3 ms·

Good thing this isn't sex trafficking in any shape or form whatsoever!

by arasmussen 12y ago

protomyth 12y ago
Yeah, this isn't but there have been problems with actual sex trafficking.
- protomyth 12y ago
  Look, whoever doesn't believe there is actual sex trafficking going on should look into the issue. Both North Dakota and South Dakota law makers are making quite a bit of noise to bring attention to this issue. This story doesn't qualify as sex trafficking by the definition, but actual sex trafficking is occurring.
stinkytaco 12y ago
Of course not, but taking the previous comment into account: "On a weirdness scale of 1 to 10, I think it sounds like this idea is hitting a solid 6 or so. Possibly some extra points for the glorified prostitution model of "Pay a ton to fly NYC girls, selected for their desire to spend 5 days out of town meeting rich men, to SF to meet super-rich tech founders" I just want to point out that where we can look at this situation and say "That's kind of sleezy" we can look at a circumstances that are very similar but involve a different class (and education level) of people and see some extremely problematic behavior. So yes, it's not sex trafficking, but I feel like it in some ways makes light of truly exploitive sex trafficking that's going on in a first world country. That said, I could argue that it may very well be "sex trafficking" in the sense that a company is moving people from point A to point B for the purposes of sex and their own profit. It may not be exploitive, but it would take very, very little to make it that way. Like I said, I don't want to be that guy, but as I get older I find myself appreciating more and more people's sensitivity to topics that are close to them.
- smsm42 12y ago
  >>> it may very well be "sex trafficking" in the sense that a company is moving people from point A to point B for the purposes of sex By that definition, significant number of flights to Vegas is "sex trafficking".
  - stinkytaco 12y ago
    I suppose if you're being serious, yes, they are. Airlines exist for other reasons too, however. It's like saying that guns sales are murders: it's obviously not universal, but sometimes it's true. I just want to be clear that I don't view prostitution as wrong per se. I don't know why it's OK to put out for a dinner or movie but apparently wrong for $100. What consenting adults do is their business. That said, the line between "consensual" and "coerced" is very fine in the sex trade. The women in this article are engaged in a consensual business. They can walk away at any time. They presumably weren't tricked or lied to. But many in this thread find it uncomfortable and I presume we find it uncomfortable because you don't have to make very many changes to this scenario to make it go from "fun partying" to "pimping" to "sex trafficking". Hell, they've flown them cross country, all someone would have to say is "if you don't want to have sex, leave, but you get your own plane ticket" for it to go from a 6 to 9 on the scale the OP of this thread referred to. Anyway, it's all beside the point. From the article it didn't seem like anything untoward happened. But make no mistake, something very similar is happening in Western North Dakota (women being flown in to "serve" a large population of single men) and it's sex trafficking all the way.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      I completely agree that some people can find it uncomfortable. So what? It's not their business, unless they participate in it somehow. Nobody has an obligation to make them comfortable. Some people think seeing women wearing trousers or men having long hair or shaving facial hair make them uncomfortable. The only reasonable answer to them is "well, if you don't like it, don't look at it". >>> all someone would have to say is "if you don't want to have sex, leave, but you get your own plane ticket" If the implication was that the ticket is paid, that would be deception, unless explicitly agreed upfront that the sex is part of the deal (which it wasn't). However, nothing like that happened and nowhere in the article we can see that they were pressured to do anything they didn't want to do.
- ufmace 12y ago
  While it's a bit sleazy, I'd say that comparing it to sex trafficking is pushing it. Yeah, if you changed a few things one way, it'd be disturbingly exploitative. And if you changed a few things the other way, it'd be a perfectly ordinary vacation. It is what it is.

Good thing this isn't sex trafficking in any shape or form whatsoever!

protomyth 12y ago

Yeah, this isn't but there have been problems with actual sex trafficking.

protomyth 12y ago
Look, whoever doesn't believe there is actual sex trafficking going on should look into the issue. Both North Dakota and South Dakota law makers are making quite a bit of noise to bring attention to this issue. This story doesn't qualify as sex trafficking by the definition, but actual sex trafficking is occurring.

stinkytaco 12y ago

Of course not, but taking the previous comment into account: "On a weirdness scale of 1 to 10, I think it sounds like this idea is hitting a solid 6 or so. Possibly some extra points for the glorified prostitution model of "Pay a ton to fly NYC girls, selected for their desire to spend 5 days out of town meeting rich men, to SF to meet super-rich tech founders" I just want to point out that where we can look at this situation and say "That's kind of sleezy" we can look at a circumstances that are very similar but involve a different class (and education level) of people and see some extremely problematic behavior. So yes, it's not sex trafficking, but I feel like it in some ways makes light of truly exploitive sex trafficking that's going on in a first world country. That said, I could argue that it may very well be "sex trafficking" in the sense that a company is moving people from point A to point B for the purposes of sex and their own profit. It may not be exploitive, but it would take very, very little to make it that way. Like I said, I don't want to be that guy, but as I get older I find myself appreciating more and more people's sensitivity to topics that are close to them.

smsm42 12y ago
>>> it may very well be "sex trafficking" in the sense that a company is moving people from point A to point B for the purposes of sex By that definition, significant number of flights to Vegas is "sex trafficking".
- stinkytaco 12y ago
  I suppose if you're being serious, yes, they are. Airlines exist for other reasons too, however. It's like saying that guns sales are murders: it's obviously not universal, but sometimes it's true. I just want to be clear that I don't view prostitution as wrong per se. I don't know why it's OK to put out for a dinner or movie but apparently wrong for $100. What consenting adults do is their business. That said, the line between "consensual" and "coerced" is very fine in the sex trade. The women in this article are engaged in a consensual business. They can walk away at any time. They presumably weren't tricked or lied to. But many in this thread find it uncomfortable and I presume we find it uncomfortable because you don't have to make very many changes to this scenario to make it go from "fun partying" to "pimping" to "sex trafficking". Hell, they've flown them cross country, all someone would have to say is "if you don't want to have sex, leave, but you get your own plane ticket" for it to go from a 6 to 9 on the scale the OP of this thread referred to. Anyway, it's all beside the point. From the article it didn't seem like anything untoward happened. But make no mistake, something very similar is happening in Western North Dakota (women being flown in to "serve" a large population of single men) and it's sex trafficking all the way.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    I completely agree that some people can find it uncomfortable. So what? It's not their business, unless they participate in it somehow. Nobody has an obligation to make them comfortable. Some people think seeing women wearing trousers or men having long hair or shaving facial hair make them uncomfortable. The only reasonable answer to them is "well, if you don't like it, don't look at it". >>> all someone would have to say is "if you don't want to have sex, leave, but you get your own plane ticket" If the implication was that the ticket is paid, that would be deception, unless explicitly agreed upfront that the sex is part of the deal (which it wasn't). However, nothing like that happened and nowhere in the article we can see that they were pressured to do anything they didn't want to do.
ufmace 12y ago
While it's a bit sleazy, I'd say that comparing it to sex trafficking is pushing it. Yeah, if you changed a few things one way, it'd be disturbingly exploitative. And if you changed a few things the other way, it'd be a perfectly ordinary vacation. It is what it is.