to admit that "trafficking" means nothing more or less than "prostitution". That is not the common use, however; "trafficking" would notionally involve Gaetz receiving money from other third parties so that those third parties could sleep with the girl.

mcphage 6y ago
> There is no line to be drawn between paying for someone to travel with you, and sleeping with them (900% legal, and still legal when the someone is a minor), versus paying for someone to travel with you, so that you can sleep with them You can argue for that in front of a judge or jury, but you need to remember: they are not legally obligated to believe your bullshit. Sure, maybe Gaetz just happens to like hanging out with 17-year-old girls, who he brings to states that showed up in a list of "states with lower age of consent", and his favorite form of hanging out just so happens to be spending a few hours at a hotel where they have sex. But just because he makes that argument doesn’t mean that the jury has to believe him. They don’t leave their critical thinking skills at the door.
Pfhreak 6y ago
> "trafficking" would notionally involve Gaetz receiving money from other third parties so that those third parties could sleep with the girl. Where do you get this idea? Sex trafficking is any time you move someone and exploit them for sex... No third party needs to be involved. (According to both dictionary and wikipedia definitions.)