So what kind of anti are you?

Let’s define some anti stuff so you can choose what kind of anti you want to be:

Anti-Trafficking: For this discussion we are going to specifically address Human Trafficking (as opposed to something like drug trafficking). The definition for trafficking in persons follows:

Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines Trafficking in Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs

Elements Of Human Trafficking

On the basis of the definition given in the Trafficking in Persons Protocol, it is evident that trafficking in persons has three constituent elements;

The Act (What is done)

Recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons

The Means (How it is done)

Threat or use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or vulnerability, or giving payments or benefits to a person in control of the victim

The Purpose (Why it is done)

For the purpose of exploitation, which includes exploiting the prostitution of others, sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery or similar practices and the removal of organs.

If all three elements are required to define Human Trafficking then yes I would consider myself an anti-trafficker person. Nobody should FORCE anything on anyone. Coercion by threat of physical harm to a person or their family is WRONG. Let’s not confuse physical coercion with economical coercion now because economical coercion is legal as the government and other places do it all the time. I.e., if you don’t pay this then I will do that. Ahem, if you don’t pay your electric then I’m going to shut it off. If you don’t pay your traffic ticket then I’m not going to let you renew your license. Yea, we have examples of economic coercion every damn day.

Anti-prostitution: This is NOT the same as anti-trafficking. Anti-prostitution is being against commercial sex in any way, shape, or form. Whether you are forced to engage in prostitution through physical coercion or threat or economic reasons or because you think it’s just a golly fun time. Doesn’t matter. Anti-prostitution people do not want you to use your body to satisfy the economical coercers, feed your kids, get your personal kicks, or for any other reason.

You know what? If YOU want to control what I do with my body then I think it is YOUR responsibility to feed it, house it, make sure it has healthcare, buy it a car, a house, and anything else my little body desires. K?

Oops, digressing…

So what are you? Anti-trafficking? If so I’m right up there with you. Yes, an adult voluntary prostitute is against Human Trafficking. Who would have thunk it? Course I can’t help you in your fight against it because the anti-prostitution people want to eradicate me or throw me in jail but hey, as soon as I can come forward without fear of losing my property or liberty I’ll get in touch with  my people to help your people.

Or are you anti-prostitution? You won’t accept my or my friends help because you think we are all mindless Stockholm Syndrome victims with hidden agendas. You say you are anti-trafficking and you are willing to do ANYTHING to combat the fight against violent pimps and underage prostitution EXCEPT accept help from grown women who are as concerned (if not more) about the harm, physical coercion, and underaged trafficking simply because I’m a prostitute (a voluntary adult one but a prostitute nonetheless).

Confused about where you stand now? Let me help  ya out.

If you are a TRUE anti-trafficking proponent, you are more ready now to accept the fact that there are women who are adult voluntary prostitutes who have nothing whatsoever to do with trafficking and coercion and who are willing to join your fight against the forced trafficking in persons. You are less concerned about what I do in my bedroom because it does not involve children, force, or harm to any person and you are willing to accept that as a prostitute I can help with your cause.

If you are just an anti-prostitution person, you could give a shit about what I say or what I can do because I’m just a filthy whore.


Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “So what kind of anti are you?

  1. Treadhead

    I am for the decrimnalization of any and all sexual activity between consenting adults.

    • bdevereaux

      Thank you. That’s pretty much the gist of it isn’t it? Perhaps we need to re-define the term prostitution to a sexual transaction between consenting (meaning not forced or through fraud and lies) adults (identified as anyone over the legal age of consent, or 18, or 21 or whatever) for a fee. Then anything concerning children would not fall under the definition and neither would trafficking. And then decriminalize ‘prostitution’. And then keep the laws against forcing someone to commit sexual acts for a fee illegal and keep underaged sexual acts for a fee illegal (enforce it like you would trying to keep kids from drinking). My God, it doesn’t really seem like it would be that difficult to figure out eh?

  2. If “giving payment or benefits” is considered “coercion”, then every employer, government and parent on the planet are human traffickers. For example, a company recruits and sometimes transports people who NEED to work, coercing them with payment and benefits, in order to force them to do labor. Police “recruit” (i.e. arrest) people and transport them to jail via force in order to imprison them. Parents transport kids all the time and coerce them via benefits (support) and threats (punishment) to comply with parental demands. Etc, etc, etc. As soon as the words “giving payment or benefits” are added, this definition becomes ludicrously broad Neomarxist nonsense.

    • bdevereaux

      It’s ridiculous how they are throwing all this crap in there and not realizing that under their definition it applies to ANYTHING and not just commercial sex. Yet this protocol was adopted by the UN. Dammit we need some hookers on every governmental law making policy creating board out there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s